Truth and Atheism

Religious Law and a Just Society Part I

2011-12-22T08:30:00.001-08:00

Many people who tout ‘freedom’ and ‘individualism’ as American characteristics rely upon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to warrant their claims, but these claims are empty without the explicit understanding that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights applies to society as a whole rather than specific individuals, regardless of beliefs or non-beliefs. Without this understanding, terms such as “freedom” and “justice” easily become misinterpreted as ‘my freedom’ and ‘my justice’. Interpreted as such, concepts such as these become relative. The cost of making the concepts inherent in documents that symbolize such political concepts, especially when they are put in place to define the laws of a society, relative (and in this case, subjective) is the compromise or loss of those very freedoms for the entire society. In this paper, viewed here in three parts, I hope to make the argument that it was not the intention of the founding fathers to produce a religious society, but only a just one. I will divide this argument using examples from the federal and the state governments of the United States. Secondly, I will argue that having religious edicts added to state and federal laws does not lend itself to a just society, but instead creates an unjust society.

The Federal Government

The United States Constitution makes certain aspects of religious freedoms very clear. For example, article VI, Clause 3, states "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." But yet in 1954 the Rev. George Macpherson Docherty, proposed inserting the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to President Eisenhower. This suggestion is now in place and accepted by the leaders of this country as a religious test regarding qualification to one of the most important offices in the federal government: the presidency, and is often used as evidence that the United States is a religious-based country.

However, the suggestion by Reverend Docherty was not in line with the original sentiments of our Constitution. Also, it must be remembered that as an addition some two hundred years after, and put forth as a suggestion, the addition of “under God” to the pledge of allegiance does not, in any way, warrant the claim that the United States is a religious-based country.

The unwarranted idea that America is a religious nation, which (by definition) would entail any and all religions, but a Christian nation was made no more clearly than by the law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956 concerning the very money that we use as a nation. Namely, it was infused with Christian ideology. According to the U.S Treasury, “the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto (italics mine) of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate.”

In Title 4, Chapter 1, § 4 the words “one nation under God” were also added to the pledge of allegiance [for schools], and even religious clothing took precedence. On March 11, 1964, the first delivery of the newly religious $1 Federal Reserve Note went out, and to this day every person in this country is expected to “pledge allegiance” to God and country, including those who hold political offices and the public trust such as the Federal Reserve.

It is clear that allusions to God, the idea that the United States is a Christian nation, and that the American public have a responsibility to pledge allegiance to nation and the Christian God, is unfounded based solely on article VI of the Constitution; it further goes against the American spirit of freedom and justice-for-all, and is in fact anti-American if being “American” means freedom to be and believe or disbelieve what you want in the eyes of the law.

A study of early American history will make clear that our founding fathers were not interested in creating a theocracy, which seems to be the claim of some Christians in this country today. The early American immigrants to this continent were in fact fleeing religious threats to their individual freedoms to worship as they saw fit: governments that expected people to pledge their allegiance to a particular God and country. Many of the founders of America (and many of the people who first came to this continent) understood the serious drawbacks implied in mixing politics and religion. Some history will suffice.

With regard to the federal government of the United States, the 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that this country was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion". This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington, signed under the presidency of John Adams, and authored by Joel Barlow assuring the Muslim citizens of the then called Tripoli of Barbary (now in Lebanon) that the United States was not a religious threat to their beliefs. In the spirit of Barlow, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross (italics mine). Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" However, these problems were soon forgotten by those who soon after established religious law for the early states, both on a federal and a state level. For this reason, we must re-visit the 1st amendment of the Constitution the amendment that our founding fathers wrote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The 1st amendment is the cornerstone of the legal premises of this country, but unlike early federal politicians, later politicians have re-interpreted or simply dismissed the 1st amendment. President Eisenhower has been exemplified already. The presidencies that exemplify the legal attitudes of more modern politicians the best is without a doubt the Bush presidencies. Several examples will suffice. On August 27, 1987, George Bush Sr. made clear his attitudes towards non-religious people while campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice-president. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, invited as a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates, had the following exchange with then-Vice-President Bush. The conversation between Sherman and Bush is worth repeating.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

This sort of political and religious dismissal of the 1st amendment and minorities unfortunately did not end. A little over a year later, Mr. Sherman confronted Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. “This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois, suburb) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States ‘one nation under God’. The following conversation took place”. This conversation is worth repeating as well.
Sherman: American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?
Murnane: It's bullshit.
Sherman: What is bullshit?
Murnane: Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit.
Sherman: Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue.
Murnane: You're welcome

The institution which Mr. Sherman was reporting for, American Atheists, wrote to Bush asking him to retract this August 1987 statement concerning atheists in America. The reply came on White House stationery on February 21, 1989, stating that substantively Bush stood by his original statement. It was clearly not a mistake, or an off-the-cuff comment. On February 21, 1990, American Atheists wrote to every member of the United States Congress asking that body to pass a resolution condemning discrimination against atheists by any elected or appointed official of government. The request was in line with the Constitution of the United States, and in no way implied special treatment for atheists. There were no replies. There are atheists that are citizens of the United States. As citizens, atheists have the same rights and liberties as all other citizens.

Again, the United States is often called a ‘religious country’, and that may be the case for a portion, even the majority, but it does not warrant less freedoms for the atheist citizens of this country even though they may be a minority. Rather, based on the spirit of the Constitution, it is equal consideration for all that is most important, especially for minorities and including the non-religious.

The attitudes towards atheists, exemplified in the George Bush Senior’s and Ed Murnane, in the United States do not end at the Whitehouse. The secretary of the Department of Veteran's Affairs, headed in 1990 by Ed Derwinski excluded atheists from veteran's groups which have been chartered by the United States Congress. In January of 1991, Mr. Sherman asked Mr. Derwinski what could be done about the discrimination against American Atheist veterans. The response was clear: "What you should do for me is what you should do for everybody: Believe in God. Get off our backs" , a common sentiment of many in a country supposedly based on the legal rights of individuals and their freedoms. Common or not, again this sentiment is not in line, morally or legally, with the Constitution of the United States nor is it in line with the concept of “freedom and justice for all”.

Unwarranted or otherwise, these attitudes are more common than not, and are only important because they are the attitudes of the leaders of a nation, those that create and establish the laws of this nation, a nation that proclaims itself to be the “land of the free”. It is safe to say that attitudes towards atheism held by the public are often in line with the attitudes of many of our leaders. However, this does nothing to make them morally acceptable in any way: they cannot be considered just simply because a majority of citizens would have them so.

Furthermore, given the Constitution, the history and correspondences concerning religion of our forefathers (presented below), these attitudes are in direct opposition of the legal foundations of this country and the spirit of that which America is supposedly suppose to symbolize: individual freedoms. As stated, simply because a majority, or simply a percentage of people desire a nation to be one way or another does not necessarily give moral justification to their viewpoints. The important question is: “Is personal freedom more important than personal desire?” George Bush Sr.’s son, George W. Bush made is answer clear in eight years of religiously motivated politics.

The Anti-Theist

2010-07-15T20:58:00.000-07:00

In his book, Against All Gods, A.C Grayling proposes that the word “atheism” be changed to “naturalist” for reasons of clarification. His point is well taken. An atheist is not necessarily a person that is reacting to theism, but rather a person that is not connected to theism at all. He writes, “The term [atheism] already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground.” When this point is taken into consideration, the point of atheism becomes much clearer: it is a viewpoint not based on theism but on 1) the acceptance that life and the universe can be explained naturally, and 2) that morality is not dependent on any theistic belief. All that being said I would have to consider myself a naturalist who is also an anti-theist.
Grayling points out that as a naturalist, the theist then becomes a ‘super naturalist’, which is the case: the theist believes that there are explanations for life and the universe that supersede the natural explanations that we get from science and intellectual probing. In adhering to the term “naturalist” rather than “atheist” the naturalist is no longer defining his belief in terms of theism, but rather in terms of natural explanations derived from skeptical and rational as well as intelligent enquiry. Grayling also writes, “Supernaturalists are fond of claiming that some irreligious people turn to prayer when in mortal danger, but naturalists can reply that supernaturalists typically repose great faith in science when they find themselves in (say) a hospital or an aeroplane- and with far greater frequency.” By claiming that irreligious people “turn to prayer” the religious person is trying to undermine claimed natural explanation by the naturalist, but is simply relying on yet another misrepresentation of the truth. By the same token, as a naturalist I can claim that the difference is that naturalists have human hope and fear while supernaturalists have limited, unwarranted faith.
I wrote earlier that I would consider myself a naturalist, but also an anti-theist. I don’t know if this word is in use anywhere, or if anyone would claim such a title other than myself. There are, of course, those naturalists that have been given names by theists that are at least comparable. I myself have been alluded to as being the “anti-christ”, but this is a theistic term that assumes the existence of Christ and God so it won’t do for the same reasons that Grayling points out that “atheist” falls short. I have also been alluded to by some as being possibly the minion of satan: a devil as it were. But again, the allusion is theistic. Atheism is defined as “without theism”, and while there are many that are without theistic belief, as Grayling points out, this falls short of the full measure of truth in regard to atheism. An anti-theist, or anti-theism, would entail atheism but would go farther and claim that they are against the acceptance of theistic belief. This, I must concur, is closer to the truthful viewpoint of many atheists, including myself.
Let me clarify. First, I am not opposed to the right of anyone believing anything that they want to believe, meaning that if there are those who choose to continue to believe in a God then they have the right to do so. Secondly, as a naturalist, I have a certain level of warrant that backs up my claim that natural explanation is enough to explain the existence of the universe. Natural explanations come in the form of scientific theories, and as such must adhere to a stringent form of warrant. I am opposed to anyone claiming that their explanation has just as much warrant without justifying that claim. If theists desire to be taken seriously, then they must be willing to put up or shut-up. Thirdly, to claim that I am an anti-theist is to claim that I am against theism just as a person might be against the death penalty: for moral grounds.
My reasons for claiming anti-theism? First, given the historic record of religion, it seems clear that it is not above deception and fear-mongering. Secondly, it is clear that religion is able to justify heinous and outright despicable acts. And lastly, religion enables people to live in ignorance while at the same time claiming intelligence. Throughout history religion has used deception to stifle human hopes, desires, curiosity and progress. The medieval ages, while many theists claim that catholic monks were scientifically active, are a testament to the lengths that religion will go to keep people ignorant and fearful. The claim that monks during the time were scientifically active is a strawman: they were working not in the name of science, but in the interest of discovering “God”. Modern-day religious pundits continue to spew their fear by promising end-days and coming to “certain” conclusions about Armageddon and happily awaiting the destruction of the world at the same time.
Fear-mongering is not the end of the religious insanity. The acts of terrorists are not politically motivated as much as they are religious by nature. No one in their right mind would kill bystanders by blowing themselves up, flying planes into buildings, disallowing medical treatment to sick children, burn men and women under the auspice of witchcraft, claim that homosexuality is the cause of earthquakes, accepting global warming as “God’s will” etc… The list, unfortunately goes on and on. As many authors have pointed out: no sane person would go through with such acts without a religious belief or promise. Also unfortunate is the continued and consistent religious acceptance and justification of such acts. While one religion claims that these acts are not its own and another proudly proclaims responsibility, it is not a single religion that is the problem. It is religious belief itself.
Perhaps the most heinous act of all is the all-out attack on rational enquiry by religion. A few brave souls in society have fought against religion tooth and nail for the opportunity to better humanity through education and intelligence, motivated by nothing more than curiosity only to be beaten, banned, tortured and locked up on grounds of heresy. Even today, religion tries to pry intelligent skepticism from modern education. It is ignorance that fuels that fire of religion, and it is ignorance that religion relies and even fights over. From the time when European peasants were put to death if found with a bible written in their own language, to today’s pathetic and so-called “controversy” concerning evolution, religion continues to claim that an ignorant public is a happy (and religious) public.
In short, anti-theism is synonymous with anti-fear, anti-immorality and anti-stupidity. Perhaps Grayling has a point when he claims that the term “atheism” falls short in portraying the true nature of disbelief. The disbelief is only the beginning, and a non-plusse beginning at that. If the atheist is really a person who relies on sound evidence, valid justification, and logical inference rather than fear, power, and stupidity for explanations than atheism is truly not related to religion in any way. I am an anti-theist not because I dislike faith and hope but because I have faith and hope, not in religion or religious thought, but in the ability of humanity to finally shed itself of antiquated and often times dangerous modes of thought such as religion.

Thank You, and Goodbye

2008-12-29T20:11:00.000-08:00

Thank You, and Goodbye
Since January 2004 I have written a “Weekly Post”, two-hundred and eight posts and some eight hundred and thirty two pages later, I have decided to take a year off to edit, organize and compose these and other writings. These posts have been primarily about the detriment of religion on societies and individuals. Some of them have been harsh critiques, and some of them have been pleas; I have tried to attack what I deem as the problem of religion from the social and individual standpoint, as well as the scientific, the logical, and the intellectual standpoints. I have called those who propagate lies, are deceptive and sometimes malicious what they are: liars, deceivers, and miscreants. I have claimed that to accept anything on faith alone as truth is to accept and use ignorance as reason which is nothing more than stupidity, and is often the result of fear and the cause of the inability to think independently. The underlying message in all of these posts has been simple: think for yourself.

Throughout these past four years I have pointed out many problems with religious belief, but these can possibly be generalized into five basic groups. First, religion limits the ability and even poses a threat to individuals to think for themselves. I have held this viewpoint for many years, and have found it to be proven true time and time again both through discussions with friends and acquaintances, debates, reading and through some of the many comments I have received through this blog and my earlier website. Secondly, religion offers an easy way out of having to accept personal responsibility for one’s life. When there is a god that is all-powerful human beings become, in the end, completely paralyzed and dependent. Thirdly, religion creates dangerous divisions; this fact is easily recognized throughout the world and needs no comment (a perusal of the “news” on any given day will suffice). Fourthly, religious belief propagates ignorance rather than intelligence. Relying not on curiosity but on faith, not one doubt but on blind acceptance, not on intelligent enquiry but on emotive responses based around fear and the acceptance of ignorance. Fifthly, religious arguments are invalid and based upon nothing but speculation, often times deceptive in nature and sometimes outright deceitful: there has been no evidence or warrant whatsoever offered by religious thinkers for the existence of god, the validity of religious morality, how god can be known (with the exception of blind faith), or how god’s justice might work given the apparent lack of freewill that we have as creation of god.

These five basis’ have made up the bulk of the essays in these posts, but perhaps a point that has been lost on many is my belief that everyone has a right to believe exactly as they please, but they do not have a right to: 1) call that belief truth, 2) make their beliefs the law of the land, 3) expect any respect from anyone else concerning their beliefs, 4) act upon those beliefs in any way that endangers any society. These posts have been based around religious belief for the most part, but many have been based on defining and explaining atheism. I have claimed that the atheistic argument is the only valid religious argument, but nowhere in theses posts have I claimed that atheism is a religion (which it is not), and nowhere in these posts have I claimed that atheism offers any answers on its own with the only exception that it is provable; I have never linked atheism to science, but have claimed that science validates atheism. I have never claimed that atheism anything but the dismissal of the theistic argument on intellectual rather than emotional grounds, and although atheism is the only valid religious conclusion, I have never claimed that atheists have any right to make religious belief illegal because it is invalid.

I do believe that religion has a place in society, but that place is solely in history books and in academic study. I believe religion has played an important and sometimes a positive role in human history and I believe it deserves to be studied given its amazing influence over people over time and in the present. Religion belongs in academics, but not as a science, not as a valid metaphysical explanation. Rather, it belongs in literature classes, in anthropological classes, in sociological classes, and in philosophical discussions. Religion in all its forms needs to be understood for what it is: a simplistic attempt at explaining existence. It also needs to be understood for what it has become: an attempt by many at defining (universally) morality for humanity. Because of its past and continuing influence on humanity religion needs to be monitored, studied, and approached from an intelligent angle rather than accepted as a plausible way of viewing life and existence: it cannot be dismissed because to do so is too dangerous. Because it is so dangerous, I do believe in the need for religion to be contained and limited to the individual.

There are many good websites on religion and atheism and I hope to compile a list to add to this blog in the coming months. I am thankful for all the thoughtful comments that I have received over the years, and for those who have found it useful to read these posts. I hope that in the future there will be no atheists because I hope that in the future there will be no need for people to turn to religion for hope and happiness. Rather, I hope that we all can create a world that offers us enough hope and happiness to suffice while we live here in this world, the only one we have. I will end this short, last post with a plea, one that I have had for years and continue to be hopeful for:

Please, think for yourself!

Merry Christmas

2008-12-22T18:34:00.000-08:00

I wish all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!!
Best wishes.

An Atheist’s Christmas Wish

2008-12-15T18:38:00.000-08:00

We are all afraid; it is natural, and there is nothing we can do about it. Fear is powerful, and real. In order to not be afraid, we search for power and most of the time cannot find it. But it is power, in our minds, that will free us from the fear that we have. For some the power comes in the form of attitude, loud and ambivalent to all around. For others power comes in more clear and concise forms whether that is a gun, rebellion, or just a big loud car or truck. We all see this everyday in some form or fashion. It’s not hard to miss. These things, we believe, give us clarity concerning the world around us. Money in the bank, a big house, a new car, more and more become the defense we have against our fear. When we feel powerful, we feel that we have defeated our fear and we begin to “see the world clearly” as it were. But, it is in our old age that we realize that the typical sorts of answers to our fears is not enough: they are empty and useless. It is in our old age that we are often times forced to stare our fear directly in the face.

Some say that fear is a product of evolutionary instinct: it is a survival tool. Others define fear as an emotional response to the unknown. Most likely, it is both. Nevertheless, fear drives us to depend not on our capabilities or our intellect, but on our ignorance. Instead of learning about, we shy away from. Ignorance often starts out as a shield against our fear, but in the end ignorance is almost always the source of our fears. We all want certainty; it is almost as if we crave it. But, certainty is an illusion, one that most of us do not want to face up to. And so we bury the illusion deep. In our fear we search for a quick fix, and most of the time quick fixes come in the form of other illusions: they are easier.

Our quick fixes, like all drugs, are efficient but never completely satisfying. As we grow older we find variations on a single theme: the quick fix of power. Marriage, children, jobs, cars etc… become the goal instead of simply tools. We define ourselves through those things we acquire whether those things are other people or the things that we do. Often times the power we feel from these things is overwhelming. In fact, it often feels as if we have defeated our fears through simple acquisition. We all have seen those, and maybe some of us recognize this in ourselves, that completely delve into their children, into their jobs, into their cars or their houses in order to hide themselves from the ever-present fear. At some point, however, we all come to realize one way or the other that these things will not shield us from the fear or give us the answers that we need to defeat the fears in our lives.

Realization is a form of clarity. But because we have spent our lives looking for quick fixes only to recognize that these fixes do not work, we cannot recognize the real defense against our fears and so we are only able to recognize the same worn out, irrelevant answers that we have used all of our lives. This, in itself, is a form of clarity however nihilistic it may seem. The war against our fears seems pointless and unwinnable and so often some give up, accepting regret. Others give up and dive into depression, and often drugs. Still others give themselves up for “the sake of their children”; they create meaning from the only thing they feel that gives them meaning; that they are able to recognize. This is often times empty and they cannot keep up.

This, of course, is where religion sneaks in. People are often told that the answer is easy: religion. That there is an answer that will not change, that will solve the problem of fear, that will negate the need for power and at the same time give one the ultimate power: transcendence over death and the negation of anything that they could ever hope for themselves: religion. Marriages become stale, children grow up, cars get old; easy fixes dissipate in their usefulness, but not the belief in something that cannot be explained or topped. Religion is the ultimate cocaine, the ultimate opiate. The belief in God allows one to instantly regain power over fear, a power that can never be topped, that will not grow stale, that will not leave, that will not grow old. Religious belief is the ultimate answer and the ultimate failure of human clarity.

Religious faith is not clarity; it is the negation and the acceptance of the negation of clarity, and the older we get, the more difficult clarity becomes seemingly forcing us to accept that “clarity” that religion seems to offer: the answer to all. So what is clarity if not religious faith? Clarity is knowledge and the acceptance of the limitations of our knowledge. Clarity is seeing the “big picture” and accepting that we will never see the entire thing. There is only one tool to gain clarity and that is one’s intellectual ability. What many religious see as nihilism is really clarity. To explain this to someone who is religious, however, is to explain to a person why their marriage, their children, their car, their dog or cat is not the answer to any empty space they may feel in their own lives. This space can only be filled by one’s self, and one’s own understanding: nothing else will do.

Old age is never guaranteed even though it may be assumed. In our old age, if we do become old, we become forced to either accept the old quick fixes or we come to realize that there is no quick fix but only illusions. It is only the use of our intellect that will fill the void, defeat the fear, and give meaning to our lives. There is nothing else that will do. It is through intellect that we can find happiness and come to understand that there are so many that are not happy at all. My Christmas wish for all is that everyone finds their own happiness, that happiness that seems so illusive so much of the time. I wish for everyone that the fear that we all have in common is dissipated not through the fake fixes of power or the pie-in-the-sky clarity that is claimed by so many, but by the recognition of the one thing that has driven all that is good in humanity: the recognition of ignorance by intelligence. My Christmas wish, an atheist’s Christmas wish for everyone, is that they may grow old not in the illusion of power but in the very real comfort of intelligence.

For No Reason at All: the Ethics of Atheism

2008-12-09T20:27:00.000-08:00

Christmas, as much as it symbolizes, has become in many ways simply another mad dash to the shopping center. And, when we are asked why we do such things a common answer is “because we have to”, “because we always have”, “because that is what we are suppose to do”, “because I’ve got presents to buy” etc... At the same time it seems most of us claim that we think Christmas has simply turned into an excuse to shop. Christians, claiming Christmas their own, complain that the “true” meaning of Christmas has been lost and needs to be brought back into the holiday spirit. Christians claim that Christmas has a “right reason”, a “real meaning” and that reason and meaning must adhere to their religious beliefs. I claim, as an atheist, that they are missing the point. The real meaning of Christmas is to act good for no reason at all.

The religious claim that atheists have no basis for morality, that we are in fact immoral because we do not accept the stories steeped in tradition but with no evidence whatsoever. They often claim that “atheists have no reason for acting morally” without the belief in God: they claim that atheist have somehow lost the “true” meaning of life, claiming that life has a “right reason”, a “real meaning” and that reason and meaning must adhere to their religious beliefs. These claims are not limited to any single religion: it is the basis of religious thought to offer a moral foundation and it is often the case that those same religious (and moral) minds remind us all that if we don’t “act according to God” then we will be consigned to burn in hellfire for eternity: if we aren’t good, we won’t get a present. The religious mind-set is that without a consequent being moral is impossible, or being moral doesn’t matter. The one argument against atheists is that because we do not believe in God we are consigned to hellfire, and the other argument is that our actions are morally speaking secondary to a belief in God.

The ethics of atheism are virtuous rather than theistic. Theistic ethics are centered upon the authority of God or the acceptance of tradition. To Christians, the bible is the “word of God”. Anyone who reads the bible, however, soon realizes that the Christian ethic has much left to be desired. God kills, rapes, and lies. The Christian circumvents obvious problems by allowing some form of interpretation to be used in deciphering the “word of God”. Also, when many religious are asked why they accept religious ethics they often answer “because we have to”, “because we always have”, “because that is what we are suppose to do”. Muslims do not allow nor do they accept interpretation or tradition to be the cornerstone of their religion: the Qur’an itself (as long as it is written in Arabic) is a miracle and is fundamentally and absolutely true. Jewish people claim that discussion and debate over the Torah is a form of prayer in order to understand the “word of God”. All these religions, however, hold that God is the foundation of any and all ethics, and can for a fact be traced to cultural traditions no matter what the religious “authorities” may claim. Theistic ethics are necessarily authoritarian. Atheistic ethics are not.

Virtue-ethics is a term that is attributed to Aristotle’s Nichomachean ethics, the Greek philosopher’s tribute to how to live one’s life. To Aristotle, virtue was defined as a “moral education”. In short, one must live within a mean, a middle way all the while recognizing extreme ways of living. By educating one’s self, a happy life could be lived. Aristotle’s ethical ideas had the one consequent of being able to be happy most of one’s life. To be good for a reason is to be good with some consequent in mind, but virtue-ethics claimed that happiness is a good in itself. To simply be good is to understand what it is to “be good”. That is to say one must be good for no reason at all. Now, it is true that the atheist does not have the specter of hellfire hanging over his shoulder, but it is also true that such a threat does not make any act good or bad.

The religious claim that without religion, the atheist is ethically lost is simply untrue: the case is actually vice-versa. The atheist is free to be good for no reason at all. There is no god to appease; no devils to fear. It is true that the atheist is “free” in the religious sense from the authority of tradition, the blind acceptance of dogma and doctrine, but it is not true that simply because the religious claim moral authority, claim that it is only through dogma and doctrine that ethical justification is possible, that these claims are true. The atheist can be good or bad, but does not have the luxury of “praying for forgiveness” or sloughing off the responsibility of immoral acts on the “sinful nature of humanity”. The atheist must be good with no ultimate consequent in mind.

Atheists and the religious can be good, they can act moral, for many different reasons. Just because one is religious does not necessarily mean that every good act is done for the “glory of god”. The Christian can have ulterior motives, as can the atheist. Atheists and the religious can also be bad for many different reasons: ignorance, greed, fear all apply. However, the claim made by the religious concerning ethical acts and atheism have to do with the ultimate consequent: a categorical imperative. The atheist is free from this categorical, and being free means that he is responsible for defining and acting on some other imperative, whatever that may be, that is directly connected to personal accountability. “Personal accountability” to the religious mind must, but the very nature of religion, be linked to the religion, to God. The theist acts morally because to do so alleviates the fear of burning in hell and thus leads to happiness; the atheist simply acts good because to do so makes him happy. The theist is correct in claiming that the atheist has no moral foundation, no reason to act good, but the claim is somewhat different than the theist proposes. The theist can act good because to do so alleviates the fear of burning in hell and thus leads to happiness; the atheist simply act can act good for no reason at all.

The Quality of a People

2008-12-02T21:17:00.000-08:00

It is the strength of any country that individuals have the freedom to believe in, to stand for what they feel is correct or incorrect, right or wrong. But, it is the education of the individuals within any country that dictate the quality of what individuals believe in or stand for. This quality, in a well educated country, is not measured in feeling, but by knowledge: knowledge that can be measured by the method used to establish beliefs, ethics, and justice. The idea that quality can be measured by emotional standards is not only incorrect and wrong, but dangerous as well. Unfortunately it has become the standard (that and economy) of many belief systems and principles. There is one way to change the direction of this sort of ignorance: a good education.

Pointed out in the last post (A Quality Education): “in its simplest form, education is a process that allows individuals to think for themselves, makes decisions based on the use of rational thinking rather than guesswork or emotion, and to be able to tell the difference. Education is a process that allows individuals to learn.” Given this definition of a quality education, the allowance of emotional freedom to define concepts that ought to be defined by rational thought leads to the respect for beliefs and principles that ought not have the right to any respect, much less authority in our society. Examples of such allowances are evident: the expectation that one and all are to respect all beliefs in all their forms no matter the consequences or the interpretations, the expectation of individuals who accept such forms of hocus-pocus that others shall respect those euphemisms as something other than what they are, the subjection of quality and reality to one’s own opinion, and the definition of a quality education to be limited to the quality of people that make such claims.

A theme that has all but defined this collection of essays is that many beliefs’ demand for unquestioned respect is unfounded. Certain belief in all its forms has an important aspect in common with the other examples given, as well as what I will deem as a bad education: the acceptance of reality being based on unwarranted grounds. In fact, one reason for the sometimes quiet redefinition of many terms and beliefs to a more palatable is that those terms and beliefs as understood by most has simply gotten so ridiculous as to need a linguistic facelift. Otherwise, all vestiges of respect, even from those who adhere to such beliefs, become impossible. The process becomes a semantic game: “poor” becomes “under-privileged”, “desires” become “needs”, “God” becomes “spiritual force” etc… But, as has been noted in the past, you cannot take the spots off a leopard. Such wordplay keeps the door open for the same sort of claims that make up the basis of all such vague and ambiguous thought: using lack of information to warrant the truth of claims.

It is precisely the lack of knowledge and information and the acceptance of such as the basis for claims that warrants academic and other types of hocus pocus. There is a rich history of using “you do not know-therefore my claim is true” fallacies. Adding a smiling face simply adds a sugar-syrup to that claim. However, the claim is the same. Just like its earlier sister-beliefs, the new-fangled claims demand respect if not simply outright expecting it. That is, the smirk, the quaint smile that claims: there is something that you do not understand…becomes warrant enough. Be sure, this is not the political liberalism that has, at least in the past, demanded change and been willing to pay the price for that change. The liberalism that allows for language to be molded into something almost intangible and impossible to pin down is that liberalism that claims to stand for change, but is unwilling to give up the comfort of certitude. Instead, some politically correct linguistic meandering is used to quell everyone’s desires and personal intellectual “needs”.

It is often heard that modern academia is filled with intellectual mottle-coddling and useless process that at its basis is simply a format for personal feelings and emotional support. This sort of attitude, academic or not, is wasteful and irrelevant as it pertains to the search for truth and the goal of a good education. As was also stated in A Quality Education, “a good education teaches one to think: independently, rationally, originally, and for one’s self. The more an education allows the individual to do the above things, the more quality an education the individual has received. A quality education can be measured by recognizing the independence, ability, and originality of thought of any one or group of individuals that has been educated. This recognition is not, and cannot be integrated into any mission statement, value judgment, or economic plan. Ironically enough, recognition of a quality education is only possible if one has had a good education.” The fact that what makes up a “good education” cannot “be integrated into any mission statement, value judgment, or economic plan” is precisely what makes a good education so difficult to achieve both as a teacher and a student. It exists, however, and can be identified, qualified, and measured. Not, though, by typical assessment measures or euphemistic wordplay.

As does most of our social problems, the problem of giving and receiving a good education lies with the individual. The individual teacher must be held to high standards, not simply by academic administrators, but by him/herself. The student must be held accountable not simply by his/her teachers, but by him/herself. The goal of all involved in education must be singular: to create a mind capable of independent thought, of the ability to distinguish between emotional appeal and critical analysis. Any actions by any person must be directed towards this single, all-important academic goal and nothing else.

If a society allows for unwarranted and evidence-free statements to be respected for none other reason than it is the individual’s right to have such beliefs and make such statements, then that society will produce a quality of individuals that no longer can establish any rational basis for any claim, true or otherwise. If language is continually misconstrued to placate feelings and desires rather than used as a means of sharing honest ideas and coming to terms with truth, in one form or another, then not only is trust broken but truth is impossible. It is the quality of person, the ability to discern with rationality and clarify with language that establishes and defines a good education. And, it is a good education that establishes the quality of society that we all live in. The quality of individuals that make up a society eventually define that society, and if that level of quality, the quality of knowledge expected and accepted, is lowered, then the quality of individuals and hence society is also lowered.

A Quality Education (11/24/08

2008-11-25T22:21:00.000-08:00

It seems to be a modern attitude of many that concepts such as quality can be determined relative to the individual. Music, for example, is often deemed “good” or “bad” based on the likes or dislikes of each individual, or simply determined to be beyond judgment. In education, the quality of an education is sometimes made relative to the needs of the students. But upon considering judgments such as good or bad based on likes and dislikes, or quality based on the need, it is not difficult to conclude that ethical judgments as well as degrees of quality cannot be defined by likes, dislikes, or needs.

The quality of music is ubiquitously and infamously subjective, so goes public opinion. But this is not the case. The quality of anything cannot be judged subjectively and be taken seriously or with any kind of authority. In fact, the subjective judgment of anything becomes nothing more than opinion. Quality is a concept that can be measured objectively, and as such quality is not subjective. This applies easily to such things as tools, cars and buildings, but not so easily to things such as music. However, transcendent “things” such as music can be measured qualitatively. It is a farce, a cop-out to say that “good” music is a matter of opinion. It is not.

A piece of music can be qualitatively measured first by how it does its job. A piece of music’s job is to convey an idea and/or create an atmosphere, to invoke emotion seamlessly without any added intention of the listener. In other words, a good piece of music is much like a good novel or story: the listener (or reader) is taken in by the act of listening (or reading) without intending to be taken in. A good piece of music invokes emotion without the help of the listener: it “just happens”. Nothing “just happens”. A good piece of music will convey an idea clearly enough to drag a listener into one or another state without depending upon the will of the listener. Musicians tend to understand this better than non-musicians because they have a deeper understanding of how music works, and what to look for in good or bad music. It must be taken into consideration, however, that there are also “good” and “bad” musicians. A “good” musician is one that first, has musical ideas that are inventive and original, and second that is able to portray those ideas in the clearest sense possible. A “good” musician is able to portray emotional and intellectual ideas in such a way that is both clear and concise musically speaking.

“Good” music is music that one listens to, and is taken in by it without having to understand. “Good” musicians are those that understand how to write and perform such music. Often times, musicians can hear a piece of music and understand what is trying to be portrayed while at the same time understand that the emotional and/or intellectual concept is not actually being portrayed. Technically, it is easy enough to hear harmonic movement and be able to recognize what the composer was trying to achieve. If the composer does a “good” job, the harmonic movement is not recognized per say, but is weaved into the whole, as words are weaved together to create a story. If the composer does a less than “good” job, then the harmonic movement (for example) is actually recognized separately from the whole rather being simply a part of it.

The same can apply to recognizing different degrees of quality. As pointed out before, quality is easily enough recognized in material things, but less so in immaterial things. Nevertheless, quality can be recognized objectively. Education, especially higher education, is often defined by the needs of the students that make use of institutions of higher education because it is those students that are at least in part responsible for funding higher education in the first place. Defining the quality of higher education on the needs of the students, however, does not necessarily mean that such an education is quality, but merely useful. A quality education is not much different than a piece of quality music: a good education is one that is used without recognizing it as being so. This is not as convoluted as it may sound.

First, education is not simply learning how to perform an act, and perform it well. In its simplest form, education is a process that allows individuals to think for themselves, makes decisions based on the use of rational thinking rather than guesswork or emotion, and to be able to tell the difference. Education is a process that allows individuals to learn. This definition is not inclusive in the so-called, determined, and recognized “needs” of most students. Rather what most students, many administrators, businesses, and even a lot of teachers claim is that the “needs” of the students “must come first”: often meaning: give the students what they want. This is not quality education. It is rather cow-towing to the populace.

Secondly, good education is not what most people might want, but it is certainly what we all need. A good education allows one to solve problems, yes, but not only problems that pertain to things such as sales, marketing, or performing acts. A good education allows one to act rationally rather than react emotionally. A good education allows one to invent, originate and progress rather than copy, vary, and stagnate. In short, a good education teaches one to think: independently, rationally, originally, and for one’s self. The more an education allows the individual to do the above things, the more quality an education the individual has received. A quality education can be measured by recognizing the independence, ability, and originality of thought of any one or group of individuals. This recognition is not, and cannot be integrated into any mission statement, value judgment, or economic plan. Recognition of a quality education is only possible if one has had a good education.

Like the trained musician recognizes what a composer tried but failed to portray in the most unrecognizable way, the educated person knows precisely what a good education is through recognizing ability not to perform acts or make money, but in the simple act of thinking. To claim that such a simple act is not a worthy goal, or capable of being judged qualitatively is a sure sign that the claim is originating from an unworthy authority not capable of recognizing qualitative differences. Furthermore, the subjugation of quality by defining it as subjective is at best the start of a useless education and at worst the waste of quite possibly a good mind.

Tolerant Religions or Religious Tolerance

2008-11-17T08:03:00.000-08:00

There is no such thing as a tolerant religion. By its very nature, it cannot be defined as tolerant. Even those religions that claim total tolerance such as Buddhism cannot make such a claim. Instead, they redefine other belief systems to fit under the umbrella of their own. While a Buddhist can claim that each individual must “find” his own way and method to achieving and understanding Nirvana, the truth of the matter is such equivocation is simply a method of justifying the idea of a “one, true religion”: Buddhism. The only “religion” per say that is capable of achieving any kind of religious tolerance is a pure form of Taoism, which has now degenerated into a sort of witchcraft and magic-based belief system similar (in ways) to the so-called “Wicca”. Rather than religious tolerance, there is only the tolerance of religion.

Christians often claim that Islam is an intolerant religion whose motive and primary goal is to “take over the world” while at the same time Moslems claim that Islam is a religion bound to peace and prosperity for all. It is ironic however, that Christianity is infamous for its bloodshed and violence as well as its open claim that the “gospel of Jesus Christ” is to be spread throughout the world. It can be no surprise, nor is it a coincidence, that Islam is a very close sister-religion to Christianity: they both have the same aims and are not above the means to achieve their ends: namely violence, bloodshed and incoherent justifications concerning their “true motives”. Their true motives are not questioned by anyone who is 1) honest enough to look at the histories of these religions and, 2) honest enough to read the dogmatic doctrines of both of them. What Islam is doing today, that which is called “terrorism”, was done and continues to be done, by Christianity. In fact, Islam is nothing more than a continuation of Christianity, theologically speaking.

Most religions claim tolerance, but very few act upon their claims. Buddhism makes a Truth claim but if Buddhist history is to be taken into account, that claim does not coincide with what Buddhism is today. Traditional Taoism makes no claim, and in doing so can define itself as anything and call it Truth, making itself arbitrary. The same applies to Hindus, and in fact, to all religions. Christianity is a case in point. Christianity, especially fundamental Christianity, claims absolute truth, but in doing so it finds that it must redefine its claims to fit the world around it or make a concerted effort to redefine the world to fit its claims: tolerance is forced upon it rather than freely accepted. The first act is an act of liberalization and the second act is precisely what creationists have been trying to do ever since Aquinas and Anselm “Christianized” Aristotle. Neither methods work. In redefining a claim that is considered absolute, the claim becomes either an outright lie or mistaken at best, neither of which is acceptably tolerated by the religion. In re-modeling reality, even the most illiterate and ignorant of people can draw upon that very uncommon thing called “common sense”. Either way religious tolerance is either forced or leads to contradiction.

Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam claims “Truth” in the form of revelation. The “Truth” is that all the above religions are based on nothing more than faith. Revelation is faith. Truth cannot be based on faith, or it becomes opinion. There is only one method of acquiring anything close to what Truth can be defined as and it is far from being absolute: science. Be that as it may, science does not rely upon faith, and does not make the claim that it is absolute. On the other hand, all religions do rely upon faith and do make the claim that they are absolute. In claiming to be tolerant, religions simply redefine a dogma, based on faith and believed to be absolute. The redefinition of dogma is not tolerance, and to redefine what was claimed as absolute is religious suicide. As it has been said: one cannot remove the spots from a leopard. It is dogma (unquestioned claims, true or not) that religion is defined by not tolerance.

To be tolerant, one must accept the possibility that one is wrong and that another is right. This is suicide to all religions and this is the basis upon which doubt is considered ignorance, pride, and/or sin by religions. Doubt forces honest questioning, and honest questioning demands honest answers. The redefinition of any religion is not the demand for honest answers. Rather it is a weak attempt to gain respect, one which is unfortunately accepted by ignorant and/or unwilling persons. Buddhism claims to “free the mind” by an attempt at realizing “what the world truly is”. Hinduism does the same but with is based on the acceptance of authority. Judaism claims that intellectual discussion is a form of “prayer” and hence that it is not a religion of faith. Christianity and Islam make similar claims, except now blatantly disapprove of any form of doubt. For all religions, the problems that doubt and honest questioning make are that they create the necessity for tolerance; and the necessity of tolerance demands honest questioning. The type of questioning that religions offer or allow is the sort that only leads to certain answers (those that adhere to their dogma): this is the basis of religious tolerance. That is, questioning is allowed but only if it does not contradict the dogma at hand.

It is only just that everyone has the right to believe or disbelieve what it is that they desire to believe or disbelieve, but it is not included in any form or definition of justice that religious belief must be respected. It is also not included in any form or definition of justice that we as disbelievers in any religion or religions must tolerate a religious belief that endangers the world, society, or intellectual freedom. Unfortunately, religious belief in most if not all its forms endangers all of the above. An example is the so-called “war on terror”, a religious war based on economic and natural desires, and it endangers the world. It is universally dangerous because of the nature of the two religions involved in it (Christianity and Islam), both of which openly claim world domination and neither of which ought in any moral sense be tolerated. The tolerance of such acts endanger society, especially when authority is claimed to be beyond question, which it is within both (if not all) religions.

John Stuart Mill said it most succinctly when, in his Two Treaties on Government, he claimed that if a government ceases to govern for the people that it ought to be removed from power. I would apply this sentiment to any religion that claims the right to govern society and more importantly the intellectual freedom of individuals. Every religion, including the so-called “peaceful ones” makes an intolerant claim: that they alone hold the absolute Truth. Any truth that is held as absolute becomes dogmatic, and all religions must by their very nature claim absolute truth and therefore every religion is dogmatic. There is no such thing as religious tolerance, and there is no authority in reality that can claim that we must tolerate religious belief in any of its forms. The fact that some of humanity continues to do so is either from altruistic slavery to tradition or simple-minded naivety if not plain stupidity.

Notes on Intelligent Design: The ‘Science’ of Intelligent Design

2008-11-10T07:43:00.000-08:00

ID is no different than its predecessor hypotheses such as flood geology, creationism and creation science in that it offers absolutely no scientific evidence to support its claims. Instead, it relies upon the misrepresentation of good science and the ignorance of the general populace about science in general to enable it to create the current “controversy”. The truth of the matter is that there is no controversy: at least no scientific controversy. According to any good scientist, good science has its basis in observable, empirical and measurable evidence. Also, good science is based on specific principles of reasoning. Scientists who practice good science propose hypotheses; they test those hypotheses and allow others to test them as well. Furthermore, through observable experiments that are repeatable, good science must be able to predict future outcomes based on the hypothesis. If the hypothesis does not fail when brought up against alternative theories, is able to be observed, and consistently predicts future outcomes over time the hypothesis is said to become a theory. This is the basis of good science. ID practices what I call God-science.

God-science, such as that practiced by creationists, is not based upon good scientific principles such as having a basis in observable, empirical and measurable evidence. God-science does not offer observable experiments that repeatable, that predict future outcomes, that allow alternative theories, that are able to be observed, nor that consistently predict future outcomes over time. Instead, God science relies upon unknown outcomes, unwarranted assumptions, baseless future predictions, misrepresentation of facts, and political and social rhetoric as well as fear to justify itself. On example of God-science is the claim that evolution lacks fossilized evidence. When good science points out that first the fossilized evidence for evolution is both overwhelming and for all intent purposes irrefutable, and secondly that some evidence to warrant their claim is needed, God-science tries to change the rules of science, or yells “foul”.

The claim that evolution lacks fossilized evidence is a popular claim used by ID adherents. They claim that evolution is a flawed theory because of this lack evidence, and hence is false. This is both misleading and untrue, and it is an argument that is a prelude to the sort of science that the intelligent design movement uses. The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC, an off-shoot of The Discovery Institute) claims that “the late Precambrian and early Cambrian periods…not only fail to support Darwinism but in fact refutes it.” CRSC, in a great deal, relies upon the expertise of one Paul Chien to support their claim that if true, would in fact deal a lethal blow to the theory of evolution. However, true to the nature of ID, the claim is not founded on anything that resembles science. Rather, CRSC relies upon the same political ploys and misleading jargon (calling it “science”) to create a controversy concerning evolution into the minds of the American public. Good scientists do not take such claims seriously, and when creationists are reminded that they are not practicing good science, they claim that the scientists are being biased against them. The good scientists demand good evidence, and the God-scientists offer unsupported suppositions.

The claim being made by CRSC is that the Cambrian era (550-500 million years ago) is the product of a “biological Big Bang”, as Chien calls it. In other words, that fossils began to appear abruptly and so Darwin’s theory of evolution is flawed because it relies upon the slow and steady change of organisms over a great deal of time. The fallacy here is one of equivocation. What the proponents of ID are not admitting into evidence, and evidently trying to hide is that “abruptness” actually means “over ten or a few tens of millions of years” Ten or a few tens of millions of years is not “abrupt” in the true sense of the word. ID adherents are relying upon fossilized deposits known as the Chengjiang phosphate deposits, that much is true, but that they appeared “abruptly” is simply a play on words, a hedge to further CRSC’s real agenda: to propagate the ideas that ID ought to be taught in the nation’s public schools as science. Although CRSC makes such claims, these claims are not backed up by good science.

Precambrian fossils do exist, discovered in the Ediacaran rocks of Australia (for one example); that much cannot be argued. However, the point trying to be muscled in by ID is that multi-cellular organisms appeared “abruptly” around the Cambrian era. Because these fossils really didn’t appear “abruptly” in the sense that ID adherents try to claim, the only reason that one would argue for the abrupt appearance of life during the Cambrian era is the desire to prove some sort of special creation (made necessary by the lack of evolutionary explanation). The unwarranted assumption made by ID is that this special creation is an act of God (the Christian God in particular). Facts concerning Precambrian life are readily available, proven with hard (pardon the pun) evidence, and accepted by all respectable, good scientists. Because of these good-science facts, CRSC is forced to use fallacious argumentation to make themselves appear respectable, which they may be to some, but not in any scientific sense. To appear respectable, ID misconstrues real scientific theories such as evolution to make them seem as if they are still debatable, creating a public controversy but not a scientific debate. They rely upon the authority of scientists to “prove” certain ideas rather than the authority of good science.

CRSC, institutes such as The Discovery Institute and other creationists and creationist organizations use other methods to confuse and create false controversies as well. Another pseudo-controversy brought forth by ID concerns the so-called “top-down” theory of evolution. Creationists claim that the theory is being discussed in terms of creationism-non/creationism. Evolution is indeed being discussed, but not in those terms, and not in terms of creationism. “The scientific argument between the predominant bottom-up view and the top-down view is, basically, an argument over the order of descent (emphasis added): through the common descent from earlier forms, what developed first-species, or phyla. The debate is not about whether there were any ancestral forms.” This little fact is skewed by CRSC to make it seem as if the “debate” is about ancestral forms in the form of fossils in order to make an illegitimate argumentative leap for ID. There are problems with any ID argument concerning abrupt-creation, two of them bearing exceptional weight in regard to evolution. First, “if there were in fact no evidence of ancestral or transitional life forms, or any hope of it, the abruptness would be irrelevant: there would have to have been some magical intervention…” If this were the case, modern day good science would look a lot different since good science is based on empirical observation. Secondly, ancestral and transitional forms are known and available for study by both good scientists and God-scientists. Good scientists interpret the data using scientific methods. God-scientists interpret the data in a way that is conducive to their argument rather than the truth.

While both good and God scientists rely upon authority, God-scientists do not always rely upon good authority. To study fossils, one must have expertise in paleontology. To do good science, one must be able to honestly approach questions and be willing to accept the answers given by facts rather than belief. First CRSC relies upon the expertise of Dr. Paul Chien who has no expertise in paleontology. Dr. Chien does have degrees in biology and environmental science, however. Secondly, Dr. Chien is not interested, or perhaps capable, of good science. According to a professor of paleontology, Kevin Padian, “Dr. Chein admits that he has not expertise or training in paleontology. [And] He admits [as well] in interviews that he came into this issue believing that evolution is not true (emphasis his).” Having a preconceived conclusion is not good science. Basing scientific conclusions on good reasoning, no matter what those conclusions turn out to be is. Also, scientific theories are tested and developed by scientists, and then peer-reviewed and critiqued. But Dr. Chien has offered no hypotheses concerning his belief in the abrupt appearance of fossils. In fact, “despite Chien’s zero productivity in the area with which the CRSC has charged him, he has been active in promoting the publications of fellow creationists.” So, in essence, ID, CRSC, and Dr. Chien is putting the cart before the horse. First, they trump up the appearance of “scientific data” that they claim warrants the truth of ID. Then, they proceed with no real scientific evidence to try to publish in peer reviewed science journals. However, to date, there has been “no scientific, peer-reviewed research on any aspect of ID in any scientific journal.”

CRSC claims that their hypotheses (they call them theories) in fact do appear in scientific journals (such as Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box). “The problem with that claim is that IC has ‘found itself in the peer-reviewed scientific literature’, but only in the form of sharp dismissals.” This begs the question: why, if ID is not a theory, is it published at all? This question is one that goes beyond science and the agenda of CRSC. The problem is that scientists such as Chien and Behe might be good scientists, but in working with ID they are not doing good science. Good science is always incomplete: it searches for answers through honest questioning rather than developing questions based on a pat answer. Secondly, they are not being honest with both the scientific community and perhaps themselves. The science of ID does not stand on honest evidence, hard won warrant, and consistent inference. Rather, it stands on fallacious reasoning, easy answers, and emotional plea bargaining in the form of legal jargon.

The Final Hypocrisy

2008-11-04T05:26:00.000-08:00

11/3/2008
If one is an atheist, voting for the Republican Party candidate, John McCain, would be analogous to (I recently read) hens voting for a Fox to protect the henhouse. While there are several 3rd party candidates, unfortunately voting for one of them would simply be adding to the chances of the Republican Party being elected in once again. While Republicans typically talk of taxes and throw out scare-tactics such as “the socialization of America”, and “terrorist links to Obama”, the real danger of having McCain and Palin in office is of a religious nature. Yes: they have made it clear that they are willing to invade individual privacies and determine personal morality for an entire nation, that they support the continued unconstitutional Patriot Act (or variations thereof because of their God-given authority), that they believe that corporate welfare is not welfare at all but the welfare of moral persons (they are undoubtedly rich), that they doubt the reality of global warming and the connections to it of human activity (it is God’s will), that they believe the answer to our energy needs is almost solely drilling for more oil and nuclear power (traditional answers), that they adhere to antiquated economic policies that have been proven time and time again as at best failed and at worst dangerous (for the sake of the moral elite), that they somehow differentiate themselves from the current pathetic administration while having supported it for at least 90% of the time (the most religious administration in current American history). These claims are readily available through researching the voting records and the comments of these candidates at www.ontheissues.org, or many other sites that make their sources available (the only ones that ought to be considered). The religious connection to all of these and the current complaints about the “housing bubble” (now burst) is two-fold: the disregard of facts and the dependence on blind faith.

Taking the current economic situation in America as an example, disregard of facts and blind faith leads only to one conclusion: total and absolute failure, both morally and pragmatically speaking. In a recent radio interview (NPR 11/3/08), a man who had made millions in the housing market, a pharmacist turned professional real estate agent, asked, “How can homes that were worth $500,000 now be worth $100,000 now?” He had lost millions, and still owned at least seven properties all of which were worth much less than he owed on them. The answer to his question is simple: worth is relative. This simple fact was evidently lost in the years of greedy grabbing and selling. In this case, the man had taken loans out on the equity of his home as well as other questionable methods, had bought a multi-million dollar home based on the market values of his properties rather than the amount he sold them for, and done all of this with the knowledge of a professional real estate agent. Evidently, planning on supplementing his income with real estate, the housing bubble (and his own greed) drove him to give up his original profession.
Now the man, during the interview, looked back on the homes he had sold, most of which were going into foreclosure, and thought to ask: “These were once thriving communities [during the ‘housing bubble’], how can they make can they make it now?” The answer to that question is also simple: if those who bought homes based on the disregard of facts and the dependence on blind faith, they will not “make it”. Instead, they will lose their homes and still have the mortgage to pay. These people fell prey not to the pharmacist turned real estate agent, but to their faith in something they vaguely define as the “American Dream”. Their definition evidently included putting faith in their yet unknown ability to pay for houses that they could not afford based on what the real estate agent and the banks told them. In their eyes, they are victims. In fact, they gambled and lost the bet: they are not victims in any sense.

These people are not ignorant, but accepted ignorance as a basis of their action. They are not victims of any system, but rather victims of their own stupidity (they accepted their ignorance as a basis for action) as are many banks of this nation are as well. The banks that made the decision to back what is typically called “sub-prime mortgages” are claiming the same status as those who accepted their loans, but the banks are as much “victims” as their sub-prime customers such as the pharmacist turned real-estate agent and his clients. While it is admirable to fail and stand back up, it is not admirable to fail and stand back up on the same empty principles that caused your failure in the first place. The real estate agent claimed he had not given up on the “American Dream”, but instead “had something up his sleeve”, proudly claiming that “It’s gonna be awesome [when I make my comeback]; God-willing, it’s gonna be awesome.” “God-willing” indeed! This little qualification equates to an absolution of responsibility and has nothing to do with the American Dream. In other words, if I fail a second time it is not my fault, but was simply “not will by God.” The American Dream is not based on any will of God, but on one’s own ability to succeed or fail on one’s own terms and to accept the consequent of that victory or failure.

The thinking of this pharmacist turned real estate agent is precisely the sort of thinking that is behind the ridiculous and completely unfounded bail-out of the banks that OK’d obviously irresponsible loans. The banks decry “foul” when their loans are given up for dead. The politicians that OK’d the $700,000,000,000 bailout are simply disregarding that fact and depending on blind faith to pull them out of the mire they have allowed all of us to fall into by relying not on intelligence but on stupidity. The fact is that somehow this “loan” differs from the other bad loans backed by the government and made by banking officials. It does not: it is simply one more sub-prime mortgage. Another fact is that the irresponsible people such as our pharmacist turned real estate agent will never see a cent of that money, but will probably walk away from his debt as will millions of stupid and irresponsible people will nationwide. All the while, banks loan money to each other at 1% interest while people who had nothing to do with any of the loaning practices nor accepted any variable rate or sub-prime loans of any kind are asked to pay upwards of 6-7% interest to buy a house appropriately and honestly and bail out those who relied on ignorance and faith in much the same way that many Christians in this country thumb their noses up at science while relying solely upon it to better their own lives.

John McCain claims that it is the Democrats and especially Barrack Obama whose aim is to “give money away”, to “equalize wealth” unfairly, all the while supporting an administration that bails out banks and drives a dying economy into the grave. I would ask: what is a $700,000,000,000 bailout plan called if it is not “giving money away”? The answer is nothing. I would ask: what is fair about bailing out American auto manufacturers out of years of bad decision-making and utterly failed engineering? I would ask what is the difference between equalizing consideration for all and giving special consideration to those who are deemed wealthy? The answer is unfortunately the same no matter if one adheres to the Democratic ideal of equal consideration or the Republican Party’s claim to acclaim the individual as most important (however far that party has come from its original claim). What drives McCain and the Republican party is nothing less than the disregard of facts and the dependence on blind faith.

The Republican party has come so far off course as to make a particular ideal of its constituency a cornerstone of its own ideals (the religious populace of this country), a populace that has continually and historically disregarded facts and the depended upon blind faith. The Republican Party is no different than the pharmacist turned real estate agent. This is the constituency that says “yes” to the unconstitutional acts, the lying and deceit, and the outright religious tone that have defined the Bush administration To differentiate the Republican Party from their religious constituency is nearly impossible at this point, considering the comments of Sarah Palin, of George Bush, and followed up by John McCain. For an atheist to vote Republican, he would have to also give up reliance on intellectual analysis and critical thinking and rely too on the blind faith and ignorance that has led this country to the state that it is in now!

The Atheist Vote

2008-10-27T20:51:00.000-07:00

Taxes, welfare, and war are not the dividing issues of this country. Rather, the issue that underlies them all is religion. The religious division comes in three political forms: abortion, creationism, and the Supreme Court. A vote for any Republican candidate is a vote for the Christian religion, and its inclusion in the politics of this country. On the other hand, a vote for the Democratic party often times means the acceptance of a flawed social view that everyone is equal, and deserves equal shares of all that is good in this country. The one viewpoint is dangerous and detrimental and the other view is flawed and based on wishful thinking.
John McCain, the Republican candidate supports repealing Roe v. Wade (May 2007); he voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP (Mar 2008), and voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions (Oct 2007). He also voted:

• YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
• Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
• Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)

However, he voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives (Mar 2005). McCain’s voting record on abortion is clearly religiously motivated. In fact, the abortion “issue” is not a social one, but a religious one through and through. In R vs. W, the Supreme Court concluded with regard to defining a fetus as a person, that “[the court] is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” (Roe vs. Wade) The definition of the fetus as a “person” was also entertained in lieu of the belief of what is called “ensoulment”: the belief that upon conception, the cells that will become a fetus are given a “soul” by God, something that McCain evidently accepts. This, and only this, is the backbone of the entire abortion “debate”. McCain’s history on creationism should make it clear that his viewpoints on abortion are directly related to his religious views. He believes:
• Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)
• Believes in evolution, but sees the hand of God in nature. (May 2007)
• Teach virtues in all schools. (Dec 1999)
• Decisions on teaching evolution should be made locally. (Aug 1999)

McCain’s view that creationism should be decided locally and regionally by state is simply a throwback to this nations original problem: the desire for different religions to have ethical control over certain areas. Our forefathers were able to see the explicit problems in giving legal rights to religious groups over certain areas of this country, that it would inevitably lead to divisive politics and irreconcilable social differences, but evidently McCain is not so insightful. Sarah Palin’s viewpoints are not worth the respect of human intellect, except that if McCain is elected there is very good chance that her babbling ranting will have to be taken very seriously.

Barrack Obama’s viewpoints are not quite so clear. His record stands:
• Opposed born-alive treatment law because it was already law. (Oct 2008)
• Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
• Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
• Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
• Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
• Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

His views are a far cry from the Republican’s obviously religious stance, but are far from non-religious. He claims that evolution & science aren't incompatible with Christian faith (Apr 2008), but claims to rely on his Christian faith heavily (weekly readings from the Bible). He claims to want to provide decent funding and get rid of anti-intellectualism (Jul 2004), but stands by his ties to Rev. Wrights obviously black-culture-based Protestantism. Mr. Obama claims that prayer can't prevent disasters; good policy can handle them (Aug 2007), but he relies on prayer.

His views on separation of Church and state are promising, and so is his voting record concerning the Supreme Court. Mr. Obama voted no on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice (Jan 2006), voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Sep 2005), and is rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation. (Dec 2006). This is promising, but his blatant ties to the fundamental religious nature of black Protestant religions and his claimed reliance on the bible is worrisome. It is fair to say that based on McCain’s stances on abortion and creationism that his elections to the Supreme Court would be at least in part based on his religious leaning.

The atheist vote is clear: Barrack Obama; but only because the Republican Party is so entrenched in the religious right of this country as to be the religious right itself. Barrack promises change but relies on the old standby, Christianity, to define himself morally. While we can be at least in part assured that any Supreme Court justice put into place by Obama would be in favor of Rvs.W, we cannot be so assured that Christianity would be totally separate from his political choices. We can only hope that his faith is limited to his personal life and not included in the political system of this country. We can only hope that Mr. Obama’s desire to “provide decent funding and get rid of anti-intellectualism” is geared toward ridding this country of the belief that religion and its call for the inclusion of creationism in public schools, and religious faith in all its forms deserves any kind of intellectual respect.

The Political History of Ignorance

2008-10-20T20:26:00.000-07:00

This year’s election is important in many ways. This election includes the first black man running for president, the inclusion of women, one a presidential candidate and the other possible vice-president, and an almost unprecedented number of potential voters showing real interest in the political system of what has been one of the most powerful countries on the earth. This election also exemplifies the nature of the citizenship of the country. Black people voting for a man because of his color and white people not voting for the same reason, women backing Ms. Clinton and to a lesser degree Ms. Palin for no other reason than their gender, rich people voting for the candidate that allows them to stay the richest and poor people voting for the candidate that promises them more access to money. The typical mud-throwing has been a part of this race as well: Obama is a terrorist, McCain is too old and out of touch, and of course Ms Palin… Some of the accusations seem valid and others are too far-fetched to be even considered. Religious affiliation, no doubt, plays its role as well. Religious voters are by a long shot affiliated with, and even define, the Republican Party. It is them who most likely deem Mr. McCain as being too “left-wing” or “liberal”. They will vote for McCain because he and his running mate, Ms. Palin, are both supporters of ridding this country of Roe-vs-Wade, and allowing creationism in the classroom. The divisions of this country seem clear.

To vote, or not vote, on a person on the grounds of the color of their skin is ludicrous; it is a sign of ignorance if not stupidity, and it leads to nowhere useful or good either for individuals or the country as a whole. There will always be those who do so, and most likely a greater percentage than most think, but those people are nothing more than backwards-thinking ignoramus’. The color of one’s skin is a genetic trait, not a choice and hence has no real bearing on who a person is. Now it is true that this country has been in part defined by racism, a heinous disease caused by fear and stupidity, but to vote on the basis of skin-color is simply a perpetuation of that disease. Voting for a person because of their gender is no different than that of color. Claiming that having a woman in office is a good thing simply by virtue of her being a woman is no different than the argument put forth by men for men, in the history of this country. Chauvinism in any form is simply a variation of racism and is motivated by the same two causes: fear (in the form of anger) and ignorance (in the form of unwarranted evidence and narrow-mindedness). People who vote based on race or gender vote that way because they equate some physical trait to an intellectual understanding: a relationship which simply does not exist. In essence, they vote for selfish reasons. The rich will vote for that candidate that helps them, and the poor will do likewise. There is some validity to the claim that Mr. McCain is too old and there is some validity to the claim that Mr. Obama has too little experience; depending on who you are these can also be positive points. The point here is that many people, if not most, vote for mundane, meaningless, and sometimes completely out of ignorance or selfish desire.

To base one’s vote on emotional motivation is dangerous. Emotional motivation includes race and gender. Also, to vote simply because one candidate is helpful and supportive to your personal cause or interest is narrow-minded, short-sighted, and if not dangerous then ignorant and selfish. A country is defined by its citizens as individuals, but cannot be defined by individual citizen’s interests. To do so is counter-productive. A “country” is a collection, an understanding between citizens and individuals, a compromise between our individual needs and desires and the country’s needs and desires. Until these simple tenants are understood this country will remain divided. In short, as individuals we ought to vote on issues rather than personal opinion. But, since we are individuals this means that we will inevitably vote on a candidate that holds some viewpoints that area contrary to our own: this is the nature of living in a civilized society. There are certain issues that may be more important than others, but politically speaking there will always be a compromise on both the candidate’s part and on the part of citizens.

Race is not an issue, and neither is gender, but equal consideration for all races and genders is. Being rich or poor is not an issue, but equal and fair taxation and consideration for all is. Religious affiliation is not an issue, but the freedom to worship and be free from religion altogether is. Individuals are free to be racists and/or chauvinists, religious or atheists, but they are not free to expect others to adhere to their own brand of thinking. There is nothing wrong with being rich and being poor is often based on one’s own decision-making; being rich because of special consideration and being poor because of unfair practices is wrong. The creation of a system which allows tax-loopholes and subsidies for the rich while not taxing those who are poor and allowing the irresponsible use of welfare is an important issue. The important political issues are those that have a bearing on us a citizens rather than individuals. The pathetic condition of our education system, the deficit created by governmental spending, infrastructure, and personal freedoms are all important political issues. More to the point: the degradation of the American education system by lowered standards and the inclusion of personal religious beliefs is an important issue. Intelligent design is doing nothing less than expecting special consideration. Special consideration given to anyone on the basis of color, gender, belief or economic status undermines the concept of equal consideration for all, an understood foundation of the politics of this country, and is an important issue.

There are important issues but these seem to be forgotten, hidden under personal desires and selfish want, whether that is religious, race, gender, economic status or sexual orientation. These are specific problems that are not necessarily issues. Religion becomes an issue when it defines a politic, such as the Republican platform has been defined by the religious right in recent years. The Democratic party, on the other hand defines itself on the unreal platform of equality for all. None of us are equal; rather there ought to be equal consideration. If a politician is blatantly racist or chauvinistic (against black or white people, men or women), then that is an issue because he/she is in a position to make personal issues into national ones. These are personal issues rather than political ones, however. The one issue that plagues our nation currently is that many voters vote not out of intelligent consideration for issues that affect the nation, but out of selfish and ignorant desires that concern them as individual alone rather than a nation as a whole. As individuals, we must think about our nation, and as a nation, we must continually hold the individual as important. Otherwise, we will continually have the meaningless banter, and useless discussions that we have had for the past decades if not centuries.

America the Religious

2008-10-13T20:29:00.000-07:00

I am an atheist, and as such I would like, as a citizen of the United States, the freedom to live my life as such. The freedom to live in the United States as an atheist seems a simple proposition. But, the role of religious belief is ingrained in the people of this country, and has been so ingrained since its inception. Religion, in all its forms, has the unfortunate and innate characteristic of striving to be, motivated to become, universally accepted not by the few or the many, but by all. Religious people, no matter what many religious persons may claim, desire for their personal religion to become mandated universally. Many religious people, if not most, make the claim that America is founded on Christian values and the Christian faith. The truth of the matter is that Christian values and the Christian faith have not been the foundation of, but the thorn in the side of this nation’s history.

The founders were not creating a Christian nation. Rather they were appeasing several minorities of Christian cults, and theocratic outcroppings that were to become states. Article 6, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States reads: “Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This article is an appeasement of many different and many times radical factions of Christians who were hell-bent on assuring their personal desires and attempts at political power were not overlooked and forgotten (as the founders would have liked). While many religious pundits (and idiots) claim that religion is “losing ground” to the heathens and the hellbound, the fact is that religious tests are required as a Qualification to [most offices and public Trusts] under the United States.” The chance of I or any other atheist being elected to an office has the same chance as an ice cube in hell, the demise of an atheist’s career in politics starting with their refusal to acknowledge the Christian God in the oath of office itself.

The 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.”, the important clause for the sake of this essay being “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Even the “devil himself” cannot stretch an interpretation of this clause to include “except for the Christian religion”. However, there has been an “establishment of religion” by this [the Bush] administration in the form of a vague and equivocal title “faith-based initiative”. As an atheist, and given the context in which this title is offered, “faith” can be none other than religious faith. In fact, according to the Bush Whitehouse:

“Faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs) have a long tradition of helping Americans in need and together represent an integral part of our nation’s social service network. Yet, all too often, the Federal government has put in place complicated rules and regulations preventing FBCOs from competing for funds on an equal footing with other organizations. President Bush believes that besides being inherently unfair, such an approach can waste tax-payer dollars and cut off the poor from successful programs. Federal funds should be awarded to the most effective organizations—whether public or private, large or small, faith-based or secular—and all must be allowed to compete on a level playing field. (italics mine)”
-http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/president-initiative.html

The “complicated rules and regulations” are based on, if not the actual, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States. While Bush claims to be putting faith-based community organizations (a euphemism for “churches”) on equal footing, what he does not realize is that our two most “sacred” political documents, those which establish the legal foundation of this country, already do just that by disallowing any one religion to be established or given special political rights.

No where in the legal documents upon which this “Christian” nation is founded upon, at any time, any place, is the word “God” mentioned outright. As Christian-motivated people, our founders would have, it would seem, mentioned the creator of the universe as being inherent and important in the creation of this nation. However, that does not seem to be the case. Allusions to a creator, yes; but never a Christian, a fundamental Baptist, Calvin, Puritan, Wicca, Catholic etc… creator is alluded to. Again it seems much more plausible that the founders of the United States were appeasing numerous groups of religious whiners than it does that they were motivated by their own beliefs, many of which were deistic at best. Yet, some two-hundred and fifty years later, this nation is still contending with the same sort of religious minds that cannot and will not cease and desist until every last person succumbs to their “true religion”. What we experience with the different sects and cults of Christianity today are not much different than what the founders were contending with in the creation of “God’s own land”.

In Susan Jacoby’s new book, Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, she states that “The assertion that America was founded as a Christian nation would have some validity if-only if, in the view of some right-wing extremists-the nation had remained a group of loosely linked states, forever free to continue the theocratic arrangements of the past.” This is precisely what the founders of this nation did not want. They did not want this because such factions do not unite, but rather they divide. In other words, religion is divisive not unifying. This is no more clear than today’s political environment. We, as a people, may disagree on taxes, welfare, and health care, but we can have rational discussions concerning these things. We are not divided on political issues in this country, but on ideological issues: primarily of religious nature. It is an unfortunate fact that people are generally narrow-minded and in politics this is no more apparent than when we hear of women voting for John McCain because he has a female counterpart, or black people voting for Barrack Obama because he is black. This is a problem, based in ignorance and short-sightedness. These are not political issues, but personal. However, the issue of religion is a political issues and has been since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were being squared away. I, as an atheist, will never vote Republican as long as the Republican party is neatly tied and tucked away under the right-wing of the religious communities of this country. Make no mistake, it is a political division, not an economic division that this country faces.

The United States of America is a religious nation, but is in no way founded on religious principles. Rather, it is founded on principles of individual freedoms. In claiming that this is a religious nation, religious people are not furthering but rather limiting those freedoms. Religious groups and communities of this nation desire nothing less than full submission to their ideals and ideologies. That motivation leads them to forever attack the very basis’ of this nation as stated in its founding legal documents. No amount of finagling or interpretation of these documents will change that historic fact (as backed up by letters, papers, and personal correspondences of our founding fathers). Religious minds are ruthless in their attack on truth. Truth has always been and will always be secondary to the desires of “God”, interpreted by the religious mind to be synonymous with its own desire.

The Political War of Religion (notes from Intelligent Design #2)

2008-10-06T20:43:00.000-07:00

Religious intrusion into politics is nothing new. For over 600 years, the Catholic Church ruled over the conglomeration of countries now known as Europe. In the Middle East today, into the distant past, the current unrest is nothing more than a battle of religious ideologies and their desire for political power. These ideological battles for political power have often been defined as political battles in the name of religion, but if history is to be used as a gauge, these are battles for the sake of religion. It is (and continues to be) ideology that defines the politician by many voters in many countries, just as it was the Catholic Church that defined western Europe for so many years. Politics is a power-based endeavor, and it is power that religions need in order to fulfill their particular and clear-cut goals. In the current political farce for the presidency, a great percentage of the U.S.A is voting based on religious ideology rather than political issues. To those religiously minded voters, there is only one issue: their own religious viewpoints, and their personal desire to make these viewpoints law.

Since the inception of the Constitution, and before, it has been the nationalization of the doctrine of Christianity that has been the goal for a small but vocal minority of this country. They have continually tried to position their religious opinions as being political facts; their intentions are to try to somehow justify their ideology in order to gain political access by gaining public respect, if not voluntarily then by force. This idea of constituents of a nation promoting religious doctrines is nothing new: it is commonly known as manifest destiny if it is an action aimed at a foreign country (such as Iraq), and it is known as a form of theocratic motivation if it is done within one’s own country (such as the United States or any one of the middle-eastern countries). However, good governments by definition are not supposed to be the puppets of any ideological belief. Rather, they are to be bodies of officials that organize and administrate societies in a fair and impartial way. No religion is impartial, and no religion seriously desires a good government. Rather, they want one that is conducive to their particular religious goals.

One of the most ubiquitous arguments is that the USA is a Christian nation, but it was not set up to be such by the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote of “building a wall of separation between church and state” in a letter to a Baptist church. Furthermore, the United States Bill of Rights clearly makes the separation between church and state the intentions of the founding fathers in two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. This being so, many theologians continue to argue that because many of the founding fathers were Christian, it was their purpose and hope that the USA would be a Christian nation. While it may be true that many founders of the United States were Christian, it does not necessarily follow that their purpose and hope was to create a theocracy. This is dubious reasoning given that it was freedom from religion that they were in part trying to establish in founding the United States in the first place. But, for the sake of argument, given that the founding fathers were mostly Christian and wanted the USA to be a Christian nation, such a nation is not necessarily the best kind. As I stated in ID 2: The Political War of Religion, there are at least three reasons that this is so.

“Even given that the founding fathers were “mostly Christian” and wanted the USA to be a Christian nation, it is not necessarily the best thing for any nation to become a theocracy. First, theocracies are intolerant of other nations and peoples which have different belief systems. This has been and continues to be a leading cause of the downfall of nations and wars across the globe. Secondly, theocracies are authoritarian. Authoritarian governments do not allow for the questioning of their authority, but rather expect that its authority be accepted unconditionally. This leads to political corruption, the slow degradation of social faith in the government, and the eventual downfall of those societies. Without the ability to decide, question and choose autonomously, societies deteriorate. Thirdly, theocracies tend to be dogmatic in their belief that God has condoned their existence. Manifest destiny has been used to justify unjustifiable acts of war as well as unjustifiable acts against the societies that are governed by theocracies. Even if the founding fathers were mostly Christian and desired the American government to be theocratic by nature, it is surely not a good decision to do so.”

Religious voters are not simply irrational, but have a clear and concise goal that they want achieved. As Bruce Chapman, an ID adherent was quoted as saying in regard to the Discovery Institute’s actions: “We are not going through this exercise [condoning ID] for the fun of it. We think some of these ideas are destined to change the intellectual-and in time the political-world (emphasis added).” Religious voters are not going through the exercise of political manipulation “for the fun of it”. People who vote solely based on their personal beliefs alone, rather than the full range of issues believe that their flavor of religion ought to be the reigning political foundation for this country. These people are nothing less than irresponsible, narrow-minded, selfish, and often dangerous if allowed to steer the reigns of politics. Given the dubious motivations, both moral and intellectual, of religion and religious motivation, and the seemingly inevitable consequences of theocratic governments, it would seem to be in the best interest of every individual if religion was unconditionally refused access to political power of any kind. Some adherents of religion argue that this is disregards their rights as individuals, but it does not. As individuals they are free to worship if they choose, but they do not have the right to make worship the law of the land. Faith in one’s religion is a right that the religious have but it does not give them the right, nor does it make it the ethical choice, to politicize any belief system, as has the recent actions by rogue preachers have tried. The efforts of religious people to erase all separation between church and state are based on nothing more than emotional desire and ignorance if not outright stupidity: none of which are the basis of a healthy country.

While it is true that everyone in a free society ought to have the right to vote, it is not true that everyone should have that right regardless. Religious political efforts by both churches and religious individuals are nothing more than a thin disguise for their true goal: to gain political (and hence ideological) power in order to further their own, personal beliefs. Churches, if they are to regard one politician over another, as an entity, need to be taxed as an entity. It is incredible that this country continues to allow churches to continue to be tax-free for no other reason than an antiquated and ridiculous belief that all religion is to be “respected”. Furthermore, if persons (religious or not) cannot differentiate emotional from intellectual reasoning, than perhaps an IQ test should be given to all people who would register to vote. Otherwise, this country becomes nothing more than the political product of the ignorant and incompetent.

From the Beginning

2008-09-29T19:56:00.000-07:00

From the beginning we are stripped of our freedom because we are only able to “take in” what is given to us. Life becomes a process of regaining that freedom, or giving up that it is recoupable at all. From our government that claims that we are to be responsible when things are bad, and claims all the credit when things are going good, to our parents who often have us to give purpose to their life (to define freedom for themselves) and at the same time take freedom from us by living our lives for us. From the beginning, almost ubiquitously throughout all cultures, there is religion and religious belief. Most often we are handed our religion by our parents, our culture, and sometimes our government, often all of the above. But, the religion that surrounds us claims that it alone gives us the only freedom that is necessary while at the same time demanding absolute slavery to its promises. From the beginning, we must define freedom for ourselves, or have it defined for us by our government, our parents, and most often by the smiling wolves called priests, preachers and pastors. We must define this freedom or never know the taste of being free.

Freedom is dangerous to governments, it is a source of fear to parents, and it is a thing to be controlled to religions. Freedom is to be defined for us by others, rather than being defined by us, according to most who have a stake in keeping us docile, dumb, and apathetic. Often, independence is considered synonymous with freedom, but it is not. One must first be independent before one can be free. So to define freedom means to define independence. Independence is a choice; it is a conscious decision to consider possibilities while at the same time differentiating them from the opinions of others. To do this will allow us to be free. Whether it is our political leaders, our parents or any power pundit interested in stripping others of their freedom in order to gain power for themselves, or it is religious leaders warning us of the dangers that freedom leads us into, we must both consider them and be willing to dismiss them. Independence cannot be defined by rebellion; it cannot be defined by differentiation from others or any other teenage act of defiance that unfortunately never ends with the teenage years. Independence must be defined by self through rational consideration and the willingness to accept consequences and answers whatever they may be.

Freedom also demands that anyone who claims it never defines it through one precept, one factor, on act, one idea, or one viewpoint. Freedom demands change, never-ending and constantly evolving change. No one is ever constantly free. Rather freedom comes in waves much like the friendships that we make throughout life. Freedom is not a thing to be had, but a process of realization, but from the beginning we are taught by those who have never experienced freedom that it is a natural state of affairs. These people, most, are lost because they define freedom as dependence: dependence on others, on country, on state, on family, children, on science and worst of all on religion, or they are simply liars. Dependence cannot be used to define freedom: this is why modern welfare, in order to free the impoverished from their poverty can never work. Welfare comes in many forms because we are impoverished from the beginning by others, by our expectations, by those who would enslave us to insure our dependence upon them: because they define freedom as dependence upon others. Freedom comes at a price one which most are not willing to pay: responsibility for self.

From the beginning we are not given the tools of independent thought. Rather we are given the drugs called acceptance, altruism, responsibility to others, blind faith and the destruction of objective reality in order to define it as wishful thinking, emotional appeal, and desire. Our governments define our thoughts as nationalism or patriotism. Our parents define our thoughts as their wishes, their desires, their need to procreate and their need to be depended upon. Religion simply defines our thoughts out of fear and ignorance, both its own and ours. The tools of independent thought, and hence the road to our own individual freedom lies in the ability to think rationally, to decipher wishful thinking from reality, to realize that emotional appeal is empty of meaning, and that our desires are nothing but our own hopes. Freedom demands conscious decision-making and clear, rational thought. Freedom demands the acceptance of objective reality.

From the beginning freedom is hard to come by and most do not or will not do the work to become free. Instead, easy ways out are taken. Acceptance or rebellion becomes the cornerstone of who we are. Acceptance is easy because it only calls for one being pliable. Rebellion is easy because it can come in the form of a haircut or a tattoo, or a $40,000 dollar motorcycle with embroidered leather chaps. Acceptance and rebellion are both empty of independence and freedom because they are emotional reactions rather than conscious decisions. Emotional reactions come naturally, conscious decisions do not. We cannot be held responsible our accountable for being human, for being a man or a women; we cannot be held responsible for the color of our skin, or where we are born. We can be held responsible for what we decide to do with the circumstances, the reality that we find ourselves in. This is not easy, and so most do not make the conscious decisions that it takes to be independent and thus free: they remain enslaved while holding the key to their self-imposed prison.

From the beginning we rely upon rather than consider; we depend upon rather than become independent; we seem not to want our freedom, but desire to consider ourselves free without any consideration whatsoever. From the beginning our lives are often defined for us and we, being dependent upon and desirous of wanting reality to adhere to our wishes, accept those definitions because it is easy to say “I am free” while it is one of the most difficult things to actually be free. We depend on our words while at the same time stripping them of any meaning. Our freedom, from the beginning is misconstrued and tortured into a meaningless pulp of wishful thinking, empty beliefs, and accepted rebellion. It is a prisoner of comfort and security, of normality and rebellion, of the ability of faith to define truth. We must remember that words do not make us free, but our independence from them is a sure start to a long trip from the beginning.

Intelligent Design: Not Even Wrong (from the collection)

2008-09-23T19:35:00.000-07:00

Intelligent design (ID) is an antiquated hypothesis that has been given a new sheen of hope by many theologians, particularly Phillip Johnson and William Dembski. Their organization, called the Discovery Institute, has rejuvenated the creation myth that is shared by so many religions, but tries to market it as a scientific theory. Earlier incarnations of intelligent design include creation science, flood geology, and simply creationism. Advocates of intelligent design again, like many of their religious predecessors, claim that theirs is truly a scientific theory. This is simply not the case and has never has been the case. The difference between intelligent design (ID) and earlier forms of the creation myth is that its adherents are not taking on a battle concerning science, but rather a political battle to redefine science in order to allow their religious views to be taught as science.

Johnson and Dembski are religious men who are presumably extremely knowledgeable about their respective fields. Johnson is a lawyer and Dembski is a mathematician. But, they are not biologists in any sense. Furthermore, they are not relying upon their respective knowledge fields in their incessant insistence concerning ID: they are relying hope, and their subsequent faith, but are using their fields of knowledge to gain access to legal foundations in order to create unfounded rhetoric in defense of an unfounded hypothesis. These men are intelligent, but they are also acting deceptively. They are both deceiving themselves and those religious adherents that have the same hope as they do: that there is in fact a god and that god is the Christian god. What they are doing is nothing more than a smear campaign steeped in deception, denial and deceit. They are aware of what they are doing, but are either blinded by their faith, or blinded by pride, religious obsession, or perhaps even hope. In any case, these men are not good men because they are capable of understanding the difference between true theories and hypotheses but have decided to try to shed doubt on that difference for the sake of their personal hopes and misconstrued faith.

The creation myth can be found in ancient religions such as Hinduism. But, in the west, Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle proposed it. Plato was primarily a philosopher, but Aristotle’s interests evolved into the early sciences. Aristotle was most likely an honest scientist, proposing the concept of creationism in his Metaphysics. There, he introduced what he called the “unmoved mover”, a concept that he used to describe a first cause of the universe. Aristotle’s concept of an “unmoved mover” has through time evolved into what is now considered creationism by Christianity. Aristotle came to his conclusion concerning an “unmoved mover” through valid reasoning rather than emotional pleas and empty rhetoric such as is used by adherents of ID. Until recently the likes of Duane Gish and Henry Morris were good examples of the spearheads of creationism. Their propositions were easily and quickly recognized as the ramblings of the fanatically religious, and were discounted as such even by many thinking religious peoples. The constant quoting of the bible as well as the twisting of second grade science was easily recognizable and deemed not worthy of serious discussion by intelligent people. In short, Gish and Morris as well as others who proposed such preposterous hypotheses were not taken seriously by the scientific community. This problem was recognized by modern creationists.

The Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture is the latest organized promoter of creationism under its new guise: Intelligent Design. Their plan of action: to force ID into the schools and into public and scientific communities by using what they call “The Wedge”. According to Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross, in their book Creationism’s Trojan Horse, it is through relentless “energetic programs of publication, conferences, and public appearances, all aimed at impressing the lay audiences and political people, [that] the Wedge is working its way into the American cultural mainstream.” The Discovery Institute’s purpose is not scientific, but theocratic. It has yet, in fact, to offer any scientifically valid arguments for its claims. It claims that it is promoting a scientific theory that disproves evolution while at the same time proving that the universe was created by an intelligent designer, similar to William Paley’s watchmaker argument. The difference between Paley and the current ilk of ID’ers is honesty: Paley did not hide the fact that he was arguing for a religious proposition. However, The Discovery Institute, and similar organizations that have since followed their lead, are completely dishonest because while they are arguing for a religious proposition they hide that fact by calling it a scientific theory, which it is not. In fact, Phillip Johnson said as much in a religious conference in 1999. The objective, he said, is to “convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to “the truth” of the bible and then “the question of sin” and finally ‘introduced to Jesus’”.

Johnson, a lawyer by trade and the founder of the current ID hypothesis, is using a fallacy commonly known in logic as a Red Herring. In short, while he claims that it is the purpose of the Discovery Institute to introduce new science, the truth is that the Discovery Institute is simply a guise to introduce religion into public schools and to discredit good science by redefining it to include creationism. Because the politicizing and legalization of Christianity is its true purpose, Johnson must steer critics away from the real argument (creationism vs. evolution) and lead them to another argument that has nothing to do with his true purpose (the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God). Johnson’s dodge is well played, however, because the Discovery Institute has (in actuality) no research supporting its claim of intelligent design (more on this later) making it impossible for Johnson to back up his claim that ID is a scientific theory. Johnson must rely upon ignorance and dishonesty because to rely upon intelligence and honest critique would be a deathblow to ID.

Religion has relied upon fallacies in the past, and so this should not be any surprise to anyone who is familiar with religious history. For example, religion has relied upon the fallacy of force, false dilemmas, fear, ignorance, pity and many more to promote its two-part agenda: to convert people who do not believe its tenants and to regain political control and hence social power. “The Wedge” plan of those who support ID is simply the newest lie proposed by religious proponents to achieve their goals. It is truly heinous because it is promoted dishonestly by intelligent people who ought to know better. While they ought to know better, they choose to be deceitful and dishonest for the sake of their beliefs, hopes and desires. While ID is the newest variation of religious creationism, the use of lies and deceit is nothing new to religion.

The Republicans: More on the New Politic

2008-09-15T20:30:00.000-07:00

The Republicans
In The New Politic I claim that the “Republicans are nothing more than mean-spirited, religious fanatics who prefer gated communities locking out undesirables and any real answers to the real problems of our society; hypocrites and thieves who have what they want and adhere to their own new world order defined their own selfish motivation: whatever helps them and theirs. Created out of anti-slave activists it now is defined by moral-slave adherents: the religious right and evangelicals of the Christian cult.” The irony does not end there however. They promote brainwashing the nation, the idea that educating the public is simply another capital investment to be made by anyone who has enough money and the “correct” moral drive. The Republican Party is nothing more than a new American monarchy that preaches individual freedoms while defining those freedoms as a commodity that can be bought and sold by the highest bidder. This is possible to the Republican because God sanctions morality with riches while condemning immorality with poverty. The new Republican ideal is nothing more than a religiously defined morality coupled with welfare and tax breaks for the rich.

Ronald Reagan ripped off the solar panels installed on the Whitehouse by Jimmy Carter, and dismissed all subsidies for alternative fuels such as wind and solar. Now those technologies are huge exports from countries such as Denmark and Japan. This was nothing more than a spiteful move by a narrow-minded individual that defined his morality through his even more narrow gauge of politics. George Bush Sr. claimed that atheists have no rights as citizens of the U.S.A. in essence defining what was before assumed to be a secular and free society as a totalitarian theocracy. This was nothing more than what is at the foundation of all Republican morality: believe as we do or be damned. George W. Bush claims that God meant for him to be president of the United States and that there is a divine plan that he is following. This evidently includes what amounts to the illegal and immoral war that the Bush administration took upon itself to wage against Iraq based on what they have themselves described as questionable proof and vague premises. This sort of stupidity can only come about from defining rationality as wishful thinking.

There is no secret that the Republican Party has been taken under the religious right’s wing, and has accepted their role as the party supported by God. But, not just any god: the Christian God as defined by two cults: the Catholics and Protestants. In the past twenty years or more, Republican politicians have waged war against science, against any chance of quality education and against individual freedoms from religion. Furthermore, they propose individual freedoms. These two stances do not stand together. Rather, they are completely contradictory. It is not possible to have a society of free individuals while at the same time legalizing a certain religious belief, i.e. Christianity. In fact, religious viewpoints have all but become the defining aspect of the Republican Party. Republican definitions of “individuality” evidently only include those that are based on being a gift from God. The continued dependence on religious “morality” is only possible because of the Republican’s continued dependence on the credulity of the general public.

While they tout individual freedoms they continue to destroy the means to achieve it: freewill and personal choice. Freewill and choice become “gifts from God”, but not any God especially not the Islamic God. Freewill is God’s will (to the Republican) and God’s will is only able to be interpreted by the wealthy (evidently). The Republican does not want people to have true freewill, vying instead for the façade of freewill. True freewill leads only to questions, and questions to rational thought. It is not a rational nation that the Republicans want. Rather, they want sheep, they want followers, they want those who never question authority, and they want those who accept certain beliefs on no warranted premises. The Republican does not want intelligence under any circumstances. Faith is the goal of the Republican: faith in their nation and faith in their God.

While they claim equal opportunity, berating the Democrats for driving us all towards a socialist regime, they continually adhere to what amounts to corporate welfare. The Republican Party hides behind the auspice of individuality while privately holding that individual freedoms are commodities that that can be bought and sold to the few that can afford them. This sort of economic basis is nothing more than the very welfare systems the Republican Party claims to be fighting. There are three aspects that make up the pathetic shell that the Republican Party has become: religion, fear and special privileges. With fear they create fanatic nationalistic fervor and with special privileges they create a special class of what seems to be considered ultra-moral and authoritarian class of the wealthy. While the Democrats carry the dying torch of altruism, the Republicans carry the flaming torch of hypocrisy. Equal opportunity is nothing more than class favoritism based on economic standing.

The recipe for Republicanism stands as follows: 1) redefine terms to fit ideology. 2) Make ideology a legal doctrine to ensure consistent and unquestioned acceptance. 3) Give the power of defining law to a special class. 4) Mix well until confusion sets in. 5) Half-bake until rationality is no more. The Republican Party, driven by its blind faith in tradition in all its forms, is nothing more than the party of hypocrites with the money to legalize their hypocrisy. Make no mistake, the Republican Party does not stand for equal opportunity, it does not tout personal responsibility, and it does not give a damn about anyone but those with the money to prove their moral standing. The Republican Party is the party of the wealthy Christians that expect nothing less than total and absolute abjection by everyone in “God’s land”.

The Democrats: More on the New Politic

2008-09-08T09:02:00.000-07:00

“POVERTY IS NOT A MORTGAGE ON THE LABOR OF OTHERS-MISFORTUNE IS NOT A MORTGAGE ON ACHIEVEMENT-FAILURE IS NOT A MORTGAGE ON SUCCESS-SUFFERING IS NOT A CLAIM CHECK, AND ITS RELIEF IS NOT THE GOAL OF EXISTENCE-MAN IS NOT A SACRIFICIAL ANIMAL ON ANYONE’S ALTAR OR FOR ANYONE’S CAUSE-LIFE IS NOT ONE HUGE HOSPITAL.” -AYN RAND

In The New Politic, I defined what the Democratic party has become in a particular way and I will repeat it here:
The Democrats: a listless bunch of duck-eyed, new-age altruists and psychologists that see the world in terms of a new order that will never work. The party is no longer the invention of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison but has now been reinvented by “victims” and psychologists. Its “victims” inevitably include those that hold the belief that society owes them something, sorry-eyed with their hands out for a “donation”. Angry “feminists” who cannot see that they are guilty of the very act that they blame men; to them retribution is never enough. Only revenge and total absolution can quench their selfish demands. Minorities rush into the wide-open democratic house passing the welcome arms of the glazed-eyed therapists who defend the moral of it with their meaningless claptrap. “We owe the poor and the downtrodden…” goes their mantra while the basis of personal responsibility is eroded away. The Democratic Party is no more than the “something for nothing” politic which is both immoral and impossible. But it is this very attitude that those hazed and confused constituents adhere to: there has to be a way and it is “our” responsibility to help everyone no matter that cost, moral or economic.

So what is the invention of Thomas Jefferson and James Maddison? According to one site (answers.com):
Jefferson, Madison, Burr, and Clinton began their party as an organized opposition to the politics of Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton and his supporters favored a strong central government, debt, credit, banking, and trade policies to further commercial and manufacturing interests, an expanded military and naval budget, and a conciliatory policy toward Great Britain. The Jeffersonian "Republicans" as they were then known, favored minimalist government, retirement of the national debt, no favoritism for banks or for manufacturing enterprises, and discriminatory trade policies that would favor France over Britain. The Jeffersonians conceived that they could make America's agricultural exports into a potent instrument of diplomacy. Jefferson, Madison, and Albert Gallatin, the ablest political economist among them, disdained military and naval expenditure as inherently wasteful and corrupting in peacetime.
I cannot find in this particular definition any reference to much of the edicts of the new Democratic party except for a few things. First, the Democratic party seems to adhere to the idea that there should be no favoritism for “banks or for manufacturing enterprises. And second, that military expenditures are wasteful during peacetime. But even these two similarities are negated when one thinks of how the new Democratic party has aligned itself with what is commonly called “the needs of the masses”. Jefferson and Madison, in enacting the Democratic party were, in fact, reacting to the idea of Monarchial government, claiming that such governments were immoral and unwarranted as well as unfair to all. This idea is perhaps where the new Democratic Party has gotten its idea of being the “party of the people”. If that is the case, I would venture to say that “the people” include those who put in an effort, that do not expect help but are thankful when they receive it, that do not ask for handouts without the intent purpose of paying back their debtors. The “needs of the masses” are not necessarily the needs of all. This is a point that has evidently been missed by the talking heads of the new Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party is no longer against favoritism but has now become the party of favoritism, no different than the Republican party in this respect. The new Democratic party favors anyone who is not connected with a successful business, who cannot or will not be responsible for themselves, who will not take it upon themselves to better their own lives, who finds blame for their abysmal life in any scapegoat as long as it is not themselves. Success is somehow immoral, and failure is somehow the fault of the successful. The Democratic Party is the playtoy of sociologists and psychologists who create scenarios from the ghettos and the failures to warrant their ridiculous theories that it is the sole fault of the successful that the unsuccessful are thus. Instead of offering answers to the very real problems that the American society has, they find fault with and blame the very ones that have it in their power to change any society for the better. The Democrats favor what they allude to as “victims” and expect altruistic attitudes from any and all successful persons. It is the expectation that creates favoritism for parasites of society.
Such expectation would not be possible without the warrant of two specific groups which have ties to one particular belief. The first group is the social workers who coddle, the sociologists who conjure, and the psychologists who call up secret meaning in those who cannot find it in themselves to think as individuals and to act on the rational and intelligent reasoning rather than emotional desires and wishful thinking. These “socially minded” groups are far from socially minded. Society to them is a thing that must adhere to, that must gather up even the most irresponsible, the most irrational and the most reckless of the human race even at the cost of ruination of the whole. The second group is the mystics, the religious, who explain away, who cover with fog, and create meaningless jargon to hide the fact that what they adhere to is really nonsense with no positive purpose. These mystically minded are intent on finding a “higher meaning” to explain that negates any and all rational grounds for believing in any empirical reality. The one group acts on the beliefs of the other.
Lastly, the Democratic Party has taken under its wings those who propose that equal consideration is synonymous with equality. First, it is no secret that in America the white man has ruled, often irresponsibly and repeatedly unfairly. It is no secret that women earn (for no rational reason) less than their male counterparts. It is far from surreptitious that minorities have been dismissed and disenfranchised on the basis of fear and completely meaningless grounds. This has truly been a white man’s nation, and as such equal consideration has not been the basis of employment or opportunity. Rather, the white male business environment has created a situation in which they have special privileges over all others and as such as dismissed the idea of equal opportunity. The reaction to the white business world has been warranted but the expectations from the white business world by the disenfranchised and segregated is completely bogus. What is being demanded by those that have been wrongly treated is not equal consideration, but precisely the same thing that they have been fighting against: special consideration. Instead of fighting against special privileges and interest groups they have become expectant of special privileges and defined as interest groups. This is not Democratic in any form. These attitudes are precisely what Jefferson and Madison were fighting against.
Politics have become an arena for social voices and wishful thinking rather than political theories for basing the actions and the definition of a country. Rather than trade policies and budgets politics on all sides have become a podium for every group made up of sniveling and expectant persons who refuse to take responsibility for themselves. Politics has become defined not by justice but by mystics. Politics is now expected to define itself not by the relationship of countries but by the relationship of society to every needful group that it contains. The Democratic Party once stood for equal opportunity for all, but now tries to define itself, with the help of meaningless mystics and whiners of all ilk, as the party of universal equality. The choice would be clear if individuals truly had a choice. But the “choice” we are offered is an illusion. The choice is nothing more than which special interest group, which psychologist, and which meaningless mystic we are to have. The Republican Party is nothing more than the Democratic Party turned on its head. As for the Democratic Party, there is never enough and there is always an answer as long as it does not call for personal responsibility by each and every individual.

The New Politic

2008-09-01T13:55:00.001-07:00

“Hatred for reason is hatred for intelligence.” -Ayn Rand

The Democratic and Republican Party Conventions have been the focal point of much of American media these days…but why? Given that the media adheres to public want why do these fake forays that appeal to emotional faith, that ask for glamour and glitz to be the focal points, that rely not on understanding but on rage, tears and personal tastes mean so much to so many? The dichotomy of American politics is a meaningless split, but the underlying factions that clammer around the glamour and glitz is not meaningless: it defines the American social and political landscape. That is to say, we as a society become defined by whatever emotional plea wins out. The other side is no better. Their claim is based on what they define as “freedom” which has nothing to do with individuality or human dignity. They rage about the necessity of moral distinctions being based on an immoral and absolute system of laws that are both meaningless and detrimental, or about short-sighted capitalism defined not by free trade but by giving the good ol’ boys the upper hand and disregarding the rest. Emotional pleas are pathetic enough but defining a country by emotionally charged factions is downright idiotic.
The Democrats: having become a listless bunch of duck-eyed, new-age altruists and psychologists see the world in terms of a new order that will never work. The party is no longer the invention of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, individualism and rational thought, but has now been reinvented by “victims” and psychologists. Its “victims” inevitably include those that hold the belief that society owes them something, sorry-eyed with their hands out for a “donation”. Angry special interest groups who cannot see that they are guilty of acting in the very way that they claim is unjust; to them retribution is never enough. Only revenge and total absolution can quench their selfish demands. "Victims" of all ilk rush into the wide-open democratic house passing the welcome arms of the glazed-eyed therapists who defend the moral of it with their meaningless claptrap. “We owe the poor and the downtrodden…” goes their mantra while the basis of personal responsibility is eroded away. The Democratic Party is no more than the “something for nothing” politic which is both immoral and impossible. But it is this very attitude that those hazed and confused constituents adhere to: there has to be a way and it is “our” responsibility to help everyone no matter that cost, moral or economic.
The Republicans: mean-spirited, religious fanatics who prefer gated communities locking out undesirables and any real answers to the real problems of our society; hypocrites and thieves who have what they want and adhere to their own new world order defined their own selfish motivation: whatever helps them and theirs. Created out of anti-slave activists it now is defined by moral-slave adherents: the religious right and evangelicals of the Christian cult. The irony does not end there however. They promote brainwashing the nation, the idea that educating the public is simply another capital investment to be made by anyone who has enough money and Christian drive. Being over-run by multi-billionaires and corporate interests, it is in their best interest to keep the public ignorant and enslaved. The Republican Party is nothing more than a new American monarchy that preaches individual freedoms while defining those freedoms as a commodity that can be bought and sold by the highest bidder. Money and religion run free in the Republican household because God sanctions the morality of the rich while condemning the poverty of the others. The new Republican is nothing more than a moronic call for religious morality coupled with corporate welfare and tax breaks for the rich.
The Democratic and Republican party is not the new politic in which America finds itself. The gash between the parties is evident but the no-man’s land is not simply fine line: it is a large expanse filled with apathy and ignorance. The new politic is not defined by the emotionally charged and the blindly dogmatic as it would seem to be. Neither is the new politic defined by the mass of Americans: they don’t even bother to vote. The new politic is a blind machine fueled by emotion and led by the lost. The new politic is no longer simply political, it is moral, it is personal, it is driven by the desires of each and every one of us and no one all at the same time. Because most of the public defines and accepts its morality by nothing more than tradition or by what it has been taught by either parents or politicians it is unconsciously willing to follow anything or anyone that it perceives to be an authority. It does not have the ability to critically analyze nor does it have the capacity to understand that it is being bamboozled which is why apathy is the only alternative. But apathy is no better than acceptance of anything over nothing.
There is no conspiracy here, other than that of the religious wish to overtake the world (one which is as old as religion itself). There are two machines at work here: selfish short-sighted desire and massive apathy. The new politic is a recipe for disaster because of these two systems. First, it is impossible to come to any universal moral ideal given that the motivation is a selfish one. By its very nature, morality is a compromise between freedom, law and understanding. Without law we are incapable of being free. Freedom, in terms of humanity, is not defined by the simple law of nature. Human freedom is defined by the protections that we create (laws) and the understanding that the freedom we desire is only accessible by accepting those laws. If we cannot understand these concepts we cannot follow the laws set forth and therefore cannot act in any moral fashion. We must first understand, then create, then accept. None of this is possible as long as the leaders of this nation turn to the extreme factions, as long as they bow before selfish and self-centered screamers of individual rights defined as whatever special interest the loudest mouth may have. None of this is possible as long as the mass of Americans are either too apathetic or too ignorant to bother get involved by thinking for themselves.
In order for a great concept such as the United States of America to work, individuals must first realize and accept that their personal problems are not the responsibility of the state or the nation. They must realize that simply because they “feel” that certain issues are of utmost importance does not mean that they are of utmost importance. Secondly, all of us need to realize that no authority can define how we ought to think or believe, unless we understand why we ought to think or believe. This is the crux of the religious as well as the political problem. Thirdly, we all need to realize the importance of self-responsibility and the poisonous nature of altruistic laws. We owe nothing to anyone, but we cannot expect to be owed anything simply on the basis of our existence. Finally without intellect we are lost. Without the ability and motivation to think critically about our own moral distinctions as well as that of others, we have only one law to fall back on: the law of nature. The new politic is full of posers and pedants. It is choking with personal fervor and self-importance. It is drowning in its own self-importance and a personal psychology that tries and fails to define any usable morality. The new politic is the new poison: the new drug, the new religion. It is something not to be scoffed at but watched as a prey watches a predator.

“Money for Nothing…” and God for Free!

2008-08-25T11:56:00.000-07:00

For more than 30 years, South Iron R-1 School District permitted Gideons International to distribute Bibles during class time under the supervision of school officials, but revamped its policy as soon as the federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of parents by the American Civil Liberties Union. The new school policy allows the Gideons to hand out Bibles in the cafeteria or in front of administrative offices between classes. The federal district court invalidated both policies.
****
Central Union Mission provides assistance to homeless people but includes worship and other religious activity throughout its services.
Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, “Helping the homeless is certainly laudable, but government officials must not violate basic constitutional mandates in the process. It is wrong for the city to subsidize religious worship and evangelism.”
****
According to the Nashville Tennessean, Davis had appeared on a local radio station July 25 to endorse the candidates (all of whom are members of his church) as a private citizen, which he may do. But during the sermon, he lauded the three, remarking, “They’re all from our church and we want you to get to know them and see what you can do to help them. I want to tell you that I am not allowed to promote a political candidate from the pulpit because of the IRS guidelines…. I’m allowed on a radio station to say I want you to vote for Tony Davis and Robby McGee and Charlie Taylor, but I’m not allowed to say that in our pulpit.”
****
“Allowing pharmacists to put their religious beliefs between doctors and patients is a prescription for disaster,” said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “These regulations are simply designed to make sure that pharmacists do the job they are paid to do.”
The Washington pharmacy board acted after several incidents came to light in Washington and other states of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, emergency contraception and other medications.

****
The Democratic National Convention is convening on Denver this week, and there is already hoopla over the fact that it is being opened with a religious prayer. While Christians in America whine about their religions being trampled on and their rights to believe (do) as they see fit while at the same time claiming tax-exemption they are busy trying to find ways to trample over others rights to be free from any religion. According to NPR, “For the first time ever, Democrats have planned "faith caucus meetings" led by an array of religious and spiritual leaders, including Christians, Muslims and Jews. Democrats want to convince voters that they are putting their faith in action — and show that Republicans haven't cornered the market on family values or faith.” Religion is political; make no mistake about that. While at the same time religious sects openly support politicians and politicians welcome religions into the political folds the freedom that many people want from religion is being chipped away at. If religious organizations want the freedoms to act as a private entity, then they ought to pay the price to do so: pay taxes or stay out of the way.
The Gideon’s are a pathetic group of religiously minded morons who plant bibles in the nation’s motels and hotels. This is fine, if the hotels allow it (which many evidently do). The bibles are meant to be free “gifts” to the guests of the hotel. But to claim the right to pass out bibles to 5th graders during school, at the school is simply a disgrace. They have evidently been doing this for thirty years running. This is simply one example. The Gideon’s are simply another religious propaganda machine and are being allowed to brain-wash children at a public school at the expense of all tax-payers; not just the religious ones.
For years, religions have touted their altruistic motives for helping the homeless while at the same time, they preach and prophecy their cult-ideals to a captured audience of hungry persons. This too, is a pathetic attempt to broaden the greasy reach of religion. It is no secret, and has not been for decades, that the attempt to “help the homeless” is nothing but a ruse to spread the rich of the religious hand. Homeless shelters are simply a branch of the church and nothing else. Food does not change this fact.
Preachers and priests are private citizens that have a right to vote, but to use the pulpit as a place for political grandstanding is nothing less than outright deviation from the idea of being a “non-partisan, a-political entity”. Christians obviously do not understand this given comments, again from the DNC, such as "I think the gospel is political. Its implications are public. It can't be partisan” made by Jim Wallis, founder of faith-based Sojourners magazine. Being “faith-based” comes at the cost of staying out of politics! Bush’s ridiculous rouse for Christianity does not change this fact. If we live in a theocracy, we ought to at least admit it.
Not only are Christians and the Christian religion in general making void basic constitutional understandings (the separation of church and state) but they are taking it upon themselves to make moral decisions for others by such actions as refusing to fill prescriptions. Of course, most Christians will not openly claim that the y are acting as moral police officers, that they have the right to do so, and that that is actually the claim of the Christian religions, but that is precisely what they are doing, what they are claiming and what they believe is their right. What the pharmacists are doing by refusing medication (birth control included) is not different than what those religiously-crazed parents do when they refuse their children medication.
No one except God knows how much money religions rake in, tax-free. While they claim to adhere to the rules and laws of the IRS they blatantly refuse to act according to those laws. Typical of religious rhetoric: talk is very cheap. This, however, cannot come as a surprise because while most claim to warrant tax-exempt status, they also claim that they “answer to a higher power”. The assumption must be that this “higher power” is telling them that it is OK to break laws that are deemed as detrimental to the wants of the millions of church-goers and their so-called leaders. While they add to the crumbling foundation of what could be a great country, they claim that what they are doing is for the good of mankind. Nothing could be further from the truth. What Christians are doing when they break laws and make contradictory claims is acting in their own interest.
I doubt the sincerity of the gideons who are welcomed (!) into schools to hand out bibles to 5th graders. They are not helping anyone by “getting them when they are young”. I doubt the altruism of church-run homeless shelters. They are not feeding the hungry; rather they are harvesting new members and rubbing their own egos. I truly doubt the sincerity of pastors who mention “friends” who happen to be running for public office while those pastors preach religious sermons in a building deemed as a religious house, a house of faith. I have to wonder at the audacity of pharmacists who take it upon themselves to refuse to fill prescriptions, letting their personal beliefs run their professional lives. If they cannot do the job: quit!
Some Claim that Barrack Obama is “playing the religious card” to win votes and nothing else. I find it distasteful and dangerous. He is allowing another volatile mix of politics and religious belief. He is in effect doing the same thing as those examples mentioned above. He is doing the same thing that some 75% of this country is tired of G.W Bush doing: lying. I am an atheist, and if I were to take my atheism into my workplace I would be breaking a personal and public ethical imperative. I simply cannot understand why Christians such as those mentioned above cannot understand this simple imperative. If in fact, Christians want the freedom to voice (religiously) their preferences for political leaders and such, let them pay for the right to do so. As it stands they are getting a free ride, at the cost of all Americans, while claiming that they have the right to pressure politics without paying taxes. Tax every religion! There is no reason why they should get their money for nothing simply because they claim to be given God for free. God ought to come at a price or stay behind the church doors.

Religious Authority

2008-08-18T20:24:00.000-07:00

Human beings have throughout history been more willing to follow their fears in variations of ignorance, stupidity, pride prejudice and power then they have been willing to shed its sticky fingers from their throats and use their ability to think rationally. This is no more apparent than the fact that we talk of the “modern age”, consider ourselves to be civilized and progressive while at the same time continuing to revere backward and detrimental traditions. These traditions are the ones that continue to justify fanatics and power-mongers to promote accepted versions of truths and opinions at the cost of freedom, civil liberties and true progress. Because these versions of truth become antiquated and nonsensical as mankind’s knowledge of the universe expands and grows those that hold such viewpoints attack and try to roll back intellectual progress in order to keep their dead ideas “fresh”. When the fear and ignorance that they have wielded like a sword for centuries in order to continue their power over of society begins to slip away as people become more tolerant and less willing to succumb to blind faith, “Foul!” and “Unfair!” becomes the cry. Instead of reasoned discussion and rational analysis, they rely upon ambiguous rhetoric and disciplined deception. They covet ignorance, incite emotion against intellect, and seed stupidity with surreptitious pseudo-science. Religious authority is no authority at all, but rather the lingering acceptance by the public of backward and detrimental traditions.
“Authority” is often equated with power, with clout, and with the ability to influence, but it must be remembered that there are at least two types of authority: good and bad. Good authority does not misuse its power; it does not rely upon clout to uphold its ability to influence. Good authority relies instead on applicable experience and education; it relies on being consistently correct rather than simply consistently accepted. Religious authority is not good authority. Rather, it is an authority based on nothing more than tradition, convention, and folklore. That someone or something is an authority lies in the merits of justification and ability rather than the mere implication of power or the dispersion of fear. To claim to be authoritative on any subject, to claim to be an authority at all is merely a title of no girth until the justification of that authority can be evaluated by those under that authority. True authority must earn its badge of honor in order to be called such. Religious authority is not such an authority. Historically, all religious prophecy has either been completely wrong or so cloaked in vague language and nonsense as to be rendered meaningless. Religious authority has not been consistently correct, but rather consistently wrong over the period of known human history. Also, the subject matter on which religious leaders claim to be authoritative is at best inconclusive, vaguely defined and contradictory and at worse completely deceptive and overtly dangerous.
Rather than relying upon the merits of thorough investigation and solid justification of its propositions, religious authority relies upon political power, the credulity of the general public, and outright fear. Such “authority” is not authority at all, but simply ideological terrorism. As long as there are principles and propositions that remain unknown, religious leaders will claim authority, not based on the merit of skepticism and education, but on blind faith and stupidity. I propose that the difference between an uneducated preacher and an educated priest is nothing except the tools that they use. The preacher depends on pure emotional pleas and the priest depends on meaningless rhetoric that makes even professional philosophers weep for mercy from their fallacious nonsense.
To the religious leader, there is only one authority: the deity that he prays to. Accepting authority on any other grounds is considered a sin of pride by most salvation-based beliefs, and simply ludicrous by others. Any authority other than the accepted deity of choice is considered blasphemous; accountability without a god-figure and the human condition is disparaged as being unworthy of religions because it takes importance away from God. There is only one religious authority, and it has yet to be defined in any meaningful way. In fact, it could be argued that any person who claims authority over religious matters is by the very nature of religion, blasphemous. There is no one who knows the mind of God, and as such the mind of God is unknowable by any person. And furthermore, any person who claims such ought to be looked upon by the religious warily at best.
Those that consider themselves as authorities on religious matters will argue that although they are not knowledgeable concerning the mind of god, they are knowledgeable concerning religion itself. This may be the case, because there is what is called the philosophy of religion. But such authority is nothing more than that of a man who reads and writes, is educated in literature, and receives and English degree. That man is an authority on literature, but not on the imagination that creates that literature. The authority being claimed by religious leaders is not that they have read the bible or the Qur’an, the Torah, or the Upanishads and have special insight into the words on the page. No, the religious authority claims that it has special insight into the mind that created the words on the page. This is nothing more than a lie, and is deceives those credulous minds that accept authority out of fear, out of tradition, or out of ignorance.
A person can read a religious text, such as the bible, and that person can spend years studying the texts, and can be an authority on that text, but in no way can that person be an authority on what most consider to be the author of that text: God. But this is just what religious authorities’ world-wide claim! They claim that “God heals” and then propose that they are the “messengers of god”. The rhetoric spills over and rots the mind, and still they claim their authority, not only over those that are credulous enough to accept their empty promises, but over the world, over mankind. This is precisely what religious authorities everywhere claim: authority over humanity! They make this claim and at the same time have no justification, no evidence, no warrant, no reason to make a claim, authoritative or otherwise, whatsoever.
The idea of “religious authority” is a farce, a scam, a scandle. There is no religious authority. In fact, there is no authority save one according to most religions and that authority has yet to show itself, to give any reason, proof, evidence, warrant, or motivation for anyone to believe that it even exists. It is time for those who claim religious authority to accept what they really are: the salesmen of shams, the hucksters of hoopla. As David Steele, Atheism Explained, put it: "The thing to remember here is that whenever anyone tells you what God is saying, he is telling you waht he, according to a theory he has, claims that God is saying. So what sounds like humility is really colossal self-conceit."

Self-Awareness

2008-08-11T20:02:00.001-07:00

Most of us expect basic consideration from others while at the same time assume that we give that same basic consideration. The prerequisite for consideration, however, is self-responsibility: another concept that many assume that they have. These assumptions are many times unwarranted because of the lack of self-awareness. If most of us assume that we have consideration for others and that we are responsible individuals, then the obvious problem in our societies concerning consideration and responsibility must be either found elsewhere or we are simply not aware that we are inconsiderate and irresponsible. I think that it is safe to say that most people are not consciously inconsiderate, but seem to be irresponsible. The irresponsibility of many is obvious: tax-evasion, welfare fraud etc… but the widespread irresponsibility that I allude to is not so obvious: the lack of self-awareness.
Without responsibility for self, consideration for others is not possible and without those two basic prerequisites the fabric that holds society together begins to fray and weaken. In the broad picture breaking laws weakens the whole society since the whole of any society is in essence defined by its laws. Since the dawn of agriculture, human beings have tried to make up for irresponsibility and its inevitable cousin inconsideration with laws, both stated and unstated. And perhaps these laws worked, at least for a while. Another word for “law”, and a more definitive one, is “imperative”. While Emmanuel Kant defined an imperative differently by applying virtue and moreso duty, imperatives typically do not rely upon personal responsibility nor do they rely upon consideration for others. Rather imperatives are followed without question for fear of revenge or retribution (or in the case of Kant, duty). When dependence upon imperatives takes the place of personal responsibility and consideration for others, we become a society of selfish derelicts. Unfortunately it is not laws that save us from the irresponsibility and inconsideration of others, it is self-awareness.
To be self-aware is to make conscious choices, to have rational reasons for our actions, to realize the power and drive of emotional motivation and to be able to act with or against that motivation, to make decisions not simply based on the easiest path for one’s self, but the best path for one’s self. Self-awareness is that ongoing activity that all human beings ought to be involved in for the entirety of their lives. To be aware of one’s ‘self’ is to accept that mistakes will be par for the course, but that our abilities to rectify those mistakes are also possible. When we do these sorts of things as people, we become self-aware. Self-awareness is not synonymous with pathetic pandering to emotions such as “political correctness”. It is not based on altruistic ideas that everyone is equal (this is simply not true). Self-awareness relies on actions with much more substance, and with much more warrant. Neither is self-awareness some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo based in the antiquated idea of some fantastic duality of mind-body. Self-awareness is based in consciousness, and from that consciousness the capability to understand that self-responsibility is the cornerstone of any healthy individual and society.
Self-awareness leads to consideration for others, but by “consideration” it is not meant the fear or kid-gloves that are so often used in order to spare others’ feelings. A self-aware person is only concerned with emotion in that it is a natural state of the human animal. That being said, a self-aware person is considerate in that they are fully capable of understanding that their life is no more than a minute part of any given environment, that their life is not by any means the most important, and nor do they have the right to considerate it so. The self-aware individual accepts the reality that they are not important and by doing so become important. Self-awareness is not widespread and it has its enemies.
The first enemy of self-awareness is the belief that we as a species of animal carries some significance. This belief comes in two forms: first, that we are significant because we are more capable of a higher degree of intellect than any other animal. The self aware person realizes that this sort of capability is only important if people choose to act on that capability. The capability for intelligence does not make a person intelligent and nor does it give anyone special privileges. To act on that capability, on the other hand does lead to intelligence and opens the privileges that such intelligence offers. The second enemy of self-awareness is that we are deemed by some entity to be significant. This belief coincides with the first enemy because it tries to justify the unwarranted belief that we are significant regardless of how intelligent, rational…in short how self-aware we are. To believe that a greater entity takes us to be significant is not only a form of self-debasing prostration to that entity, but it is a lazy-man’s way out. To believe that a great form, a great thing deems us worthy of its attention is simply to place our own responsibility for our self on its shoulders.
The lack of self-awareness often comes in the form of rude behavior, apathy, unwarranted defiant attitudes, drug –use, etc, etc… all of those diseases of society. In fact, it could be argued that the single universal disease of society is the lack of self-awareness. Instead of defining one’s self through thought and thoughtful action, challenges, defeats and victories, intelligence, and fortitude, those that lack self-awareness typically follow empty fads, easy ways out, give up to easy and play down the importance of achieving goals, rely on “blissful” ignorance (otherwise known as stupidity), and relish weakness calling it strength. The unaware make excuses rather than put forth effort and in doing so weaken themselves all the while expecting all others to consider them as equals. Self-awareness is the dichotomy of unwarranted acceptance, blissful stupidity, and empty excuses. In being self-aware, one becomes considerate to fellow human beings but not necessarily respectful. In being self-aware one is responsible solely for one’s self and can choose, rationally and consciously, to be altruistic through being responsible for others if need be. By no means is the self-aware person significant in the sense that human beings are significant by virtue of being human, and by no means is the self-aware person significant through any faith that human beings are special in the eye of any beholder. Rather, the self-aware human being is significant because they epitomize the meaning of being human, the capability and essence of the importance of life. The self-aware person is both humble and consciously aware of their power. Because of this, they are often ridiculed and rewarded with whole societies that believe themselves to be the equal, but not willing to pay the price for warranting that belief.

Faith in Science

2008-08-04T12:30:00.001-07:00

Ayn Rand, in her essay “Epitaph for a Culture”, berated a reporter for writing “faith in science”. Her point was one that most atheists understand: there is no need for faith in science. Science is necessarily without faith. However, the reporter’s attitude towards science was nothing new in 1973 when the essay was written and it has not been subdued and forced into the darkness of antiquation even today. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (who just died) came to the USA and almost immediately started berating America’s materialism even after being held in Stalin’s prisons for years. No one, neither in the Soviet Union nor the USA, understood why. All the while the youth of the Soviet Union allegedly salivated over the things (the things that would not be possible without science) that Solzhenitsyn despised. I believe that he understood what Rand understood: that having faith in science is both degrading to science and detrimental to those who believe that such attitudes are both necessary and positive.
Science is an invented system of organizing and analyzing information about the world around us in order to better understand the probabilities, the consistencies and the abilities of that world and our place in it. The essence of science is solid explanation based on strong premises, not faith. The very nature of faith is lack of understanding or the disregard of rational thought, perhaps both. Faith ceases to exist with understanding just as we exist without oxygen to breath. The scientific method is the closest thing that mankind has to discovering anything that is remotely close to “truth” because it relegates faith to those who either cannot understand or will not make the effort to understand. I believe that this is what Rand meant with her comment concerning “faith in science” and I also believe that it is what drove Solzhenitsyn to berate the materialism that is so rampant in the world.
While science is not based in faith, it should be worshipped for what it is: the only objective act of rational thought. But this is not what science is typically thought to be. Rather, it is more often thought to be the inventor of ipods, cars, alternative energies, oil…In essence, science when it is thought of at all by most people, is thought of as being the bringer of the things that most people at this point believe to be the necessities of life: electricity, plumbing, and material items. These beliefs lead to “faith in science”. Global warming is a dangerous problem but most people, if asked, will propose that “someone will figure something out”. They are claiming that they have “faith in science”, that they rely upon something (or someone) to do something that they cannot or will not understand. This attitude is, I believe, the very attitude that Rand and Solzhenitsyn are reacting to. This attitude is a direct dichotomy to the spirit of the scientific method just as faith is a direct dichotomy to rational thought.
The attitude of most modern societies is that science is the supplier of modern conveniences, of modern material goods and that it is simply the product of humanity and what they consider to be its curiosity rather than a few individuals that toil most of their life without fame and most of the time without fortune. It is popular to claim that “today’s youth” are the idiots that propagate such attitudes, but unfortunately the youth are simply mirror-images of their parents. First, most of humanity is not curious. Most minds in modern societies are filled with the day’s activities which for the most part have nothing to do with being curious. Rather, most modern minds are filled with making money, making children or doing as little as possible, most of time all of the above. When curiosity is present the importance of making money becomes relegated to a sufficiency rather than a necessity. Making money, rather than being an obsession becomes secondary. When curiosity is present, the desire for parenthood is recognized for what it is: an evolutionary drive and nothing else. When curiosity is present, inactivity is something that is necessary not out of boredom or laziness, but out of necessity. Science is not the product of the general public, nor is it the product of “human” curiosity. It is, rather, the product of a few minds that were curious and acted on that curiosity. While most of us rely on science, sometimes for our very lives, most of us do not take the time nor put forth the effort to understand it. Because of this, phrases such as “faith in science” are generally accepted by most.
Science is viewed by many as being nothing more than the world in which much if not all of our modern conveniences are born out of. It is considered by many to be the minion of humanity rather than the product of a few minds that are driven enough to create the curiosity to ask questions without expecting any answers at all, and it is most often deemed only important (or good) for what it can give to all of humanity rather than being the closest thing that mankind has to discovering anything that is remotely close to “truth”. The irony is that science relegates faith to those who either cannot understand or will not make the effort to understand and it is those same people who have faith in science. Like the truths that science digs up do not rely upon faith, the good of science does not rely upon its ability for universal altruism. It is only the faithful that choose to view science in such a skewed light. I believe that Rand and Solzhenitsyn understood this and that this was why they saw most in society as both weak and dependent. To have faith in science weakens the mind and the capability for rational thought of those who believe that faith is necessary and to become dependent upon science is to rely on it for nothing more than the next new shiny toy.

Be Happy

2008-07-28T15:14:00.000-07:00

Many philosophies and religions concern themselves with how to live a happy life, albeit approaching the question in different ways. Philosophy typically comes up with applied theories and then tries to reconcile those theories with how the world (and the people in it) is. Religions are more fundamental, claiming universal truths and offering an infinite reward if the person simply follows the creeds and accepts the values of that religion. It is no secret that philosophers on average are not typically the happiest of folks generally speaking. I myself am prone to state that “happiness is over-rated”. Philosophy offers no guarantees but simply the questions that can broaden perspectives and give individuals and even sometimes societies a fighting chance at understanding the world and our place in it. Religious people seem happier than philosophers, but I believe that this façade is a simple and thin one. Religious people seem happy only given that they believe their infinite reward to be guaranteed through God. That is to say, that religious folks define happiness by looking forward to what they consider inevitable future events and having faith that those events will actually come to fruition. I myself find that philosophy offers me the freedom and hence the happiness to think honestly and thoroughly and keeps me from relying on creeds and dogma. Some people claim that without their religious faith, they could not be happy at all, but I would argue that such a statement shows the true nature of what those people consider happiness is, and it does not seem to be happiness at all.
According to The World Values Surveys, “The results clearly show that the happiest societies are those that allow people the freedom to choose how to live their lives,”[i] I happen to agree given some stipulations. First, people must be free to choose how to live their lives, and secondly actually and consciously choose how to live their lives. Let’s face it, most of us believe that we are free to choose how to live our lives but do not really know what it is to choose. In other words, we do not act on intentional choice. Most of the “choices” that we make are not choices at all but reactions to situations that we find ourselves in either by chance or by reactions to other events. In short, we are led downstream by the proverbial currents of life. To be free is to both be capable of acting and understand the motivation behind that act. People often believe that they make a choice to have children, but procreation is not a rationally motivated act: it is biological. The more free choice would be to act intentionally against the biological motivation to have children. Such an act takes willpower and intentional choice, and thus frees us from the evolutionary drive that is within all of us. The act of procreation does not make people (or parents) happy; neither does the belief that having children is the natural order of life. Happiness, as a virtue, is the product of nothing less than the conscious understanding of any action taken.
In the same way religious belief, the belief in an infinite reward after death or the belief in an all-powerful deity who looks after us, does not make us happy. Religious beliefs are not based on rational choices but on faith. To have a religious belief one must have faith in something that refuses (rather than defies) to follow the edict of conscious understanding and as such religious people are not free to actually and consciously choose how to live their lives. Biological evolution drives most people to procreate, not free choice. In the same way, fear (a bi-product of biological evolution) drives people to accept religious creeds and dogmas. In fact, it is not uncommon for people to simply accept what they were told as children. This phenomenon is ubiquitous as any philosophy class will show. Blind acceptance, another word for faith, is simply an easy way to answer a complex and seemingly unanswerable question. The edict seems to be: believe and get on with life. This is not happiness but simply ignorant bliss.
Recently a poll found that Denmark was the happiest nation on earth. The definition of happiness was based on health levels, prosperity and education. While this may seem to be worthwhile basis’, they are not necessarily based on free choice. My point is that when we speak of happiness it is important to differentiate it from chance, happenstance, genes, evolutionary drive, and ignorant bliss. When we speak of true happiness, it must be understood that we speak of a conscious choice to act based on rational thought rather than unrecognized sources, evolution or faith. To be happy, we must understand that our happiness is warranted, that we chose the path that led us to be happy, and that sometimes happiness entails hardship, is unnatural and will inevitably be difficult to achieve. While chance often defines individuals, it is the rational and active individual who defines the situation that chance gives them. While easy answers and a credit card seem to lead us to happiness, we must understand that such feelings are short-cuts unworthy to be considered as true happiness. While biological evolution allows us to be rational, we must realize to be happy we must fight for control over our biological drive in order to attain the freedom that our intellect will allow us. To be happy is to truly choose how to live our lives. That choice, however comes at a cost: the acceptance that happiness may not be what we believed it to be.

[i] The world Values Survey was funded by the national science foundation, the Swedish and Netherlands foreign ministries, and other institutions.

Religious Cake and Rational Icing

2008-07-22T09:06:00.000-07:00

7/21/2008
The traditional religious view, at least the one that is proposed, is that all human life is equally valuable. This proposition is false: human life is valuable as it is valuable to the evolutionary progression of genetic material. That is to say human life is only naturally important and not morally important. Traditional religious views, however, are claiming that human life is in fact morally important by virtue of being human. Evolutionarily speaking, only the life form that is most able to survive in a given environment is important, human or not. The most common atheistic viewpoint is probably that human beings are capable of being morally important because of our capability of thought and its relationship to decision-making. That is to say because we are capable of rational thought and making decisions based on that rational thought human beings must make intentionally decisions based on some kind of rational understanding rather than on arbitrary reactions or beliefs in order to be considered as moral beings.
Given that life is only necessarily evolutionarily important, there is no doubt that some problems are necessarily important only if they are related to evolution. Some problems, however are both necessary and sufficient problems, moral problems are sufficient problems because some moral problems are decisions that enable us to influence both the environment that we live in and our relationships with others. Traditional religious views tend to exclude the decision-making capabilities and their relationship to morality because of their belief that morality is determined by God. Needless to say, they exclude the evolutionary aspect as well. But, because intentional decisions are in essence choices made by individuals, traditional religious views must decide whether those decisions can create morality, or whether they are the acts determined by God. Human life, if rationality is to be taken into consideration, is only important because of the decisions we make both as individuals and as individuals within a given society (an environment).
Often morality has to do with the worthiness of life: good or bad purpose in life. The traditional religious view of the worth of human life is that all human life is equally important, but as F. Nietzsche has pointed out, typically it is those that are dependent, weaker, or simply unwilling to live independently that make such claims. Nietzsche’s claim is that those unwilling or unable to think rationally and make rational choices are those that do not see the importance of doing so. The traditional religious view of the importance of human life stems from the religious view of human life, and that view itself is at best vague and impossible to interpret and at worst contradictory. Religious viewpoints differ as to the importance of human life, but most of them claim that human life is important only because it is the gift of a god and/or that it inevitably leads to death. Both of these reasons are ludicrous because of their unwarranted evidence and ambiguity. Nevertheless, rational decision-making is at best secondary and at worst totally disregarded by most traditional religious views of morality.
But, the traditional religious view of the worth of human life is both an intentional decision that is acted upon that is directly connected to moral problems and as such can be morally judged. At first glance, traditional religious viewpoints concerning the worth of human life are at the very least in part to blame for both overpopulation and the false view that all human life is equal in moral importance, which are in fact interconnected. If intention and action based on that intention are both involved in defining a thought or action as moral or immoral, the traditional religious view, intentionally holding a falsity as truth and using deception that directly leads to detrimental effects for life itself, is immoral. To act morally or immorally is to make an intentional decision that can be held judged as well as acting in such a way that can be judged. The two go hand in hand most of the time. But traditional religious views are immoral in two ways: they promote deceptive thoughts and they promote deceptive actions based on deceptive thoughts. A person who believes, who has faith, must in many cases disregard fact because they must disregard rational thought. They must hold to deceptive thoughts in order to have faith. If they are sufficiently forced to have and follow deceptive thoughts, their actions necessarily become based on those deceptive thoughts.
For example, if I am an atheist and have the thought to be honest, then that thought can be based on my rational understanding of honesty and become moral because of that understanding. However, traditional religious views disagree with such statements because the claim is that “God knows!” Traditional religious morality is not based on actions based on rational thought but simply upon the judgment of one deity or another, which is at best arbitrary and at worst able to be “interpreted”. As a Christian, I must follow not my rational understanding but the imperatives of God.
The traditional religious viewpoint holds that human beings cannot be held accountable for their thoughts and actions as long as they have faith that God is in control: they disregard the role of rational decision-making in the defining or morality by claiming that all humans are sinful and can only be "saved" by accepting a certain belief. At the same time, they claim that human beings are held accountable by God alone for understanding that they must have faith. This seems contradictory: if one believes in God and has faith in God’s universal powers, then it would seem that he is forced, he must disregard his own capability of deciding his own future: rational decision-making plays no role in religious morality. Having faith entails that the person disregards the power of rational thought and rational decision-making for the sake of faith. Traditional religious viewpoints want their religious cake and their rational icing as well, but...well everyone knows that old adage.

The Age of Atheism

2008-07-14T05:59:00.000-07:00

Nietzsche, like Hume before him, believed that morality was a product of the self-centered ego of human desire: what we desired became good and what we deemed as undesirable became evil. To become religiously moral, to Nietzsche, was to succumb to the weakest links of humankind not for your own sake but for theirs. Philosophers such as Ayn Rand proposed similar philosophies and like Nietzsche continue to be attacked by people who either do not understand their moral philosophies or who have succumbed to the pathetic, dangerous and unchangeable moral philosophies of religion, spirituality or watered-down “freedom”. Innate in such moral beliefs is the belief that freedom is somehow directly related to a certain slave-like belief in an unchanging and unchangeable law that claims to be certain that the moral life is that of a moral slave.
According to Nietzsche the most moral of moral ideas are forced to change as the human race continues evolve in its quest to survive. This sort of thinking has been deemed as relativistic, and what if it is? Universally applicable moral laws that are deemed perfect and timeless fail at every turn, they head off philosophical progress and hinder human happiness. Religious morality, for example is a scourge upon humanity. It continues to prove itself not only un-utilitarian but detrimental. If morality is to be useful in any way, if it is to be pragmatic, if it is to be true, then it must adhere to the principle that together with understanding will be the responsibility of acting upon that understanding. Moralities that adhere to faith, or any other unwarranted reasoning, do not rely upon action or on understanding, but on sheer emotional hope. If acting on understanding makes morality relativistic then so be it: it is relativistic, but true nevertheless.
Moralities based on unchanging laws and regulations that are themselves based on antiquated, tired and worn-out, not to mention dangerous, degenerating and detrimental are nothing but roadblocks that are put up in the name of weakness and fear. H.L Mencken wrote “It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and halted the free enquiry of the The Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of The Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sarcedotalism.”[i] In acting on understanding, there will inevitably be moral mistakes: we will be wrong in our understanding and/ or wrong in acting upon it. But in religious moralities being wrong becomes a sin. “Being wrong” comes to mean not following the unwarranted rules set forth by the traditions or authority of the religion itself rather than not adhering to the knowledge gotten from realization, understanding or intellect. When morality is defined by our emotional hopes, our fears and our steadfast and stupid adherence to tradition then such things as “alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sarcedotalism.” become acceptable as moral acts, all of which were and still are to an extent facilitated and supported by religious belief.
It is true what Nietzsche claims, the most moral of moral ideas are forced to change as the human race continues evolve in its quest to survive. It will be, in the end, our own stupidity that will be our end: we will commit suicide as a race not because we cannot understand, but because we will not understand. This unwillingness to accept change based on our understanding and our steadfast adherence to antiquated moral systems that hinder rather than help that understanding is nothing less than a gun held to our head, cocked and ready to go. This is a shame not because the human race is the invented plaything of some deity but because the human race has such potential, because life is beautifully rare in our small spot of the universe, because we are able to invent and perceive such things as beauty and see it in the little planet on which we live. The earth will survive our stupidity, but we will not. It will not become less beautiful when we are gone, but it is we that will not be able to invent and perceive the beauty that it has to offer.
Morality is relative, but not to our emotions. Rather, it is relative to our ability to invent and perceive it. The beauty of the earth is not dependent upon us but upon our ability to understand. Relative moral laws are arbitrary, but that arbitrariness is not immoral in itself: it depends upon our ability and willingness to understand the reasons why we deem one thing or another as moral or immoral, beautiful or not. Also, morality depends upon our ability and willingness to act our understanding and accept the fact that we will be mistaken both in our understanding and our actions. “The Age of Faith” is not and was not an era of moral certitude but of moral stupidity. Its claim of moral certainty is both wrong-headed and weak. The effects of such morality are not positive, they do not lead to any act of goodness, but to acts based on fear and uncertainty. I propose that an “Age of Atheism” would lead to moral certitude, to positive acts based not on fear and uncertainty but on understanding and something that science continues to give us: probable moral certainty.
Religious morality claims moral certainty, but defines it as adherence to immutable laws while offering immutable laws based on moral certainty. Atheistic morality claims moral probability and defines it as the ability to understand while offering understanding on moral probability. The one offers a false sense of certainty at the cost of very real freedom and the other offers a very real sense of morality at the cost of accepting outcomes that may or may not adhere to our emotional desires. It really is as simple as that. No morality is certain, even those claimed to be. Furthermore, to claim certainty is immoral by its very nature because of the impossibility of understanding if one is certain or not. The claim of certainty is nothing more than deception invented to quell fear. It may have been that religious morality had its place in the history of humanity, but it has long since lost the rights to that place as a viable moral option. As Nietzsche also claimed, the will to power (as offered by his own philosophy) is hindered by the will to die (as offered by religious belief). Religious morality is the morality of death, not life, and as such is really no morality at all. The will to power is not the egotistically maniacal demand it is not made out to be, but the demand to define self by understanding the world around us as it is rather than as we would want it to be.
[i] -H.L Mencken (The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche)

The Virtue of Overpopulation

2008-07-07T19:12:00.000-07:00

Human overpopulation is a problem that is not limited to one continent or country, but rather the entire globe. It is, in essence, a product of the natural evolutionary drive to procreate, a drive that is not limited to one country or continent. However, it is our ability to make rational decisions and to analyze situations that ought to make clear our moral responsibility as thinking beings to curb problems such as human overpopulation even though it is a natural phenomenon; again a phenomenon that is not limited to one country or continent. This dichotomy of reality and the ability to choose within that reality is the cornerstone of the overpopulation problem, and there is a problem. The sole source of the problem is the act of having children, but overpopulation becomes even more dangerous when coupled with modern ways of life that have become defined by consumerism and the desire for luxury goods and unwarranted justification by antiquated beliefs. Overpopulation coupled with consumerism, modern medical technology, longer life spans, and antiquated beliefs that try to justify procreation as a duty all add to an already serious problem: the overuse and misuse of the environment that we all share. However, the problem can be rectified if we all are honest and willing.
The American government gives tax breaks for each child a couple might have. This is because each child a couple has becomes a consumer both directly and indirectly: directly because when that child grows up it will grow up to consume goods and services and indirectly because its parents will consume goods and services for the sake of the child. In essence, child-bearing is seen as supporting the consumerism that in turn supports the economy. Overpopulation is a direct result of this sort of thinking, but there is more there than meets the eye. John Finnis, a moral philosopher at Oxford University, argues that child-bearing is a fundamental part of marriage and that because it is a part of what he considers the “double-blessing” of marriage. He uses this argument against the rights of homosexuals to marry, at least in part if not mostly a religiously based argument (hence the word “blessing”), claiming that homosexuality may not wrong in itself, but wrong because of the acts it leads to (sodomy). This argument is in line with most religious beliefs. Religious belief consistently views having children as a virtuous act, no different an argument than that made by G.W Bush in regard to consumerism itself. In this sense, the connection between consumerism and religious beliefs is seen to be in the least indirect if not directly related to overpopulation.
Overpopulation as a natural effect of an evolutionary drive is descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is to say, overpopulation as a natural effect of an evolutionary drive is simply a product that is neither moral or immoral, but amoral. It is our choices that define and prescribe our moral duties according to most unreligious viewpoints. Some choices are seen as being morally justifiable while they are not. Overpopulation can be perceived as a phenomenon that can be considered morally if it can be linked to our choices as human beings. The question is: is it immoral and if so, how? For example, modern medical technology now allows couples and women without male partners to conceive either through hormonal treatments or artificial insemination and in this way overpopulation is also a direct effect of modern medical technology and its usage. Many times, medical procedures that allow couples and people who would otherwise not be able to conceive are economically supported via insurance. In this way, modern medical procedures support the previous argument that child-bearing is seen as supporting the consumerism that in turn supports the economy. Oddly enough, these sorts of procedures are not seen as immoral by those who adhere to religions such as Christianity while at the same time other medical procedures that hinder overpopulation and even better the quality of life of some individuals are seen as immoral. Again, the connection between morality, consumerism and religion seems at least indirect if not direct.
Because of modern medical technology, life spans have become longer as well. Longer life spans mean more people alive at any one time. This is primarily a good thing until the quality of life of those people who are living becomes dubious. Further, modern medical technology allows those who would otherwise die of natural causes to “survive”. The connection between consumerism and overpopulation has come up in pop culture and news time and time again in the form of un-needed medical attention, operations, and matters of life support and/or euthanasia etc… that are too many to mention here. Given these situations life itself becomes a commodity: a commodity that is also considered to be morally important. Here is a possible answer to our question: if life is morally important, then overpopulation, given that it endangers life, is immoral. However, religious belief continually proves itself to support actions that add to the population. Instead of allowing people to die of natural causes, many religions claim that because medical technology can, it should prolong life at all cost.
Antiquated beliefs concerning life continue to hinder real answers to real problems such as overpopulation. We cannot continue to let antiquated belief systems hinder us in confronting such problems as overpopulation in a real manner. Because many governments rely on antiquated beliefs, they add to the problem by legalizing and supporting procreation in all forms while doing nothing (or worse) making it impossible to contend with unwanted, unnatural and even dangerous pregnancies and the like in any real form (abstinence does not work). Answers to overpopulation do not exist in economic policies that support child-bearing whether that support is in the form of tax-breaks to parents or welfare for the children of parents who do not work or hormonal treatments that allow childless couples to have numerous children while deeming safe abortion practices as immoral because of religious belief. The religious answer to overpopulation is to disregard it as a problem by redefining it as a virtue. The political answer to overpopulation is to regard children as consumers and tax-payers. These attitudes towards procreation are both danger and a hindrance to any real answers, and defeating these attitudes and the religion that is used to warrant them are imperative if we are to protect the idea of quality life.

Religion and the Rights of Individuals: The Hypocrisy of Religion

2008-07-01T15:57:00.000-07:00

6/31/2008
It is often asked of those who do not believe in God, who do not follow a religion, who do not consider themselves as religious at all (atheists) and who also make a concerted effort, go to aggressive links, and are generally offended by religious thought why they spend so much time and energy thinking about and debating religious ideas? The answer is self-defense of individual rights. Surrounded by societies that are directly or indirectly controlled by or adhere to certain religions, or religious thought in general, atheists (in the broad sense) find themselves having to explain or defend their decision to disregard religious ideas, including the belief in a deity. Typically, the reasons are based in common sense: there is no proof for the existence of a deity, nor has there ever been. But, alas, sense is not so common especially in religious realms. Religious thought is heinous enough, but that many if not most societies strive to make their particular brand of religion the law of the land continues to be an affront even to the most lenient and understanding of atheists and other individual thinkers. Furthermore, the understanding that atheists seem to take for granted, that understanding based on the fundamental principle of proof before proposition, seems to be disregarded by those who adhere to religious thought.
The hypocrisy of religion is that at point A they claim that religious belief is an inherent right of all individuals while at point B they claim that atheistic thought is not a right of any one because it contradicts the idea of a universal law. Religious peoples, remember, claim universal truth rather than particular possibilities. Consider the idea that we each have rights as individuals. These rights, per most religious peoples, are not defined by the state or the country, but by the particular deity believed in, one which is believed to be categorical universal. So, any contradiction to those who adhere to religious belief is perceived as an infringement upon rights given by God. Their charge is that no one has the right to define what they can or cannot believe; their claim is that their religious rights have been infringed upon as individuals, but the truth is they are expecting that the right to believe that their proposition is true is being infringed upon. The atheist makes the claim that the religious person’s belief is false, and so that claim is perceived to be an infringement upon individual rights given by God. The atheist claims that there is to be no law (universal or otherwise) made that infringes upon the right not to believe just as the theist supposedly claims that their right to believe must not be infringed upon. However, because this is only part of the theist’s claim, the atheist’s claim is never accepted. The affront of someone having the audacity to disbelieve in the theist’s belief is perceived to be not only an affront to the traditional religion of the area, but to one’s life style and security.
There are other examples outside of the religious realm where the same fallacious reasoning is used by the theist. In America, the homosexual, for example, fights continuously to be considered equally in the eyes of the law, and rightly so. Homosexuality is seen by many religious peoples as being a moral affront to their deity and their religious interpretation of what is often (and ironically) considered to be the “natural order” of things. But the atheist is seen as an animal below even the “lowly” homosexual in the eyes of the religious public. The atheist is considered to be a person who is not only defiant but disbelieving in any deity and thus a danger to some defined “way of life” based on religious belief. The atheist finds himself confronted in all directions: by the society, by his neighbors and friends, and not the least by the political system itself. Society fears the dereliction of morality, neighbors and friends fear the security of their “way of life” and the inevitable change that atheism forces them to perceive, and the politicians fear a loosening of the “moral” stranglehold that religious belief continues to allow them to have. The religious attack on individuals who are homosexual is an attack on what is considered emotional disgust and digression, but the attack on atheistic individuals is an attack on what is considered to be a dangerous and direct attack on the beliefs, customs and traditions of what is commonly called “the people”.
Religious people often cry that their “right to believe” is being infringed upon and complain that they are being attacked by a “secular” society while at the same time they see their attack on others as a manifest destiny given to them by God. The hypocrisy in this sort of action is not recognized as such because to the religious mind the law of “God” cannot be contradictory. This relates to the belief of the theist that God’s law is universal. The belief that God’s law is universal directly contradicts, however, the argument that individuals have individual rights. To argue that individual rights can be infringed upon is to argue that there are such things as individual rights. But, the theist, given that they believe that God’s laws are universal, argues that any rights given to the individual are nothing more than a gift from God. God has rights, individuals do not.
In short, the theist does not ask, he does not reason or discuss the possibility of individual rights: he expects that everyone adhere to a certain formulation of “individual rights”, i.e. those given to human beings by a certain deity. This is precisely why those who do not believe in God, who do not follow a religion, who do not consider themselves as religious at all and who also make a concerted effort, go to aggressive links, and are generally offended by religious thought why they spend so much time and energy thinking about and debating religious ideas. The religious claim that individuals have individual rights is a façade to the true belief that all rights are given to us by a specific deity; not only rights, but morals justice, beauty etc… This sort of belief, the belief of the theist, is an affront to human rationality, but more so an affront to the idea that individuals have rights at all. In fact, given the actions and beliefs of theists in certain countries, it is not difficult to ascertain that the rights of individuals are at best secondary to the rights of theistic belief which is a dangerous proposition as history will account.
That the atheist is able to understand the difference between theistic and secularly based individual rights is a testament to atheism. That the theist expects and even demands that all right are to adhere to theism is a testament to it as well. Their claim is that theistic individual “rights” will, in the end, give us all a quantitatively and qualitatively better sort of happiness. This, too, goes against any rational analysis of the theist’s claims. In fact, according to a study entitled the World Values Surveys, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Swedish and Netherlands Foreign Ministries, and other institutions, “The results clearly show that the happiest societies are those that allow people the freedom to choose how to live their lives…". This seems so apparent as to be absurd to think otherwise, but given the continued attack by theists, it would be premature and even dangerous to think that individual rights are securely docked to the belief in the common good. To the religious mind, the common good (whatever that might be), is securely docked to a belief in a creator of the universe, and any other nonsensical, rituals and creeds that might be aboard. The idea of “individual rights” whether they are applied to atheism or otherwise is by its very nature a danger to theistic belief, causing many theists to attack. This attack is constant, concerted, and dangerous and in the end nothing more than another fanatical act of religious fascism.

The Beauty of Nothing

2008-06-24T11:41:00.000-07:00

Religion does not search for purpose and meaning: it creates purpose and meaning. Furthermore, religion decries that the idea of “nothing” is sinful, based in human pride, and is nothing more than an egocentric ideal created by human beings to center themselves in the universe. Religion is based in something, and as a result, “nothing” becomes the nemesis of religious belief. Religious people claim that the religious “something” religion is based upon is love and hope, both very vague concepts, and so both love and hope become morphed into a “God” that has both human and non-human attributes. Religion creates “God” to battle its nemesis: nothing and to somehow justify or explain “something”. I argue that the creation of “God” is the pinnacle of human egocentricity and pride. The idea is that we must be important enough to justify the attention of something better than ourselves.
Outside of most of our houses are rocks of some sort. Most of the time, we walk or drive over these rocks without a thought, but these rocks can be symbolic of something greater than ourselves if we only take the time to think about the “nothing” that they represent. Rocks are some of the oldest “somethings” on the face of the earth. They have existed for eons, and for no reason. There is no purpose in a rock: it simply exists. A rock represents the epitome of nothing, and as such becomes, if only indirectly, the nemesis of religious thought. Perhaps as a result, archaeology has played an important role in revealing the misconceptions and deceptions inherent in religious belief. We can get a perspective of the universe that we are a part of without the egocentricity of believing that we are an integral part of it.
Rocks are in essence formed from dirt, something that is probably older. “Old as dirt” is an old saying with much truth in it. Dirt is the very essence of our being because as far as we are concerned, together with rocks, it has always existed. Dirt exists without purpose. There is dirt, not for our good, but simply because dirt makes up the surface of this planet. It has no meaning, no time, no purpose, no limit: it is for all intentional purposes the physical symbol of nothing as well. Therefore dirt, if only indirectly, is the nemesis of religious thought. Rocks and dirt are important for us in more ways than simply the obvious ones (they make up the physical existence of our planet and allow for our existence). Rocks and dirt remind us that we are less than nothing given our unjustified belief that we are the apple of “God’s” eye: that we are simply a small and insignificant part of a universe that we cannot even fathom can remind us of the importance of our lives; a belief in “God” reminds us only that our lives here are meaningless.
To many this is not a positive thought. Rather it is a depressing realization: the idea of “nothing”. This point of view, however, is wrong-headed because it is based in the belief that human beings have a particular purpose and meaning that is deemed special by a being greater than ourself. But, take the time to study something as grand as a piece of granite as large as a dining room table, and think of the time that it has existed in and will continue to exist in, and “God” becomes meaningless. In lieu of our thoughts about granite, many claim that our lives are insignificant and unimportant, but it is really the other way around. In many parks people carve their names in stone and in trees in their egotistical attempts to survive after life. But these attempts are for something: ego. Many times, before their death, their graffiti has disappeared, washed away; most of the time it is only seen as graffiti, something to be dismissed as ignorant and stupid. But the rock upon which someone has grafted their name is simply a rock with no purpose, and carving or no carving that fact remains. The rock represents life, we represent ego alone.
The idea of dirt and rocks can be peaceful, reminding us that we are a part of the universe that is different because we can recognize concepts such as nothingness and its relationship to us. While religion admonishes the person who thinks such blasphemous thoughts, such thoughts are the crux of atheism. The realization of nothing makes life more important, sweeter, and too precious to waste. A rock has time: the one thing most of us desire, not because it counts time as the important but because it is symbolic of time itself. Dirt is timeless, the result of rocks over time. We too, will eventually return to dirt, to the lifeless nothing that is death. The thought of this makes many turn away in horror. But we cannot turn far without noticing a rock or a pile of dirt. These things remind us that our time here is to say the least, limited, while time to a large piece of granite time is meaningless: it is nothing.
There is peace in the realization that the nature around us is nothing, although those that realize this are few and far between. So many see nothing, and most of us need to make something when we do, but this is simply an effect of our ego. Land that is in a natural state is considered “wasteland”. In olden days, the heath was a place where criminals and dangerous persons were banished to. The word “heathen” is a direct descendent of that idea. Nothing is neither good nor bad, but is simply what we make of it which is a core belief of most atheists. Religious thought makes the concept of “nothing” a sin, primarily out of fear and stupidity while atheism makes something beautiful and elegant out of “nothing”. The piece of rock in your garden, the dirt in your flowerbed, are both testaments to the idea of nothing: the cycle of life and death, the endless circle of existence. The atheistic idea of life does not concern itself with death. Rather, atheism concerns itself with the realization of “nothing” (almost eastern in its nature) in order to make “something” out of life. Religion makes “something” out of death in order to make “nothing” out of life. It is not “something” that can be truly beautiful, but “nothing” that captures the true nature of beauty.

Hot Air: Art and Religion

2008-06-16T17:01:00.000-07:00

I read a book by Dave Hickey, Air Guitar, and it reminded me of many of the traits that I do not like about humanity: self-centered perspective, the inability to consider alternatives in a fair and charitable light, self-righteousness, unwarranted assuredness, and the desire to define “facts” by relying upon opinion to name a few. These are all traits that I found in Hickey’s book concerning “art and democracy”. “Art” seems to be defined by Hickey in his book as any act or product that is outside of or not accepted by academic or authoritative norms that refutes definition and relies solely on free improvisation of ideas etc… In other words, art is defined as good or bad by opinion. Democracy, per Hickey, seems to be defined as a system in which there are no authorities, no formal studies of concepts social or otherwise, that relies on both the completely uninformed and stupid as well as those who believe themselves to be informed. In other words: the ignorant and the faithful. Hickey is to art and music, in fact, as Pat Robertson is to religious belief.
People such as Hickey and Robertson rely not on intent study and serious consideration of possibilities, but on rhetoric and name-dropping (verse-dropping in Robertson’s case). Unfortunately, because of people like Hickey and Robertson, any real intellect that the public has access to is continuously being watered down to nothing. Intellect becomes opinion and opinion becomes fact. Unknown authors and esoteric sounding places with beer and smoke soaked bars mentioned in passing become the proof that Hickey uses to back up his claims of artistic “spirituality” while endless repetition of meaningless, vague bible verses and hostile acidic self-righteous rants fill Robertson’s empty head somehow justifying his rabid claims that homosexuals and non-protestants of all ilk are part in parcel to blame for all the world’s problems. Hickey’s artistic “spirituality” is no different than the religious “spirituality” of human baboons such as Robertson.[i]
While I concur that we all have a right to our own opinion, and that certainly includes those such as Hickey and Robertson, that right does not automatically justify the truth of opinions nor the validity of the arguments offered (if there are any). There are two separate problems. First, the belief that having an opinion justifies the truth of that opinion is both idiotic and dangerous. Secondly, the belief that rhetoric and emotion can justify the truth of an opinion simply adds to the already troublesome state of human understanding. An opinion exists in the mind and has no necessary relationship with any kind of reality outside of that mind. But, any claim of truth necessarily relies on a relationship between the thoughts in our head and the thing 3outside of our head that we are thinking about. Therefore, opinions have no relationship to anything outside of our own thoughts, and so have no relationship to any sort of truth. Hickey claims this as well but contradicts himself continuously by relying on his own opinion to back up his claims. Robertson’s use of opinion is obvious: religious conviction, in Robertson’s mind is equal to justification for his claims. Hickey attacks academia and authorities on art and music and Robertson attacks anyone who does not adhere to his sick and twisted beliefs.
The second part of the equation, and the connecting tissue between Hickey and talking heads such as Robertson, is that they both rely upon rhetoric and emotion. Hickey claims that no authority on art and music has claim to the truth of the “true” nature of art/music; that no academic or accepted authority is justified simply because they are academic and/or a noted authority on the subject. Having no authority relegates truth the paradigm of opinion. In other words, everyone is an authority (which seems to be Hickey’s viewpoint on art). “True” art becomes defined by individual intention alone, which is important but which must be defined in some way in order to have meaning. The way Hickey defines intention is by emotional motivation and the ability to mesmerize the audience with flashy, ambiguous terms and mysterious sounding names and places: emotion and rhetoric. Religious leaders rely upon the exact same type of justification. Interpreting the bible becomes and art and the rhetoric of biblical interpretation becomes the free improvisation of jazz. In music there is the duality of classical and jazz idioms, in art there is the duality of form and abstraction, in religious belief there is tradition and spirituality. When rhetoric and emotional devices become the foundation of discussion, debate and definition then everyone’s opinion has equal weight and each of our opinions is the sole holder of truth. It seems contradictory because it is. Heads like Hickey and Robertson believe that they are expounding truthful propositions and…so they are. At the same time, those who both agree and disagree with them are also expounding truthful propositions. The results are a total cultural, philosophical, and social cluster fuck.
“Art” can be construed as any form of expression, and as such it can be defined as good or bad in regard to how well it expresses the creator’s point of view or whatever else motivated the artist. In music as in art, authorities become those who recognize the relationship between the art and the artist’s motivation. “Good” art becomes that art that expresses most succinctly the artist’s intentions and bad art is the opposite. In both cases there is a relationship that can be defined, determined and judged. Without this relationship there is nothing: no understanding, no truth, no good or bad art, music, poetry or any other form of expression. The profane becomes the pristine expression of humanity’s highest forms of thought, just as religion has become defined as the basis of human morality. In both cases, the only truth that is expressed is the putrid stench of the hot, empty air of intolerance and self-righteous opinions.
[i] All due respect given to both Hickey and Robertson here.

Honest Discussion

2008-06-09T20:32:00.001-07:00

Discussion is the cornerstone of human-thinking. With discussion comes the comparison of ideas, the expression of thought into more malleable forms. Discussion creates the cornerstones of modern scientific progress. Through peer-reviewed journals scientific hypotheses evolve into solid theories and even axioms. Through discussion scientists bounce ideas off of each other. Discussion is the foundation of philosophical thought, the source of all human thought. It seems as if all discussion is by its very nature a positive thing, and most of the time that is the case. But, discussion can be weapon used against the progress of human thought and understanding as well.
Rhetoric is that form of discussion that is often intellectually empty but relied upon to appear intellectual. The most recognized form of rhetoric is found in the political arena where truth is often a commodity to be bought and sold rather than discovered and debated. When rhetoric is relied upon and called discussion, there is no sharing of ideas, no bouncing ideas off of each other, no intellectual progress but simply a puzzle devised to misconstrue, to misrepresent, and wear down any patience for real discussion for the sake of some hidden or obvious agenda. Rhetoric relies not on the sharing of ideas and concepts but on emotion or deception.
There is also that sort of discussion that is often called argumentation but which is has nothing to do with the formal argument. The formal argument consists of a premise or premises that infer a conclusion, both of which are statements that can be defined as being true or false. But such formal definitions are rarely understood and even more rarely put into use. Rather, argumentation often relies on “being right”. People often argue not because they are interested in truth, but because they must somehow prove how they are right regardless if they are or not. Saving face is often motivation for argumentation as is emotion, so-called patriotism, and of course religious faith.
Also, there is that sort of discussion that is based on opinion. We share opinions but in the opinion-based discussion the problem is that we all seem to assume that our personal opinion is correct and that all others are wrong. The opinion-based discussion is not dangerous or detrimental in itself. The problem is that many are not able to differentiate opinion from fact. Simply because I have an opinion, that opinion is not automatically to be respected and certainly not accepted. The existence of opinion does not necessitate respect or acceptance.
All of this is important only because it is important to differentiate good from bad discussion. While discussion is important to us all, many times it is also used as a tool for limitation rather than the broadening of perspective. Some discussion is simply dangerous. The continued discussion of intelligent design is wasteful and dangerous. It is wasteful because the hypothesis of intelligent design has consistently failed as a source of any meaningful knowledge and to continue to discuss it as a valid theory takes time and effort away from our capability of discussing hypotheses that have not been falsified. The continued discussion of ideas that are antiquated, falsified and failed simply because we do not like the conclusions of the arguments is nothing more than wasted effort and time.
Continued discussion of hypotheses such as intelligent design is not only wasteful, but also dangerous. Because so much public discussion is so easily manipulated the continued discussion of failed ideas can be easily construed as meaning that they are not failed. This is precisely what proponents of intelligent design depend upon. The Discovery Institute, a leading proponent of intelligent design has agreed that this is in fact a primary motivation of their continued attack on science education in public schools. The perception of failed hypotheses as being valid theories creates confusion and apathy. Confusion and apathy opens up the possibility of rhetorical devices to come into play instead of true and honest discussion. In the end, true and honest discussion cannot be differentiated from forms of rhetoric.
When discussion becomes misconstrued with ulterior motives, rhetoric, emotion and wishful thinking, the aspects of discussion that make it a source of intelligent progress, of scientific progress, of understanding and broadened perspectives become hidden behind a wall of worthless words, confusion and apathy. Movements such as intelligent design, motivated by personal religious views, are not new, but their effects can be devastating. The irony of intelligent design is that while it claims a moral high ground, it is in its very nature heinously immoral. Hopefully, with honest discussion the roaches will be flushed from their dens and forced to call themselves what they truly are: vermin that carry the disease of confusion and stupidity.

The Chosen Few

2008-06-02T12:17:00.000-07:00

Both the belief that only a few people can be the “chosen” and the viewpoint that everyone is absolutely equal are devastating to the progress of human intelligence and a just society. Furthermore, both of these viewpoints are inherently religious, especially so when the religious belief becomes dogmatic, soaked in fear and void of thought. From the dogmatic Christian creed to the vague and all-encompassing spiritualistic liberalism, a necessary ingredient of any unfounded faith or belief is that it is both different from other unfounded faiths and that everyone is capable of joining special club of the few. The Jews were “God’s chosen people”, and then after Jesus, those that believed that Christ was the son of god were considered the new Jews. At first, the Jews considered any non-Jew as condemned and unclean. Then, after the advent of Christ, all persons were considered equal “in the eyes of God” (except the Jews?). Then Muhammad took over the prophecy position. Positions change and the “chosen” are always being re-evaluated by a few. All in all, however, religious liberation from life for a chosen few was an option for everyone. The Jehovah witnesses and others of the same ilk put numerical limitations on the “chosen few, but no one can know who that group is. It is a witty variation to be sure, but just as nonsensical. Such beliefs are unfortunately not limited to the ludicrous claims of well-known and lesser well-known variations of religious belief, but boil over into many if not all aspects of life.
Religious societies are no different than any other types of societies. Religions segregate themselves, often claiming that they alone hold the universal truth: that they are the “chosen few”. Although a single religious text (such as the bible) can be found in many different religions each of those religions can still claim that they alone hold the universal truth. In a different paradigm, there are “all-black” churches and “all-white” churches, probably due to the social segregation that is still ubiquitous in societies such as the American one. Churches are often said to “fit” an individual and the leaders of those churches often use terms such as “home” to describe their church which are are all psychological allusions. Of course, the political affiliations of churches have of lately become apparent. Just take the recent shenanigans of Rev. Wright or Mr. Heagy. Religions are often sub-groups within groups that are found in all societies just as there are sub-societies that can be found within larger societies. Just as the color of one’s skin can sub-divide a person within their own society, so can one’s belief. But just as the color of one’s skin can segregate them, it can also become the reason one is accepted as one of the “chosen” in a particular sub-social group. The Baptists and the Methodists become two sub-groups of a single thing: religion just as the black culture and the white culture become two sub-groups in a greater society. To be a part of a “chosen few” justifies one’s beliefs but also justifies the actions of the group. This is simply another form of group-think.
Another concept common to both religious and social groups is the concept of manifest destiny. Mr. Bush has said in no uncertain terms that it was his destiny (given to him by God) to become president, and his actions are no less than imperialistic manifest destiny. His belief in God justifies his belief that it is just to enter into an unjustified war. Mr. Bush evidently believes himself to be one of the “chosen” by God. The dangerous and dilapidating consequences of such thought are obvious. America is embroiled in an unjustified war that is sucking it dry both economically and morally. This is of no consequence to those such as Mr. Bush because they believe that they are led by a higher power, that they are part of a “chosen few”. As ludicrous as this may seem, it is even more dangerous. Those that accept Bush’s claim of personal and political manifest destiny accept it because they are also part of a “chosen” group; namely the same group as Mr. Bush. His claim, their logic goes, is true because of their like belief in both being part of a “chosen few”, and that any claim is true as long as it is justified by the group.
I can claim to be part of a “chosen few” and that claim will make me feel better about myself (as long as it adheres to my particular group) even though I may not be justified in doing so: the justification becomes secondary for the “chosen few” and the feeling of commitment to a group becomes all-encompassing. Such claims are often accepted by the society outside of the “chosen few” as well because of the social implications: everyone can somehow be a part of a “chosen few”, and everyone deserves and equal say in all political decisions no matter their background, their decisions, or their actions; and everyone is capable (and deserving) of exactly the same respect no matter their attitude, their chain of reasoning, their choice to think rationally or not. Everyone is equal, as long as they are part of a “chosen few”. This simply relegates all no group as “chosen”, and all the “few” as one of the many.
To be part of a “chosen few” ironically those “chosen few” must both differentiate themselves from others and allow all others to have the capability to be part of their particular group. This is because when all meaningful definitions have been watered down and diluted to fit everyone’s emotional needs everything ceases to have pertinence whether that is intelligence or respect. It is not uncommon for everyone to expect the same things whether those things are social acceptance, respect from others, or intelligent respect no matter if they deserve it or not. Their reasoning is that everyone is both equal and deserving and that there is a “chosen few” that are deemed special for one or another reason. The unsaid rule is that while everyone is capable of understanding and joining any particular “few”, not everyone will be “chosen”.

Looking Up to Look Down

2008-05-27T17:34:00.001-07:00

In any grocery store, supermarket, or so-called “super-store” the tabloids are some of the last things that one sees on the way out, among the myriad of useless trinkets and “last-minute” buys that most stores hawk. People fall for these things, probably because they are thinking that they might actually need them. Among their needs is evidently the need for journalistic tripe and the idolatry of movie-stars, especially their personal weakness and downfalls. We all need someone to look up to and in our need we also have the need to somehow know that our idols are no better than ourselves. It is the continuous battle between our need for heroes and heroines and our own fears that we are failures and flops that keep us human. We want to both look up to someone and look down on others.
It is a funny thing that no matter how hard I try, I can very rarely find anyone who will admit to picking up one or another of the worthless rags that line the magazine racks having to do with one star’s addiction or divorce or another musicians failing numbers on the billboard charts. We love movie stars for the same reasons that pre-recorded music and karaoke have become so common: we want the illusion. The movies we see, the music we buy take us away from our own humdrum lives while the gossip rags give us the ego-boost that we all need now and then. The irony is that in both cases the players are the same: those we love to love and hate.
When I do find those that will admit to buying the equivalent of literary diarrhea, the smile and chuckle and explain to me that “it’s all just good fun.” That may be, but I can almost assure anyone who says that, that the lives that such junk-journalism often throws into disarray (take Brittany Spears, talentless and taunted) such things are a bit more than just “good fun”. No matter, they continue to buy the crap, continuing their mindless consumerism without regard for anything else than their own entertainment.
People are funny that way: qualifying things that cannot be qualified. On the market, are innumerable books on every religion imaginable: spokespersons and doomsayers that are telling us what to think, how to think, and defining for us our beliefs. Christianity has one collection of books, the bible, but any section on Christianity in most bookstores is several shelves on several rows. There are followers of certain authors concerning religion just as there is followers of certain literary writers and novelists. We need someone to look up to because we do not trust our selves and are not willing to do the work to know anything with any certainty. Instead, we qualify the reasons that we have for accepting one or another author, councilor etc… on how we feel, but more importantly how they make us feel. We want to feel good, and generally like people and ideas that make us feel good.
When a nugget of reality finally hits us, we back away, and authors know this. That’s why they tend to follow up such grains of wisdom with some pep talk (“you can do this; you just have to believe in yourself” or “Give god the reigns and you both will make it through!”) If these little grains of wisdom are too many rather than being few and far between, readers will not feel good and books will not sell. Books such as the “Purpose Driven Life” work this way. First, the assumption is that there is a purpose, and secondly that the purpose involves a singular way of thinking. Thirdly, and this is important, that such a life is possible and only possible with a certain viewpoint. Imagine how a book called “The Purposeless Life” would sell.
The point here is that the rags out the checkout counter make us feel better about ourselves while the movies and music we see and buy (steal?) while taking us away from our own lives, give us something to look forward to. Is it possible that religion is the same? We believe in gods because we need something to look forward to while at the same time religions remind us that those that believe are a part of that “special club” that allows only certain members (those who adhere to their specific flavor of belief). With religion, like junk-journalism, we can look down on others while at the same time, like movies and movie stars, we can have something to look up to. All these, just like movie and rock stars, under one roof: God. God accepts us, but we have to believe in him (just like movie stars), while at the same time God gives us the power to look down upon others (see: Old Testament).
Now most of the time when these sorts of things are mentioned the pat reply becomes “that’s just the fanatics”. But, it is interesting to remember that tabloid newspapers are some of the best selling reads on the market: someone is buying them but not admitting to it. Who are these mysterious “fanatics” if it is not the basic religious believer? What is the difference between a “normal” religious person and the religious fanatic? What differentiates a spiritual person from a religious person? Pathetic answers like “it’s a matter of opinion” are meaningless because they are empty. The answer is: none. If I believe that winged ghosts fly around, that if I bury a statue in the wall of my house I will be safe from less-good winged ghosts, that if I believe that there a grand ghost (the ghost of all ghosts) that is personally interested in my well-being, or that the universe is that ghost, or that certain planets allow for prophecy, or that miracles are scientifically defiant acts of beings capable of changing the known structure of energy and matter, of that somehow I can decipher religious scripts to scrape some truth from them (the cafeteria religionist), then I am a fanatic: a person has lost grasp of reality. If, then, I am such a person, I need to know that there are others like me, that I am OK, and that those that have called me crazy will be punished while I watch. I need to look up to something while looking down at another thing.
Religions are special fan clubs with a special move star to look up to. At the same time, religions are empowering, differentiating those who follow them with the feeling of self-righteousness. Religion is about love, so many say, but they fail to mention that it must be the right kind of love. One tabloid, evidently, is not the same as any other. Religious writing is the granddaddy of tabloids and God is the granddaddy of all movie and/or rock stars. Imagine, self-degradation and self-righteousness all-in-one!

The New Science

2008-05-19T17:15:00.001-07:00

A new science is upon us; one that differs from the tried and trusted science that has taken us so far. Science, as it has been defined by many great minds that have given us the modern “miracles” that we all enjoy today, is in the almost invisible process of being re-configured. Traditionally, when the knowledge gained piece by piece by following the exact and demanding standards set by the scientific method saves a life, or explains anomalies it is not science but a “miracle”. Or, when the scientific conclusions do not further the power of politicians, it is subject to political editing and censorship. And so it goes that science, doing all the work, gets very little glory and must be politically correct. When the ‘jaws of life’ cut a survivor out of a mangled car, it was the “hand of God” that saved them, not sound engineering and rational understanding. When the NASA scientists come to sound conclusions concerning global warming, politicians take it upon themselves to “interpret” the data to conform to conservative policy. Of course, these “miracles” and political limitations have been understood by most to be simply the façade of authority. Now, however, from the new creationist’s to latest of Bush’s freshman politicos, the ability for the non-scientific to define and decide what modern science is and how it is best used is becoming the accepted norm.
Science is being redefined to fit everyone’s needs, desires and wishes so its validity must be conferred by authorities other than the scientific method in order to be perceived as sound. The Vatican recently released a new list of “new sins”, for example, that included scientific subject matter. Evidently God got it wrong the first time and so Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, the Vatican's number two man, set things right "(Within bioethics) there are areas where we absolutely must denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is difficult to predict and control," he said. The church moralizes science and in doing so believes that it has the right and the power to curb and curtail scientific progress. Science is “difficult to predict and control” but without the scientific method it is impossible. This is not a new angle. While it is to be applauded that the Catholic church has finally “accepted the truth of scientific research in regard to the environment” (just like it “accepted” that the earth was not the center of the universe), it seems that science is not to be accepted until the church ordains it certain. According to Reuters, “Pope Benedict has made several strong appeals for the protection of the environment, saying issues such as climate change had become gravely important for the entire human race.” This is a nice feather in the cap of science, validating it evidently! Now that the Pope is onboard, climate change must be an actual reality by God’s law no less.
In the USA, as hard as it may be to believe in other parts of the world, scientists are forced to waste precious time on ridiculous and dangerous advances by religion to redefine science to accept its newest creation theory, intelligent design. While this is bad enough, what is the underlying threat is the same attitude towards biological evolution that intelligent design advocates have is no different than the attitude of the Catholic church towards science: it seems that science is incomplete without religion. George Bush adheres to this kind of new science. This is not more evident than his recent “change of mind” (together with the Pope) concerning global warming. After years of fighting almost any changes in America’s environmental attitude, claiming that global warming is at best a questionable hypothesis, and continually pointing out that the science was incomplete, Bush now is certain that global warming is ‘real’. This comes after at least one count of one of his minions changing scientific data to fit the administration’s politics. This is not only important because of the legal and ethical ramifications, but because it is a sign of this administration’s (and our society’s) attitude towards science. It is highly doubtful that Bush made his decision based on more scientific data etc… given that Bush has little or no scientific knowledge. In other words, according to many people who adhere to religious or certain political points of view, the new science is something that can be reinterpreted/accepted by people with no or little scientific understanding based on other criteria than good science. This point seems to go unnoticed among religious pundits and their followers. But, the fact remains that like history often is, science is seen as something that can be redefined to fit our wishes and wants. And like history, doing so dilutes the strength and validity of science. As long as people continue to pay homage to religious leaders and give respect to baseless and antiquated ways of thinking, then the redefinition of science to fit society’s desire and traditions rather than following a strict method of justification over time will always be possible.
The new science, ironically enough is no different than the science of the middle-ages, when it was forced by the sword to adhere to religious edicts. I have pointed out in earlier essays that while it is true that much science was done in ‘the name of God’ by catholic monks, that those monks were limited to one conclusion: that God existed and creation was a fact. As long as their scientific enquiry adhered to those simple principles, they were free to be as skeptical as they felt need to be until the absurdity of their ideas became too much. Perhaps it was the absurdity of the Catholic Church’s position on climate change and its continued absurd view on the fetuses (abortion etc…) that is the basis for the Pope’s decisions regarding climate change and bio-research? The new science is, by definition, ‘new’ because it is more limited rather than infinitely broader in its scope than the “old” science. The new science, as recently defined by bodies such as the Bush administration, and traditionally defined by religion, differs from its predecessor by its limitations and its ability to be molded by forces outside of the scientific method. The new science is no longer limited by severe definitions of knowledge, justification, experimentation, and abilities to predict consistently outcomes that are inferred by credible premises no matter what those conclusions may be. Rather science must now be validated by faith and deemed politically acceptable before it is to be accepted as true knowledge.

Tradition

2008-05-12T08:45:00.001-07:00

Tradition is the basis of many good aspects of humanity such as trust, understanding and acceptance. Tradition gives us a sense of security because it gives us a sense of the past. Many times it defines who we are by helping us remember where, who and what we came from. Families come together in the name of tradition; goodwill and friendship survive because of tradition; a sense of self and its connection to those who we love is often possible only because of tradition. Tradition probably has its roots in early human history. In fact, much of our history is probably the result of tradition. That being said, tradition has its dark sides as well.
Tradition, while the foundation of so much good, like anything without moderation can be the kernel of much of the bad aspects of humanity such as fear, ignorance and rejection of the inevitable: change. When our traditions are attacked we often feel that we are being personally attacked because of its link to our self and security. Because tradition is often ingrained in what we call “family values”, an attack on tradition is often felt as an attack on our family. This alone can be the cause of violent reactions and hatred. Furthermore, when our traditions are attacked those that we perceive as the attackers are often viewed as having bad will and being enemies. While at times, these can be reactions based on valid arguments, often they are unwarranted and based on emotion alone.
David Hume claimed that people are not motivated by reason but by emotion, and given that tradition creates an emotional tie it could easily be argued that we are motivated to act (or not to act) by the traditions that we have. If tradition is steeped in emotive responses, then it would follow that we are not so much interested in if our traditions are good or bad, but simply that we are directly linked to them emotionally speaking. That is to say that our reactions are based on reason but simply on emotion. We react with a vengeance not because our reactions are warranted but because we feel that we are being attacked personally. In that sense, many argue that the emotional responses to attacks on tradition are simply acts of self-defense. This is what is underlying the typical responses to many in regard to the Iraqi war and the soldiers that are fighting that war.
However, this is a misrepresentation and misinterpretation of self-defense. Self-defense is defined as a justifiable physical act against ones attacker. The early reaction to those in America that opposed the Iraqi war was a reaction to what was perceived as an attack on tradition, and not a justifiable act against an attacker. Emotion is a human trait, but is not a trait that can be counted on for its ability to clarify what is true or not. Rather, emotion obscures the truth to the extent that many times we relish the “truth” that we mistakenly claim we find through our emotional ties. This is not truth at all, but simply our own version of it: namely, the version that adheres to our wants and desires defined by the traditions that we follow.
Religion is a direct descendent of the tangles of tradition, and as such it is often difficult if not impossible for many to determine whether it is a positive or a negative tradition. This confusion, however, is not the result of the nature of religion, but of the nature of tradition. It is obvious by the explanations given by religion that it has its roots deeply embedded in tradition.
The “truth” found in religion is unfounded, unverifiable, contradictory, and much of it is nothing more than outlandish. Nevertheless, a great number of people continue to adhere to religious belief. The total disregard for reason and rational thought that is ubiquitous throughout religious belief can be nothing more than the result of the total and absolute acceptance of age-old traditions that human beings have defined themselves for eons. This does not make these definitions true nor does it make the arguments that they are derived by valid any more than the simple fact that we have followed certain traditions for centuries makes those traditions justifiable, ethical, or valid. Again, tradition is the direct descendent, not of free and rational thought, but of pure emotional response.
Many people question why emotive responses and emotional reasoning are not on par with free enquiry and rational reasoning. One reason is that emotions are easily swayed and created. Without the necessity of rationality and reason, justification is not necessary: blind faith is all that is needed; to “feel good” creates ethical justification. In other words, as long as a tradition makes us “feel good” we equate that feeling with ethical justification, which is nothing more than moral relativism (different things make different people feel good, but all feelings are equal). Another weakness of tradition is that it resists change. Tradition, in fact, is the nemesis of change for with change traditions tend to die or evolve: either of which are deemed as bad or as causing bad feelings, and hence being immoral and/or unethical. Tradition creates the illusion that change itself is unethical.
Tradition is the culprit not only in the religious reluctance to change, but also in the political (especially the conservative) realm as well. It is no wonder that the Republican party (the conservative branch of the American government) is reluctant to the inevitable changes in the world: it is steeped in certain traditions that disallow the acceptance of such change. The more liberally minded people, on the other hand, are more open to change simply because of the allowance of such in their own traditions. Religion relies almost solely on tradition, and is often linked to the conservative branches of governments, both being reluctant to change.
The ongoing internal political and religious dichotomies of countries such as the United States are almost solely based on the differing traditions that we as individuals adhere to. Because tradition is not the product of rational thought nor is it the consequence of free enquiry, it is able to be defined in any way that makes the followers of one or another tradition feel. This alone causes the break-down of even the possibility of real change, both on the political and the social realm. Politically, tradition is lethal because it personalizes politics, an endeavor that by its very nature is utilitarian. Religiously, tradition is lethal because it melds opinion into fact for no other reason than fear and the adherence to ignorance. While traditions can be the glue that holds families, friends and even nations together, if taken at face-value without thought and without question: tradition can lead us into quagmires such as Iraq and into ridiculous and dangerous avenues that allow fact to be melded into “opinion” and emotion to be equated with reason.

Depend upon it!

2008-05-05T18:52:00.001-07:00

Without the resolve to confront real problems with real solutions, there is very little chance that we will ever solve any of the very serious problems that we all, every one of us, face. However much we may desire for our problems to be resolved, however much we may wish for answers, our dependency upon that desire (that is what it is) will not be enough. Having resolve is not the same as having the desire to do something. Desire is free; resolve takes planning, time, and effort. Desire is something that we have no control over (it is emotive), while resolve is a concerted decision that we must consciously make. Desire, however, is often mistaken for resolve. Religious people for example claim that they have the resolve to follow the edicts of their religion, but what they actually have is the desire for what they consider to be a guaranteed consequent: they do not desire to die i.e. there is a guaranteed consequent. People who have resolve confront problems to the best of their ability without believing that there is a guaranteed consequent. When real problems are confronted with desire rather than resolve, real problems remain but become hidden behind the haze of fantasy: there is only the belief that they have been resolved.
Truth be known, we all rely upon a very few people to solve our problems. Engineers build bridges, teachers teach, politicians run countries, contructors construct. Reliance upon others is a necessity of modern society, dependence is not. It is very important to realize that dependence is not something that is morally wrong, unless we become nothing but dependent. While reliance is a reality of life whether we rely upon our own resolve or we rely upon others, is a matter of trust. Dependence is an expectation. Dependence is easy: we can simply forget and let another take care of our problems. Reliance is difficult because often trust is hard to come by and often when it fails we are faced with new problems. Unfortunately when new problems arise, most of us depend upon someone else to resolve them, much like children depend upon their parents. Because there is no one of us that has the solutions to all the problems that we may encounter, we realize that there are problems that we have no solution for. We find out, much like children inevitably do, that our parents are simply people just like us. This, however, is not good enough for many and so their search leads them to dependence, if not upon their parents, then upon other people and even other things. Dependence often renders the ability to make decisions weak and even useless, but without the ability to make decisions reliance is impossible. Take for example what happens to one who “gives up”, or simply “accepts” their life “as it is”. Their dependence makes them believe that they are actually making decisions when what they are really doing is simply reacting to reality based on their desire to make it succumb to their own wants. When we are no longer able to make decisions, we are no longer able to be anything but dependent. Others will make our decisions for us and we will simply react, positively or negatively, to those decisions. Excuses take the place of responsibility because excuses allow us to continue our dependence. With enough time, dependence is all that we have, and excuses are the only things we rely upon.
Reliance does come at a cost: we will fail and we will be let down; there will be problems that we have no solutions for. Reliance, while it enables us to make decisions, disallows us the ability to give up on ourselves because we are forced to face problems head on. By disallowing us the luxury of dependence, reliance forces us to become independent. With reliance we are unable to accept life “as it is” because we realize that life is dependent upon us and not the other way around. Reliance forces decision-making upon us and in doing so our reactions automatically evolve into situations in which we must make decisions. In the place of excuses, comes responsibility. The belief in an afterlife or in an all-powerful god allows us to be dependent upon our belief or in the all-powerful god. The modern equivalence, spiritualism, is no different. It allows us a crutch: there are some things that are beyond explanation and our power that control our lives. Therefore, the spiritualist depends upon ignorance and the unknown in much the same way that any full-blown religious follower does.
Reliance is a habit just as dependence is. To be, for example, self-reliant, one must get into the habit of being curious. Curiosity coincides with reliance just as blind faith coincides with dependence (hence the adjective “blind”). To get into the habit of any action or thought process, one must do and use that action or process over time. Reliance is a process of problem-solving while dependence is a non-process altogether. To become self-reliant, for example, one must fail and perceive one’s failure as such. Afterwards, the process of becoming self-reliant starts over. Dependency is failure itself: the lack of action and the acceptance of one’s own excuses as truth. Just as failure bolsters self-reliance, failure is the crux of religious faith: we are all failures without the belief in an all-powerful god, or in spiritual terms, we are all failures if we do not concede to our ignorance.
There are numerous examples of the failure of reliance in our society. Intelligent Design is not intelligently reliant but it is absolutely based on dependency: the failure of science to be absolutely certain. By no means is it a valid scientific theory but yet it continues to claim controversy (scientifically speaking) because it is dependent upon a certain definition of science that is both invalid, detrimental to real problem solving, and based solely on false statements and misconstrued arguments: it is based on a certain conclusion. The claim that scientists are somehow “expelled” from the scientific community because of their adhering to intelligent design is ludicrous: they are simply not allowed to introduce as science hypotheses that are not scientific. Simply because one is dependent upon a certain hypothesis does not mean that the hypothesis is reliable. Simply because one is a scientist, does not make one correct. Our society depends upon its government and when that government fails its citizens, to rely upon one’s own rational skepticism is deemed immoral. This sort of rubbish is only possible because there are so many that are dependent upon a certain definition, a dependence upon an illusion, of this country and what they want it to be. Global warming cannot be “real” if one is dependent on oil and a certain way of life, no matter how real global warming actually is. Racism must continually be a problem or I cannot rely upon my race as an excuse/racism must be completely eradicated or I will forever feel guilty, overpopulation is not our problem/overpopulation is not a problem at all etc, etc… the list goes on. Without a healthy dose of self-reliance our dependency will kill us all: Depend upon it!

Garbage In-Garbage Out

2008-04-29T14:59:00.001-07:00

Today we are beset by many challenges and situations that will test our capability, and more importantly our willingness to act rationally. At the same time, we are battling the typical human short-comings: greed, fear, and selfishness to name a few. We will overcome these if and only if we choose to think rationally and act on that rationality. The American president, George W. Bush, has shown himself to not do so and thus this country is in shambles at least in part because of his lack of, his inability to think rationally and act on that rationality. Instead, President Bush acts on his personal faith. A great number of the American society is not rational, and choose to act on its personal faith as well. As a result, the waste of time and energy spent on ludicrous ideas such as intelligent design and useless, empty political reactions to “terrorist threats” abound and are both accepted by a large majority of the American public not because they are valid and utilitarian respectively, but because the large majority of Americans do not have the ability to think rationally.
The problems that the American society is having today cannot be described as simply environmental or economic. Those problems are the symptoms of a greater, more broad problem that is itself the consequence of even a more ubiquitous cancer. The cancer that is the underlying factor beneath all of the problems and challenges that face us as a society today is the inability to use rational thought and skeptical enquiry to differentiate true from false statements, valid from invalid arguments. There is a reason that politicians can discuss scientific findings as if they are the authority on such findings. It is because politicians are adept at portraying truth rather than defining it. Politicians can portray truth just as priests and preachers can interpret any truth that they may want from any religious text that they choose. If the audience cannot differentiate truth from political and/or religious rhetoric, then scientific truth ceases to have any meaning and furthermore is equated with both political and religious “truth”. The consequent of such confusion is that the ridiculous as well as the unfounded is equated with the plausible and credible.
Global warming continues to be “discussed” in a political realm as if it were questionable in the scientific realm. It is not a scientific question as to whether or not global warming is a problem: it is. Neither is there scientific doubt as to whether or not human activity is in part to blame for the rapid growth of the phenomenon known as global warming: it is. Nevertheless the phenomenon of global warming is discussed in political as well as economic terms rather than in scientific and rational terms. Politicians (as well as business concerns) do not rely upon rational thought and skeptical enquiry because doing so would force them to act rather than rely upon empty rhetoric. As long as doubt can be misused, politicians and those business concerns with a direct interest in keeping the phenomenon in doubt will continue to do so. Rational thought and honest skepticism clarifies and clarification is often the worst enemy of those who have a vested interest in keeping things “the way they have been”. Unfortunately this seems to be lost on most of the public, not because the public does not have vested interested in global warming and our actions to rectify it, but because most of the general public is simply incapable or unwilling to attack the real problem (political and economic unwillingness).
Preachers and priests continue even to this day to claim that natural disasters are “the act of God” and as such should not be interfered with. This is itself a ludicrous and baseless claim, but more so it is a dangerous one both socially and politically. George W. Bush relies upon his faith to guide him in his decisions, and in doing so relies less upon his ability to think rationally. As a result his actions lead this country into dire straits. A solid argument can be made that the current Iraqi conflict is at least in part a religious war, and the religious fires have been and continue to be fanned by religious rhetorical devices. Not only presidents rely upon religious rhetoric, but so do priests and preachers. Their meaningless sermons are pregnant with vague terms and ambiguous meanings that are meant to do nothing but massage the egos, the fears, and the ignorance of their followers. At last count over 80% of the American public is religious in some sense, most being by all accounts fanatically. The fact that many hold this as proof of the validity of religious arguments is simply saddening. As long as the public is unwilling are incapable of differentiating fact from fiction, then pundits, both religious and political, will be able to strain the very meaning of “truth” to its very limits, making it in the end as meaningless as their rhetoric.
Global warming is a theory, and that fact alone ought to move our politicians to act accordingly. Instead, they claim that global warming is “only a theory”, simply making their ignorance known. That global warming scientific theory is not reason to negotiate truth. A scientific theory is reason to act. Other scientific theories include biological evolution and yet in this modern age of science there are those, specifically The Discovery Institute, that still claim that biological evolution “is only a theory”. This sort of dialectic debases real discussion, and is not seen as problematic by most of the American public but as important: it is not. As rational thought and skeptical enquiry are more and more beyond the reach of the average American, real discussion as well as progressive education and knowledge are impossible. “Garbage in-garbage out” comes to mind. If one cannot tell the difference between garbage and goods, then we are truly defeated, not by the problems and challenges that confront us, but by our own ignorance, apathy, and unwillingness.

Ongoing Idiocy

2008-04-21T17:56:00.001-07:00

Reason will not defeat faith because faith is irrational, and rational thought cannot defeat propaganda if people cannot tell the difference between the two. This is the cornerstone and foundation of the ongoing “Intelligent Design” movement in the United States. There is no controversy concerning the validity of biological evolution as an explanation for life on earth, but still “controversy” is claimed by those such as the Discovery Institute who either do not wish or cannot understand this. There is no question as to the origins of life (life is the consequent of biological evolution) although the story is incomplete. But, the incompleteness of our knowledge concerning the origins of life is not a weakness: it is the nature of what we call knowledge. All of this is the case, but is of no consequent. What is of consequent is the quality of life that we have.
Science, entailing the scientific method, has given us the technology, the ability to understand, and the capability to further broaden the quality of life that we have as human beings. While it can be argued that science has brought upon humanity some of the worst atrocities in human history, it is not science that can be blamed. Rather, it is the use of science by people; people motivated by certain ideologies, military or otherwise, that bear the burden of human evil. Every cure, every agricultural advance, every cultural paradigm, every engineering feat, every piece and parcel of understanding that we have of the world and the universe we live in, every perspective pertaining to human knowledge can be linked to science. All of this has not been gotten freely. This sort of progress has been the consequent of curious minds not hindered by any faith-ideology, but spurred on by the human need to understand. All of this has been made possible by science, an imperfect and by far un-finished symphony that inevitably will have no end. This is the nature of that thing we call “science”. Its power is that it is open-ended, but the cost of that open-endedness is uncertainty.
The scientific method works. It works consistently, over time and has defeated all other alternatives in regard to defining human knowledge, or what has been defined as “true, justified belief”. The scientific method is a system that must remain open to all, especially scientific peers as well as those that have valid alternative theories. The scientific method relies upon freedom of thought and freedom of speech. It relies on the ability of theories to be replicated and hypotheses to be tested: not by a few, but by all. Science is a process not simply of chemical tests and physical properties to be compared, data to be propagated and syncopated. Science is a process of free thought. These things together make up science. The cost of this kind of free thought is that a process must be devised to even the playing field for all hypotheses. This means that all hypotheses must give themselves freely to the process of the scientific method, and if they fail: they must admit failure. Those hypotheses that defeat alternative theories, not based on tradition, wishful thinking, repetition, or other fallacies, are to be held until they too fail, if it is possible for them to be defeated at all. This is science, and the method of science has given us every piece of knowledge that we have.
Faith can give us hypotheses but it cannot give us knowledge. Faith in any form, put any way, re-configured to seem one way or the other, propagandized, called by other names, politicized or propagated by personal motivations cannot give us knowledge. While faith can give rise to hope, and hope can give rise to hypotheses, those hypotheses (to even be considered knowledge) must adhere to some consistent, repeatable, testable, and predicable method that is open to all and able to be peer-reviewed over and over again. Faith does not meet these criteria, and neither do the products of faith. One of the greatest scientists in human history, repeatedly misused and misquoted by many in their quest to lessen the quality of life by redefining the very thing that creates that quality, admittedly made the mistake of relying on faith to explain science and eventually admitted his mistake and even apologized for it. Faith is not science and does not lead to any thing scientific other than the individual hope that science will unfold more understanding and positive consequences for humanity in the end.
There are a few vocal groups, mainly in the United States, that continually call “foul” concerning the scientific method based on the grounds of free speech and freedom of thought. These groups claim that science is “biased” and as a result limits their freedom to speak or think the way that they desire to speak or think. This is their right and privilege. Because of this right and privilege and because they have faith in what they claim and think, they claim that the moral (the right) thing to do is to redefine science to allow their claims and thoughts to be considered scientific. This is the basis of their argument. However, to allow these claims and thoughts to be considered scientific, the scientific method would have to be changed. It would have to be changed in order to include hypotheses (as scientific) that cannot be tested, that have failed against alternative theories, are not consistent, and have failed to result in any predictable fashion, save one: violence. In stating these things I am not claiming that these people cannot say what they want, believe what they want and that they have a right and privilege to do so. What I am saying is: not every belief, thought, proposition, claim, and hope is scientific. To change the scientific method, as these people claim need doing, would allow, would demand that every belief, thought, proposition, claim, and hope is scientific. This is not rhetorical reply, but simply a reality of the conclusion of such arguments. These would not only diminish the quality of science and its ability to be consistent, predicable, and justifiably true, but would destroy the ability of science to be considered trustworthy at all.
The people who want to redefine science to include their hypothesis, even after it has failed consistently to produce any qualitative result, scientific or otherwise, are asking nothing less than to degrade the quality of human knowledge to the extent that it is simply defined as “belief”. This will have predictable results that are very negative qualitatively speaking but highly positive quantitatively speaking. It will allow all beliefs to be considered scientific, and will diminish the power that science has proven itself to have. This power will be diminished to the extent that science becomes as meaningless as many of the beliefs that humans have held over eons. These groups claim that certain hypotheses, mainly “intelligent design”, are scientific but have failed consistently to produce a single sentence of scientific data to back up their claim. Instead, they rely on propaganda, politics, and poorly made media mechanizations to bolster their pathetic pleas (please pardon my prolonged plethora of ‘P’ words).
As stated earlier, all of this is of no consequent if reason and rationality are unable to defeat faith, which (unfortunately seems to be the case). The continued defiance and refusal of people of faith to use reason and rationality, the continued empty arguments that they offer, and the continued politicization of scientific definitions will eventually result in science and good scientists being blamed for being elitists and intelligently “unfair”. It causes popular confusion and as a result, greater degrees of apathy. What is of consequent, concerning this prolonged attack on the scientific method is that human knowledge will be lessened, dumbed down as it were, to the extent that science becomes meaningless and all opinions become equally deserving of respect. From those who believe the world is flat, to those who believe that the universe rests upon the backs of an infinite pile of turtles, to those who believe that 2+3=5, to those who believe that there is a bearded white man who lives on the North Pole, to those who believe that human beings have no influence on the environment, to those who believe in creators of the universe will all have to be given equal consideration: it all becomes “scientific”. The imagination is a wonderful thing, many times leading to scientific truths, but by itself is not scientific. Of course, this is of no consequent if those who do not know the difference between science and imagination will not learn the difference. Instead, there will only be this ongoing idiocy.

The Evil Environmentalists

2008-04-14T18:32:00.000-07:00

I have often wondered why it is that so many religious people disbelieve that global warming is actually a problem caused by human activity even though an overwhelming amount of evidence has been given to warrant that proposition. I cannot get myself to accept that the answer lies simply in partisan politics: that so many environmentalists tend to be politically liberal and so many religious tend to be politically conservative. Perhaps that political statistic alone is enough to skew the simple mind of some adherents to religion, but not to the vast majority of religious people who hold such a view. It is no secret that politicians are not above using anything, no matter how important or vital it is, even if that thing is important and vital to the survival of a species (human included). Many religious people that I have talked to claim that global warming is simply a business venture set up by “the liberals”: while absolutely possible and probable, this proposition does not explain the good science behind the theory that global warming is being directly influenced by human activity. That being said, I believe that there is something else at play here: the incredulity that the religious have with environmental issues is directly related to their credulity in regard to their religious belief.
At the basis of religious belief is the fallacy of ignorance. The fallacy of ignorance is wrong-reasoning based on the proposition that:
You do not know that I am wrong,
I want to be right, and might be right.
Therefore, I am right.

The problem is the huge leap from “might” to “am”. Historically, religion has relied upon such reasoning from the explanation of disease to the explanation of the universe: because these things could not be explained, religion’s concocted explanations were to be accepted on the authority of “God”, a concept that in the end was based on the very same fallacy. In regard to global warming and other environmental issues, the religious right seems to change its credulity to incredulity, but the fallacy used by them remains the same. It might go something like this:
I do not know that you are right,
I want you to be wrong, and you might be wrong.
Therefore, you are wrong.

Either way the logic does not work. While the decision to disregard scientific evidence might be politically motivated, I believe that the ability to accept such logic is only possible because of religious belief. Religion condones bad reasoning because it must condone bad reasoning. Otherwise, its own edicts crumble.
Here’s a little story:
One afternoon your child comes home with a note from school. It reads: “We have reason to believe that a gunman might be at the school tomorrow”. You decide to send your child to school the next day, anyway. Your child comes home and you ask him if there were any problems. He answers that there were no problems, but has another note sent by the school. It reads: “We have found out that a teacher that we unfortunately had to fire has become disgruntled and was seen buying a gun yesterday.” This worries you, but you decide to send your child to school the next day. The third day, your child comes home and you ask him about school. He says there was a little commotion during the afternoon, and hands you a note. It reads: “Unfortunately we have found a sub-machine gun hidden in the library together with some shells, and have traced it to the disgruntled teacher who unfortunately cannot be found.” It does not say anything about what was done with the gun or the shells. You call the school and ask what they are doing about this possible problem and they answer, “gathering information.” You send your child to school the next day.
Your child comes home early from school and hands you a note. You ask why he’s home early and he tells you that there was some more “stuff” going on, and eats his afternoon cookie after handing you yet another note. This note reads: “Gun shots were heard at the school today, but no one was shot. School was let out early for a teacher’s work day.” You ponder this note and throw it in the trash. Calling the school you find out that they had left the gun and the shells in the library and were still “gathering information.” You send your child to school the next day. Your child comes home with another note from the school. It reads: “Shots fired at the kindergarten class today during recess. Three squirrels found dead under the jungle gym, and one child wounded. Shells and gun found in the library, but no gunman.” You ask your child how school was and he answers fine, except that recess was cut short. You send him to school the next day. A few days later, you hear that several children were shot, but the gunman is still at large… This goes on ad infinitum: The End.
Given this scenario, it seems obvious what any parent in their right mind would do, but given the bad reasoning of those that claim that global warming is nothing but a farce and a fake put up by “liberals” to attack “the American way of life”, the child is continually sent back to school. As long as a gunman is not found, the chances of their being gun fire at the school is probable but not certain. This is what is being argued by those who oppose action against global warming.
First, what must be understood is the nature of science: probability. Probability by its very nature lacks certainty. In fact, in scientific enquiry certainty is dangerous. Let’s say that that a scientist has an idea, and that idea becomes the center of his hypothesis. If that idea is proven wrong then the scientist’s hypothesis falls apart. Unfortunately, this may mean that the scientist is left with nothing. So, sometimes bad scientists have resorted to deceptive measures to protect their interests. Fortunately, science in any form (to be considered respectable) must be open to peer-review and made public as well. There are no secrets in good science, and so bad scientists tend to become viewed as such. In this way, good science is able to grow and because it is able to grow by its very nature lacks certainty.
On the other hand, religious belief, and science motivated by religious belief, is based on certainty: the certainty that the universe is created and has purpose and meaning. Because religious belief is based on certainty, probability is never enough. This is precisely why religion and science will never be the bedfellows that so many claim that they can. In the scenario above, no matter how probable it is that there is a gunman shooting at the school, it can never be certain as long as a gunman cannot be found. The credulity that allows religious people to believe religious doctrine and dogma on nothing more than faith is precisely the same thing that allows them to disregard the scientific probability that global warming is a serious problem: their credulity is based in certainty.
Environmentalists are often demonized by the religious right because they rely upon scientific probability rather than religious certainty not because of the truth or false nature of their claims, but because of the scientific nature of their claims. However, the probabilistic claims themselves are never accepted because of the demand for religious certainty: a demand based on the fallacy of ignorance, in one or another of its forms. Credulity based on certainty becomes the basis for incredulity concerning uncertainty. What is being passed over either consciously or inadvertently by religious peoples is that science by its very nature is probabilistic rather than certain. One cannot get blood from a turnip, and one cannot expect rationality from anyone who defines the world in religiously certain terms. The environmentalists are often portrayed as “evil” because they are rational rather than religious: they act on science rather than credulity. Unfortunately, if religion is continually allowed free play in societies and science, there is only one thing that is certain, and that by all definitions is certainly not good.

The Anti-Theist

2008-04-07T17:40:00.000-07:00

In his book, Against All Gods, A.C Grayling proposes that the word “atheism” be changed to “naturalist” for reasons of clarification. His point is well taken. An atheist is not necessarily a person that is reacting to theism, but rather a person that is not connected to theism at all. He writes, “The term [atheism] already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground.” When this point is taken into consideration, the point of atheism becomes much clearer: it is a viewpoint not based on theism but on 1) the acceptance that life and the universe can be explained naturally, and 2) that morality is not dependent on any theistic belief. All that being said I would have to consider myself a naturalist who is also an anti-theist.
Grayling points out that as a naturalist, the theist then becomes a ‘super naturalist’, which is the case: the theist believes that there are explanations for life and the universe that supersede the natural explanations that we get from science and intellectual probing. In adhering to the term “naturalist” rather than “atheist” the naturalist is no longer defining his belief in terms of theism, but rather in terms of natural explanations derived from skeptical and rational as well as intelligent enquiry. Grayling also writes, “Supernaturalists are fond of claiming that some irreligious people turn to prayer when in mortal danger, but naturalists can reply that supernaturalists typically repose great faith in science when they find themselves in (say) a hospital or an aeroplane- and with far greater frequency.” By claiming that irreligious people “turn to prayer” the religious person is trying to undermine claimed natural explanation by the naturalist, but is simply relying on yet another misrepresentation of the truth. By the same token, as a naturalist I can claim that the difference is that naturalists have human hope and fear while supernaturalists have limited, unwarranted faith.
I wrote earlier that I would consider myself a naturalist, but also an anti-theist. I don’t know if this word is in use anywhere, or if anyone would claim such a title other than myself. There are, of course, those naturalists that have been given names by theists that are at least comparable. I myself have been alluded to as being the “anti-christ”, but this is a theistic term that assumes the existence of Christ and God so it won’t do for the same reasons that Grayling points out that “atheist” falls short. I have also been alluded to by some as being possibly the minion of satan: a devil as it were. But again, the allusion is theistic. Atheism is defined as “without theism”, and while there are many that are without theistic belief, as Grayling points out, this falls short of the full measure of truth in regard to atheism. An anti-theist, or anti-theism, would entail atheism but would go farther and claim that they are against the acceptance of theistic belief. This, I must concur, is closer to the truthful viewpoint of many atheists, including myself.
Let me clarify. First, I am not opposed to the right of anyone believing anything that they want to believe, meaning that if there are those who continue to believe in a God than they have the right to do so. Secondly, as a naturalist, I have a certain level of warrant that backs up my claim that natural explanation is enough to explain the existence of the universe. Natural explanations come in the form of scientific theories, and as such must adhere to a stringent form of warrant. I am opposed to anyone claiming that their explanation has just as much warrant without justifying that claim. If theists desire to be taken seriously, then they must be willing to put up or shut-up. Thirdly, to claim that I am an anti-theist is to claim that I am against theism just as a person might be against the death penalty: for moral grounds.
My reasons for claiming anti-theism is based on a few basic reasons. First, given the historic record of religion, it seems clear that it is not above deception and fear-mongering. Secondly, it is clear that religion is able to justify heinous and outright despicable acts. And lastly, religion enables people to live in ignorance while at the same time claiming intelligence. Throughout history religion has used deception to stifle human intelligence. The medieval ages, while many theists claim that catholic monks were scientifically active, are a testament to the lengths that religion will go to keep people ignorant. The claim that monks during the time were scientifically active is a strawman: they were working not in the name of science, but in the interest of discovering “God”. Modern-day religious pundits continue to spew their fear by promising end-days and coming to “certain” conclusions about Armageddon and happily awaiting the destruction of the world at the same time.
Fear-mongering is not the end of the religious insanity. The acts of terrorists are not politically motivated as much as they are religious by nature. No one in their right mind would kill bystanders by blowing themselves up, flying planes into buildings, disallowing medical treatment to sick children, burn men and women under the auspice of witchcraft, claim that homosexuality is the cause of earthquakes, accepting global warming as “God’s will” etc… The list, unfortunately goes on and on. Also unfortunate is the continued and consistent religious acceptance and justification of such acts. While one religion claims that these acts are not its own, it is not a single religion that is the problem. It is religion itself.
Perhaps the most heinous act of all is the all-out attack on rational enquiry by religion. Society has fought against religion tooth and nail for the opportunity to better itself through education. Even today, religion tries to pry intelligent skepticism from modern education. It is ignorance that fuels that fire of religion, and it is ignorance that religion relies and even fights over. From the time when European peasants were put to death if found with a bible written in their own language, to today’s pathetic and so-called “controversy” concerning evolution, religion continues to claim that an ignorant public is a happy (and religious) public.
Anti-theism is synonymous with anti-fear, anti-immorality and anti-stupidity. Perhaps Grayling has a point when he claims that the term “atheism” falls short in portraying the true nature of disbelief. The disbelief is only the beginning, and a non-plus beginning at that. The atheist is really a person who relies on sound evidence, valid justification, and logical inference rather than fear, power, and stupidity for explanations. I am an anti-theist not because I dislike faith and hope but because I have faith and hope, not in religion or religious thought, but in the ability of humanity to finally shed itself of antiquated and often times dangerous modes of thought such as religion.

A Particular Need

2008-03-31T16:59:00.000-07:00

A particular need of all human beings, it seems, is the need to be needed. This simple need, the need to be needed, is one which even if not able to be satisfied by ones’ self, is easily satisfied by others. The positive irony of this is that in giving another person the reason to be needed, one becomes needed satisfying the need. Maybe this is what is meant by “good karma”? Nevertheless, this need to be needed when fulfilled, changes lives, it gives hope to the hopeless and motivates the otherwise unmotivated. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is the answer to much and many of the problems in the world today. That being said, in certain situations and because of its emotional nature it is also the causes of some of those problems as well.
We have found that the universe does not revolve around the earth, and that we are not the center of any universe other than our own: we are not ‘needed’ by the universe. We are not the product of an intelligent designer, we are not the dream of a beneficial God; neither are we given purpose other than the purpose that we create. However, it can be said that we are in part the product of our choice to act intelligently, of the fulfillment of our dreams, and the purposes that we define for ourselves. But, the need to be needed is inherent in our genetic make-up: we have evolved to procreate; we “need” pass our genes on through the generations. This is the purpose of evolution by natural selection: survival of genes. However, this simple purpose does not fulfill the human emotional desire to be needed. We are animals capable of the sort of intelligence that demands more from need than comes from natural selection: we are the product of purposeless mechanisms, but a product that demands purpose.
Why does evolution by natural selection not satiate our need to be needed: our desire for purpose? One reason might be because evolution by natural selection does not “desire” anything; it does not “need” anything. It is a blind process of change. Perhaps it is this total lack of need and purpose that makes evolution by natural selection seem to so many to be a second-rate explanation (or no explanation) of life: it does not fulfill our need to be needed and it does not give us purpose: it does not take into account our need for emotional motivation. Human beings are motivated by emotion rather than reason, as David Hume has pointed out, and evolution cannot be explained emotionally although it brings out emotional responses from many of us. The explanation given by modern biology is too rational; it is explained too thoroughly by sound science. In other words, it is not emotional enough. The need to be needed and the need for purpose are not fulfilled by scientific empiricism and sound rationality. Our scientific explanations of the universe, and of life itself, are too void of what we are really searching for: emotional appeal.
Our emotional desires concerning need and purpose are evidently so strong that many are able to disregard “truth”, to redefine it to fit our needs in order to fulfill this mental yearning. Rather than knowing and broadening that knowledge, we strive to keep alive our personal desires in order to squelch our personal fears that those desires, while fully understandable, are nothing more than emotional appeal. But, emotion is a strong motivator; it is part of life, and it makes up, at least in part, who we are and why do the things we do. I believe Hume is right: we act on our emotions not our rational understanding. But this is not necessarily a negative thing, unless it blinds us to what we need to know (intellectually speaking) in order to fulfill our need to be needed. These are two different sorts of need. The one sort can save us from ourselves so to speak, while the other can define who that “self” is that we are saving.
We need to know the difference between truth and opinion, between theory and hypothesis, between faith, hope and reality, and we need to be needed in order to feel purpose, in order to gain dignity, in order to create pride in ourselves and what we do. The two are not diametrically opposed, but are often claimed to be, being spoke of in the guise of science and religion. It is true that science and religion are not compatible: science answers the unanswerable questions of religion while it is claimed by many that religion gives them purpose and meaning: it makes people feel needed. But, it is not necessary that the need to be needed and the concept of purpose be intertwined in religion. The belief that need and purpose are only possible with religious hope and faith is due to our inherent intellectual fear of losing our belief that we are needed, and the belief that we have a purpose. Daniel Dennett eloquently wrote that what the religious mind has is a need to believe rather than a belief. I would add to that excellent author’s proposition that what the religious mind has is a need to believe that it is needed and that it has purpose. “God” in the religious sense simply defines that need and that need for purpose in an all-encompassing way.
I believe that the religious reaction to atheism, if this is all true, is due not to the atheist’s rejection of the religious creator, meaning or to religion itself, but to its dismissal of that purpose and need only being possible through religious belief. This is a problem because the fact that there are atheists is a reminder to theists that there is an alternative theory to a theism that claims that we are needed by an all-encompassing creator and our most important purpose is to prostrate ourselves before that creator. That is, that need and purpose need not be gotten through religious belief. In other words, atheism offers individuals need and purpose without the need of any “God” figure. This is problematic to the theist because inherent in his belief is absolutism. Theological absolutism dictates that there is no other way than the dictated method. But, the fact that there are atheists that are happy, that lead fulfilling, purpose-filled lives and feel needed is a direct contradiction to the theistic belief that need and purpose are only possible through their belief in God. Because theistic belief is emotionally motivated, its reaction to such contradictions will also be emotional by nature.
An atheist, such as myself, does not state that no one be allowed the right to have a religious belief, but that the religious belief be a personal one rather than a public one. The atheist simply asks to have the right to create need and purpose for himself rather than battle the continuous desire of the religious for religion to define all of our needs as well as purpose universally. Atheists have the need to be needed, and the need to have purpose in their lives just as all human beings do, but do not have the belief that such need and purpose can be defined universally. The battle is on the theist’s side: the side of absolute belief and the need to be accepted absolutely. I have no need that is fulfilled by religious belief, and I have no purpose that is dependent upon a belief in a creator, God. Yet, as an atheist I do have the same need to be needed.
There is an answer: religious peoples ought to give non-religious people the need to be needed and the non-religious people ought to do the same. I would ask the religious people that are so intent on making their beliefs law, to stop and ask is it necessary that all peoples define their needs and the desire for a purposeful life in the same way, universally? The problem between secular and religious viewpoints is that universal answers almost never apply to humanity universally. We all search for our need to be needed and our purpose, but we do so differently. Neither is it a question of truth: truth belongs to science and empirical relationships. Rather, it is a question of being human: of being a thoughtful and intelligent, and emotional animal.

Good Intentions

2008-03-24T19:46:00.000-07:00

Daniel Dennett wrote that good intentions do not work in situations where expectations are higher, such as the expectations that we have for our doctors and engineers. Think about it, he offers, if doctors claimed to have acted on good intentions instead of sound medical understanding based on the most modern scientific explanations of biology and chemistry they would be sued for malpractice, and looked upon by all of us as quacks if not simply criminals. If bridges are built from faith rather than physical fact, then there are huge consequences. Many religious people claim faith is as important as fact. In fact, the often claim that it is more important than fact. But the fact is, there is not as much riding on faith. They also claim that bad things done in the name of religion have been done with the best of intentions (a recent conversation of mine with a friend concerning the Scopes trial exemplifies this point of view), and that it is the intentions that are most important in such cases. The argument is confusing because it does not make sense. While I may have good intentions, I cannot rely solely upon them to prove the validity of any argument. Good intentions, as good as they may be, cannot bear the weight of truth. “Good intention” is nothing more than the blind faith of someone who feels good about relying upon emotion rather than evidence.
People who believe in a God do so, not because their intentions are good, but because they have come to some conclusion by some means, or they simply accept what they have been told. If someone comes to a conclusion, then it is fair to assume that they have concluded based on some premise or set of premises, such as the cosmological or teleological arguments. When these arguments were first posited, they relied upon the strength of their premises to prove the plausibility of their conclusions. Over time, as science broadened its abilities and scope, these arguments became less valid until today; they are simply invalidated by the alternative conclusions that science offers. At this point, anyone who relies upon arguments such as the cosmological (intelligent design) or the teleological (the virtuous argument) to prove their conclusion must adhere to logic and admit defeat, or rely upon wishful thinking or blind faith. Good intentions do not change the truth of any argument, and so those with “good intentions” such persons must rely upon wishful thinking or blind faith.
This is not a case of positing a false dilemma. While it is true that all science starts from hypotheses (unproven propositions), good science takes any arguments and tests them for validity. Such science excludes the possibility of relying upon wishful thinking or blind faith. Even if a scientist has the best intentions, if the hypothesis fails, the scientist acting on good conscience (and upon truth) must admit that the proposition posited is untrue, no matter what the intentions of positing the proposition was in the first place. This leaves one of two possibilities for those that claim that good intentions are just as qualified as rational conclusions. First, that they are ignorant of a mistake and that their intentions were not deceptive in any way. The second possibility is less good: that they were aware of their ignorance but intentionally disregarded it hoping for the best (wishful thinking), or simply disregarded the truth and knowingly accepted false conclusions regardless of valid arguments against their proposition (blind faith). Good intentions do not change the nature of stupidity anymore than they change facts and expectations.
If one accepts religious propositions on good intentions, then they still have the responsibility of qualifying their reasoning on some other ground. Faith, based on good intention is one thing, but claiming that one’s propositions are true because their intentions are good is another thing altogether. If I have faith, not because I fear death, and not because I take Pascal’s wager concluding that while there might not be a god and a hell I am safer betting that there is and being wrong, but because I truly believe that a god exists I can perhaps say that my belief is at the very least based on good intentions. But, I think that it is clear that my good intentions do not guarantee the truth of my belief: this is the rub. Those with good intentions in regard to religious belief, faith, cannot rely on those good intentions to guarantee any truth. In fact good intentions are not much different than faith. Because of this, good intentions cannot bear the weight of truthful propositions or valid argumentation, nor can they be the basis of disregarding the responsibility that we all have of separating faith from fact. Good intentions are simply not enough because they are unable to be qualified or exemplified in any way.
The idea of “good intentions” is two-fold. First, the term “good” is a qualifying statement: that is, “good” means that is acceptable socially or individually, and is justifiable in some valid way. Or, maybe it is deemed to be virtuous, that is: “good” is equated with honesty. Further, maybe it is believed that the consequences will be favorable. On the other hand, the term “intentions” has to do with motivation. The complex term “good intentions” therefore has multiple meanings, most of the time remaining vague to anyone outside of the individual having them. It can be argued that my intent to rid society of religious belief is a bad thing, but if my intentions are to rid society of a false, detrimental, and dangerous thing, then it would seem to be not so bad. If I do so using deceptive means, my intentions were good but my intentional deception can be deemed as bad. If my proposition is based on a personal vendetta against religion, one that is not credible, then my intentions are bad as well. All of this is simply to point out that “good intentions” are typically ambiguous and are at best limited to the individual: again, just as faith is.
The good intentions, therefore, of religious peoples are limited to their own beliefs, and are not qualified in any way to others or society as a whole, but only to their own lives. If a doctor operates with the intent to kill the patient, his intentions can be deemed as bad: the patient presumably trusts the doctor to cure rather than kill, and so there is a breach of contract between doctor and patient. If the doctor decides not to operate because of his personal belief that God will cure the patient, then he is acting irresponsibly for the same reason. Good intentions are often nothing more than a bad decision made worse by an even worse excuse.

The Natural Selection of Theology

2008-03-17T18:20:00.000-07:00

There was a time when the Catholic Church burnt witches, tortured people to death for not believing that God and devils exist, excommunicated priests for not adhering to “strict” church doctrine, and imprisoned people for following strict scientific method that inevitably went against the Church’s explanation of natural phenomena. Things have changed. Not long ago, the Catholic Church invited a famous physicist to speak, reminding him that he was welcome to speak about everything except the concept of an evolutionary universe. Recently the Catholic Church, in relative quiet, announced that evolutionary theories were indeed accepted. This is ironic if one recognizes the evolution of theological doctrine over the years as well as the evolution of social norms that are often the product of theological doctrine. The continued evolution of theological and social norms has today given us what has been described as liberal theology and simply spirituality.
Liberal theology (as the name implies) is simply a term that denotes a broader, less strict interpretation of theology. This can include not only the Catholic doctrines, but protestant, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Jainism, Hindu and any other form of organized religious or cult explanation of the universe that over-extends the scientific explanation, any form or fashion of belief that includes God, a universal power, a fundamental ground for existence, reason for life, purpose, natural intention, non-human intelligence that exceeds that of humans, cause for continuation, supreme idea or otherwise really big thing that can intentionally wipe us out if it gets pissed off enough. Spirituality is simply an off-shoot of liberal theology. Rather than deducing a way of explaining a supreme idea or otherwise really big thing that can intentionally wipe us out if it gets pissed off enough, spirituality glistens with pride in its ignorance by seeding doubt that it is impossible yet somehow more probable that there is a supreme idea or otherwise really big thing that can intentionally wipe us out if it gets pissed off enough than not.
If one travels to Europe and Asia to visit the Cathedrals that spot those continents, it is evident that those places are religious symbols specifically celebrating Christian Gods and saints. By the same token, one can visit Buddhist and Hindu temples and hurriedly find unmistakable icons that symbolize those religions. The same is true for Islamic and other traditional forms of religious temples. But, one of my favorite iconoclasts, Robert Ingersoll, pointed out with pride that the Unitarian churches were graciously void of any particular icon. Instead, he claims, they are havens in which people can intelligently discuss religious and spiritual aspects of life. Many Unitarian churches have no iconic symbol whatsoever but simply collections of hymns together with tables covered with chess boards (so I am told). It cannot be surprising that most traditional churches that are aware of Unitarians do not give them much respect, and go so far as to equate them with satanic dens of iniquity, or simply communists (the preferred demon of the WWII crowd). Today, there is a popular protestant evangelist by the name of Joel Olsteen who preaches to tens of thousands of people in football stadiums with the usual “smiling hyena” smile but with no Christian cross. I have watched this man, caked with make-up, with perfectly white teeth preach an obvious version of Christianity and found it extremely strange that nowhere on the stage upon which he stood was there a cross, that very rarely was God’s vengeful ways ever mentioned, and that almost never was Hell alluded to. Instead, there was the skeleton of the globe and a message of understanding and love. Organized religion is being forced to evolve into first a more liberal theology than its history would allow, and secondly into the inevitable ambiguity of spirituality. Common sense, the natural selection of theological evolution, forces the card. Modern crowds seem less intent upon hearing how horrible they are, and how most likely they will be punished by an almighty punisher. The reaction of traditional organized religion to the evolution of, well… itself, is not met with a welcome mat. Rather, the evolution of traditional organized religion is fought tooth and claw…but evolve it must nevertheless.
With the continued evolution of our knowledge about the universe around us the old, forced religious explanations become more and more ridiculous. Fundamentalists, those true religious fascists, adhere to old doctrines and the hopes of a vengeful god, but for the most part such persons are coming to be seen as backwards and backwoods by the young, up and coming religious intelligentsia. These intellectual inhabitants of modern civilization would have nothing to do with old-time tent revivals, the screaming and sweaty, red-faced religious rogues that were the norm not too long ago even if they had a chance. Rather, they prefer the idea of a more kind and more gentle granddad sort of God that looks out over us all with pity and if not with disdain, then a kind of chuckling light-heartedness that only a really big thing that could intentionally wipe us out if it got pissed off enough (but never would do such a horrible and unspeakable act) is capable of. Old religion, however entertaining, intolerant and ignorant it might have been, is going to the wayside to join other antiquated acts of human amusement, prejudice and ignorance. What is taking its place is in some ways more acidic and detrimental to human knowledge than was the direct assault of anthropomorphosis ignorance.
I recently read a book that is exemplary of modern day spirituality. In it the main character poses a thought: “If there’s only one nation in the sky [God], shouldn’t all passports [religion] be valid for it?” This question, of course, causes a stir because this character is intent upon being Hindu, Islamic and Christian. The story is a good one, but the underlying message is spiritual: truth depends upon how we perceive it. The argument is an old one, but no less dangerous in its consequences. The ontological argument is entailed in modern spirituality, except that modern spirituality, instead of proving through rationality, steeps itself in mystery and at the same time indirectly demands truth for its claims. Spirituality of this sort is not agnostic by nature, but theological and as such is nothing more than a new twist on an old idea: that a God exists and hence purpose exists.
There are some that have tried to argue that religion is a dying form of human belief, but they are mistaken. While there are forms of religious zealotry, one can simply refer to the Falwells and Tilton’s of the world, that are becoming more and more ridiculous as they become more and more recognized for what they are: snake-oil salesmen, a new and improved version of theology emerges from the ashes of evolution: spirituality. This is the new breed of religion that while not offering revenge and destruction of all of our enemies, does offer a smiling and self-righteous face to cover up its true intent: the survival and elevation of snake-oil sales.

Have Faith

2008-03-10T16:29:00.000-07:00

According to the Islamic religion the Quran was given to the prophet Muhammad by God through the angel Gabriel (of “Gabriel blow your horn” fame). An interesting thing about Gabriel he is also important to the Christian God and to Jesus as well. Christian scholars believe that Gabriel, while not an aspiring musician, was an archangel together with Michael and Raphael who went around delivering messages from God as well. He visited Zacharias, and even Mary, telling them about their child-to-be-thanks-to-God. Not only that, but Gabriel visited Daniel, according to the Jewish religion, to help him make sense of otherwise nonsensical messages being sent from the Man himself. He also came back to Daniel a second time just to help out in various ways. So basically, Gabriel was a real important angel to Muhammad, Jesus, and to God. This may seem a bit contradictory seeing that all three religions claim that the others are not really the “true” religion. Maybe it was because most people, including Jesus and Muhammad, were a little lax in their education, or a bit quick with their opinions. But, one is to have faith.
Now, Muhammad was illiterate and this posed a problem as one might imagine. So, the all important message, given to him by God through the angel Gabriel, had to be written down (as Muhammad dictated) by, well…someone else that was forced to take Muhammad on his word, and have a lot of time on their hands (the Quran is not a short piece of work). If this sounds familiar to my Christian friends, it should. Jesus was also illiterate and like Muhammad never wrote anything down. His message was dictated in much the same way as Muhammad but not just to one person: to anyone who was listening. God himself got in on the game as well when he dictated his laws (the Ten Commandments) to Moses (unfortunately no one has ever been able to give us those laws, carved in stone by the finger of God; nor have they been able to give us any evidence of any rock ever being carved by God). All this is to say that three major religions of the world have their basis in two illiterate prophets that would talk to anyone who would listen and a God that decided to dictate his message on two stones to one man, in private, who evidently came to lose his stones. But no worries: have faith.
So, after some hundreds of years of verbal “interpretation” of God’s all-important message from illiterate men to others, it was finally collected into an ensemble of books: the Quran, the Bible and a variance of the Bible. The Quran is a continuation of the bible as the New Testament is a continuance of the Old Testament and at the same time all three religions claim that the others are nonsense. This seems strange given that all are evidently based on the Word of God, the one and only God, the creator of the universe, of moral obligation and justification and the like. It seems as if God is a bit schizophrenic. Plus, given the problems of translation and the number of languages that are in the world, the whole interpretive nature of these religions seems problematic. I believe that the core language of all three is Arabic or some form of it. I am told, and by what it looks like, Arabic is a complicated language, no vowels for one, and any translation from Arabic is easily lost. But it is translated. The Quran has been translated in several languages although all translations are considered simply summations by Muslims: summations based on a summation that was written down as dictated by an illiterate man by an anonymous “someone”. The bible (all versions), well in short more of the same; some of the biblical languages include but are not limited to: Arabic, Greek, Latin, German, French, and English. None of these languages are known to translate well from one to another, and given the problems of translating Arabic, interpretation becomes even more troublesome. But that is of no importance, unless, of course, it is the word of God we are talking about. It actually is the Word of God we are talking about, but you know: have faith.
None of the material that has been given to us by God seems to be consistent; it is not about one subject-matter, nor does it seem to be organized in any form or fashion. It contains all the stuff that we as human beings tend to be interested in, especially illiterate ones: what’s right and wrong, what the nature of human beings are, what the nature of God is…it’s all there, in black and white as it were. The Jewish bible is divided, although I’m not entirely clear as to how. The bible can be divided into two sections as can the Quran: The Old and New Testament, and revelations Muhammad had in Mecca and Medina respectively. The Jews do not accept the New Testament and the Christians try to play off all of the gore and bloodshed of the Old. Muslims apparently accept both, but not as the entire bible, or simply not the correct interpretation. But, have faith in the tireless work of religious authority to clear all of this up for all of us.
The Muslims for their part have put their faith in a man by the name of Uthman ibn Affan, who was considered one of the Four Righteously Guided Caliphs by some. He assembled some scholars on the teachings of God given to an illiterate peasant who dictated those teachings to an anonymous person who then wrote them down. These “men of intelligence” then created an “official” form of the Quran. This “official” Quran was then distributed over the Arabic empire (somehow) and then they did what all great intelligent men do: they destroyed any other version of the Quran that they could find. The Catholic Church finally, in all their compassion and altruism, gave the west the “official” bible. Of course, any persons found with a “non-official” bible on their persons, or any bible for that matter (at least for some time) were summarily killed, especially after it was translated into the language of the peasants so that everyone could read it for themselves rather than rely upon the church to…interpret it. The Jewish people, however, take a different approach: they continue to argue over interpretation. It will all work out because God has a plan, a plan that will eventually be deciphered if we just have faith.
This all sounds sensible: God gives the edicts of ethics, the nature of himself and humans etc… to men who were not able to write any of it down, in a language that is infamously difficult to translate. For these reasons, God has left the interpretation of several contradictory collections written from the most part by anonymous authors, to be interpreted by at least three completely opposing religions and their authorities. If this makes sense, then you have faith. If you have the audacity to doubt any of this, then you are a heathen and are headed straight for Hell (a place that is very bad for the complexion). If you disregard these meanderings through human imagination altogether, then the best thing for everyone concerned is if you are put to death in order to save the souls of the less skeptical; according to some, you are not to be a citizen and in many places are barred from any political position. The best thing is to not ask questions, go to church when told, and don’t question authority: just believe blindly and don’t ask questions; well, I’m repeating myself: have faith.

Mr. Doubt

2008-03-03T18:26:00.000-08:00

“As God is the savior of all and the redeemer of the earth. He must be glorified…”
Religion requires followers to trust the authority of the church, and in doing so the authority of God. In Judaic religions, doubt is a punishable offense.
“I say unto you, to doubt is a sin. Who are we to question God?”
Doubt is a sin, blasphemy in many cases which was punishable by death. It seems Christians believe that God does wants us to doubt, but only certain things. Oh, maybe we can doubt things like, let’s say, global warming, but we can’t doubt the oil companies because God has put the oil there for our use and the oil companies are simply doing the work of God. Maybe that’s how it works, I don’t know. Doubt is that double-take, the curiosity that tells us that perhaps what we are told, or what we think, is not true and then forces us to reconsider or to honesty research. This doesn’t bode well for religious belief. Doubt is more than curiosity, however. Doubt is an active decision to question one’s own beliefs, and/or what we are told is true. There it is!
“Pray for the sinner’s soul! He is lost in the darkness of doubt.”
In many societies, doubt is looked upon dubiously as being disrespectful and dangerous. How dare we doubt the words of the President of the United States! He is, after all, the authority of our great nation. But that is not the problem. The problem, religiously speaking is that we doubt at all, and especially that we doubt an authority that...
“That must not be doubted in any case! Are you questioning me? SINNER!!”
What would happen if it were allowable to doubt all authority: political, academic, and even… religious authority? God forbid...
But, he did. The doubting Thomas, and the skeptic are looked upon as outcasts and derelicts that disregard social norms and accepted doctrines. But it is not the social norms and accepted doctrines that are important. No, it is the fact that we allow ourselves to doubt. Think if social norms were doubted… Well, things like slavery disappeared.
“But that is not the point. Doubting the virtue and righteousness of one’s own society is just not right.”
Of course, the doubter must ask why, but then the doubter does not blindly accept authority simply because it might be dangerous. Doubt is dangerous, but not doubting is outright deadly. “Mr. Doubter there can’t get a job! See what happens when you doubt!”
Doubt undermines the foundation of society (the power that unquestioned authority has). Doubt undermines the moral fiber of our country (and causes us to reconsider some national decision-making and makers). Doubt brings danger to everyone it comes into contact with (especially the children that are now (after meeting the doubter) much harder to brainwash with religious tripe).
Doubt is an active decision to question, which leaves open the possibility to disbelieve or discredit the thing or idea that is questioned.
“Holy Crap! That sounds dangerous!”
The only thing that is worse than not doubting is the false pretensions of doubting. I can hear the preachers now.
“God wants you to doubt! Yes. I said it. Doubt will lead you to the truth that God has to offer you. We are all prodigal sons…”
To doubt, however, is more than just philosophical masturbation. Doubt is an active adjustment of previously accepted ideas, if not a complete disavowal of them. Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, went so far as to claim that doubt could bring down scientific claims within a normative paradigm.
“But he’s probably in hell now.”
No, such doubt could never be allowed. Rather..
“Think of what God has done in your life, and allow yourself to ponder (to doubt if you will) how things would have been without God. Think! Think about it now!!”
“Now, if global warming is indeed a fact then we have no business interfering with the work of God. See what happened when we doubted that it was actually the moral choice to let women suffer during childbirth! All hell broke loose! Now the sleazy bitches want equal rights!”
If we doubt authority, it might be dangerous, but the option of not doubting is not really an option. When someone doubts something, what is being doubted is information and/or ethical motivations. Doubt will lead to the demand for justification.
“He said ethical…this can’t be good!”
If I doubt that gravity exists, I am doubting the theory of gravity and all that is entailed within it.
“He said it: he doubts gravity! He’s crazy!!”
If I doubt the priest, I doubt what the priest says.
“Atheist! ATHEIST!!! Burn in HELL!”
If I believed that my government was acting dishonestly, I would be doubting both information and moral agenda.
“He is a commi-bastard! Pray, pray for our lives!”
To accept, blindly, information or a moral code, is to step blindly into an abyss of stupidity. The religious follower, if they have faith in their religion, ought not (a value-claim) be opposed to doubting their faith nor their religion.
“See! SEE!! He is calling religious people stupid and wants to tear apart the faith of GOD! Repent! REPENT!! HE IS THE ANTI-CHRIST!!!”
It is healthy, mentally and physically, to be wary of anything or anybody that tells us that doubt is dangerous, unpatriotic, sinful, or unethical. The person whom doubt is an enemy to is either dogmatic or dishonest, probably both. It is the duty of us all to doubt because to doubt is to give chance to change in one’s life, to growth and a broader perspective in life and on the world around us. Surety is false security, whereas doubt is the double-take that delivers.
“Repent you sinners, re…pent….”

Courage?

2008-02-25T18:32:00.000-08:00

It is often proposed that atheists on our deathbeds will somehow realize the error of our ways and if it is not too late, accept that there is a God before expiring. The same argument is often put in terms of war: many propose that there are no atheists in foxholes. Perhaps these statements are supposed to somehow dignify religious belief by pointing out the indignity and trepidation inherent in being an atheist. On death’s bed, all including atheists will [finally!] realize that death is eminent and final, overpowered only by recognition of God’s great glory. In the tumult of war those that do not “know God” will realize their mortality, how fragile lives is, and realize that acceptance of God as one’s creator and king offers a way to circumvent death by circumventing hellfire. All sarcasm aside, there is an irony behind the theist’s proposition that atheists are cowards in not accepting God’s offer of salvation from both hell and death.
There are several euphemisms about death such as “passes on” and “passes away” that are often used. The truth is, everyone dies; no one “passes on” or “passes away”; even believers in an afterlife succumb to the fact of death. Another interesting and common euphemism is “not with us anymore”. When someone tells me that someone “is not with us anymore”, the first thing that I want to ask is “When were they ‘with us’ at all?” I want to know why they are not “with us” anymore. That question is typically met with disbelief or confusion. Circumventing the thought of death often leads to our forgetting altogether that we die. Death is a scary thing because it reminds us that something that we take for granted every second of every day will, sooner than we realize, will end. Death is an abyss that very few people can stand to look across. Why wouldn’t an atheist say that someone “passes on” when they die, and why is it important at all? For that matter, why would an atheist say that someone has “passed away”? First, to say that someone has “passed on” implies that they have surmounted death and somehow have landed themselves in a different place (whisked off in a stream of particles like in Star Trek). Most atheists do not believe in such things, and because of our skepticism we are forced to justify our claims. If we do not feel we are forced to justify such statements, then maybe we are simply agnostic. Perhaps we are not coward enough to be atheist. To say that someone has “passed away” is not so problematic to the atheist, but is simply a case of vagueness. Death is not vague, so there is no reason to be vague about death. The only reason to be so vague about something so certain as death is…, well…, fear. Fear is the driving factor behind euphemistic sayings concerning death and dying. So how are atheists coward in not accepting the theists claims concerning an afterlife?
Euphemisms and the like are human inventions made possible by our capability of language, and concepts such as theism and atheism are inventions made possible by our capability of thought. There are two interesting facts, the first being that the only atheists are human atheists. This fact is interesting in two ways. Human beings are the only animals capable of philosophically thinking of death in terms of an afterlife, and there are atheists only because there are theists. Secondly, human beings are the only animals capable of being theists. Human beings are not the only animals that are afraid of death but are the only ones to use euphemistic word-play to soften the harsh reality of death. A further consequence of theism is ironically: atheism. The atheist/theist dichotomy is a man-made one. When someone believes X, there is inevitably someone who doesn’t. Atheists are human beings that have accepted the fact that they will not “pass away”, nor will we “pass on (to a better place)” because they do not accept the theist’s proposition that there is a place to “pass on” to. Theists are human beings that concluded that they will not die, but will only “pass on” or “pass away". While both atheists and theists can be both afraid of dying, atheists must face death head on, while the theist can circumvent certain demise by a simple play of words.
So what of the atheist on his deathbed? The irony of the claim that an atheist will “find God” on his deathbed is that the theist is admitting to his true motivation for being a theist if only implicitly: that he is afraid of death. The atheist may very well be afraid of death, but must face death head-on every day of his life and in doing so accept his fear. There is no “passing on” for the atheist. If the atheist does “find God” on his deathbed, he is simply succumbing to the implicit motivation of fear, in the name of theism. In the same way, the proposition that there are no atheists in foxholes is simply the theistic proposition that atheists will succumb to their fears. It is not clear, however, if this is the theist’s wishes: that the atheist succumbs to his fear, or that the theist is simply relying upon wishful thinking to appeal to their own sense of self-righteousness. It is almost as if the theist is saying in a very odd way: “I told you so…” So the theist, in claiming that upon realization of the finality of death, claims the atheist will see the error of his ways because of fear of death: this seems contradictory given the theist’s beliefs in an afterlife. Given the theistic belief that death is a bridge to another life, the theist doesn’t die, but simply “travels” to another place. The atheist, on the other hand, if upon realization of death succumbs to fear acts human. This, on the other hand, is not contradictory but only natural.
The atheist, long before death is eminent, must face the reality of death and in doing so, must face fear. Death is never a case of simply “passing on” to the atheist. Death, to the atheist, is final, complete, and certain. Death is not a moral question, nor is it a thing to be pondered as a bridge to another realm. Death is simply the end of life. Death is the invisible abyss that will never be experienced. The atheist must summon the courage to both accept this and live with this knowledge, and do so long before the end of his natural life. The theistic propositions that atheists are cowards can be flipped over. An atheist is much more courageous than the theist. He faces death as certain nothingness. The atheist in a foxhole is also showing a level of courage that is simply not accessible by the theist. Recent Islamic terrorists would be hard pressed to strap bombs on themselves if they relinquished their religious beliefs, just as theists would be hard pressed to go to war without their belief in God. Atheists die, but theists “pass on”. While the difference may seem semantic, the implications are much more than a simple wordplay. Faced with certain demise, the theist has the belief (empty as it is) that death is simply a bridge while the atheist accepts it as a brick wall.

The Religion of American Politics

2008-02-18T16:47:00.000-08:00

There seems to be a prevailing attitude that we are all innately free and that by being human we are endowed with freewill. Furthermore, there seems to be a belief that freedom and freewill are synonymous with personal desire: if we are unable to get something, the inability to quench our desire is a direct attack on our personal freedoms and freewill. But, there is a difference between freedom and freewill, one that many people do not realize. Also, freewill is not something that we are endowed with. Rather it is an intentional decision on our part as individuals. Finally, our desires are emotionally based. Being based in emotion, desire has no relation to freedom or freewill other than the fact that most of us desire to be free. Because most of us do not have a clear definition of freedom and we have the ubiquitous belief that freewill is an innate human trait, most of us are not even aware when we lose it and give it away freely.
Freedom here is defined as the ability to act with the least amount of limitation. In the USA, President George W. Bush has continued to break down barriers built to give legal protection to law-abiding citizens to act with the least amount of limitation. His administration warrants this attack on personal freedom by pointing out that not all acts are good. With continued legal jargon, Bush and his administration re-define the law in order to redefine freedom in such a way that it can be manipulated and used in their favor in order to further their desires. With the patriot acts I and II, the continued legal parody of GITMO, secret orders and military tribunals the Bush administration takes away from American society what most of us consider to be freedom, and does so with (albeit dwindling) public support. Bush claims to protect freedom by taking freedoms away, which seems contradictory. This contradiction is not problematic and only possible if the public is ignorant as to what freedom is in the first place. The Bush administration interprets freedom in such a way as to allow for non-disclosed limitations on freedom. This sort of “interpretation” of freedom by the Bush administration is no different than the sorts of “interpretations” of religious texts that allow religions to justify their existence. In other words, if freedom is defined by law: change the law and one changes what freedom is. An example of this can be given with an analogy. We are free to travel, but if done in a vehicle we are not free to travel at any speed that we desire: our freedoms are limited by a law. Take the speed limit away, and we are “free” to travel at any speed that we desire. Most of us, if we took the time to think about it, really do not want unlimited ability to travel at any speed we want on the nation’s roadways because of the consequences of doing so. Here, the limitation of our freedoms is a good thing because such limitation circumvents probable chaos and danger to all of us. But in order to retain the most freedom for all individuals, the limitations on our freedoms must be clearly defined, in this case through posted speed limits. In this way freedom is defined not by limitations, but with limitations.
George Bush argues that by allowing the federal government to take away individual freedoms, his administration is simply circumventing probable danger. In essence, he is equating laws such as the patriot act to laws against speeding, claiming that doing so is protecting the majority of Americans from danger. But there is an important difference. If we allow the analogy of laws against speeding to the federal governments legalized spying programs, this difference becomes apparent. Let’s say that there are laws against speeding and we all know that these laws exist, but nowhere on any road are there signs that post the speed limit. I get pulled over by a police officer. The police officer tells me that I was speeding, and I point out that I have no way of knowing if I was or not since there are no posted speed limits. The officer then points out that if the speed limits were posted, then he would not be able to do his job because those that would speed would simply slow down to the posted speed limits when they saw the officer, and continue to speed when they didn’t. Most of us, knowingly or not, define freedom by the limitations that we put upon it. This is why most of our freedoms are defined by law. However, it becomes impossible to define “freedom” if those limitations are vaguely, or not defined at all.
Freewill is not the same as freedom. Freewill is our ability to make decisions for ourselves, without unwarranted or unknown influence from outside sources. To use the analogy, freewill can be defined as the freedom to drive faster or slower than the posted speed limit and our choice to do so or not. While “freedom” can be defined by law, freewill is defined by the relationship between such things as the law, and our understanding of it. Freewill has to do with our thoughts, actions and why we think and act a certain way rather than a law. For freewill to be present, one must have a choice to act freely in one way or another and the ability to understand why one ought to act in one way or another. This difference allows me to break laws or to follow them and it also creates the necessity of personal responsibility. Freewill is often mistakenly equated with desire. It is easily defined as desire, except that it has the added dimension of rational decision making. In fact, because desire is the consequent of emotion, desire can actually hinder freewill. I can desire to drive over the speed limit, but understand that to do so may result in a speeding ticket. I then intentionally take the responsibility of speeding (because of understanding) or decide not to: this is freewill. Freewill stems from personal and rational decision-making, and hence is necessarily linked to personal-responsibility. George Bush argues that he is (in his own words) the “decider”. This is no different than the officer in the analogy. The officer (George Bush) informs us that if the speed limits were posted, then he would not be able to do his job because those that would speed would simply slow down to the posted speed limits when they saw the officer. In other words, because individuals have freewill they can break the law so in order to keep laws from being broken, individual freewill must be controlled. By making laws vague and ambiguous, individuals are not able to choose between speeding or not: that choice is then made for them by the officer. The officer is claiming to be the “decider”. Freewill is limited by limiting the ability to consider alternatives.
The Bush administration does not offer rational explanations for its actions, but rather appeals to emotions. But, emotions do not justify any act. If someone is angry at another person, that anger does not justify murder in any legal or moral way. This is because emotion relates only to the person that is experiencing that emotion. Emotional pleas do not work as evidence in any logical sense nor do they have the strength to give warrant to any reasoning simply because they are based in personal experience and belief rather than on any real need or testable evidence. To allow emotion the strength of evidence and warrant is irrational and contrary to any reasonable definition of intelligent understanding. Let’s say our speeder goes to court and is asked “Why did you decide to speed?” He can simply answer “Because I felt like it…” The judge then would have to instantly acquit him of all charges and set him free. While freewill can easily be swayed by emotion, when we act on emotion we are not acting completely freely. The justification behind governmental actions concerning legalized spying, secret prisons, and places such GITMO is that without such provisions we are all in danger of being attacked by terrorists at will. It must be understood that the evidence used to back up this argument is not the terrorist acts against the USA on September 1, but the memory of those acts: in essence the evidence is the fear of any terrorist act happening again. The president argues that if he is not able to be the “decider” then terrible things will happen. His argument ends up being nothing more than an emotional plea.
Not only are the individual freedoms being more and more limited by the current administration, but the ability for individuals to act in accordance with their own freewill is being limited as well. The administration is taking both responsibility away from individuals and instilling fear in society. In doing so it is indirectly taking social freedoms away from individuals while at the same time limiting the ability of individuals to analyze any political decisions rationally. While most conversation concerning the Bush administration and its actions and motivations are considered to be firmly planted in political soil, there would seem to be a deeper underlying motivation behind its actions as well. It is no secret that Bush and most if not all his administration is deeply religious. Their biblical literary allusions and Bush’s own allusions to biblical prophecy are most of the time not hidden at all. That being the case, it is not a long stretch to assume that political and legal decision-making is primarily motivated by religious belief rather than the hope for certain political consequences alone. Religious belief makes secondary the importance of individual freedom and freewill. Rather, religious belief is based on the unquestioned support and belief in the authority of that religion’s godhead. In the same way, the American public is being asked to support the Federal government unconditionally while at the same time being told that the gradual degradation of personal freedoms are nothing more than the protection of those same freedoms. Religious rhetoric is no different: in order to be “free”, one must give up the idea that individual freedom is important. Rather, it is God that is all-important, and any authorities that represent God are not to be questioned. Also, freewill is problematic for all religions. In order to “truly” believe, on must somehow decide to believe, but to decide not to believe is punishable by utter dissolution and separation (“You are for us, or for the terrorists.”): there is no real choice.
Many people who question the morality and the legality of certain actions pertaining to the Bush administration also question how it is possible for people to freely give up their freedoms and freewill so readily. The answer to that is more easily recognized if one takes into account that the great majority of this nation is religion, primarily Christian. This overriding belief and acceptance of religion creates the ability of administrations such as the Bush administration to call upon faith rather than fact when warranting their actions and decisions, which is exactly what this administration is asking of the American public. Religion does not require its followers to demand evidence and warrant for its actions and laws, but rather it requires them to accept on faith alone its creeds and dogmas. To question religious doctrine is, by most religion’s definitions, a sin. This is no different than the attitude that George Bush has towards those who disagree with him. Just as religious belief offers no compromises and accepts no doubt, George Bush offers no compromises to those who disagree with him and calls doubt unpatriotic.
Without understanding there is no freewill, and without freewill there is no freedom. Because of vague and ambiguous definitions of “freedom” offered and the disinterest in such things by the public, our freedom has become a patriotic commodity to be bought and sold on the legal market. Because of the readiness of most of the American public to accept on faith, the actions and decisions of the Bush administration as being morally and politically justified, “freewill” has become defined by nationalistic fervor. And, because of the religious fervor of both the Bush administration and the general public, the great political idea that is the United States is being redefined into another failed state, divided by religious differences and crumbling under ignorance. Just as most religious people hold other religions and atheists in particular with a measured disdain, the Bush administration holds any opposition to its ideologies (both religious and political) as being detrimental to what has become the religion of American politics, not recognizing that such a lack of skepticism and ability for public discourse destroys the very thing that could make this country great. Such attitudes do not lend possibility to freedom and nor do they bolster the ability to create freewill. Rather, freedom becomes defined not as action, but as limitation and freewill becomes limited to the ability to have faith rather than think rationally.

The Rise of Fundamentalism II (The War Between Religions)

2008-02-17T18:18:00.000-08:00

As I stated in The Rise of fundamentalism I, fundamentalism concerns not only interpretation of texts, but also the nature of beliefs. The claim is that fundamentalism as it is popularly defined, is reactionary by nature. Fundamentalist beliefs are reactionary because as we learn more and more about the world around us through science, psychology and philosophy, the fundamentalist is forced to either change with the new understanding, or hold fast against change altogether. Because of this, fundamentalism as a form of belief is a reaction to either one’s own beliefs, the beliefs others, or both. As a fundamentalist, one’s own belief becomes antiquated and the fundamentalist is forced to call forth tradition or blind faith to justify his beliefs. If the fundamentalist chooses to hold fast, and others allow their beliefs to evolve or disappear altogether, the belief splits and factions are created. Typically, the result of one or both of these consequences is that fundamentalists are forced to react to their own doubt, the doubt of others, or both. All religious beliefs, liberal or not, are fundamental by nature.
As new interpretations of religious beliefs evolve, the limited interpretation of religious fundamentalists becomes viewed as old-fashioned and backwards. This viewpoint becomes interpreted by the fundamentalist as an attack on religious belief as a whole rather than an attack on his belief alone. If I as a fundamentalist am viewed as backward and old-fashioned, I am forced to justify my belief. That justification, seen as not being necessary by me, is seen as necessary by those around me. In turn, the fact that I am asked to justify my beliefs and the fact that I cannot do so is seen as an attack. The rhetoric coming from evangelicals and other religious believers is just this sort. To be asked to justify one’s beliefs is to claim that the credibility and the plausibility of those beliefs are in doubt. Therefore, instead of admitting that they cannot justify their beliefs in any useable way, they hide behind the cloak of religion, and claim that it is all religion that is being attacked. The rhetoric is slight. This both frees them from the full responsibility of justifying unjustifiable claims and creates a division between religious and non-religious peoples rather than religious fundamentalists and religious liberals.
The argument that religious beliefs are under attack by a secular society has been argued to be untrue.[1] However, what are under attack are fundamental beliefs and factions. These sorts of fundamental beliefs are not simply the latest Islamic inculcation, but all fundamentalist beliefs. The reason for the attack is that fundamentalists do not allow for any interpretation other than their own. But rather than admitting this and creating a divide between themselves and other more liberal approaches to religion, the fundamentalist is forced to join hands with the devil as it were. They understand that there is strength in numbers. While the atheist may claim that all religion is detrimental, he can allow for its existence and be tolerant of those who choose religion over rationality. This point is hidden under religious rhetoric from fundamentalists that claim that all religion is under attack rather than their own particular brand of belief. What is inevitable, however, is that all religious belief eventually becomes fundamental in the sense that it becomes antiquated. There are clear lines and relations between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Forms of Judaism are now seen as antiquated, just as forms of Christianity are becoming viewed as being backward and morally unjustifiable. It is important to remember that at one time, one could be put to death for not accepting Christianity just as at one point one could receive the death penalty for not accepting the Greek gods and goddesses. Historically all religious belief becomes antiquated, out-dated, and eventually is forced to become reactionary.
Fundamentalism does not allow for broad interpretations of religious texts. Rather the interpretation becomes “strict” in the sense that each religious faction has its own interpretation that is to be accepted as non-questionable and accepted prima facie. Universal statements are problematic in regard to religious belief because of the inherent contradiction and ignorance inherent in religious belief. The inherent contradiction becomes more and more apparent as humanity is able to find more credible evidence and more plausible explanations for its existence, meaning, and epistemology. At one time, religion was humanity’s science, but was forced to give way to better methods and more exact analysis just as at one time, religion was humanity’s sole source of morality, but was forced to give way to more reasonable forms of ethical theories. As human knowledge and perspective broadened, human belief systems were forced to plea for acceptance through ignorance. As religion evolves from sole source, to secondary source, to optional source, it is forced to rely more and more on faith, the acceptance of propositions without justification (ignorance). With each change, liberality is born and with each new evolution fundamentalism is born: the liberal becoming fundamental as new and improved liberal forms of belief are born out of necessity. Each form of religious belief must define itself by defining boundaries that differentiate it from other forms of religious belief. The only way a religion can define itself is through its interpretation of the foundational religious texts that it claims. As those foundations become ridiculous, the religion becomes fundamental.
When absolutes are desired, reasons that make those absolutes become less important than the desire for the absolute. The cycle of sole-liberal-fundamental religion stems from the necessity of all religious propositions to be absolute. Religious arguments cannot change their conclusions based on evidence, but they can change their evidence to fit their conclusions, which is exactly what they do. This is closely related to something known in logical circles as confirming the consequent. The religious consequent, interpretation x is the right interpretation etc…, cannot be changed. Such illogical arguments can only survive short periods of time given that they can be recognized by society (a problem itself). Given that illogical arguments soon become extinct, what is left is the desire for those arguments to be valid, rather than evidence to strengthen the validity of those arguments. When emotion becomes the sole “evidence” for one’s beliefs, blind passion becomes the foundation rather than cool and collected analysis. The desire for one’s beliefs to be true has been shown to be stronger than the recognition of truth itself. Human beings tend to believe what they desire rather than what is actually true. This is problematic, especially if one cannot recognize or differentiate the desire for truth from truth itself. Fundamental religious beliefs have their basis in just such desire, and therefore, the passionate reactions of religious believers would seem to be nothing more than emotional outbursts by people who have lost the ability to differentiate reason from emotion.
Fundamentalism in the religious context is a reaction to the growth and evolution of human knowledge. It is unable to liberate itself from blind faith and ignorance. Furthermore, it is unable to liberate itself from broken arguments because of their absolute nature. In creating a paradigm in which absolute statements are to be accepted imperatively, fundamentalism has dug its own grave: it is forced to accept slow death by antiquity, becoming seen as more and more ridiculous as newer forms of its old beliefs become accepted. However, the new forms will inevitably become seen as antiquated as well, becoming forms of fundamental beliefs as well. Because of this vicious cycle all forms of religious beliefs are inevitable reactionary, one reacting to the other as one becomes antiquated because of the birth of another. Fundamentalists however, try to circumvent what is solely a religious problem, by claiming the all religious beliefs are being attacked by the “secular” society. This is simply not the case. Fundamentalism grows as more and more “liberal” religious beliefs become antiquated by the innumerable new interpretations of religious texts, creating new forms of fundamentalism. The “war against religion” should be changed to “the war between religions”, which is what it has been all along.

[1] I am an atheist that claims that all religion is detrimental, and so can be construed as a person who attacks all religion. This is true, but while I make the claim that all religion is detrimental to all societies I also claim that all peoples have a right to believe what they will as long as they do not make their beliefs into law, and do not claim those beliefs to be true without adhering to the strict scientific definition of truth. To say that society does not attack religion is true because societies as a whole tend to be religious, and to say that society does not attack religion is a much different statement than claiming that individuals (such as myself) do not attack religion.

It’s Not My Fault

2008-02-05T14:01:00.000-08:00

Often conversations concerning religion, especially when talking to religious people, turn to how good or bad one or another religion is. It is typical that one’s own religion is void of any negative traits, offers only love and understanding to whomever comes within its fold. When religion is attacked it is often the case that one or another religion is void of any morality, and in no way can justify its actions. However, when it is one’s own religion that is attacked, it is being wrongly accused as being detrimental in any way, and the attack is unwarranted simply because there are “some religions” that are detrimental. Whatever the religion is, if it is one’s own it is seldom if ever considered part of the problem, but is almost always part of the solution.
Nowadays Islamic peoples are taking more criticism than ever from much of the world, and for good reason given recent events both in the Middle East and much of the west, but if one speaks to an Islamic person it is soon made apparent that Islam is a “peaceful” religion. Islam, we are told is tolerant and has its basis in understanding and hope. We are told that Allah is a loving God. We are told that it is our imperfect misinterpretation of the Islamic religion that is the problem rather than the religion itself. We are told that it is only a fraction of the followers of Islam that act violently and with criminal intent against humanity. In short, we are told that Islam is not the problem, but that some people are the problem.
We hear this same argument in other areas of life, and it makes no more sense. For example, overpopulation is a problem, but no one with children will admit to being a part of that problem. We are told by parents in the west that it is not the western world that is problematic; it is the 3rd world countries. We are told that in fact populations in some western countries are dwindling, and that we have a duty to see to it that our own cultures and races survive. We are told that it is a virtue to have children and that while overpopulation may be a problem, it is not them that are part of that problem. In short, people who broach the subject of overpopulation are told that overpopulation is only a problem for some people. The argument, however is the same.
The Christian religion offers the same arguments as well: that it was once no different than the Islamic religion is today is played down, and its virtues are pointed to while its history and its very nature (according to the bible) is played down. People in countries such as the USA offer similar arguments in regard to consumerism: it is “our way of life” even though that way of life forces poverty around the world and destroys the environment. People in the 3rd world countries who are destroying forests and decimating their environment claim that they have no options, that it is not them that is the problem, only some of them. The current Bush administration destroys basic civil and human rights, demolishes individual privacy laws, glazes over constitutional laws, and disregards the declaration of independence, but claims that it is only doing so for the public good: that such actions are not its fault, but the fault of some people.
The fault of the world’s problems lies at all of our feet. That Religious thought is detrimental is the responsibility of all religious peoples. If one’s religion is a safety blanket that allows one to feel hope at the cost of truth, no amount of qualification will change the fact that such thought has led to atrocities in the name of religion. The current violence that has no spread throughout the world “in the name of Islam” is done for that very reason: the Islamic faith. That there are so many people in the world that we are now no longer “stewards” but parasites is caused by one act and one act alone. That Christians can no longer torture people and burn them at the stake legally does not change the fact that the Christian religion allowed such acts and can still justify them in its own name. That this government, the current American government, is allowed to wreck the fundamental foundation that this country was built upon is not caused by terrorist attacks, but by fear and stupidity that is allowed by all of us to run rampant throughout our own communities.
Religion teaches one to relinquish responsibility for one’s own life here on earth in order to live without responsibility in another. This breeds irresponsibility and ignorance and is the cornerstone of other problems as well. Religious excuses are often used to justify the irresponsible behavior of some as “stewards” of the earth rather than being part of this planet. Instead of facing problems such as overpopulation, religion twists facts and justifies (in fact promotes) procreation when procreation is at the core of many of our problems. Even in matters of politics, religion allows people such as G.W Bush to justify acts by calling upon the religious mantra to “not question authority”. Religion creates another much used mantra: “it’s not my fault.”
It is your fault! It is your fault every time you refuse to accept responsibility for your own life. It is your fault when you justify your actions with empty, unwarranted reasons. Religious thought does not foster rationality, it fosters dependence and ignorance. There is a reason that governmental systems such as monarchies fail: they are based on blind acceptance to authority in the name of comfort and fear. Every individual on earth has at least one responsibility: to the self. This is often claimed to be selfish, but it is not. Responsibility to one’s self requires accepting the consequences of one’s acts, understanding the consequences of one’s acts, and claiming irresponsible behavior to be irresponsible. Claiming fault for ones actions when the fault lies with one’s self requires strength and rational understanding. Claiming that it is no one’s fault, or that it is not “my problem” is cowardness…nothing more. Religions claim that we are all at fault, but that we do not need to take responsibility for our faults. It also claims that we have no right to question why, to ask one selfless question: why is it not my fault?

The Rise of Fundamentalism I

2008-01-28T18:04:00.000-08:00

In recent discussions and in books concerning the nature of religious belief, what has been called the rise of fundamentalism in religion has been considered to be on an upswing. Those religions that historically adhered to a literal interpretation of religious texts have been considered most fundamental in their beliefs, and those that have taken a more liberal interpretation of them have been considered to be less dogmatic. However, fundamentalism is not only about interpretation of texts, it also concerns the belief of people who consider themselves fundamentalists (religiously speaking) that their religious belief is being attacked in some form or fashion. In other words, fundamentalism as it is popularly defined, is reactionary by nature. Fundamentalist beliefs can be a reaction to one’s fear, one’s doubt concerning religious belief, or can be a reaction to what is perceived to be an outside threat, such as the supposed growth in secularism in today’s American society. Fundamentalism as a form of belief is a reaction, then, to either ones own beliefs, the beliefs others, or both.
When the word fundamentalism is used, it is usually referring to religion. That is to say that there are fundamental laws of science, but those scientists that adhere to such laws are not considered “fundamentalists”. Rather they are considered good scientists. On the other hand, those that adhere strictly to one or another religious text are considered “fundamentalists” in the sense that they strip any extra interpretive senses from the actual religious texts. The fundamentalist, then, can be said to be fundamentally a religious phenomenon. The fundamentalist is the person who does not allow for a broad interpretation of religious texts, especially if that text is the basis of his or her belief. Any such interpretation is generally met with strong aversion by the fundamentalist. The Episcopalian religion generally allows for a much broader interpretation of the bible than does the Baptist, for example. The difference is that while the Episcopalian might allow the Baptist interpretation, the Baptist will most likely not allow the Episcopalian’s interpretation. In this sense, the Baptist is more a fundamentalist than is the Episcopalian. Fundamentalists generally allow for a much more limited interpretation of religious texts than those religious peoples who are not fundamentalists.
The fundamentalist is limited in their interpretation of religious texts, usually by the church leader, or their own allowances. While a fundamentalist might read the text and take meaning from it directly, the more liberal religionist might read the text and allow for metaphors and symbolism. The use of metaphors and symbolism as being valid tools of argumentation is becoming more and more common as the religious texts themselves become more and more antiquated. Adherents of intelligent design theories tend to rely upon metaphors and symbolism in order bolster their arguments that the universe is willfully designed by a god. There use of literary devices allows them to conclude that not only is the universe designed by a god, but is in their opinion, designed by a specific god: the Christian God. The fundamentalist would allow this conclusion, but at the same time not allow the literary devices. While the believer in intelligent design might allow that the earth is eight billion years old, the fundamentalist would not because of her strict adherence to religious texts. This creates friction between the fundamentalist and the believer in intelligent design.
Every religious believer is a fundamentalist in some sense. That is to say, every religious believer is reactionary religiously speaking. This is because religious propositions are based on a fundamental truth: that there is a god that exists and deserves to be worshipped in some way. If this religious proposition is doubted than the religious person is forced to add credibility to the reasons that they give for their belief, and the plausibility of the conclusion (that there is in fact a god). This single necessary conclusion for all religionists is the basis for fundamentalism and so all religionists are fundamentalists if their religion includes such a belief. To say that every religious believer is a reactionary means that they hold this one belief to be true no matter what, and that any argument against that belief must be proven wrong no matter what. The “no matter what” nature of religious belief is what forces all fundamentalism to be reactionary by nature. The scientist, for example, is not necessarily a reactionary because she can point towards the credible reasoning in her argument even though the conclusion of that argument is attacked and may even change given enough alternative credible premises. The fundamentalist, in putting forth reasons for the existence of God (the necessary conclusion of all fundamentalist arguments), is not at liberty to change the conclusion, and so must continually change the reasoning that is used to warrant his conclusion. With every change in the reasoning while adhering to the necessary conclusion, the argument becomes weakened. The fundamentalist, in not allowing a broader interpretation of religious texts is forced to react in non-rational ways in order to defend his original and necessary conclusion.
If an argument is shown enough times to be weak or invalid, then doubt is inevitable. In such cases, the fundamentalist must react to his own doubt, creating anger and/or fear. At the same time the fundamentalist is faced with the task of defending an indefensible argument to the world, and is forced to do so in order to hold a belief that is doubted in his own mind. Many fundamentalists turn to the familiar adage that faith is the cornerstone of truth. While this is contradictory to any rationally thinking person, it must be accepted by the fundamentalist in reaction to their own belief and to the viewpoints concerning that belief by the world around them. The fundamentalist has a dilemma: allow a broader interpretation of religious texts and in doing so, allow for a more liberal and hence weaker argument, or adhere to the fundamental belief and accept the contradiction that is inherent in such a belief. The liberal interpretation is a weaker argument because it allows for vague and ambiguous propositions to be considered as fact, and the fundamentalist’s belief is weak because it must accept contradiction as being inherent in the argument.
Many religious people argue that secularism is on the rise in countries such as the United states, but according authors such as Karen Armstrong (The Battle for God) and Sam Harris (The End of Faith) this is not true. If fundamentalism is on the rise, then there must be reasons for its upsurge. On possible cause is that in times of hardship, people tend to want something solid, a fundamental basis if you will, for their life and/or their environment. Fundamentalism offers just such a basis. When absolutes are desired, reasons that make those absolutes become less important than the desire for the absolute. This acceptance of absolutes based on nothing but desire is a direct result of a reaction to one’s fear, one’s doubt concerning religious belief, or can be a reaction to what is perceived to be an outside threat. Such fallacious reasoning is typically referred to as wishful thinking. It is a reaction to one’s own desires. A fundamentalist belief allows the individual to simply state that their belief “is true” prima facie rather than accept doubt about the belief, and then develop credible reasons for believing in the first place. The belief becomes true simply because the individual wants it to be true. As science breaks down fundamental questions concerning the universe, the existence of humanity becomes less and less centralized: life and any meaning that individuals may have given it becomes less plausible, and doubt as well as fear ensues. This doubt and fear breaks down the need for rational thought and creates the need for quick and easy fixes such as fundamentalism. The rise of fundamentalism is ironically caused by the rise in our ability as human beings to understand and explain our surroundings. Fundamentalism is a reaction to the growth and evolution of human knowledge.

Ravages of Religion

2008-01-21T12:39:00.001-08:00

Self-Respect 1/21/2008
Historically religion brings out the worst in people. It brings out the worst while at the same time condoning self-debasing actions, including self-mutilation such as the scene below. There are those that argue that their religious faith brings them strength and hope. I would argue that what they call strength is desperation, and what they call hope is contentment with their own despair. Religion is not respectful of life. In fact, most religious creeds are based upon the desire of many to be wafted to a “better place”, to cheat death. But in order to attain these goals, religion does not remind us that we must die. Instead, it maintains that the life that we have now is worthless, unimportant, and that we must pay for the miniscule chance that might have to meet our maker, and spend an eternity as slave of worship to. Religions feed upon the lack of self-respect and self-esteem that is so ubiquitous in human nature. Instead of raising us up from our doubts and defeatist attitudes, it plays upon us reminding us that we are worthy of nothing but pain.
Religion makes absolute and universal claims concerning life. It claims to hold truths that are infinitely irreversible, universally applicable, and perfect by their very nature, but when reminded of contradictions, when those claims are shown to be antiquated either logically or ethically, religion is not waffled. Rather, religion makes newer, improved claims that override previous ones. Religion dismisses its previous interpretations of its own absolute and universal claims by re-interpreting itself, claiming instead that the new and improved versions are really what was meant all along. The man you see beating himself to a bloody pulp is an Islamic man mourning the death of a religious a prophet that died hundreds of years ago. This is considered an annual Islamic celebration. This is religious belief in action: the remembrance of religious icons by self-mutilation. It is not uncommon for Christians to look upon such actions as barbarous and pathetic, but such actions are not uncommon in the Christian world. When reminded of this Christian remind us that it was hundreds of years ago, and that such acts would not apply today.
But, time cannot make an act any less heinous. Time cannot rectify wrongs, it can only numb us to them. The fact that Christians can no longer murder atheists does not make right the fact that they did so more hundreds of years, and still do so today in some places. The argument that Christians are killed does not rectify these wrong-doings either. That other religions find it necessary, that they find it justifiable to kill others that do not adhere to their beliefs, does not make them any worse or better then the religions that call “foul”. The fact that modern society now tries to limit the powers of religion within itself is not religious persecution. The fact that many religion peoples cannot understand this is because their sense of self and justice has been so warped as to not be able to tell the difference between right or wrong.
Christians are often reminded that their own faith was the cause of millions of deaths, and the destruction of untold many civilizations under the auspice of manifest destiny. The common answer is that while it may have been true in the past, it is true no longer, but this is untrue. Modern Christianity is the product of hundreds of years of evolution, but that fact alone does not negate the horrors done it its name, now or then. Religious wars between Christians and others still exist, Catholicism preaches guilt, and Protestantism proposes that all people be independent under God. Modern Christianity, instead of the whip, the spear, or the gun, now uses the law in most cases. While Christians can no longer burn atheists on a spike, they can make their dogma and beliefs into legal edicts. But in countries where religion is still allowed to run rampant and religious belief is still held as the law of man, despicable acts are still the norm rather than the exception.
The adage “Misery likes company” seems to be true. In refusing self-respect, in viewing self-mutilation and self-abjection of the individual as righteous, as a way of showing respect to a creator, religion would have it that all mankind join its sorrowful ranks. Life is anti-thematic, it is the opposite of moral to the religious mind. The world is not a wondrous place in which the human mind can wander curiously, respect, and learn from. The world is a place to be controlled, while we all wait for “end times”. To religion, the world is a waiting room for the dead and nothing else, and in order for one to buy a ticket, we must never forget that we are not worthy, that we are scum, that we are a product of a creator that owns us lock, stock and barrel. To have us never forget this fact is the goal of religions everywhere. Pride is the ultimate sin. To have pride is to have self-respect which is unwarranted in the eyes of religion. What is considered respect is unquestioned obedience, it is abjection and fear.
The real ravage of religion is its insistence on the debasement of human life. Humanity, in religion’s view, is nothing more than fodder for god, it is to be recognized as the obedient product of a creator, and is a gift that can be justifiably taken away. Religion does not care for life because it realizes its own lack of self-respect. No self-respecting individual would follow religious creed. No person with any real hope would twist that wonderful thing hope into religious belief. No rational mind would accept the horrors, the lies and the despicable acts that religions everywhere are directly tied to. But religion erases self-respect and replaces it with reliance. Religion rapes hope and replaces it with faith. Religion decimates rationality and bars the doors against the intellect in order to torture the mind and the body. Religion is the scourge of respect and the murderer of the mind.

Playing with Words 1/14/2008

2008-01-14T17:07:00.000-08:00

When someone claims that they are an atheist, there is no mistake as to their viewpoints concerning religion. The word itself, as does the idea, is explicit in its meaning. Unfortunately this is not the case with religious language. Religion often hides itself behind “rational” language when in fact what it is offering is the same argument: there is a god because we desire there to be a god. Atheism relies upon clarity whereas theism relies upon linguistic vagaries. In fact, without vagueness, religion becomes rationally empty: it has no meaning whatsoever. Rather, theism relies upon the individual’s ability to “interpret” his or her theistic belief. This amounts to one saying that every opinion is equally weighted. This also allows the theistic authorities to play upon each individual’s interpretation in such a way as to make it both valid, but limited. For example, starting with the only real authority of the Christian religion, the bible, religious authorities can allow for individuals to both interpret this collection of religious rhetoric and to accept an authority’s interpretation of it as well as is often seen in both catholic and protestant denominations. Because atheism does not rely upon interpretation and unwarranted assumptions, it is simply the lack of the belief in a god or gods, the atheist cannot hide (rationally speaking) behind rhetoric by playing with words and offering implicit conclusions.
Recently, on a radio program that regularly airs on Sunday mornings, there was discussion concerning spiritualism and physics. The discussion centered around four concepts: that there are things that can only be understood outside of mathematics, that the universe has a beginning point, and that infinity is not necessarily infinite. Ordinarily these statements would peak interest in the rational person, but in the context of spiritualism, what the listener was being asked to do was to consider answers that were “beyond the scope” of rational thought, i.e. faith. Although this was never stated outright, the underlying thought was that no matter how much science may prove, it will never disprove religion. Spiritualism is closely related, if not a direct branch of religious thought. Rather than limiting its approach to theistic belief, spiritualism tends to embrace even broader aspects of theistic belief allowing it to reach a broader audience. Nevertheless, spiritualism is religious tenet. Each statement by itself is interesting, but in the context of spiritualism becomes vague and nudges one towards theistic thought.
Mathematics is commonly thought of as being absolute, but no mathematician will make the claim that mathematics is absolute. One only has to consider dividing any number by zero, simple proposition. This tends to cause mathematical meltdowns. However, the fact that mathematics is not absolute is not a weakness of mathematics. Rather, it is strength: a strength that is shared by all the sciences in fact. The sciences are not absolute: while they can prove without a doubt the truth of their premises, the conclusions are at best temporary. It is this openness that science embraces that allows it to continue to evolve. There are things that mathematics will not be able to prove, but this is precisely what drives mathematics forward. In a religious context the implicit conclusion tends to be that the things that mathematics cannot prove can only be proven by theistic belief. Theism assumes a single conclusion by pointing out the nature of mathematical conclusions. Theism relies upon implicit “understandings” that mathematics will not consider at all. That is, until those implicit conclusions are made mathematically explicit.
On the show, it was pointed out that the universe had a beginning. The physicist mentioned the “Big Bang”, which indeed was the beginning of the universe. But in the theistic sense, the beginning of the universe relates back to an Aristotelian concept: that of a first mover. This point was not mentioned although it was vaguely masked by discussion concerning physics. The conversation was vague, not because of the science involved in understanding that the universe had a beginning, but because of the theistic conceptualization of the beginning of the universe. Theism uses and reuses the same old arguments that is has relied upon since the early middle-ages, in this case, the cosmological argument. Intelligent Design is based on the cosmological argument dating back to Aquinas in the 1200’s at least. ID does not refute the Big Bang, but it does refute that the Big Bang can be explained in purely scientific terms. The universe did have a beginning in the form of the Big Bang, and something most likely caused the Big Bang, but this “something” is not necessarily a god, God, or some theistic conceptualization of a creator, which is precisely what arguments such as intelligent design assume. The fact that this point is very seldom ever pointed out by the theist is in itself vague and misleading.
The third idea, that infinity is not necessarily infinite is an idea that was proposed by, among others, Stephen Hawkins. The idea is that the universe may be infinite in one direction while being finite in another. This very convoluted scientific idea was not gone into in great detail most likely because there are very few people that truly understand the concept. But in the context of the theistic program, the implicit idea that was offered once again was that since even infinity is not infinite, there must be “something else”: that something else being a spiritual presence or designer. Again, the reliance upon vague propositions is the cornerstone of theistic arguments. It is simply an unwarranted assumption made by the theist that because a single form of infinity may not be universally infinite that this implies intelligent creation of any kind.
As an atheist, one cannot rely upon vague language, implicit conclusions, and inconclusive evidence to “prove” anything. Playing with language is the tool of politicians and preachers. The atheist may propose that the universe is not universally infinite, but does not have the luxury of vagueness to fall back upon in order to “prove” any point. The atheist is not free to use ignorance as a foundation for disbelief, but the atheist does not have to do such things (as Victor Stenger points out in his book God: the failed hypothesis). The atheist may propose that the universe had a beginning but is not free to imply that this has any meaning whatsoever. Where the atheist must rely upon reason, empirical data and imagination, the theist can rely upon faith, unwarranted assumptions and imagination. By playing with words the theist can make his point: that God exists no matter if that point is empty of any real meaning, invalid, or simply foolish. While the atheist imagines a world where language is the tool of reason, the theist imagines a world where language is unnecessary.
Without the use of vague language the theistic argument is sunk. There are those that claim that science and religion can coexist. I am not one of those persons. As long as science must rely upon clarity, it cannot consider religious propositions. And, as long as theistic arguments rely upon vague language, dubious sources of information and wishful thinking, they cannot truthfully claim to be anything other than hypotheses (weak at best). The recent surge in “spiritualism” does not change this fact. As religion ironically evolves into more open and welcoming forms of ideology, it must ultimately come to terms with this fact. While the theist may find comfort and solace in playing with language, he cannot seriously contend that such linguistic acrobatics hold the same validity as solid scientific argument. To do so is nothing less than misleading and dangerous at best.

In Times of Despair 1/7/2008

2008-01-07T15:41:00.000-08:00

Baruch Spinoza wrote that it when people are comfortable and well-off that they despise advice from others, that they consider it an insult. But, when those same people are facing despair they are willing to take advice from any stranger that might be passing by. Spinoza wrote this in the 1600’s, and was alluding to the people’s affinity for believing and accepting God and organized religion respectively. Since it is when we are worst off that we are at our weakest mental state (accepting advice from any passing stranger) it is at these points that religion seems most promising. This idea is nothing new, and most likely has at least some truth in it. But doesn’t it seem contradictory that when we need to think most clearly that we lose perspective? Humanity is capable of wonderful things and is one of the most amazing creations of evolution, but we will pass into extinction just like all life eventually will. The difference is, we will have a hand in our own death: we will choose it.
Atheism is nothing but a title that has been given to one who does not believe in or considers the concept of God as meaningless. Such a person is forced by the very nature of their disbelief to doubt not only God but any proposition that seems irregular or irreconcilable with rational thought. The atheist is not one who relies on crystal balls and numerology to interpret the world, just as they do not rely upon a church nor upon an ideal image or deity to guide them in any way. The atheist is alone and facing the despair of death, but is unwilling to take advice from any stranger that might be passing by. The atheist despairs but retains his rationality. Baruch Spinoza was raised in a Jewish family that had sought asylum from the Catholic Church, in Amsterdam. Baruch is considered an atheistic philosopher today, even though he never admitted to it in his lifetime. Rather, he claimed to be a pantheist.
Why would an atheist not claim atheism: for rational reasons. Baruch was excommunicated from his religious views for believing that the church and state should be separate. This angered not only the Catholic, but also the other denominations. But Baruch would not claim atheism because to do so would have meant his death. Spinoza was in a time of despair, but would not take advice from any passing stranger. His disbelief kept his mind clear even in the worst of times. It is not the atheist that is blinded by pride as many religious people contend. Rather, it is the religious that are blinded by wishful thinking. I would propose that all religious peoples everywhere do what most atheists do regularly and without fear of “losing faith”. That is, I would ask all religious peoples to honestly doubt their belief, to rationally dissect what they claim is true, and to do so regularly. I am not forcing my disbelief upon anyone, but I am asking for us all to think with the only organ we have capable of doing so: our brain.
The human being is not amazing because we exist; nor are we incredible because we can communicate to the extent that we do. We are both amazing and incredible because of the potential for rational thought. I would ask all people everywhere to work in realizing their potential, and act upon their realizations. I would ask everyone to not rely upon the advice given by the “passing strangers” that bombard our society with the dangerous in ridiculous rhetoric. I would ask that we all, in our times of despair and happiness, rely upon our capability to think for ourselves.