Reconstruction of Disbelief

Was Jesus Good? Part 5

2012-01-25T18:14:00.000-08:00

Jesus said that we shouldn't judge unless we're willing to be judged accordingly. Another translation is, "if you judge, you too will be judged," which has a slightly different meaning.

I've heard the passage time and again throughout my life. I've taken it to mean that we shouldn't judge people, that only God has that right. I've always thought it was a good thing to refrain from being critical of others. None of us know enough to truly appreciate what caused a person's bad choice or bad behavior. If an omniscient God existed, only he would know every circumstance, every factor, that precipitated sin. Even if a god did not exist, it would be wise to refrain from personal judgement whenever information is lacking concerning the offense, be it an action or a personality trait. If we could only know what others have been through, our negative assessments just might turn into real empathy. People who are obviously stupid, rude, reckless, angry, obnoxious, or conniving can be pitied. Who would really choose to be anything but perfect, blameless, and lovable? Who really wants to be unlikeable, if it were simply a matter of choice? Its not. We all have our faults, and we know how they can sometimes make our lives more painful, so we should refrain from being too critical of others.

Maybe Jesus meant all of this. Maybe he didn't. What if he just meant what he said; "don't judge, unless you're willing to be judged." Well, I'm willing to be judged. I don't think I am above criticism. If I do something stupid, it doesn't hurt me if someone says so. Or at least I should be strong and secure enough to be able to deal with it in a healthy, constructive manner. Often times its helpful to hear what other people think of us, even if its unpleasant. I would rather we be able to handle criticism AND be free to judge, than to discourage any and all scrutiny.

Judging is a product of having values and discerning how others measure up to our standards. Its difficult if not impossible to be a thinking, feeling human being and not judge the people and world around us, constantly. Even if we rid our minds of such thoughts, our senses would continue to filter out what we experience and affect our feelings based on an innate sense of what is pleasing, offensive, right, and wrong.

So is Jesus leaving it up to us? Say I don't want to be judged; then, ok, I choose to heed Jesus's advice. But really, what Christian thinks he won't be judged by the only one that matters-God himself? And who honestly thinks that God will perform the favor of silencing his critics? Either way, Jesus is being misleading. There's no escaping judgement, no matter what you do or don't do.

Jesus could have said, simply, "don't judge" or "don't think less of other people." If this is the true meaning of his words, which I'm prepared to grant (out of good will), then we have finally found a precept worthy of admiration. Thank you, Jesus!

Jesus said that we should deal with our own problems before we deal with other people's problems (my translation of the "mote in eye" verse).

I have a desire to break this one down into two parts. It would be better as #1) spend time fixing your own problems, and #2) let others fix their own problems; or, stay out of other people's business. As its written, there's the implication that we should deal with other people's problems if we have already dealt with our own. Good advice...if the individuals you're thinking of actually want the help. But not s0 great if they want to be left alone; or if they would be better served by simply helping themselves. Overall, I'd put this one in the positive column, but only because its a near tautology. Deal with problems-of course, problems are meant to be dealt with. Helping people is doing good-of course, doing good is good.

Do not let the holy to be desecrated by the unworthy.

Its been a few months since I made these plain worded translations of scriptures pulled from the Jefferson's Bible. I don't have the book in front of me, and since I'm lazy, I won't be grabbing it in order to find out the context surrounding this command. It does sound pretty simple. Say you've got something holy, like a church or temple. Don't let those who are unworthy enter it. Or say you've got a holy, uh, Bible. Don't let someone burn it, pee on it, or something. Sure. Can do. Only one problem. I don't believe anything is "holy". I know this puts me in a minority on this here planet. I'd debate the issue further, but that would take awhile. Like I said: I'm lazy.

Stay on the straight and narrow path to salvation.

Ugh. More mythology. I guess I'll give Jesus this one. I'm feeling charitable. IF (a big "if")-if a Kingdom of God existed, and in order to live there for all of eternity we had to do everything just so-in the exact manner God intended-then yes, it would be good to do so, no matter how "straight and narrow" and difficult it was to do. (kinda goes without saying)

Do not say idle words.

Why not? I'm open to the possibility that saying idle words is no bueno. Let's try to figure out why.

After a little research online, I think it would be correct to include "careless words" to the prohibited idle words. Ok, its a easier to understand why careless words are bad. Problem is, its a little too easy. What are you really saying, Jesus? I know it must be profound. After all, you're Jesus. I insist upon profundity (and apparently millions of people have insisted on it. They've taken the Old Father's Almanac of the year 100AD-Jesus's teachings-and elevated its cute sayings, stories, and little gems of wisdom to the pinnacle of moral greatness.)

Hrm. Careless. Idle. .... If a spy has a secret, it would be careless to tell the enemy. Yep. If someone doesn't have anything important or new to say, they might talk about the weather or gossip about their coworkers. Perhaps this kind of speech gets on Jesus's nerves. I can understand that. But for the life of me I cannot figure out what is so terrible about these particular words. I'm sure its the thought that counts. The thought behind the words could buy you a one way ticket to hell...if those thoughts are too damned idle or careless. Whatever.

Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

Finally, the one we've all been waiting for. The pearl of wisdom that essentially proves Christianity and Jesus are THE BEST. No other religion bestowed upon mankind such an all-encompassing moral precept. Uh, wait a second... Wikipedia, what do you have to say on the matter?

Statements that mirror the Golden Rule appear in ancient Egypt in the story of The Eloquent Peasant. Kidder discusses the early contributions of Confucius (551-479b.c.). Kidder notes that this concept's framework appears prominently in many religions, including "Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the world's major religions." According to Greg M. Epstein, "do unto others.. is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely." Simon Blackburn also states that the Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition."

So much for standing out from the crowd.

But just because Jesus isn't the maxim's sole originator or promoter doesn't take anything away from the obvious wisdom of the tract. No, it doesn't. But this might:

Let's say I see a sexy woman walking past my home (and I'm single, of course). I think to myself, "I will do unto her as I would have her do unto me" (sounds creepy, doesn't it?). So of course I run outside and give her a huge kiss. I then invite her inside so that we can quickly round second base and sprint for home. Hypothetical #2: Say its Friday and I'm in a party kind of a mood. I want to ROCK!! I think to myself, "I want to PARTAY!! I would like my neighbors to knock on my door and party down with me". Because I live by the Golden Rule, I march outside and start knocking on doors "Let's Do This Thing!" Who DOESN'T want to shake their booties on a Friday night??

There's an obvious loophole in "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." If taken too literally, misunderstandings and unpleasantries may ensue. In a way, it allows for selfish or less than empathetic behavior. Maybe a little editing would help. How about: "Using the best information available, treat others the way you think they would like to be treated"? There. A small but perfect variation of the Golden Rule. ...but not so fast.

Still, we've got the potential for grave misunderstandings. You may not have good information available. You may have no idea what the other person wants. And what about this? If we were religious zealots who took this variation of the Golden Rule seriously and literally, we would not care about our own wishes. We'd ask ourselves, "How would this person like to be treated? Oh, he'd like to jump into bed with me. He'd like to party all night long. Ok, that's what I'll do...even though I don't really even know him and I'm REALLY tired right now."

So the Golden Rule needs further modification. "Using the best information available, do to others what you think they want done, but do not compromise your own morals, cause yourself undo suffering, or neglect anything of significant personal importance. And whenever possible, ask the person what he or she would like done." Doesn't have quite the same ring to it. But I dare say that in a few short paragraphs we've dramatically improved a rule that has been considered "golden" for millennia.

Before posting this I've got to say that I'm sincerely astonished at #1) the amount of nonsense and poor sense that has been revered for hundreds and thousands of years by not only Christians, but everyone... and #2) the ease of discovering the flaws in ancient wisdom if only that wisdom isn't immediately venerated and held above criticism. Free thought is a wonderful thing.

Was Jesus Good?, Part 4

2011-11-06T08:51:00.000-08:00

Jesus said we should agree with our adversaries quickly so that we may avoid being thrown in prison. How would this play out in real life? Two adversaries meet, both harboring deep resentment and grievances which demand immediate resolution. Before a prudent judgement is handed down, or even a charge put forth, both parties take Jesus's advice and simultaneously agree with each other. Which is to say, they still disagree. Person 1: "You are right, I was wrong." Person 2: "No, no. It is I who made the mistake. YOU are right." Following Jesus's advice, each party would then agree/disagree for the second time. And so this ridiculous scenario would replay for all eternity. Surely, Jesus was not advocating infinite capitulations.

We're forced to side-step away from literalism if we hope to find the "true meaning" of Jesus's words. Its unfortunate that they cannot hold more power on their own. Unfortunate, yes, but this literal weakness is also potentially dangerous. Charming and guileful individuals have hoisted upon themselves the ready-made authority of the Bible and twisted its meaning to steal wealth and power from the everyman. Thieves should be denied such easy pickings. There is no better way to accomplish this than pointing out the inherent weaknesses and evils found in the Bible. Authority must always be rational and in some measure democratic. The Bible is neither. All people deserve better spiritual and moral guidance than that found in the wishy washy words of the "holy" scriptures.

As I was saying, we are now forced to search for the REAL meaning and purpose behind Jesus's words. That's ok-its obvious, right? Hmmm..."agree with an adversary so that we won't be thrown in prison..." We have to assume that our adversary is either justified or capable of throwing us in prison. Evidently, Jesus is not giving advice to the those who hold the power. He is speaking to the powerless. Likely he is speaking to the same people he has been concerned with all along: the meek, the poor, and the long-suffering. His advice? Submit to the rich and powerful. Don't risk going to prison.

It would be understandable if one thought that Jesus was an advocate of the poor. One might assume that our Savior encouraged the downtrodden to stand up for their rights. Well, one would be wrong, at least in this case. It seems evident that Jesus actively promoted the status quo, as far as class structure is concerned. Be content, be submissive, he said, our reward is in heaven. I'm sure it wasn't just the poor who got this message. Intelligent rulers throughout history have, time and time again, used the popularity of Jesus's message to increase their own fortunes.

Next up, do not look lustfully at women; this is adultery.

We could discuss whether or not looking lustfully at women is in fact adultery or even worthy of close comparison. The claim is certainly outrageous. But let's not take the easy road. Instead, let's ask if some evil is avoided when lust is denied possession of our minds and bodies. The traditional arguments say that lust sickens the mind, erodes relationships, and in some cases leads to sexual violence.

I don't think one could successfully argue against these charges given the most extreme cases. Is there any doubt that people can become addicted to pornography and sex? Who can say that relationships and families are not routinely broken up by individuals caught up in lustful pursuits? I wouldn't be surprised if there were a correlation between those who commit sexual offenses and graphic pornography-particularly pornography of a brutal nature (though its a simple fact that the viewing of typical pornographic images does not necessarily lead to violence).

But does this mean that lust itself is inherently bad? Many things are addictive. Most things that are naturally appealing to us can be used and abused. Is sugar bad? It may seem ludicrous to compare lust to sugar, but think of the harm obesity causes to bodies AND relationships. What is sugar? Its a simple chemical compound that happens to be something we need to survive. That's why we crave it. We wouldn't exist without it. Could our species survive without lust and sexual attraction? No (though I'm sure a science fiction writer or two has imagined alien/AI societies that procreate due to the pure logical necessity of it instead of relying on responses to animal instinct).

The difficult thing is determining when desires stop being natural and necessary and start being unhealthy and potentially harmful. Hypothetically speaking, one may think that the healthiest state of mind I could possess is one that dwells on God and his Word every second of every day. The fact that I spend the vast majority of my time "obsessed" with other things-like biking, eating, drinking, entertainment, and sex-could be reason for someone somewhere to declare that I have an unhealthy frame of mind.

If looking at a woman lustfully is unhealthy or harmful because it in some way erodes my close relationships or because it takes my mind off more productive things, then when can I be sure I've purged myself of such evil? What if I am distracted by the simple beauty of a woman? What if I pause to enjoy a sunset? Couldn't there be something more healthy I could turn my attention to? Do I need to become a monk to be mentally healthy and morally pure (early Christians came to this conclusion, with many sects adopting complete celibacy). This argument may represent a "slippery slope", but attraction really does occupy such a gradual and near infinite spectrum. Even if we agree to define lust exclusively as desire for sex, we still have work to do in determining which sensations qualify. Wants and needs can be subtle. Desire for sex can be instigated by a look, a conversation, an aroma. Moreover, certain events are inseparable predecessors to lustful feelings. How, pray tell, does one escape the harm, the hell, of lust?

We need to return to Earth. Let's not pretend that questions of health and harm are so arbitrary-they're not. There's a near infinite combination of thoughts, feelings, and experiences that could be psychoanalyzed or scrutinized. We could try to judge which is a little more healthy and which is slightly less so. We could worry ourselves about our every action, our every feeling. But its not our business to do so in the vast majority of cases. We value free will and freedom of consciousness. Its only when someone clearly manifests harmful behavior that friends, family, and society may choose to step in and offer help. There's a hundred degrees of worse to better that we have come to accept and ignore. Despite all their disagreements, conservatives and liberals usually have no problems drawing firm lines on questions of good and bad, right and wrong. Usually those lines fall near each other. When they don't, we usually have Jesus and the Bible to blame.

This conclusion does not necessarily lead us to: lust=adultery. Why would Jesus make such a comparison? Speaking for Jesus, we could say that lusting after another woman or man is mental cheating. But can cheating really be cheating if nothing physical transpires? I'd guess that many of us would answer "yes". Your desire for some person other than the one you're committed to could become so consuming that the emotional bonds of your relationship are essentially severed. Even simple, momentary lusting can be, in a sense, expending passion on someone other than your significant other, even if no touching occurs. So yes, lust can be conceptualized as a form of adultery, as silly as it seems. In reality, do we expect relationships to end every time an eye is distracted by a sexy stranger. No. One could even argue that titillating experiences of any kind are positive for a couple. Those sexual desires lead to healthy sexual activity (with each other ;)).

My objections with Jesus's conception of lust are; for one, its demands are completely unnatural and arguably impossible. Seriously, why doesn't he ask us to abstain from breathing. Or try not drinking water when we're thirsty. Its ridiculous, really, condemning lust. And its unhealthy. Guilt, frustrations, sexual disfunction, depression...all can result from suppressing one's natural desires. Some might say that lust will find a way of manifesting itself one way or another. Given enough time, suppressed lust could possibly transform into unhealthy fascinations or strange fetishes.

Sexual attraction is not something we naturally control. Yes, we control our behavior, and we can control our thoughts, but it becomes more and more difficult to rebel against our nature as we progress from behaviors to thoughts to desires. Jesus is asking us to reach deep into ourselves and control something that our genes have hardwired into us for very good reasons.

I take a liberal approach to the questions of morality. If something's not obviously harmful, its permissible. If looking lustfully at a woman immediately caused a relationship to implode; or instantly made a person so obsessed that he quit his job or raped someone, then we could say Jesus had his head on straight. As things stand, I find Jesus's words once again devoid of moral wisdom.

Do not allow a single part of your body to do evil. It is best to remove that part before it does evil.

In other words, doing evil is very very bad. Why? Because at some point, the penalty for doing evil is worse than cutting off your arm or plucking out your eye. Either God doesn't like what you've done and eventually tortures you in hell, or Satan likes it...and tortures you in hell, OR the evil you've done eventually produces harm that is greater than that done to your body when you remove important parts of it.

Its that last part that could make Jesus's advice good outside the context of superstitious belief. But even that doesn't hold up to easy scrutiny. People sometimes get away with it, whatever evil "it" is. And we must ask, what is worthy of being called evil? Squishing a bug? Littering? Eating pig?

Are all evil acts equally evil, or aren't some lesser evils and some greater evils? Are all evils worthy of the same painful dismembering? Would I poke out my own eye if I thought I might look lustfully at a Maxim cover in line at Texaco (never happens)? Should I cut off my middle finger before I flip a bad driver the bird?

I'm not saying the Bible doesn't answer the question "What is evil"? Maybe it does...for itself. I just have a hard time accepting that all sinful acts are so horrible, and equally so.

Jesus's admonishment says something about evil: its very very bad. But it also says something about our bodies: they're relatively unimportant in the scheme of things. I could agree if I believed in the Christian "scheme of things". But I don't. So its difficult to find any value in Jesus's words outside that context. We could say more about how "cruel and unusual" this declaration is; but having agreed with Jesus if we accept his belief, and found things nonsensical if we do not accept his belief, there's little reason to go on.

Just a quick thought before wrapping up this topic: I wonder if these words from the Bible justified in any way the use of extreme forms of punishment and torture that were used throughout the ages. If the flesh is temporary and unimportant in the scheme of things, any measure of pain that can be inflicted upon it is acceptable. The forms of torture and execution devised by pious men throughout history are, based on humanist values, unimaginable evils.

Do not think or worry about your survival. God will provide. Seek the kingdom first.

I think this idea has been tested before. Turns out, God will not literally bring you food and water or provide you shelter. Some say he provides in round-about ways, usually through the good graces other people (who are individuals granted with freewill by God, by the way, so don't ask me how that works). I don't recommend trying to prove me wrong here. Just a note: You can only survive a few days without water, and a few weeks without food. Plus, its pretty cold out there this time of year.

Since the literal translation turns out to be untrue, once again we're forced to devise the "real" meaning of Jesus' words on our own. I have heard that Jesus believed that the Kingdom of God was due to arrive at any moment, and because of that uncertainty and urgency he was telling everyone to make preparing for the kingdom their top priority. This would give meaning to his words. What can we conclude when we observe that the Kingdom has yet to be established..?

But Jesus was also advocating a way of life in the mean time. He said that the reason wild animals survive is because God provides for them. Why can't we live with such faith and connection to God? Christians have always glorified this form of faith-the kind of faith that is akin to hoping to win the lottery. When times are bad, God will come to the rescue. While this kind of faith undoubtedly eases the worry of individuals in difficult circumstances, it discourages self reliance and problem solving.

If my understanding is correct, Jesus attracted followers who probably already lived much like wild animals. Many were homeless, poverty stricken families, handicapped, and diseased. In short, the downtrodden. His message appealed to them because it made them feel important. All of a sudden, their misery became the thing that made them special. Moreover, it made them divinely chosen to possess the kingdom of heaven. Earthly kings could only wish to be them.

(Look for the next installment in "Was Jesus Good" sometime in the next three or four months, given my current rate.. Here's what we get to belittle next. Seriously though, I'm still holding out for some real wisdom. Don't let me down, Jesus!)

Don't judge, unless you're willing to be judged accordingly.
Deal with your own problems before pointing out others.
Do not let the holy to be desecrated by the unworthy.
Stay on the straight and narrow path to salvation.
Do not say idle words.
Do unto others as you'd have them do to you.
Do not say in secret what you don't want heard in public.
Fear God.
Sell your worldly items, give alms, and seek the Kingdom of Heaven.
Always be ready for the coming of the Son of Man. Don't be slothful.
Repent!
Don't be self righteous or arrogant. Don't exalt yourself.
Don't love status.
If you commit yourself to a mission, to Jesus, leave all family matters behind.
Be as humble as a child.
Do not offend a "little one". You'd be better off dead.
Do worship instead of accomplishing chores...
Don't sell things in holy places.
Pay taxes (if the money is that of the government/ruler).

Was Jesus Good?, Part 3

2011-07-29T17:02:00.000-07:00

Was Jesus a moral savior sent by God as a gift to spare his children from their sins? And was God's short cameo appearance here on earth truly his best possible performance? What all-important moral imperatives did God place in humanities survival kit, marooned as we are on this sinful planet, so far from our eternal home in heaven?

We know what Christians think. Undoubtedly millions of pages have been written on the subject, heralding and expounding upon the flawless, divine wisdom of the teachings of Jesus. The author's conclusions? Jesus and his teachings were not only good, they were so perfect as to make his name synonymous with "love", "truth", and "goodness". Jesus is all these things and more, they say. He is EVERYTHING to a Christian-he is their savior, their redeemer, their God.

But can Jesus's words stand up on their own, far from the loving embrace of his followers? Can they weather the gentle scrutiny, the mere common sense of a person of average intelligence? If we approach the subject as an outsider who has never heard of Jesus and has no preconceived notions of his alleged greatness, can his words be found deserving of our admiration? And if they pass the test, can we then conclude that Jesus bestowed upon the world the greatest moral teaching of all world-bound philosophers-teachings so enlightening they compel our strictest obedience? Let's continue our critique and see if we come closer to the answers to these questions. (The following phrases in italics are my own translations of Jesus's words as read in the Jefferson Bible. I "translated" his words in order to extract and condense the most basic essence/meaning of his Biblical tracts)

Do good works so that others can see and glorify God. Hold on. Wasn't Jesus just saying we shouldn't be boastful? Maybe there's a distinction to be made between showing off and letting your "light shine"? It might come down to who gets the glory-God or you? Glorifying yourself is bad, glorifying god is good. Why? All we know is that God prefers it this way. In other words, Biblical morality is arbitrary. At least its not contradictory (in this case).

But this can't be it, can it? Even I feel there's something positive about the rule. Oh right. It says "do good works..." Ah hah! Now we have something preachers can work with, that a congregation can really get behind. The Bible is a good moral textbook after all!

Not so fast. In this instance, we're not given a definition of "good". Jesus doesn't seem too concerned about leaving his listeners/readers out to dry. Could it be that what is good is already well understood? Jesus doesn't appear to be concerned with imparting a moral philosophy. He's not advocating doing good for the sake of ourselves or others. The ultimate goal, as we've discovered before, is to glorify God.

Obey the Halakhah (the Jewish Law) until "fulfillment" (of prophecy?).

I may be wrong, but I think Christians believe prophecy was fulfilled with the death and resurrection of Jesus. That's their excuse for not living in strict adherence to the Halakhah. When I read this commandment, I thought Jesus was calling for his listeners to obey The Law until the Kingdom of God was established. I carefully read the scriptures pertaining to the Kingdom of God and thought it plain that the kingdom was a real place/event, as the word "kingdom" is commonly understood (history indicates that followers expected this kingdom to arrive within their lifetimes, even within the lifetime of Christ and soon after). If true, Christians are openly disobeying an unambiguous commandment.

But there may still be a catch. I've heard some say that the Kingdom of God came to earth and began to be established with the arrival of Jesus. According to them, it simply has yet to be fully established, which it will be when Jesus returns. Right. Christians are still disobeying a direct order...

Ugh. This kind of stuff hurts my brain. We haven't even begun to discuss the merits of obeying the Halakhah. We've found ourselves caught up in the endless, tedious exercise of finding the TRUE meaning of Biblical passages. I get the feeling that religious experiences, including religious education, largely consists of dealing with this kind of creative interpretative mumbo jumbo. Fortunately, we're not confined to a classroom and are not subject to the scolding corrections of Bible teachers. A common sense conclusion based on a simple reading of the relevant passages is that Christians are simply disobeying the words of their savior when they don't behave like well-behaved Jews.

As for the merits of the Halakhah, I have read that the purpose of such tedious micro management by God is, 1) to prevent adherents from forgetting God in their day-to-day activities, and 2) to provide believers with opportunities to demonstrate their obedience to God. If the Halakhah is "good", then goodness is bound strictly with obedience to, and glorification of, God. There is no better illustration of this point than the Halakhah. At least at one time, Jesus absolutely endorses Jewish Law, and therefore approves of whatever morality lies behind it (as vacuous as it is).

Be more righteous than the Pharisees or scribes if you want to enter Heaven.

Is this a moral lesson for citizens of the 21st century? Undoubtedly, orthodox and learned people still inhabit this earth. Thus, Christians can and do ignore the literal reference to Pharisees and scribes and find appropriate replacements in order to keep scripture relevant.

Say we go with it. Say we ignore the fact that there were specific individuals living during Jesus's time who were the bane of his existence. Never mind that these were the direct critics of Jesus, who made him a criminal on the run fearing for his life, and never mind that Jesus had every reason to feel bitter towards these personal antagonists. So let's think like a Christian.

It is better, according to our new outlook, to be a "holy" person than to be a pompous well-educated person. As we've learned, being holy means being obedient to God and glorifying him whenever possible. In practice, this means adhering to the commandments of God and participating in regular worship services. If we want to proceed with a critique of these practices based on a common understanding of goodness, we need to critique the Ten Commandments (and others) as well as examine worship services and derive the good that comes from them. The latter part of this task would be nigh impossible considering the great variation in Sunday (and Saturday) worship services. No two Christian sects are the same, though we may be able to provide a list of their commonalities. This would all take more work than I'm willing to put in for a little blog post.

There is one point that's crying out to be made: Intelligence and righteousness are not mutually exclusive. Why denigrate knowledgeable people if they could be very righteous as well? Surely it wasn't intelligence itself that so offended Jesus. This analysis must be off track. Upon review, we find that Jesus was concerned about righteousness, admonishing his followers to be MORE righteous than the Pharisees and scribes. They just so happened to be the well educated member of society. I may not be the only one having a hard time following Jesus's point. Consider how many Christian conservatives today seem to harbor disdain for "elites" and college professors. But no, the problem is a lack of righteousness, not an overabundance of intelligence. Or at least it doesn't hurt to grant Christians this point.

So Jesus likely disapproved of the Pharisees and scribes because they weren't Christ-like enough. I think this is a safe translation to make. Being Christ-like was a NEW way to be, or at least we're led to believe that Jesus was a revolutionary when it comes to this modern understanding of goodness-helping the downtrodden, being humble, loving everybody, being peaceful and charitable, etc. We might assume that the Pharisees and scribes were known for enforcing strict obedience to the letter of Jewish Law, but were not known for being very nice people. Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy (to true morality, not to their obedience to God).

In conclusion, Jesus helped free us from the tyranny of the Law by implying that there was a goodness that transcended it. For this he and his teachings deserve our admiration. Unfortunately, he never completely unchained himself or his followers from the false authority and stifling morality of the Old Testament. And while his teachings and parables are useful tools for instilling in children a sense of right and wrong; in his lifetime, he could have laid a stronger foundation for true morality. It also didn't help that he humored and facilitated the spread of superstition and god-worship. For these things his words deserve our criticism.

Do not be angry without a cause.

It would be too easy to ridicule this admonishment (revolutionary moral teaching, indeed). But honestly, I find it's something that could not be said enough. At its deepest, the words champion human reason over instinctual reaction. Yes, it could be said that even when someone seems to loose their temper for little to no reason, there still IS a reason or a cause. This had to be plain even to Jesus, so we're forced to read greater meaning into his words. While I am no fan of denigrating natural human passions-I often say they should be celebrated instead-Jesus must have understood as I do that civilization and civility itself could not last long if we did not use reason to at times control or direct our emotions. Before we declare such wisdom mere common sense, let's think back on our lives and all the people (or nations) who failed to demonstrate this "common sense". And lets think of the tremendous repercussions that too much anger and too little reason produce. Good one, Jesus.

Do not call someone a "fool", or you may burn in hell.

Ok, I grant permission to ridicule this one. First, hell, what hell? Second, what's so terrible about calling someone a fool? I can think of reasons. For one, we are ALL dumb, relatively speaking. It seems in bad taste for a stupid person to call anyone else stupid. And its just plain mean, calling someone a fool. There's nothing I abhor more than meanness, and I mean it. If I was a god with a fiery pit and I had a quota to meet, I'd happily throw all the mean dicks into the flames. But I'm not a god and I don't have a hell. Moreover, I'm a firm believer that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Words CAN be powerful, they can suck, but the last thing we want to do is grant them more power over us than they deserve. Someone can call me a fool and I might stew over it for awhile, but in a short time I'll shake it off and get on with my life. Words, eh, big deal. Jesus could have saved us-and hell-a whole lot of trouble by not saying anything about it.

Reconcile your grievances before sacrificing at the alter.

What alter? Christians don't sacrifice at the alter. What grievances? Perhaps someone called you a fool and you're pissed. Shake it off. Don't take that anger into the car and onto the freeway connector. We'll all be a little safer and saner if we get good at leaving our negative feelings behind. Yes, there's wisdom here; but no, its not particularly deep.

Was Jesus Good?, Part 2

2011-06-26T19:02:00.000-07:00

Let's take another look at Jesus's list of does and don'ts, as pulled from the Jefferson Bible.

Don't divorce or marry a divorced person. Both acts equal adultery.
Don't swear-its evil.
Don't resist or turn away from evil. Do be submissive to it and welcome further evil.
Give more than is asked...give to those who take. Give more than is expected.
Love your enemies. Bless them, do good to them, and pray for them.
Don't hope for or expect any reward for your good work.
Be merciful.
Don't do your good work or pay alms in front of others in a way that is showing off.
Do not use vain repetitions
Forgive your debtors.
Forgive men's trespasses.
Don't lay up treasures on Earth...prepare for Heaven instead.
Fill your eyes, your heart with light, not darkness.
Only serve one master.
Get Baptized.
Don't be rich.
Don't be full, unless you want to hunger.
Don't laugh because you'll end up mourning and weeping.
Don't get a big head when people talk well of you.
Don't loose your flavor, or else you're good for nothing. ("salt of the earth..")
Do good works so that others can see and glorify God.
Obey the Halakha (the Jewish Law) until "fulfillment" (of prophecy?).
Be more righteous than the Pharisees or scribes if you want to enter Heaven.
Do not be angry without a cause.
Do not call someone a "fool", or you may burn in hell.
Reconcile your grievances before sacrificing at the alter.
Agree with adversaries quickly so you may avoid being thrown in prison.
Do not look lustfully at women. This is adultery.
Do not allow a single part of yourself to do evil. Rather, cut that part off if necessary.
Do not think or worry about your survival. God will provide. Seek the kingdom first.
Don't judge, unless you're willing to be judged accordingly.
Deal with your own problems before pointing out others.
Do not let the holy to be desecrated by the unworthy.
Stay on the straight and narrow path to salvation.
Do not say idle words.
Do unto others as you'd have them do to you.
Do not say in secret what you don't want heard in public.
Fear God.
Sell your worldly items, give alms, and seek the Kingdom of Heaven.
Always be ready for the coming of the Son of Man. Don't be slothful.
Repent!
Don't be self righteous or arrogant. Don't exalt yourself.
Don't love status.
If you commit yourself to a mission, to Jesus, leave all family matters behind.
Be as humble as a child.
Do not offend a "little one". You'd be better off dead.
Do worship instead of accomplishing chores...
Don't sell things in holy places.
Pay taxes (if the money is that of the government/ruler).

In Part 1 of "Was Jesus Good?", I critiqued the first seven of these admonishments. Let's continue down the list.

Don't be a show off. There's no doubt that the Judaeo Christian god is concerned with both character and appearances. For example, he likes his servants humble. He doesn't want them showing off or bragging about their good work. Its pretty obvious when you read the Bible-God is a selfish god. Glory matters to him. If anyone is going to brag or show off, its him. Also, the "goodness" of his harvest (harvest=us during judgement) matters to him. He's not going to take any weeds (the sinners) up to heaven with him. But are preferential good (what appeals to God) and implied good (whatever he says makes us deserving of heaven) in any way related to a broader morality? Someone could say, "I like my girlfriend to be submissive", but this in no way qualifies submissiveness as universally good. Someone could also say that in order to get into his exclusive club; you had to perform a set of specific rituals, prove your loyalty, and possess certain qualities (like an above average IQ and vocabulary). Navy Seal hopefuls are put through a series of rigorous tests so that the weak are weeded out and only the best candidates make the cut. Does meeting requirements equal being good? Short answer, yes....if being good is achieving the standards as set by someone else. In this sense, "goodness" is immensely arbitrary. Personally, I don't know if there's anything wrong with this conclusion. It may be accurate. I certainly don't believe in a universal goodness that transcends the meaning and judgement assigned to it by humans. But in opposition to goodness decreed by any single god, person, or book, I propose a goodness that can be accepted by the most number of people. And there is no extreme final assessment of this good-it is in a constant state of evaluation and evolution.

Well, that was a slight tangent. In conclusion, I think the command, "don't show off your good works" is not obviously "good". If anything, it demonstrates the arbitrariness of the morality of the Bible.

Do not use vain repetitions. Interesting. Interesting because when I think of "vain repetitions", I immediately think of religious prayers and chants. While Catholicism is the obvious example, its not like other Christian sects go out of their way to avoid boring repetition. At any rate, my guess is that this was merely a reformist idea Jesus had. It was appealed to moderate Jews and gentiles and pissed of orthodox Jews.

Chants and repetitive prayers are obnoxious, and to the "thinking man" (a new kind of person in that age, living in a more educated, cosmopolitan society) they can be offensive. When tracts are repeated often, their emotional impact is weakened and the speaker can loose track of whatever significant meaning they hold. And that's no good. I'm pro-thinking and feeling, and if this is what Jesus was getting at, I'm picking up what he is putting down.

But is using vain repetitions an immoral act? Yes, if immorality is defined as whatever Jesus doesn't like. No, if immorality is understood as acts that have clear, substantial harmful affects on humans.

Forgive your debtors. Do you mean forgive the debt of your debtors, Jesus? If so, I don't get it. Why not just come out and say "share everything"? Actually....Jesus does seem to say this on multiple occasions. I'm not about to dive into the complexity of economics on this blog; but I will say that pure communism doesn't appear to be a practical, workable theory. I'm not sure Jesus was really qualified to make a serious statement on the matter either...

More likely, Jesus is advising us to, well, "forgive our debtors". I understand what a loan is. Its a simple business arrangement. I really don't understand how forgiveness enters into the scenario. In theory, there shouldn't a whole lot of drama involved when someone loans money or the debtor pays it back. Acquiring a loan is not an offense...

Ok, I'm a moron. Just looked up "debtor" in the dictionary and one definition is simply "sinner" or "trespasser". Let's think about this again.

Jesus could have just said "forgive." THIS is an excellent piece of advice. Whenever possible, we should forgive those who have offended us or done us harm...but not, perhaps, those who are actively doing us harm (there's still the problem of practicality, of real world application). I have no doubt that resentment and hatred only cause greater harm for both the hated and the hater. Where would we be if no one ever forgave? Probably still living in caves. So I give Jesus kudos for this. My only criticism is that its almost too easy-of course forgiveness is good!.

Forgive men's trespasses. See above. I think forgiveness is not enough, however. There should be something proactive a person can do to help prevent trespasses in the first place. So, what might that be? Education, for one. Creating and supporting the rule of law. Teaching morals like "do unto others as you would have them do to you." Again, kudos on that last one, Jesus.

Don't store up treasures on Earth-prepare instead for treasures in Heaven. Yeah, I've got a problem with this-bet you would have never guessed. Treasures in Heaven?? What Heaven? Unlike Jesus, I think NOW is IT. And this moment is leading into more moments that are all the moments we are going to get. There's nothing more after this life. But don't fret. Life CAN be good. We CAN have hope that happiness and satisfaction will be ours, if they're not already. But they won't be if we don't live for today...or tomorrow...or any of the other days we have in THIS life. DO store up treasures on Earth, and PLEASE live for today. You'll be glad you did when you're on your death bed.

Fill your eyes and heart with light, not darkness. This is nice. Poetic. I like light. Darkness can be scary. Well, too much light can be uncomfortable, painful, and lead to macular degeneration. But seriously, what is Jesus saying? I get it, but can we communicate what he's saying in even plainer language? "Light", I understand as positivism, kindness, openness, awareness.... A believer might add "righteousness" or the influence/presence of God. I firmly believe in this concept-that there are mindsets that are positive and mindsets that are less positive. And I believe that these kinds of mindsets can be obtained or lost at will. Sure, more often our moods and our mental states (active and bright or sluggish and dark) are affected by forces outside our control; but if that's true, these instances don't deserve much of our thought. What is worthy of further contemplation is the subject of HOW we can become "brighter" cognitively and emotionally. Brownie points to Jesus for broaching the subject. Still, Jesus, you've got a whole lot of work to do with you want to catch up to Oprah in this category.

Only serve one master. Hrm. How about, "Serve no master"? Ever consider that one, Jesus? Ok, ok, I accept that, hypothetically speaking, there could be a person FAR wiser than myself who I'd happily defer judgement to and even "obey" in certain situations. Even then, I doubt I would call him "master".

Try as I might, I cannot pursue a line of thought regarding this subject because I instantly get snagged on the terms "serve" and "master". I don't "serve" a "master" and I don't think anyone should. What if "serve" is replaced with "controlled by" and "master" is replaced with "anything/anyone"? Its still nonsense. No one should be controlled by anything, let alone any two things. THIS would be some good advice, I guess. Don't do drugs-you'll become addicted, they'll become your "master". Don't check out too much porn-you'll get addicted and it'll be your "master" (...you masturbater you ;-). Whatever.

Get Baptized. Right. Because....? I can't begin to take religious ritual seriously. Until, maybe, I'm highly offended by it. So, we're all sinners huh? And we need this water (real or symbolic) to cleanse our souls? I'm sorry if I can't accept this. Please, someone convince me of my original sin...without quoting the Bible.

Don't be Rich. Covered this last time. "Rich" is relative, really. I actually think that having a lot of material things that enrich your life is a quite good. I'm a materialist in the classic sense. I believe health and happiness are helped by technology and material goods. Plumbing, anyone? Refrigerators? Microwaves? Phones? Sure, we could all live in caves, spear our dinner every night, tell stories by the fire, AND be healthy, happy individuals. Sure, happiness has as much to do with one's ability to accept their current condition and to make the most of it as it does to do with the material goods in one's possession. But let's not demonize a single thing that helps, be it matches, jet skis, or luxury automobiles. The real demons are pain and misery. How can we overcome these, Jesus?

Don't be full, don't laugh, don't get a big head, and don't loose your "flavor". Jesus seems to be very resentful of those who have what they need to enjoy life. Its disturbing, if you think about it. Why would God glorify humility, pain, and poverty? Why would he disdain satisfaction, pleasure, and pride? I think the fact that these questions seem mildly absurd (aren't the answers self evident?) is evidence of our cultural/religious indoctrination. When negative things are deemed positive and positive things declared sins, a red flag should instantly go up-something is not right. I'm not arguing that humility is not a good state of mind to possess. I happen to believe it's healthy. "Healthy", in this case, means "conducive to happiness". But while humility often leads to a content mind and body, pride also has a roll to play in our day to day struggle for happiness. I think THIS is self evident. Why didn't Jesus help us manage our pride and our humility as tools to achieve happiness? Why just resentment of the rich and love of the poor?

I can't imagine that Jesus would actually have a problem with laughter, but it sure seems that way when you read a couple of passages in The Bible. Maybe he was referring to laughing AT others...? Since Jesus's intent wasn't clear in the passage, we're obligated to go with the most literal interpretation-laughter es no bueno. I don't know who could possibly subscribe to such a notion, except perhaps a strict ruler wielding nun.

And now we come to the idea that humans are "the salt of the earth". I'm sure Bible scholars and preachers could go on and on and on about this metaphor. Well, I know they have. The problem is these scholars and preachers are slightly biased individuals who specialize in producing embellished interpretations of scripture in order to pull them out of the depths of absurdity and lift them into the heights of divine wisdom. They make them palatable for popular consumption. But there's something to be said for an uneducated, literal interpretation of scripture. While I'm more likely to get it all wrong or to be laughed out of a room full of those who know better, at least I'm taking the more honest approach and letting the scriptures stand up on their own "legs".

Right. We are "the salt of the Earth". Jesus tells us that salt which looses its saltiness is good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled upon. So, if we loose our "saltiness", if we loose our flavor (?), if we stop being interesting or diverse or good (??), we are good for nothing (???). Whichever way the scripture is interpreted, its clear that God wants us to have certain qualities; and if we don't, if we loose our special qualities, we are good for nothing, we are worthless, and what's more, we're so worthless that we deserve to be "trampled" upon. If this sounds harsh its because it is. But its completely accurate and in keeping with everything else Jesus said. In another passage, he compares humanity to a field of good crops and weeds. Those of us who aren't good crops are the weeds, destined to be pulled from the ground and thrown into the fire. This is serious stuff. At its core, Christian doctrine mirrors Nazism in its devaluation of human life and its promise of destruction to all who are not of the right kind. Allowed continued legitimacy into the indefinite future, Christianity will likely produce similar atrocities. No matter how charitable and loving and kind and intelligent today's Christians surely are, Christianity itself is rooted to its "holy" book-a book that harbors evil notions which could one day set in motion horrors on a global scale.

Was Jesus Good? Part 1

2011-06-19T17:01:00.000-07:00

Was Jesus good? "Yes, of course, don't be silly!" I can hear Christians and non-Christians respond in kind. I've heard it so often. Even those who blatantly deny the Son of God's divinity tend to quickly hail the goodness of his teachings. Its like they want to demonstrate their open-mindedness and knowledge regarding the topic of Jesus the man. Yes, Jesus was one of histories greatest moral teachers, they say matter-of-factly. If it wasn't for Jesus, love, charity, and peace would have never gotten a foothold in a violent world full of selfish people. This, apparently, is common knowledge.

But common knowledge is lazy knowledge, and so often horribly wrong. This is case with the popular understanding of Jesus and the New Testament. Just as the Old Testament cannot by any sane standard be considered a collection of "holy" books, so too does the New Testament fail to present a moral philosophy that could be considered "good". News flash: The Holy Bible is not holy, and the Good Book is not good.

But let's focus on Jesus. What exactly did he teach? What did he stand for? What did the Son of God, during his short time on Earth, feel compelled to say? (My reference for the following critique is The Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson literally clipped out and scrapped all passages in the New Testament regarding Jesus that involved supernatural claims or apparently flawed interpretations and made his own condensed Bible. He wanted to capture the essence-the believable essense-of Jesus's moral teachings. Here is that essence...)

Let's look at Jesus's list of does and don'ts.

Don't divorce or marry a divorced person. Both acts equal adultery.
Don't swear-its evil.
Don't resist or turn away from evil. Do be submissive to it and welcome further evil.
Give more than is asked...give to those who take. Give more than is expected.
Love your enemies. Bless them, do good to them, and pray for them.
Don't hope for or expect any reward for your good work.
Be merciful.
Don't do your good work or pay alms in front of others in a way that is showing off.
Do not use vain repetitions
Forgive your debtors.
Forgive men's trespasses.
Don't lay up treasures on Earth...prepare for Heaven instead.
Fill your eyes, your heart with light, not darkness.
Only serve one master.
Get Baptized.
Don't be rich.
Don't be full, unless you want to hunger.
Don't laugh because you'll end up mourning and weeping.
Don't get a big head when people talk well of you.
Don't loose your flavor, or else you're good for nothing. ("salt of the earth..")
Do good works so that others can see and glorify God.
Obey the Halakha (the Jewish Law) until "fulfillment" (of prophecy?).
Be more righteous than the Pharisees or scribes if you want to enter Heaven.
Do not be angry without a cause.
Do not call someone a "fool", or you may burn in hell.
Reconcile your grievances before sacrificing at the alter.
Agree with adversaries quickly so you may avoid being thrown in prison.
Do not look lustfully at women. This is adultery.
Do not allow a single part of yourself to do evil. Rather, cut that part off if necessary.
Do not think or worry about your survival. God will provide. Seek the kingdom first.
Don't judge, unless you're willing to be judged accordingly.
Deal with your own problems before pointing out others.
Do not let the holy to be desecrated by the unworthy.
Stay on the straight and narrow path to salvation.
Do not say idle words.
Do unto others as you'd have them do to you.
Do not say in secret what you don't want heard in public.
Fear God.
Sell your worldly items, give alms, and seek the Kingdom of Heaven.
Always be ready for the coming of the Son of Man. Don't be slothful.
Repent!
Don't be self righteous or arrogant. Don't exalt yourself.
Don't love status.
If you commit yourself to a mission, to Jesus, leave all family matters behind.
Be as humble as a child.
Do not offend a "little one". You'd be better off dead.
Do worship instead of accomplishing chores...
Don't sell things in holy places.
Pay taxes (if the money is that of the government/ruler).

Well, that's about 50 specific things Jesus wants you to do or don't do. Its kind of amazing when you think about it. All of Christianity, in all its various forms, derives most of its doctrine from these 49 points. Sure, there's the Old Testament, but other than the 10 Commandments and lessons about obedience, Christians pull little from that largest first "half" of the Bible. We already know that the Old Testament is a bad joke (read the story of Job and his daughters). The morality of Jesus isn't as blatantly absurd or offensive. In fact, we've gotten so accustomed to it, at first it might seem impossible to turn a critical eye towards his words. Let's try nevertheless:

Divorce is adultery, eh? So Jesus says. Unfortunately, most of the civilized world, including Christians disagrees...or at least they ignore the fact. I wonder if any of you can imagine how readily a theocracy might insert the commandment "though shalt not divorce" into its constitution. And I wonder how many of you can imagine how horrible such a law and its enforcement might be.

Don't swear. I never understood why swearing was such a big deal to God. I guess I need to be schooled on the subject. I can understand that swearing is, in a sense, a prideful or hateful thing; but if so, its still quite mild. More often than not, swearing (in both the four letter word way and the bold claim/promise way) is a mere expression-just another tool in our vocabulary to share our feelings.

Jesus admonishes us to "turn the other cheek" when evil strikes. I like the way he's thinking, but it doesn't make practical sense. Yes, by all means do not return violence with violence, like in a school yard confrontation. Please, take the high ground. But Jesus's rule quickly seems absurd when the stakes are raised. Someone kills your daughter....so you say, go ahead, kill my other daughter....??? Really?? Someone breaks your left leg....so you implore him to break the right one??? I don't think so. This rule sounds nice, but its actually quite stupid.

So what's wrong with being "rich"? According to Jesus, its the easiest (and most luxurious) way to be stopped at Heaven's gate and denied entry. Surely, having lots of money means you are not charitable...or does it? Ask Bill and Melinda Gates. Ok then, having a lot of money means you have some money-any money-to spare, and this, apparently, is not OK with God. If you have any extra money, any luxury at all, you are to blame for the poverty and misery of others who have less. This is what it seems Jesus is saying. What else could he be saying? Republicans had better be happy the only ones they have to worry about are the whimpy Democrats and sneaky Socialists. If Christians were true to their religion, wealth would never accumulate in any one hand. Conservatives worst fears would come true and we'd really have a welfare nation. (And what is "rich", really? Say you've got a village full of lazy people who do nothing to improve their malnourished bodies and dirty lifestyles. And say you've got one family in the village that works hard to gain a little bit of health and comfort for themselves. They build a modest home, have a well for water, and grow some of their own food in a garden. Compared to the rest of the village, they are rich. In walks Jesus and declares that it will be harder for this "rich" family to enter heaven than walk through the eye of a needle. C'mon Jesus! Don't be a douche!

Love your enemies. Pray for them. Do good to them. Bless them. Right. Again, I like the "spirit" of Jesus's teaching here. And its practical in the sense that so long as your enemy isn't REALLY harming you (maybe just annoying you), its much better for your mental and physical health to replace hate with love and forgiveness. In reality, an enemy is called an enemy for a reason. Usually an "enemy" is someone who is actively trying to hurt, hinder, or kill you. Jesus's words are empty, useless, and unwise when it comes to dealing with real life enemies doing real harm.

When Jesus talks about not expecting a reward for our good work, he uses the analogy of a servant doing work for his master (we are the servant, our master is God). He said that a good servant just goes about doing what is expected of him...and a good master doesn't find anything worthy of praise or reward in the servants actions. He IS a servant after all. In Jesus's story, "servant" seems to be synonymous with "slave". We ARE slaves after all. We are supposed to do God's will; not because he's going to reward us, but because it is simply who we are, its what we do. It may have been acceptable to make this comparison, long, long ago when slavery still existed or workers rights had not yet been dreamt of. But I'd wager a bet that most of us today are not comfortable with the idea that we were meant to be servants or slaves for all of eternity. Anyway, I think its fair to find greater meaning/purpose to Jesus's command about not expecting a reward for our good work. After all, good work should be a reward in an of itself. And of course it's not a nice feeling living in constant expectation of some reward. Its far healthier to live in the moment, to enjoy one's work. Too bad Jesus doesn't explain it this way. Unfortunately, there's a lot he doesn't explain.

Be merciful. This is a good one. Its good because, well, it truly IS good advice. Who would argue that we shouldn't be merciful? And its good (funny/interesting) because, #2 it implies that we have the choice, the potential, to be cruel. Keep in mind Jesus is not saying specifically "be kind". He tells us to be merciful...to have mercy. He tells the story of the good Samaritan who didn't just walk past the beaten and broken man on the side of road-he actually helped. Well pardon me, Jesus, but cruelty is not even a consideration for most of us. And denying mercy to someone in desperate need isn't in the cards either. Being merciful is not difficult. Yes its good, but its also natural, I'd argue. ...I don't like what your implying about us, Jesus.

Religious Shame

2011-04-29T11:49:00.000-07:00

Way back in November, I wrote a piece called "Religion, A Threat to Human Dignity and Freedom?" (I had hoped the title would encourage some discussion with people who are inclined to answer "no", but no one bit). In it I talked about how I was disappointed with the mildness of one prominent atheist's objection to religion. Dan Barker, known for his de-conversion from passionate preacher to atheist speaker and author, said that he felt no need to act against religious belief except in those cases in which the constitutional separation of church and state was being violated. I explained why I thought Dan didn't go far enough in his condemnation of religion. This produced a nice outline that could be considered the start of big essay or small book. The concept of shame emerged as a central theme, and I wanted to explore it further. The following is what I've come up with so far...

ITS A SHAME WHEN a so-called man of god convinces followers to fear and prepare for the second coming of Christ on a specific date...and that day comes as go as any other.

ITS A SHAME BECAUSE, 1) Its embarrassing. Its embarrassing that the lives of these people could be so easily hijacked by an incredible, ill-supported claim, which reveals the flaws and weaknesses of the human intellect and character. 2) The followers were victimized, in a sense, by an individual as well as a hostile, viral claim. ...mentally taken hostage, or "mind raped", if you will.

ITS A SHAME WHEN one's duty to the church results in less money, time, and joy for his/herself.

ITS A SHAME BECAUSE it can be difficult enough to get ahead in life financially, to find time for oneself, and to obtain contentment and joy without a church drawing on one's money and time like some sort of blood sucking parasite. Freedom is a rarity when one is busy surviving and fulfilling their duties to family/friends. Religions expect of adherents a whole host of time and money consuming activities, all of which are needless burdens and additional barriers to physical/intellectual freedom and possible happiness.

ITS A SHAME WHEN a person is overcome with guilt and sadness after feeling, thinking, or doing anything that is truly harmless but which is considered an evil sin by their church.

ITS A SHAME BECAUSE, in these instances, someone feels guilt when they could be feeling contentment, happiness, or pleasure instead. Their guilt and sadness would not be felt if the controlling doctrine of the church did not exist. It is needless pain and a further barrier to joy.

IT IS A SHAME WHEN a person abandons their life, their friends, family, job, hobbies, etc.. so that they can live a "pure" life dedicated fully to God.

ITS A SHAME BECAUSE all the joy, comfort, and security granted by those relationships are lost. And it is a shame because, again, a life was given over to the "will" of a mere idea or allegiance to a cult/church leader. An individual was lost and a religious clone was gained, intellectually speaking.

IT IS A SHAME WHEN a person is shunned or cast out by friends and family because he/she disobeyed the dictates of a religion.

IT IS A SHAME BECAUSE social ties are a primary source of health and joy...a source which is lost in these cases.

ITS A SHAME WHEN a person is given admiration and trust because he/she is a "man/woman of God" when in fact this person is either 1) consciously taking advantage of people, or 2) seriously flawed in character and genuinely unworthy of trust. Time and time again, sinister or unworthy characters hide behind a cloak of holiness, a cloak which is easily obtained through church titles and membership. Fooling others is easy in these cases-an untrustworthy individual must simply speak and act as he/she is shown to act, in accordance with the teachings of the church.

ITS A SHAME BECAUSE nonsense (religious doctrine and tradition) once again trumps reason. In this case, its when one tries to determine the character/intent of a person. And, of course, people can easily be victimized by the person they have blind faith in.

ITS A SHAME WHEN people are conned out of their money by others who are claiming to do the Lord's work.

ITS A SHAME BECAUSE people were fooled...they were led to believe a lie. They were so thoroughly convinced that they gave large percentages of their hard-earned income to scam artists. Its a shame because they let their emotions get away from them and rule their decisions.

In the end, its a shame that mental viruses continue to be so successful enslaving so many minds, in the process doing tremendous damage to individuals as well as the ideals of personhood and freedom.

I'm sure there are more ways in which religion conceives shame; but all that I've listed above should keep me busy researching specific examples and stories for some time.

"Child's Bible Reader"-A Critical Review, Part 7

2011-03-08T21:25:00.000-08:00

Thirtieth Sunday, "Reading Lessons from the Bible"

In this lesson, the author announces to her fictional class of young listeners that instead of reading the next several stories to the class as usual, the children will be expected to do the reading on their own time. (my guess is that she's finding these stories exacerbating too). But the author does touch upon some of the content in the Bible readings that she assigned.

The kids will learn about the next king of Israel, Rehoboam, and how the "ten tribes" split from the kingdom.

They'll also learn that a wicked prophet was eaten by a lion for disobeying God.

Next, the children will learn about Elijah. They'll learn about how he was fed by a crow and a poor widow, and how he made the widow's oil and food last throughout a long famine. The story of Elijah continues with a description of how a fire shot down from heaven and consumed his offering (offering sacrifices to God is like feeding a dragon at the zoo!). Elijah then killed 400 false prophets of Baal. Queen Jezebel tried to hunt down Elijah, but he ran into the wilderness where he almost died of starvation. Luckily, an angel came down and gave him food.

The class will read about Queen Jezebel and how she had a poor man killed in order to take possession of his vineyard, and how the man's own dogs licked up his blood. The queen's husband Ahab was later killed in battle, and the dogs licked up his blood too. Finally, Queen Jezebel herself died when she was thrown down from a window. This time, the dogs had themselves a meal (all of these stories are like feeding time at the zoo, Stephen King style).

Elijah escaped death by dog when a chariot and horses of fire taxied him up to heaven. The next prophet was Elijah's friend Elisha. Elisha had so much faith that he raised a woman's son from the dead.

Thirty-first Sunday, "How a Little Girl Did Great Good"

There was a young Israelite girl who was abducted by Syrian soldiers and sold to a captain named Naaman. The captain contracted leprosy; and the girl, concerned for her master, told him of a prophet back in Israel who could cure him. When Naaman met the prophet, he was told to wash in the River Jordan seven times. Initially, Naaman was upset. He felt slighted and had expected instantaneous results. But the captain's servants convinced him to do as the prophet said; and low and behold, Naaman was cured. The lessons here for the kiddies are 1) "do good now by trying to get people who are wicked to come to Jesus and be cured of their sins." (although this is not what happened in the story...), and 2) "Every one has the leprosy of sin, and Jesus can cure it, and will do so if we will do as He tells us."

Thirty-Second Sunday, "Good King Hezekiah"

Most kings had been super bad, but Hezekiah was a good king who only worshipped God and did everything the way he wanted. A powerful Assyrian army had been busy conquering the surrounding area, and they had Jerusalem in their sights. Everyone got worried. Hezekiah prayed to God and praised his name. God killed the entire Assyrian army while the soldiers slept. Nuff said. Lesson: If you're afraid or worried, open your heart to God and ask him for help. He's there for ya, ready to open up a can of whoop-ass.

Thirty-Third Sunday, "The Good King Josiah"

King Hezekiah's son and grandson were both wicked. But his great-grandson, Josiah, was a good feller. He made everyone get rid of their idols, purified the temple, and started worshipping the Lord all proper like. While straightening things up, the Israelites happened upon the Book of the Law of Moses. Someone had set it down a few decades back and everyone just completely forgot about it (the temple must have been a messy place). King Josiah was shocked, as were his people. They realized how wicked they had been. But it was too late, God had made up his mind to punish them. Knowing that God didn't hold back when it came to laying down the law, King Josiah begged God for mercy. The two came to a compromise. Punishment would not happen during the king's life...but eventually, BAM, it would come. Sure enough, a couple of generations later, the Lord let the army of Nebuchadnezzar "kill many of the people, and put out the king's eyes, and burn the king's house and the holy Temple and the city, and carry the people away to be his slaves." Bet those Israelites will think twice before they go and lose their Bible under a pile of dirty clothes again. Lesson: Again, don't f*ck with God.

Thirty-Fourth Sunday, "Daniel and His Brave Companions"

The king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, made three young Israelite princes his personal slaves. When the boys refused to eat the unholy meat ("unholy" because it had been used as offerings to an idol) that their Babylonian master and other servants prepared, the king warned them against getting thin and weak. They trusted that God would allow them to thrive off of beans and water alone, which they did. Lesson: When you are tempted by things you are not allowed to have, remember the example of those good boys and think of what they gave up to obey God.

So these Jewish slaves grew up and were well thought of by their master the king. The other servants were jealous. Knowing that the Jews would refuse to worship an idol, the servants convinced the king to create an idol and demand that everyone worship it or be thrown in a fire. The Jewish slaves stood up to the king and said, essentially, "No we won't bow down to the idol. You can throw us in the fire if you want, but our god will save us." Well, that's basically what happened. The king turned up the heat and threw them in, but not a hair was singed on their heads. The Son of God himself made an appearance and protected the men in the fire. The king was like, "Oh crap, I screwed up" and immediately commanded all to respect the god of the Jews. Lesson: Be brave and do what is right.

Thirty-Fifth Sunday, "The Great Things That Daniel Did"

Daniel, a great prophet, interpreted a dream that disturbed King Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel told the King that he would one day loose his mind and be thrown from his palace into the fields where he'd live like an animal for seven years. Nebuchadnezzar forgot about Daniel's prophecy until one day, when he was feeling particularly proud of himself and his kingdom, a voice announced that the time had come. Instantly, the King became as senseless as an ox. He stayed that way for seven years, just as Daniel had prophesied. At the end of the allotted time, the king regained his sanity and his throne. His first act was to tell his people to honor Daniel's god, who "putteth down and setteth up." Lesson: Don't be too proud of your accomplishments, because God really is far better than you, and if you don't give him the glory, you'll be eating grass for seven years...

So... The next king, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, was especially pompous and self pleasing. He ignored threats of invasion and partied instead. The king and his buds were really enjoying themselves when, out of nowhere, a disembodied hand appeared and wrote something on the wall. Daniel was the only one who could read the writing. He told Belshazzar what it said; that the king was no good and that his kingdom would be taken from him. And sure enough, the Persians invaded that night and killed the king.

King Cyrus of the Persians was good to the Jews. His son-in-law Darius actually made Daniel second in command. The followers of Darius treated the king like a God. They asked Darius to make a law that required everyone to pray only to him for thirty days or be thrown to the lions. Of course Daniel would only honor the "true" god. When King Darius was told of Daniel's disobedience, he was saddened but had no choice but to allow the punishment. An angel closed the mouths of the lion and Daniel was spared. The spiteful men who set up Daniel were thrown into the lion's den instead and were promptly eaten. Lesson: "How glad we should be that we can say our prayers safe and unhurt; and how careful we should be never to miss them out of idleness, if Daniel would not miss them out of fear."

Thirty-sixth Sunday, "Five Hundred Years of Jewish History"

The Jews who were allowed to return to Jerusalem stayed busy rebuilding the temple and fighting off invaders. There were constantly ruled by outsiders-the Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, etc, etc. They did their best to practice their religion while paying tribute to the occupying power. Some enemies found out that the Jews would not fight on the Sabbath, and thousands of Jews were slaughtered or taken captive on that holy day.

End of the Old Testament.

"Child's Bible Reader"-A Critical Review, Part 6

2011-03-05T10:43:00.000-08:00

Ok, back to it.

For those who haven't read the last several entrees of this blog, here's what's going on: I'm trying to whittle the stories in the popular "Child's Bible Reader" down to their simplest facts, sentiments, and essential lessons (as given by the author to a her young listeners/readers).

Its perhaps the most important and tricky task societies attempt, instilling morality in children. We should be reminded of what continues to be taught to the youngest, most impressionable children in churches today. I would like to know if anyone can say with a clear conscience, after reading theses reviews, that Bible stories are the best stories and the best kinds of moral lessons to teach children.

Twenty-third Sunday, "King Saul Disobeys God"

Israel's first king, Saul, did as God commanded and killed a band of robbers. But Saul's army disobeyed God by hoarding their slain enemy's stuff. Saul told the prophet Samuel that he had done what God wanted. Samuel, upon finding out Saul's lie, proclaimed that the Lord rejected Saul as king. Apparently, Saul remained king for some time afterwards, despite his disobedience. End story. (sometimes a Bible story's weakness is not the murder, rape, or lying....it's the sheer boredom it creates.)

God instructs Samuel to choose the youngest of eight sons to be a future king. His name was David. Lesson: God cares about your righteousness, not your age.

Twenty-fourth Sunday, "Young David Kills the Giant"

A Philistine giant (twice as tall as a normal man) dared any Israelite soldier to fight him. He said that if one of the Israelites could defeat him in man to man combat, then the Philistines would submit to Israel's rule. A young shepherd boy named David who was at the scene giving water to his brothers in the Israelite army heard about the giant's challenge. David went to King Saul and told him that God had made him strong, that he had once killed a lion and bear while protecting his flock, and that he was confident God would help him kill Goliath. Saul was so convinced by David that he gave him his own armor as protection. (...sounds a little demeaning, if you ask me. A king, cowers at the sight of a giant, gives his armor to a young boy and says "go for it" despite the fact that IF the boy loses, all the Israelites must submit to the Philistine rule) Long story short, David uses a leather sling to bury a stone in the giants forehead. Hooray for David! (and the King)

Not sure if there's a lesson here. The author says that trusting in God makes you strong and brave. Anything is possible with God on your side. Killing giants, taming dragons, defeating goblins, and fighting off dwarfs-NOTHING is beyond the Lord.

Twenty-fifth Sunday, "Saul's Death and David Made King"

Here's an entertaining, er, I mean educational story...

So King Saul stopped doing what God wanted. God stopped giving Saul protection. The Philistines battled the Israelite army, and this time the Israelites were beaten. King Saul didn't want to be taken alive, so he threw himself onto his own sword. He botched his own suicide and had to beg a robber to finish him off. The young thief obliged and chopped Saul's head off. The robber went to David (who was some sort of leader at this point) and presented him King Saul's crown and bracelets in the hope that David would grant him a reward. Instead, David killed the robber for having the gall to strike a king. Told you-great story. Nothing objectionable here, nothing at all.

David was then anointed the new King. He was a good, righteous man. He had a baby boy that he loved. The baby grew sick, and despite David's prayers to God, the baby died. But David was so holy that, though he was sad, he accepted that the baby's death was the will of God. And David knew that one day, he and the baby would be resurrected and live together again in heaven. The lesson of this story, according to the author, is "we should not grieve too much when God takes our loved ones to heaven, because they are so much happier; and ... David believed the body should rise from the dead." The feel-good children's stories just keep coming...

I've got to interrupt with just a few questions: Why would God will a baby to die? According to Christians, doesn't God will babies to be born? Why bring a child into this world just to kill it? What kind of cruel, sick deity would stoop so low? Answer: The God of the Bible.

Twenty-sixth Sunday, "Absalom and Solomon"

King David's son Absalom was an arrogant, boastful man who wanted the throne to himself. Absalom and his army threw his old, helpless father out of the palace. David's supporters rallied together, fought back, and defeated Absalom. Poor old David asked that his son be spared, but one of his followers killed him anyway. David was very, very, VERY sad. You see, because Absalom had died a wicked man, there would be no great reunion in heaven with his father.

King David's other son, Solomon, was a good kid. He and his dad built a temple together. Later, Solomon would become king.

Twenty-seventh Sunday, "King Solomon's Wise Request and Wise Judgement"

The young King Solomon was feeling a bit anxious about running a kingdom, so he asked God to give him wisdom and an understanding heart. God loved this, so he gave Solomon what he wanted PLUS great wealth and all manner of extravagant things.

Solomon's wisdom was soon put to the test. Two women came to him, each holding a baby. One baby was dead and one was alive and well. The women said that in the night, one of the sleeping women rolled onto a baby and accidentally smothered it. Both claimed that the living baby was their own. Solomon heard their story and had a SUPER wise solution. He fooled the ladies into believing that he was going to resolve the issue by cutting the living baby in two and giving each woman a half of a baby. One woman was like, "Fine, go ahead." The other woman was like, "Oh my god, NO! Give my baby to the other woman, just don't cut it in half!" The wise Solomon smirked and said, "Just kidding! You're obviously the mother of the child-here you go." His guards shared amused glances. What a wise leader!

There's a lot wrong with this story, but I just want to address one thing in particular. Can we really believe that the woman who was NOT the legitimate mother was OK with the solution King Solomon offered? Even if she had no motherly bond with the baby, it was obvious she wanted a LIVING son for herself. A bloody half-baby would be unacceptable to say the least, and horrifically disgusting at worst, even to an illegitimate mother.

Maybe I'm thinking too hard. Oh! MAYBE that's this story's moral! "Never think too hard about anything. It's a lot less painful to simply react and think as you're told to." I digress.

The author notes that Solomon and God are similar in that both judge what is in our hearts. Also, "wicked people are sure to come to disgrace." End lesson.

Twenty-eigth Sunday, "Solomon's Riches and Wisdom"

Solomon's kingdom was rich, beautiful, and cosmopolitan. The author uses this description to remind her readers that Jesus once said that even a little flower is more beautiful than all the riches and glory of Solomon's kingdom because the flower was designed by God. (I don't think the author has read Richard Dawkin's "A Selfish Gene." Just a guess.)

Twenty-ninth Sunday, "Solomon Turns Wicked"

It was bound to happen, wasn't it? Nearly every one of God's chosen leaders eventually gets on his bad side and ends up dying a horrible death. Let's see how the "wise" King Solomon screwed up his relationship with the big guy.

First, he married a bunch of heathen wives. Second, he allowed his wives to worship other gods and idols. Third, Solomon, to please his wives, engaged in a little nefarious idol worship himself.

C'mon Solomon! What were you thinking!?! You WEREN'T thinking, were you?? I mean JESUS, hadn't you read the history of your own people?? Its like God is just waiting for an opportunity to snuff out the lives of sinners. That's what he does. He's good at it and he looooves it. C'mon Solomon! (god...what a fuck-up)

Well, you might have expected the Lord to just squish Solomon's head like a grape, but it turns out Solomon's punishment was slightly less bloody than usual. God promised to take ten of the twelve tribes of Israel away from the king at some point in the future, thus lessening Solomon's great power. Solomon was bummed, but he still had his head.

"Child's Bible Reader"-A Critical Review, Part 5

2011-02-17T19:25:00.000-08:00

Sixteenth Sunday, "God's Anger At Moses"

Despite what you might think, Moses did not receive special treatment from God. Moses made the mistake of striking a rock with his staff instead of speaking to the rock to make water flow from it as God had instructed. Whoops!

God forgave Moses, but there was no escaping punishment for the holy man. Moses was denied the very thing every Israelite wanted the most-arriving in the promised land, finally, after so many years, after so much heartache and toil. The compassionate God allowed Moses a peek of the beautiful valley from afar before letting the old prophet die in the wilderness. The great Moses never set foot in the promised land, and for his single mistake, he was buried in an unmarked grave in the wilderness. The author reminds children that "one sin is enough to destroy us. It is terrible to disobey God." With God, its one strike and you're out.

Seventeenth Sunday, "Crossing Over Jordan"

God parted the waters of the Jordan river so the million-strong tribe of Israelites could cross.

Once in the land of Canaan, the Israelites, led by Joshua, came to the fortified city of Jericho. God instructed Joshua to march around the city carrying the Ark and blowing trumpets. This they did. After seven days of marching and trumpet blowing, Joshua ordered everyone to shout. They did, and the walls of Jericho tumbled down, allowing the Israelites to storm the city and kill its inhabitants. Jericho was the first of many communities that the Israelites invaded, ransacked, and occupied. The local "heathens" could not stand against the Israelites. The new inhabitants divided up the land and began enjoying their homes.

Eighteenth Sunday, "Worshipping Idols Again"

After Joshua died, the Israelites began misbehaving again. They crafted all sorts of idols and enjoyed worshipping them. God became furious and sent foreign armies "to conquer them, to burn their houses, to steal their children, and drive away their cattle." "Served 'em right for going back on their promises," said Willie.

God promised to help a warrior named Barak fight and conquer an enemy of the Israelites named Sisera. But Barak was afraid, so he asked a woman named Deborah to come with him into battle. They won, but God gave the honor of killing Sisera to a woman named Jael. The wussy Barak was shamed. (...)

The Israelites lived in peace once again, free from invaders....that is, until they started sinning again and god started punishing them again. This time, God sent robbers called Midianites to cause all kinds of mayhem and destruction. God's chosen people prayed for mercy. The Lord sent a man named Gideon and a small army to defeat the Midianites, which they did by simply confusing them with lamps and horns in the middle of the night.

Nineteenth Sunday, "Little Samuel"

A gal named Hannah wanted a baby so badly that she prayed and prayed and prayed and promised God that if he let her get pregnant, she would commit the child to a life of service to the Lord. (I would've advised Hannah to get laid, but what do I know?) God granted Hannah her wish; and as part of the bargain, soon after the baby was born, Hannah dropped him off at a holy place where a crotchety old man named Eli ran things. Eli raised the child. He was a good little helper and a totally righteous dude.

One night, Samuel heard someone call his name. He thought it was Eli and rushed to his side. Eli said "go back to bed, it wasn't me". This happened two more times. After the third time, Eli surmised that the voice must be God's, so he instructed the boy to answer "Speak Lord; for Thy servant heareth" if it were to happen again. When God spoke next, Eli responded and listened as God told him of a lot of terrible things that were going to happen to Eli and his family. Eli was like, "oh well, God is going to do what God wants to do". (think about this for a second....why in the world would God call out Samuel's name in the middle of the night just to watch him run around confused? In the story, God was really messing with the kid...and in the end it was just to tell Eli some bad news)

BTW, Samuel became a prophet who talked to God on a regular basis. The author of the children's Bible reader claims that God is nearer to Christian kids than he was to the prophet Samuel. You see, Christian children can hear the Holy Spirit who speaks to their hearts and tells them to be good, think of God, and pray with all their hearts. "...we must take great care to attend to that voice, or it will leave us off..." (do we really want to encourage children to take seriously the voices in their heads, or think their feelings are not their own?)

Well, the Israelites continued to misbehave, so God punished them again by sending a very powerful army to invade. The Philistines defeated the Israelites, despite Israel's ingenious defensive maneuver-they sent the Ark of the Covenant out into the battle field. This was not a God-approved plan so, of course, it did not succeed. The mighty can of holy whoop-ass did not shoot out of the Ark, a'la Indiana Jones, and turn the enemy into a pile of ashes. Instead, the Philistines captured the Ark. Eli was so shocked when he heard the news that he fell backwards, broke his neck, and died. The Ark cursed the heathen Philistines by making them sick and breaking their idol. So they gave it back. I knew that Ark had some cool powers.

Again, the lesson is "Obey". The author asserts that "We should ask God every day to show us our duty and help us to do His will." Unfortunately, God doesn't call us on the phone every morning and issue our daily duties. He doesn't even email. Instead, adherents have to pay very very close attention for the smallest possible "sign" that God is giving them an answer. Or, they must "listen" to their hearts and hope a stronger than average emotional impulse corresponds to some other fact that, together, reveals the will of God. Or, if they can't figure it out on their own (which is usually the case), Christians turn to their religious leaders for direction, who apparently have a better "connection" with God.

Twentieth Sunday, "Saul Made King"

Oh, this is hilarious. The author begins the new lesson with: "'Any more about Eli and his sons?' asked Willie. 'No, brother, they were dead. Don't you remember?' Said Clara." Haha-was that necessary??

Anyway, this Sunday's lesson tells us about how God led Saul to Samuel and how Samuel made him Israel's first king. That's pretty much it. The author says that "God still makes everything happen, even the least thing; it is all for our good..." ..I have a hard enough time getting my laundry done every week, let alone affecting an infinite number of actions all at once. God IS a busy guy.

Twenty-First Sunday, "Jonathan, Saul's Good, Brave Son"

Jonathan was Saul's son. He was brave. He and a friend tried to fight some Philistine soldiers, but the soldiers ran away thinking that there were more Israelites than just the two. Other Israelites saw that the Philistines were running, so they joined the chase. The soldiers were caught and killed. Jonathan's faith and bravery pleased God. The natural conclusion to draw from this story: "All good, brave boys are helpful to their parents."

Twenty-Second Sunday, "Beautiful Ruth"

There was a woman named Ruth who was Jonathan's great grandmother. She was beautiful. And she was very committed to helping her deceased husband's mother. And she was a very obedient, selfless wife to her second husband Boaz. "Boaz loved Ruth because she was very beautiful," the author writes. Isn't it wonderful that the Bible teaches young girls self esteem and that the good men aren't going to love you unless you're beautiful?

"Child's Bible Reader"-A Critical Review, Part 4

2011-02-15T16:57:00.000-08:00

Thirteenth Sunday, "Balaam and the Wicked King"

(stick with me, this is a hard one to follow...but well worth it)

A prophet named Balaam was visited by some rich men who wanted him to return to their city and visit their king, Balak. Balaam prayed to God and asked if he could go. God said no and told him why-Balak just wanted Balaam to curse the children of Israel. But Balaam asked God again because he really really wanted the material rewards offered by King Balak. This time God said OK. (big mistake God, big mistake...)

On the way there, Balaam's ass was afraid and didn't want to continue on. Balaam beat his ass's ass. God spoke out of his ass (literally) and asked Balaam why he was being so mean. Balaam said he wished he had a sword to slay his disobedient ass. Then Balaam saw an angel with a sword-the very thing that was scaring the shit out of the ass. (...WTF?)

The angel told Balaam that he must continue on (another mistake, God), but Balaam would only be able to say what God wanted him to say. Balaam tried to curse Israel once he had met Balak, but only blessings and positive prophecy would come out of his mouth. Balaam did manage to tell Barak that if they were able to get some Israelites to behave badly, then God would surely punish the followers of Moses. (Balaam definitely knows his God...)

So Balak sent a bunch of hot girls to invite the Israelites to a crazy, freaky party. They all came together and got nasty in praise of their false god, Baal Peor. God got angry, sent a deadly sickness, and in one day killed twenty-four thousand people. (at this rate, the Israelites numbers are going to be in the negatives-a loooong way from the goal of 300 sextillion) Aaron's grandson Phinehas appeased God by murdering the wickedest participants and praying and weeping for mercy.

The killing doesn't stop there. Phinehas put together a little army and slew many of Balak's people, including Balaam, and put to death all the wicked women who temped the Israelites.

As the author puts it, "nobody could hurt God's people till they did wrong, and then they hurt themselves, and God punished them."

Punished? "Massacred" would be the world I'd choose to describe what God did to people in the Old Testament on multiple occasions. (its like God is a great helper...if you "punish yourself" by having sex with a stranger and drinking a little too much, God helps out by finishing the job: ending your miserable life...and make your afterlife particularly uncomfortable)

Lesson: OBEY

Fourteenth Sunday, "God Speaks to Moses"

God knows when to pull out all the stops. One occasion was the announcement of the Ten Commandments. What he did was make a bunch of smoke and lightning, and created a big racket with rumbling thunder and loud trumpet-like voices. God spoke for everyone to hear the Ten Commandments (in a very masculine, assertive tone, I'm sure).

After the big show, God was like, "Hey Moses, come have a chat." So Moses spent some private time with the Big Guy. Moses and God were tight.

Later, Moses and the Israelites built a special tent called the "Tabernacle" to use as storage for the Ten Commandments. The chest in which the plates were kept is called The Ark of the Covenant (remember Indiana Jones?). Various holy rituals were to be performed at the Tabernacle, like burning animal flesh so God could smell the savory sent...

Moses went up into the Mountains and spent 40 days there. In the meantime, the Israelites got really really impatient. They wanted something fun to do, so they took all their gold, melted it down, and made a golden idol to worship and party around.

Now, hold on a second. I'm no Israelite, but if I had witnessed the big sound and lights show, and heard God's own voice declare "thou shall have no other gods before me", I would probably find it easy to NOT make a golden idol and prance around it in plain view of Mount Sinai and God. Especially considering God's record and his "itchy trigger finger", so to speak. I'm just saying...

When Moses came down from the mountain and saw what the Israelites were doing, he put the back of his hand against his head and was exclaimed, "Its just no use!" He then took the commandments that had been written by God's own magic finger, and threw them to the ground, shattered them into little pieces. So, if you catch your kids breaking the rules, do what Moses would do and take that damned rule book and throw it out the window, because rules that can't be kept are no good to anyone.

Fifteenth Sunday, "How Moses Saw God"

Moses went to God and apologized profusely for his people...and asked for another set of Ten Commandments. "Oops, sorry, can I get another?" God was like, "Yo, no biggy, here you go". And then things got awkward. Moses said to God, "I pray Thee, show me Thy glory." (actual quote this time) God said, "No, you can't handle my glory." But Moses got just a little glimpse of God's glory anyway, and it turned his face all shiny, and he went down to the Israelites after forty more days with the Ten Commandments, all smiley and shiny faced.

(I suppose its true-the Old Testament is more A Story, than A Moral Guide. But still, there's a whole lot here to make fun of, er, I mean critique)

The Israelites made their way toward the land of Canaan. A few scouts checked it out and returned with news, saying that Canaan was too strong a place to take by force. Most of the Israelites got really upset about this fact. They whined about God not keeping his promise, and even threw stones at Moses and Aaron. God was about to smite them all when Moses once again stepped in and successfully checked God's wrath. You see, despite everything we've read, God isn't all that bad. God said so himself. He said, "The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth." If God says it, it must be true. Anyway, instead of smiting all the bitchy, whiny Israelites, God made them stay in the wilderness for 40 more years.

Lesson: Obey. "(The Israelites) lost an earthly home, where they could live but a short time. We loose an everlasting home in heaven (when we misbehave)."

"Child's Bible Reader"-A Critical Review, Part 3

2011-02-13T11:57:00.000-08:00

Fifth Sunday, "How Esau Lost His Birthright"

Isaac, son of Abraham, had two sons of his own, Esau and Jacob. Abraham loved the eldest, Esau, the most. Esau was expected to own the birthright (God's promise of land and a gazillion offspring) after Abraham passed away.

As the story goes, Esau showed up at his brother Jacob's place "half dead" from hunger, so he did what anyone would do and offered his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of soup. Jacob thought it was a fair exchange, so they shook hands.

Sometime down the road, an old, blind Isaac decided it was time to give the blessing of all fatherly blessings to Esau (it doesn't appear as though Isaac found out about the soup incident). He told Esau to go get some meat so they could have a feast for the occasion. While Esau was gone, Jacob snuck in and fooled his blind father. He pretended to be Esau, and successfully robbed Esau of the AMAZING blessing that bestowed the right to the promised land and all those kids. Everyone was super upset when they found out what happened, but what was done was done. There are no take backs once a blessing is bestowed.

The moral to this story, according to the author, is don't "trifle away the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven" like Esau did. "We must have faith, and show it by taking care that things we like on earth do not make us lose the better things in heaven."

You might have thought the moral to the story would be something like "Its ok to be a conniving prick like Jacob", but you would have been wrong. God didn't see it that way. After Jacob fled into the wilderness (people were a little angry with him), God came to him in a dream and reassured him everything was cool, that God would always be with him, and that sooner or later, he'd get to return home. Jacob was so stoked he poured some olive oil on a stone (trust me, this means he was really really stoked) and promised to give God 10% of everything he earned. The author says that good people should be like Jacob. Anna, a little girl who is fictionally listening to this lesson spoke up and declared, "I have dreams, too, sometimes...and I see everything." Who knows, maybe Anna will someday found her own religion featuring Barbies, unicorns, and talking kitties?

Sixth Sunday, "Joseph in Egypt"

Jacob gave his favorite son, Joseph, a coat of many colors. Joseph's brothers were jealous and hated him. Most wanted to kill him, but they sold him as a slave to a band of merchants instead. The brothers put blood on Joseph's coat and returned to their father. They told Jacob that Joseph had been killed by a wild animal. Jacob cried. Nice story.

Joseph was a kick-ass slave. With God at his side, he became known for his good work and he became loved and trusted by his master. The lesson, according to the author, is: if you want to succeed at something, do your best. And try to be trustworthy. Isn't the Bible full of unique and marvelous wisdom? "Do your best," I would never have thought of that...

Seventh Sunday, "Joseph's Brothers"

Joseph interpreted a dream for the Pharaoh which predicted seven years of bounty and seven years of famine. The Pharaoh made Joseph a great lord. During the famine, Joseph's brothers came to Egypt to get some food. Joseph found out about them, but they didn't know who he was. Joseph had his family do some stuff to make sure they had become better people since last they sold him as a slave. In the end, Joseph revealed who he was, he forgave everyone, and his father and all his family were sooooo happy.

Moral of the story: "Jesus said we must do good to those who treat us meanly, and that we must love our enemies. That makes them our friends." In the next lesson, we learn how the descendants of Jacob(Israel) fail to make friends of the people who treat them meanly, and instead, run away.

Eighth Sunday, "The Baby in The River"

Ninth Sunday, The Plagues of Egypt"

Tenth Sunday, "Easter Day"

Eleventh Sunday, "Wicked Men Swallowed Up"

Twelfth Sunday, "Moses Bringing Water Out of the Rock"

(See "The Ten Commandments" starring Charleton Heston)

Here are some highlights:

The King of Egypt orders all boys born of the children of Israel drowned
God showed the stubborn king of Egypt his power by turning the river into blood; at different times sending frogs, lice, and stinging flies; making the sheep and cows fall sick and die; giving people sores and boils; sending a terrible storm; bringing a plague of locusts that ate every living plant; turning out ALL the lights; and finally a committing genocide of all the eldest sons of Egyptian families. (the author writes, "'That was a good story, Auntie,' said Clara, 'and it teaches us that we must obey God or be punished.'"
An Israelite named Korah thought that everyone should be considered holy, not just the chosen priest, and should have the right to offer sacrifices or incense. God dealt with this political maverick and the two hundred and fifty men who believed as he did by scorching them all to death. In our book, a child deduced "...we must do what God wants us to," "Yes, and mind our own business."
God wouldn't put up with bitching and moaning by his chosen people. He punished them repeatedly, including sending poisonous serpents who bit and killed them.

"Child's Bible Reader"-A Critical Review, Part 2

2011-02-12T20:13:00.000-08:00

Ok, back to business. First though, I have to remind myself and you, the reader, that my primary goal is to deconstruct the stories of the Bible as presented in "Child's Bible Reader" in order to determine what messages, if any, are being sent to the children who hear them. In the process, I hope to reacquaint myself with the Bible. In other words, the readability of this blog takes a back seat to analysis.

Third Sunday, "The Rainbow"

In review, God killed off all the wicked people of the world with a global flood and saved Noah, his family, and two of every creature. Next, he sent Noah and future generations of people a sign to reassure them that they wouldn't have to worry about any more killer floods. He promised he'd abstain from committing planeticide again for a long, long time....at least until the end of time, when HE'D DESTROY THE WORLD WITH FIRE! (true story) Every time we see a rainbow, we should be reminded of that fabulous promise. Thanks God, thanks a lot...what a swell guy.

The natural lesson to be drawn from this story, according to the author, is "We should recollect [the promise], and put our trust in Him, and be thankful when we see the beautiful rainbow that the work of the Almighty has made..."

The author goes on to tell her audience about Abraham, about how God selected him from a world of (again) many many wicked people to be, in essence, the father of God's chosen people. God promised Abraham that his descendants would number more than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world, or more than all the stars in the sky. (I'm sure Abraham was like, "Wow, just what I always wanted!-Thanks!" ...by the way, the number of stars in the sky, according to scientists, is several hundred billion at a minimum and possibly as much as 300 sextillion, or three trillion times 100 billion. The number of grains of sand on Earth is estimated at seven quintillion five quadrillion. Incidentally, stars may outnumber grains of sand, 100-1. Try to wrap your brain around that one-I know I can't.)

Back to the children's story. So, God promised Abraham that he'd have AT LEAST 300 sextillion descendants. Abraham had a hard time believing God, particularly because Abraham didn't have a home or a single kid at the time. Still, he believed anyway. Which is our lesson this Sunday. As the author puts it, "...we must obey God, just as soldiers on the land and sea obey without asking the reason."

Next, we continue to follow the adventures of Abraham and his nephew Lot. Its important to know that the tribes of the two men began to quarrel, so Abraham decided the families must separate. God loves peace. End lesson.

Fourth Sunday, "Lot's Wonderful Escape"

Lot "wonderfully" escaped from cities that were completely destroyed, their wicked inhabitants killed with fire and brimstone sent by God. Lot and his family were forewarned of the destruction by two angels(?). He was told to "look not behind thee". Unfortunately, Lot's wife looked "behind thee", and was turned into a pillar of salt. Oh well, collateral damage can't be avoided, especially when God is pissed. The author says we should think of what happened to Lot's wife "when we are tempted to think it hard to give up anything pleasant, because we are told it is wrong, and may put us in danger of destruction."

On a side note, I'm a little surprised that the Child's Bible Reader didn't stick with the adventures of Lot, because, if I recall correctly, it was immediately after the fire and brimstone/salt pyre episode that Lot's own daughters seduced him and had sex with him. Surely there's a lesson to be had in that story...

I think the next story the author tells is so AWESOME, it deserves to be quoted, word for word.

(Abraham is overjoyed to finally have a son...)

"But then God called Abraham to do a strange and terrible thing. He was to go and take his dear son Isaac to the top of a hill, and there to offer him up to God, as if he had been a calf or lamb. Of course, in general, to do such a thing would be shockingly wicked; but Abraham knew that when God commanded a thing it must be right to do as he was bidden, however dreadful it was to him. ((right, I'll go ahead an blow myself up in this crowd of Jews now))

"So they set out together. Abraham took the knife and a vessel with fire in it, and Isaac carried the wood with which the sacrifice was to be burnt. On the way Isaac said, 'My father, behold the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?' And Abraham answered, 'My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering.'

"Isaac soon knew he was to be the lamb, for his father put the wood in order and bound his limbs and took the knife. And Isaac did not complain or struggle. We was ready, like his father, to do the will of God."

Long story short, God said "Just kidding! You can put the knife down now." God wanted to make sure Abraham was ready and willing to do ANYTHING for him. The children who hear this story are expected to have the same faith, commitment, and abject disregard for self interest and human decency as Abraham had.

The final lesson this Sunday comes from the story of how Isaac got hitched. Isaac's father Abraham sent his servant to a city far away to find and buy a wife for his son. They found a beautiful young lady, Rebekah, by a well who proved to be generous with her water and help (she drew water for the servants' camels). The servant was invited back to the girls house, where he gave Rebekah some gold jewelry and talked to her parents. He convinced them to let her go join their tribe and marry Isaac. She arrived at the Abraham's camp, saw Isaac, and went into his mother's tent with him, where he made her his wife...wink, wink.

This is great: The book is written as though the author is telling these stories to children who are present in a gathering. I love this. After the Rebekah story, the author writes, "'That was a pretty story' said Clara, "and I think it teaches us that when God calls we should obey, as Rebekah did'."

Wow. Just Wow.

"Child's Bible Reader"-A Critical Review

2011-02-12T13:36:00.000-08:00

About a year ago, I came across an old illustrated "Child's Bible Reader" at a thrift store. I just had to own it. My disdain for the indoctrination of children with teachings from the Bible has only grown over the years. Its become more and more apparent to me what a poor moral textbook the Bible makes, and what a crime it is to seize and mold the innocent minds of children with nonsense. I thought it would be very interesting to crack open this book and thoroughly examine the stories contained within, to get a fresh look at what children are still being taught in churches today. This time I'd do so as a critically minded, free adult instead of a wide-eyed, impressionable child.

The book is titled "Child's Bible Reader" and authored by Charlotte M. Young. It was published in 1956 by The Southwestern Company of Nashville, Tennessee. Its a finely made book "embellished with nearly 100 fine engravings, color plates, half-tones, woodcuts, and pen drawings." Behind the front cover of the book is a handwritten note; "To Deanie, from Grandpa and Gramma, Please read it, Jackson." Let's take a look and see what Grandma and Grandpa really wanted Deanie to know:

(The book presents a lesson for each of the 52 Sundays in a year)

First Sunday, "The Making of the World"

Apparently, before Deanie becomes a stand-up citizen and honorable young man, he first needs some lessons in astronomy, geology, and biology. In the first week, he learns that the Earth's birthday is Sunday, that men and women were made out of dust, that the reason God created us is for his own glory and honor, and that Adam and Eve lived in the most happy and beautiful place-the Garden of Eden.

Its interesting to note that there really isn't a moral lesson here. We just have a case of religion trying to be science, and doing an absolutely horrible job of it. I suppose the reader can see that God can do things like a magician with a wand, "alakazaam!", which IS pretty exciting, though somewhat lacking in instruction.

The author does seize the opportunity to tell children, "We shall never be as happy as (Adam and Eve) were while we are living in this world; but if we will try to obey God and trust in Christ and live holy lives, He will take us to heaven, and that will be still better than the Garden of Eden."

I can't decide which is worse; convincing children that this life isn't meant to be all that happy, that its only preparation for some better life, or making scientific claims when there is no basis to do so. Ok, maybe its the former.

Second Sunday, "How Sin Began"

This week, Deanie learns "how sin began and the world grew wicked". It all started when a snake came slithering up to Eve and convinced her that the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge was in fact good, that it would make her wise, and that she would not die. Which was true! It was God who had lied-he had said Adam and Eve would die if they ate the fruit. Needless to say, they didn't. Instead, God had pity on them (I would too, being set up and lied to) and just kicked them out of the Garden.

We can derive a lesson from this madness. NEVER go against God's direct commandments, no matter what sort of reason or truth someone confronts you with. What matters above all else is doing what God commands.

In this section of the book, readers also learn that Adam and Eve's descendants were really really wicked-so wicked that God decided all needed to die. So he drowned every living creature save for two of each species and one lucky family. With Noah's story, the authors lets the reader know that God insists upon our obedience and absolute faith.

Its almost too easy to criticize Genesis, but its important to because most believers don't see anything wrong or twisted with the stories of the Old Testament. There can be no other explanation for this shocking blindness than indoctrination in its purest form, which is nearly indistinguishable from hypnotism or brainwashing. In just two lessons we've already seen that God's only concern is glorifying himself. He's willing to lie, murder, and change his mind in order to control us completely, as a master controls a slave. The story of the flood, for millions of people, is historical truth. And for nearly every Christian, Jew, and Muslim, even those who don't take the Old Testament literally, these stories are so valuable, they are so revered, that they're taught to the most innocent, impressionable members of society-the HOPE of the future-our children.

Religion, a Threat to Human Dignity and Freedom?

2010-11-12T13:38:00.000-08:00

Recently, my friend Travis and I attended a talk by Dan Barker at the BSU Student Union building. Dan was once a born-again Christian, a missionary, a minister, and writer of Christian children's songs. He is now a prominent atheist, a speaker and advocate for the separation of church and state. I was impressed with his unique story of belief and disbelief, and the powerful influence I think such a story could have on those who are currently mired in superstition.

Travis was one of the last of the audience to ask Mr. Barker a question. He was looking for some advice about the proper tact to take with believers when attempting to convince them of their errors. Travis admitted that deep down he feels like a car salesman, that he just really really wants to change people's minds, to sell them on disbelief; and that it becomes frustrating when, after spending hours discussing and debating religion and science with believers, no apparent progress is made. A very good question, I thought, especially since I feel the exact same way.

What are Travis and I doing wrong? Are we being foolish, thinking that we can change minds with evidence and reason; as opposed to, say, stories designed to illicit an emotional response? Is it the fact that our aim is obvious to those we talk to, that our effort is a frontal assault on their pride and their sense of identity, which when threatened puts up an impenetrable wall around their beliefs? Perhaps our approach is all wrong. Should we turn it down a notch, scrap the mission all together, or just hope that by simply being ourselves-moral, friendly nonbelievers-we'll subtly influence others to reconsider their beliefs? What do you think...Dan Barker?

The answer seemed so easy. Dan told Travis to stay true to himself, to continue doing what he felt was natural and right. Everyone is different, he said, so there's not one best approach to discussing belief. Different tactics work for different people. We can't expect to hit it off with everyone, but invariably we'll have a positive effect on someone.

It was a prudent answer, given that even the most respected figures within the atheist/agnostic movement shy away from telling people what to do. Atheists are generally anti-authority and pro-free thought, so it ought to be a default mode of operation to proclaim the option of choice whenever such an option could possibly exist. Only after the Q&A session, when Travis and I were talking with Dan Barker, and only after I declared in my usual half-facetious/sarcastic way that I would happily continue to act as a militant atheist, did Dan prescribe a particular course of action. Simply, he suggested not doing anything that would hurt anyone.

Part of me wanted to ask, "Really though, as far as tactics go, what DOES work with believers?" There has to be a better and worse answer, based off of Dan's experience. Unfortunately, we didn't get to hear it. I was left with the impression that Dan wasn't so concerned with changing people's minds.

However, in the telling of his story, Dan did reveal how he personally decides when its necessary to stand up to religion, and consequently, when not to. He stated that unless believers are outwardly causing harm or violating the separation of church and state, then he saw no reason to act or proselytize. And this upset me a great deal...

Here was a prominent atheist who seemed to not grasp or fully appreciate the real evil that religious belief represents for humanity. How could someone of his experience and intelligence not abhor religion as much as I do? Of course, I understood that the average person would more likely find Dan's position quite reasonable and view my vitriol with great suspicion and distaste. Only extremists, like religious fundamentalists, get this emotional in their opposition to other belief systems, they'd think.

But my disdain of religious belief, and my mild disappointment with Dan Barker's final assessment of the extent of religion's inherent harm, is, in my mind, perfectly justified and thoroughly understood. I attempted to explain to Travis, after Dan's talk, why exactly religion deserves more active, aggressive opposition than merely keeping it out of government. Religious belief, I said, erodes the dignity and liberty of human beings by assimilating and controlling both minds and bodies, all in the name of...nothing. Religion often turns adherents into victims or suckers who fall for knowingly nefarious or established institutional scams. Religion degrades the concept of the individual-a concept I consciously choose to believe in, despite threats from those who (often on the side of science) proclaim there is no free will as well, as those who (conservatives and the religious) aggressively or passively act towards greater social conformity. There is a light in our eyes that comes from awareness, of knowledge of truth, and of pride in self that I believe religion threatens to extinguish.

And I got to thinking in the days after Barker's talk that, yes, those are some pretty big charges against religion, charges that really ought to be fleshed out if I expect anyone to understand them or take them seriously. I realized that there was a book, at least, in the making. An entire book would be necessary to 1) document particular instances during which religion has in fact made fools of adherents throughout history (think showing up for the Second Coming, only to trudge back home to make dinner); 2) explore the concepts of individuality and free will, explain why they're important, and describe how religious belief undermines both; 3) document particular cases in which religion was used to scam people out of their assets and/or lives; 4) discuss cults, examining specific organizations and the various things they make programmed members do; and talk about the differences between popular "cults" and common religion; 5) discuss guilt and shame, as tools used by religion; 6) discuss the concept of shame; and 7) explore how precisely religion has physically enslaved individuals (women, children, even men...).

The book (or multiple essays/blogs) would center upon the constant threat religion and faith represent to human dignity and freedom. I have little confidence that an actual book will come from this project; but I'm still excited because, as far as I know, there hasn't been a book dedicated to this specific subject, and if it were to come about, well, I think it could be influential. And I think it would compliment the subject matter of the recent best selling books by the "new atheists" very well.

Anyway, a guy can dream. What's important now is that I have a sense of direction with this project. We'll just have to see if it leads anywhere.

God, Jesus, and Religion Defined

2010-03-19T11:31:00.000-07:00

God: A supreme being, an omnipotent and omniscient creator of all things who is imagined to exist by a vast majority of people. A concept whose continued existence follows from natural history, from societies' traditional reliance upon the security offered by powerful rulers, and the process of natural selection.

Dense populations of humans are naturally chaotic and violent as tribes clash over resources and women. Within groups, struggles between men to gain Alpha status was the source of constant psychological stress and physical unrest. A strong, established leader would have the effect of "taming" other men, and securing through force a minimal kind of order. Those families and tribes who possessed more obedient natures, who were more likely to look at leaders with awe, reverence, and love, were then more likely to have such leaders; and thus, were more likely to successfully grow, prosper, and reproduce. Through natural selection, this trait was strengthened and sharpened, and today it is manifest in what seems to be our inability to NOT believe in God.

God is a concept sitting on the "pointy end" of evolution. It is a direct result of natural selection. Other factors like fear of death and and love of parents contribute the continued existence of belief in God.

Jesus: Jesus was a man who lived at the right place at the right time to take up the mantel of religious reformer, King of the Jews, and later divine Savior, "Son of God". Religious superstition, a prophecy that a new King would be born to free the Jews, set the stage for the rest of Jesus's life. From the time of his birth, Jesus was taught that he was different, that he was more than special-he was "the One." At the time, Jesus may not have been told that he was THE son of god, and if he was, he may not have entirely believed it. However, if the stories are reliably accurate, we can be sure that Jesus acted upon the assumption that he was someone special who had a divine calling. The Bible tells us that as a child Jesus was a student of religion. We are also told that he spent time with learned older Jews studying and discussing scripture.

The power of self image to affect the lives of children and adults is well known. Think of the Dali Lama, the King of Pop, or various members of royal family. Behavior stems directly from how each of us define ourselves. Imagine how any child would act and grow up if he thought he was "the One", or "the Son of God" from his earliest memory.

Jesus's position as a spiritual leader was secured and bolstered by a small following of men who believed that he was a man of God worthy of their love and devotion. Surely he was a charismatic man. As his life progressed, stories and legends naturally sprung up around him. The people were primed and ready to accept the most fantastic tales, especially those involving a local man. And naturally, those tales were told over and over again, embellishments and all. Jews at the time were oppressed by foreign rule and existed day to day thanks to grand ideas of nationalism, religion, and hope.

Like many young adults, Jesus was interested in new, revolutionary political and social ideas. He extended his social network to those on the religious fringe, who seemed most passionate about changing the status quo. At some point he traveled east. We're not sure where precisely Jesus went, but there is good reason to think that he was influenced in some way by the culture and spiritualism of south Asia-the Zoroastrianism of the Persian lands and the Hinduism of India. Some wonder whether Jesus may have been exposed to various drugs, possibly narcotics. Furthermore, it can be assumed that Jesus's independent and reforming ways sprung from a Greek infused Jewish culture that existed in northern Judea.

Jesus was exactly who we would expect him to be given the circumstances of his birth. At the time of his death, however, it was neither obvious nor expected that a new religion would be born of his life and teachings. He had built a following of a few hundred before his life came to a tragic end. It was the writing and work of others that would grant him immortality. It is doubtful that Christianity would have never emerged out of relative obscurity to establish itself as a force affecting the lives of billions had it not been for the the blessing of Constantine, the first Christian Roman Emperor and the true "Savior" of the persecuted Christians.

Jesus was a man. He was a man who all may admit was noble and praiseworthy. The words he spoke and ideas he championed will undoubtedly inspire peace, love, and charity for another two thousand years at least. Yet Jesus the legend, Jesus the Son of God, existed in part before he even came into this world and was largely manufactured decades and centuries after he died.

Religion: Religion is a system of control which effectively secures the survival of specific memes (ideas and doctrine) regarding the nature of reality, the purpose of life, accepted types of behavior, and so on. Institutionalized religions have, in the past, extended this form of control directly to the body, with physical restraints and destruction. Traditional religions typically possess a disproportionate amount of myth and assumption. In this way, it serves as a chain anchoring the actions of present to the superstitions and ignorance of the past.

Religion's roots are ancient and likely inseparable from our species full history. It springs from the minds attempt to find meaning where no factual or natural explanation is possible. For 99% of human existence, scientific thinking and processes did not exist; therefore there was little foundation of true knowledge from which to build reliable explanations. Yet our ancestors were effective survivors and this lack of science did not prevent them from thinking about their world in great detail.

Far more engrained and dominant than the human mind's ability to think critically is its ability to recite and remember experiences. Songs, dances, and myth are part of this non-thinking thinking, and religion has survived thanks to this trait. What else could explain the fact that religion is full of nonsensical and contradictory ideas? Hinduism and Native American mythology offer up a myriad of strange, fantastical stories and characters that have existed for millennia despite being absurd and cartoonish. Christians can believe that a giant boat can hold two of every animal on the planet thanks to our minds' talent for not-thinking and merely reciting/accepting. They can believe that a story of God asking for child blood sacrifices or a story of God actually sacrificing his son on a cross are not horrific and are instead some way good and meaningful.

Religion is powerful because it taps into the most primitive, subordinate, nonthinking parts of our minds. We naturally recite and accept what we are told. And we naturally respond to emotional appeals more readily than we do arguments based on evidence or logic. No one is to blame for religion, but if we aspire to greater things for ourselves and our children, we should work to free ourselves from this and all systems of control.

Old and New Conceptions of Life (This one goes out to the ones I love...)

2010-01-13T07:11:00.000-08:00

Eternal life can be ours if only we pry our perceptions from the clutches of culture and tradition. All that we have been told serves to encapsulate everything that's good and meaningful within our short individual lives. We are led to believe-whether we are conscious of it or not-that we are characters, personalities that transcend our bodies, brains, and nature. We become selfish, self centered, and, paradoxically, isolated.

Culture and tradition have drawn borders around the individual and claimed that her feeling is her's alone, her knowledge is locked within her, her actions end at her finger tips. Moreover, God and salvation bear down on the fragile individual.

With such emphasis on the confined character of selves, its no wonder we feel lonely and afraid when we open our minds and contemplate mortality, the vast universe, and expanse of time stretching out in all directions around us. It's us in our individual skins versus everything there is and everything there ever will be.

We fear death because we are so attached to a concept of self that is as limited and shallow as a character in a movie or a television sitcom. Everything that is important and meaningful is bound up in our bodies, minds, and "souls". All transcendent goals and responsibilities are born with us and die with us. Our mortal lives are our one and only chance...for salvation or satisfaction.

If only we could reduce the intensity of the concept of self and increase its size, death may be feared less and life celebrated more. We need to stop defining who we are in strictly bodily or spiritual terms. We know we are more than our bodies. Likewise, there is no evidence that spirits dwell within in us. As far as we can tell, no ghost will safely transport our personality and knowledge to heaven after we die. We are, however, more than our bodies-we are more truly our minds, which in turn consists of our knowledge, our feeling, and our expressions.

The traditional view of self tells us that our minds either die with our bodies or fly towards heaven or hell. This narrow view ignores the fact that knowledge, feeling, and expression are not bound to the body. Instead, our minds are frequently wandering and expanding in the bodies of those we interact with. Our mood finds itself in others. Our knowledge becomes other people's knowledge. Our expression can be absorbed and retransmitted in the minds of others.

We are naturally selfish. Even though it ultimately leaves us lonely and afraid, we find some form of pleasure in the pride that comes from imagining ourselves as solely responsible for the content of our character. We can enjoy the feeling of our physical freedom. But while this freedom is real and important, our pride in it blinds us to the greater truth, that it is our minds ability to transcend the self that offers us eternal life.

This realization does not necessarily lead to a "way of living". We are still free to live and think as we choose. But I think it is wise to begin to think of "life" as something that exists from individual to individual and generation to generation. A grandmother's body may "die" but her mind will continue to live in her daughter, her granddaughter, and in all those she interacted with. This type of life is far greater than the physical sort of "life" her body went through. Those family members still alive will undoubtedly feel the loss of her physical presence and the constant expression that radiates from it. As we learn to conceptualize life in less selfish and mortal terms, the genuine love we felt for the grandmother will more easily be transmitted to our other friends and family members in whom grandmother still lives.

The Gateway to Disbelief

2010-01-02T09:05:00.000-08:00

The intellectual gateway to disbelief is a core principle, a fundamental understanding that I am not exceptional in comparison to any other member of the human family.

The differences we see when we observe people of other races, backgrounds, economic status, beliefs, sex, and so on do not spring from any inherent superiority in one person or group. Rather, we are who we are because we happened to be born in a certain place, at a certain time, and among certain people (Jared Diamond's Gun's Germ's and Steel is a great illustration of this point). I am no better than a Bushman, an Iraqi mother, a Chinese businessman, or anyone else.

Once we understand that we could have just as likely been born under different circumstances, we can't help but relate how we live and believe with the way others do. If I am a Protestant who understands this core principle of equality, I'll be compelled to admit that my belief is, in large part, a consequence of chance. And I couldn't help but observe that a majority of people born in Iraq become practicing Muslims, a majority of Indians adopt Hinduism, and Christians like myself are usually born in western Europe or the United States.

Taking it further, when open-minded believers are shocked by some of the seemingly absurd or radical beliefs of others, they will tell themselves that it could be themselves who believe that way (if their lives had followed the same path as the others); and perhaps, they hold more in common with those radical believers than they would like to think.

The Great Boodooboo-A Very Short Story

2009-12-20T18:45:00.000-08:00

Imagine you're an explorer who happens upon a primitive tribe living in a remote part of the Amazon jungle. They're a friendly people who invite you to live with them in their village for as long as you'd like. You jump at the chance to be the first outsider to learn about these people and their way of life.

Its not long before you observe very peculiar behavior. Every single member of the tribe, at sunrise, lies prostrate on the ground facing towards a distant volcano and chants a strange chant. At midday, a small group of tribesmen carries off a large container of food and valuables. You are told they are on their way to the foot of the volcano. There they will make their offering to appease the Great Boodooboo, their god who lives within the volcano.

You make yourself comfortable in your new surroundings. One day, while working in the community garden, a young man approaches and boldly asks why you are not praying or contributing to the sacrificial offerings for Boodooboo. "Don't you know its best not to upset him? Why do you not at least engage in our rituals, that way you may live in peace forever and never know pain?"

How would you reply?

Days later, you are invited to the elder medicine man's hut. The medicine man wants to discuss your on-going rebellion against the Great Boodooboo. He allows you to speak first. You try to explain to this wise old man the science of geology, about the inner workings of volcanoes, about the source of their volatility and the reasons they erupt. The medicine man looks at you and shakes his head. "This is just a theory he says, which is nothing more than faith. We too have evidence that there is an angry god within the volcano. Just look, it is rumbling and smoking now! As a tribe, we have experienced first hand the results of disobeying Boodooboo. And we have also many times been blessed by his goodness."

How would you respond to the medicine man's charge that your atheism towards Boodooboo, and your use of science to support your disbelief, is no more justified than his own belief? It is faith, all the same, he says.

Time drags on and you begin to tire of life in the village. You prepare to leave but a group of warriors come with spears to stop you. "You cannot leave now that you've discovered us!" they say, "no one in the outside world can know we exist". Frightened and angry, you pull out your trusty revolver, the weapon you keep only for emergencies. Pointing in the air above the warriors heads, you fire a shot. "Stay back!" you scream. The group shrieks in fright and scatters in all directions. The medicine man, who observed the event from his hut, cooly walks out and bows before you. "Oh Great (your name), please forgive us for our transgressions! We did not know you were a God. Your will is now our command!" All the other villagers then emerge from the darkness and assume the reverent position.

"No, no!" you say, "Don't be ridiculous, I'm no God!"

"But Great (your name), you hold in your hand a mighty weapon of supernatural power."

"Su..su..supernatural?!" you sputter. "This is just a revolver-a machine. Its really not that complicated."

"But to us it is complicated, Great (your name)" "We cannot fathom how it works and how you came to be in possession of it...it is proof you are a God!"

How would you respond to this charge, that the inability to understand something complex was evidence of a supernatural power.

Somehow you are able to convince the elder and villagers that you are not a God. They agree to let you go. As you're walking away, an old lady cries out your name. "Don't go! You're life will be empty and meaningless without the love and protection of Boodooboo. You need him, you need us!"

You keep walking because you know your life is not empty or meaningless. You still love your friends and family. You still look forward to future adventures. You still revel in the unknown. You walk on, a brave explorer, happy and free, the Great Boodooboo a distant fading memory.

Rejoice! Oh Ye Unbelievers!!

2009-11-15T09:10:00.000-08:00

Rejoice! Oh ye unbelievers!!

You may stay up late on Saturday night and sleep in on Sunday.

Never will there be a time when you must choose between your church and your country, between your prophet and your president.

You may eat bacon! and lots of it!!

The only person who will ask you to fast is your surgeon, and hopefully just a few times throughout your entire life.

You may spend 3 hours drinking beer and watching the game instead of eating one piece of bread and a little water while listening to a boring sermon.

Never will you be forced to choose between the dictates of your conscience and the commandments of your church.

In the future, you will spend far less time helping others move their stuff than the average church-goer.

There is no great eye in the sky watching and judging your every action, no big brother restraining your mind and body. You are free to experience the joy of true solitude, true individuality, and autonomy.

You have no reason to join either side of a crusade or holy war.

You are free to express absolutely everything you feel, from the slightest inclination to the deepest, most primordial craving. Use any word, any idea that feels right. Paint any image and sing any melody.

You may explore and experiment with fewer borders-discover potential, new feeling, new insights, and new experiences.

Think about sex, think about it all you want and in any form you fancy. And if you'd like, go do it, even if its Sunday.

Rejoice! oh yee unbelievers!!

The River of Life

2009-11-06T14:06:00.000-08:00

The following is a creative thinking exercise, not an exact or complete representation of how I view life.

Life is like a river. We're trapped in its current, drifting towards death. No matter how we struggle, no matter how much we object, the river will eventually deliver us to our end.

We're being carried, or compelled, downstream by more than just the waters of time. The moment we were born we were in possession of both common and unique traits. These were the best traits of our ancestors; the ones that kept them alive, drew them to a mate, and successfully reared children. But they were traits that cared little for culture and custom. The moment we entered the stream of life, we had to contend with more than simple mortality, we faced a lifelong struggle against our genetic programming.

Just like we didn't choose our genes, we didn't choose our parents and family, our hometown, our initial economic status, the schools we attended, and the friends we made. Our genes and our environment made us who we are. We believe like our parents, act like our brothers, and think like our friends. We feel like our ancestors.

Our genetic and environmental programming relentlessly, cruelly, push us down stream, along a preordained, highly predictable path. Its all we can do to keep our heads above water, let alone steer an enlightened, free course through life.

Finally, we share space in the river with everyone else. Some are closer to us than others-we call the closest our friends and lovers. Together we combine our strength and succeed in changing our course somewhat. But we can't help but bump into countless other people in life, inadvertently altering our course and making it even more difficult to act of our own free will or get what we want.

Since we can only dream of stepping out of the river, can we at least hope to find some shelter from the current? Or can we become so strong that we swim through the water like fish?

What do we do to rebel against our own programming? To challenge our own upbringing? To capture moments that seem out of time and free from persuasion?

We've never been more aware of our predicament in the river of life. We've never been so powerful and free.

A Duty To Truth

2009-11-04T18:39:00.000-08:00

Do we have a duty to expose lies and uphold the truth?

It depends upon what values we care about and how we rank them. Does truth trump personal happiness or the happiness of others? Does it take precedence over respect? Is truth more important than acting on impulse or instinct? Does truth make a person's list of values at all? It might not.

Who has the right to decide for other people what is more important than something else? What I value is irrelevant to a superstitious nation who spends its time and resources on religious ceremony because it values the spiritual experience. The fact that I get upset when I think about how truth is ignored or neglected by countless people does not give me the right to impose my values on those people. Compulsion should not follow from simple frustration or disgust.

Of course, I don't believe the answer is as obvious as this. Its easy to say we don't have a right to impose our values or way of thinking on others. Speaking of "rights", I believe we all have the right to act in accordance with our values. If I value truth more than spiritual experience, I am free to search it out and share it with others. I am even free to argue passionately in truth's defense and promotion, just as believers are free to attempt to convince me that I am mistaken in my thinking and values.

So we have two answers to the question "Do we have a duty to expose lies and uphold truth?". One perspective provides the answer "No. To do so infringes upon the right of others to live their lives according to their own values and not your own." Another answers, "Yes, if truth ranks highly on your list of values, you are free to work to discover it and attempt to change the minds of others."

But there's still more to consider. Personally, I do not think truth trumps happiness. If I thought that believing a myth would grant me absolute serenity and joy, I'd opt to do so, truth be damned. I'm not just saying this. I have considered the possibility that being an atheist can be a less happy existence than being a believer, but I don't know that for sure. Currently I think its more likely that contentment and joy are better obtained by possessing as clear a picture of reality and ourselves as possible, allowing for acceptance and the mastering of the art of living.

Duty and purpose are things we create for ourselves. If some institution or tradition claims we have a specific duty or purpose; they are, in a sense, being tyrannical. So no, no one has a "duty" to do anything they don't want to do. I've created a mission for myself, based on the belief that a myth-free existence is critical for freedom and happiness, to combat misperceptions, delusions, propaganda, as well as any other barrier to clear thinking. I have little doubt that "missionaries" will upset or offend, but these are minor annoyances for the real zealot.

(have a mentioned that I hate writing conclusions)

Why Would You Care?

2009-08-29T10:09:00.000-07:00

Imagine that your best friend has joined a small religious group that some call a cult.
Imagine that your Uncle has begun sacrificing baby animals to Zeus on a weekly basis.
Imagine that your wife starts taking month-long pilgrimages each year to pray to a holy rock.
Imagine that most of your family has moved to a village at the base of a volcano and has adopted the local belief that an angry god inside its cauldron must regularly be appeased with a portion of the town's harvest.

If any of these scenarios were real, why would you care? Other than the willing sacrifice of a little time and money, what is the harm of your friend and family's various beliefs? Your friend is still the funny, quirky guy that you've enjoyed hanging out with since grade school. Your uncle is still the wise mentor that you look up to. You wife still looks at you the way you look at her, with love and affection. And your family is still your family, just in another town. No one even attempts to convert you to their way of thinking.

Would you be an asshole for wanting to help "cure" your friends and family of their "delusions"?
Its a good question, and one I ask myself all the time.

What do you think?

Instinct. I has it.

2009-06-21T18:56:00.000-07:00

Sorry about that. The silly title is uncalled for. I hope I didn't get anyone's hopes up. To be clear, there will be no funny pictures of cats or bunnies on this blog. Instead, I offer you the usual--thoughts that I hope breed new thoughts. The title of this blog does, however, successfully get us to the point I want to make: I have instinct. I can feel it in my bones.

I know, I know, its an outrageous supposition. Me, a child of God, unique in every way, imbued with personality, can behave predictably in accordance with a set of rules discovered by science through the study of my species and gender. Yes, I am special, just like every other male Homosapien.

There are some who insist that our existence, our essence is entirely natural. These people say that the reasons for our behavior can be explained by burying our heads in science books, not scripture. The proponents of this naturalistic religion are geneticists, sociologists, historians, archeologists, and psychologists, among others. These high minded individuals might be overheard saying that you and I are predictable animals. The gall!

Whether or not the existence of these intellectuals and their ideas offends you depends upon your upbringing. Most of us were educated in public schools so I'll venture to guess we've got at least an elementary understanding of the sciences. I'm sure you're like me; inclined to reflexively respond "duh!" to the assertion that we are largely predictable animals, led about by instinct embedded in our genes. But at the same time I'm sure we share the opinion that there exists in each individual unique and special traits that help set us apart. We are more than preprogrammed robots, we've all chosen to believe.

Still, there are plenty of people out there who take it 10 steps further. They hold onto the belief that who we are, what we do, and how we feel is all God's doing. We are all well developed characters in a play written by the universe's greatest writer, God, or Jehovah. Jehovah is particulary talented at character development. He's had to come up with a unique personality for the 30 billion or so Homosapiens that have lived on this planet over the last few hundred thousand years. He knows us all by name, has a plan for each of us, and loves us all more than we can imagine. This is how great God is, and millions of people don't doubt it for a second.

For a great number-perhaps a great majority-of people whose conceptions of reality were shaped in large part by their religious upbringings, the affects of instinct (or gene-based programming/biases/inclinations) on their own behavior are hardly ever recognized or considered. You see, religion has its own explanations for human feelings and compulsions. For those who want to see truth more clearly, religious explanations muddy the water by introducing perverted and baseless concepts like Satan, the Holy Ghost, Temptation, That Still Quite Voice which speaks the Truth (the Holy Ghost), and so on.

Moreover, some may say (as some have) that those who believe in the vacuous concept of God, as well as all the baggage tied to it, will live their lives significantly insane. When asked the cause of good things, believers will answer "God"; a concept they cannot begin to describe or comprehend, but one they insist exists. The Devil will be blamed for events deemed bad. And a large percentage of believers will subscribe to the twisted notion that God is the cause of good and bad events. If one were to replace "God" with "My invisible friend Jack" or use the term "Boogey Man" instead of "Satan", wouldn't we question the mental faculties of those who spoke of God or Satan as actors in the natural world?

What concerns me more than someone blaming a natural disaster, plane crash, child drowning, sporting championship, or lottery win on the will of God is someone believing that what they feel is either directly or indirectly explained through religious ideas. When I was a youngster, I was led to believe that my sexual desire was, in part, due to temptation from the devil. I was also told that especially good, joyous, peaceful, or inspiring feelings at church were the promptings of the Holy Ghost. For years, I had no problem accepting these ideas. I had no problem accepting that my heart and mind were divine public property; open territory, so to speak, for any spirit-either good or evil-who felt compelled to push me one way or another. But it wasn't long before I began feeling uneasy about the idea. As time went by, I determined that my unease originated from the fact that what I was told was both baseless and erosive to my sense of autonomy.

And so I feel the same way now, just to a greater degree. It is worse than merely lacking a logical foundation or tearing down the fabric of personal autonomy. Religious explanations for personal feelings are unacceptable for the real harm inflicted upon innocent people. They are unacceptable for the guilt, fear, false pride, skewed reality, and general psychosis that infects the minds and "hearts" of believers. Worse still, for those with serious emotional problems, who need real help, religious belief can prevent them from getting the professional treatment they need.

The final offense of religious explanations is that they distract us from discovering the true, natural reasons for our feelings. It is difficult enough planning a progressively happier, more peaceful existence when we lack so much-we will never possess anything close to a perfect knowledge and understanding of ourselves and the universe. Our knowledge may always be fragmented and limited, but this does not mean we should settle for or allow skewed, perverted, or false ideas to take positions of importance in our minds.

What's this got to do with me having instinct?

First understand that I feel compelled to methodically explore every dry creek bed, basin, rocky outcropping, and mountain side in Owyhee County. I want to follow every trail, look behind every tree, search under all the bushes, pick up a few rocks...you get the point. And this really isn't limited to the Owyhee mountains. Give me any area, let me get to know it a little bit, and I'm going to want to explore it.

Why would I feel this way? Does religion offer a reasonable explanation? No it doesn't. What about biology and the theory of evolution? Hmm, let's see... Perhaps my male ancestors needed to familiarize themselves with their territory in order to best protect their families and tribes from invasion. Perhaps ancient humans followed herds over miles of wilderness and needed to have a good sense of the land in order to make the most successful hunts. And perhaps my ancestors were gatherers who benefited from always searching for food and resources over large areas. Those who felt the urge to roam and explore were more likely to secure the safety and resources their families needed to survive. Those who lacked these compulsions were under greater danger of invasion and starvation. Thus, the traits were naturally selected for, generation after generation. They became instinctive.

This is only a theory I know, but its a theory supported by reason and a keen emotional awareness that's unpolluted by belief in the supernatural. To illustrate the point further-I enjoy the thrill of riding my bike and the pure physical effort it takes. These make me feel alive. But there's more involved. I feel compelled to cover ground, to explore. Its an urge, a underlying sense of excitement, a drive towards some possible satisfaction.

If we didn't have the power of our minds, we'd not have a hope of understanding what purpose any urge served, we'd just feel it. We'd just do it, like any other animal. I propose that the challenge that faces us today is in coming to a fuller understanding of all the influences and controls over our minds and bodies so that we may either come to accept them or else consciously manipulate them in productive/positive ways.

And why we evolved a thinking brain as well as cultural norms that keep our instincts in check is a question for another blog.

Thoughts on the Conflict of Being Human

2009-06-11T21:51:00.000-07:00

Just some random thoughts:

What does it mean to be human? There's something in the word, the concept, that we tend to value highly.

The French love to see their national cycling stars suffer, get beat, and cry because they think this demonstrates the rider is uber-human or something. The French hated Lance Armstrong because he was the opposite-he rarely if ever showed pain, he rarely got beat, and he never ever cried in public.

Its not just the French who place great value on being emotionally sensitive and expressive. I get the sense that Italians, the Spanish, and numerous other nationalities/races are really into feelings as well. (When I say "feelings", I'm including love and sexual desire)

One could make similar generalizations about the way other cultures tend to value controlled, purposeful use of mind and logic. The Germans, English, Dutch, Swiss... Total generalizations or pure stereotype, of course, but the point is, there exists these completely opposite traits that are both highly valued.

It doesn't make sense. Its either good to be guided by intelligence or its good to be guided by emotions. It can't be both (I'm sure it can, but let's roll with this for now).

We live to feel. If there were no feelings associated with the constant dialogue in our head, if feelings weren't possible, then what would be the purpose of living? For me, living is emotion. But our freedom comes from our ability to think things through, to control our emotions. If we lacked this ability, we'd be nothing more than animals acting impulsively.

So its an equation. Emotions x Thinking = Being Human. With us, they are inseperable components. Which sounds ridiculously obvious.

It doesn't change the underlying logical conflict, however. And the conflict within us. One thing we value the most-emotion. But that thing is what threatens to make us slaves if we don't control it. Emotion is the part of us that is the most programmed; through both genes, hereditry, chance, and the environment. Intelligence-knowledge and self awareness-is what guarantees our freedom; yet without the goal and guidance of emotion, intelligence alone is the stuff of mindless, souless computers. Both emotion and intellect can be explained in ways synomymous with programming, yet together they make us human. Its like two completely different codes in one. Perhaps its emotion x thinking = consciousness.

Purposefully Deceiving Ourselves

2009-06-02T21:53:00.000-07:00

The conclusion of my last post touched on this subject of purposefully deceiving oneself. I asked if Carl Sagan, by romanticizing the universe, is somehow deceiving himself about the true nature of things.

I believe that "significance" or "meaning" are 100% man-made creations-without us there would be no purpose or meaning or significance to speak of. I can't tell you what the true nature of something actually is, or how it ought to be thought of (I am of the opinion that in general, impressions or opinions ought to be withheld until a significant number of facts can produce proper understanding), but I can say with confidence that our mental world is largely a manufactured world, and even our sensory perception of things is seen through skewed emotional lenses.

There are at least a couple of ways we feel emotion. One, we can be affected directly, first hand, and automatically by a powerful emotional transmission from one person (art and performance), a group of people (concert, group think situations), or a production of some kind (like television). This is involuntary. Two, we quite naturally, based upon instinct and understood human behavior, react to events in our life (like our emotional responses to breaking up or getting in a fight or having fun--though "transmissions" of emotion can be powerful forces in these instances as well). These emotional responses are involuntary as well. ("involuntary" by no means means "unhealthy" or not necessary)

But there are other ways to feel, and one is to use the powerful symbolic tool of language to manufacture for ourselves a positive perception of something. Carl Sagan saw that the universe was vast, expanding, full of wonder, beyond our comprehension, beyond our experience, containing everything, and so forth. Thus, Sagan built an emotional spiderweb, a larger concept connecting all the emotions he learned to associate with words/symbols like "vast", "infinite", "everything", "wondrous", etc. Was it necessary that he come to this particular emotional conception of the universe? Certainly not. Others who were brought up in different circumstances might just as easily associate the universe with feelings of foreboding and fear such that they adopt any number of strategies to escape the unpleasant notions of vastness, mystery, and their tiny scale in relation to things.

What interests me is the promise of freedom and control represented by willfully defining concepts in a positive light. This is true intelligence. There's many ways we can be intelligent: memorization, wisdom, quick thinking, social tact, mathematical thinking, curiosity, etc. But when we, as individuals, learn to master our own emotions (not just suppression, which is rarely ideal, but enhancement) we will truly develop intellectually. And when we, as a society, abandon old concepts that are mentally and emotionally retarding and adopt new concepts that are liberating and joyful, then we can be proud of the progress we have made.

Carl Sagan chose to view the universe in a way that brought deep feeling and wonder to his heart; and with that choice, proved himself a modern, enlightened fellow.

Now how does this understanding of intelligent, willful conceptualization change our view of religious belief, if at all? Does it justify it or further condemn it?

The Power of Perception

2009-05-26T20:40:00.001-07:00

So where have we left off? Untenable ideas, imposing my values on other people... Also, perception, the power of...

Let's try to flesh out the subject of perception. What has peaked my interest is determining the actual effect and overall value of the way in which we perceive ourselves and our world. For example, there have been attempts to correlate religious belief with longevity. It's difficult if not impossible to control for all variables in order to get a trustworthy correlation between the cognitive phenomenon of perceiving that one is the creation of a God who has a purpose for your life and living a longer than average life. The fact that a church-goer lives longer than a non-church-goer could have something to do with socialization and other lifestyle particulars of church life. A diligent researcher might be able to control for even those factors.

But we need not go down that road because I'm interested in the emotional, psychic effects of perception. Yes, these are certainly tied to issues like longevity (because based on what I've heard, it seems as though having a cheery, sociable disposition is the factor for living a long healthy life), but my focus is on the quality of short periods or moments in our lives. After all, life is made up of moments-their quantity being somewhat insignificant in comparison to their quality.

OK, so examples of different ways reality can be perceived which have starkly different effects on the person doing the perceiving:

A child believes that the gifts under the Christmas tree were made by elves and delivered to her by Santa and his reindeer; versus, a child believes that the gifts under the Christmas tree were bought at Walmart by her mommy and daddy. How does a child feel before, during, and after Christmas if she believes either one of these realities?

A young couple believes that both individuals were "meant" to be together, either fated or ordained by God; versus, a young couple believes that their meeting was mere coincidence or luck. Which feels better? Is one perception far more affective at generating happy feelings than the other?

A child is told and believes that he is one-of-a-kind, special, a cut above the rest; versus, a child is told and believes that he is no better than others around him, that he is their equal, and must work hard to earn his fame and fortune in life.

More examples:
A man finds out later in life that his parents are not actually his parents, that he was adopted.

A young man believes that he is the descendant of Native American warriors.

A young woman is constantly told that she is beautiful and desirable.

We have a distinction that ought to be made. There are at least two types of perception. How we view that which is apart from us, and how we view ourselves (or what we believe about either). I'll go out on a limb and guess that self perception is by far the more powerful force on our quality of life. In the past I've claimed that happiness has everything to do with how we view ourselves. To be fair though, whatever detail we believe about the world at large informs our own sense of self to some degree. So is all perception self perception? And is it possible to care about something if it doesn't tweak our self perception at least slightly? I'm thinking out loud here... I suppose a child who is overjoyed by the thought that Santa and the elves are responsible for the gifts that arrived is overjoyed not because those facts inform her about herself. Rather, it is more pure enchantment, wonder.

From here on, we could begin to explore the specific positive and negative feelings caused by various perceptions. Still, I'm more interested in debating the philosophical/moral question of whether our quest for maximum happiness ought to involve deceiving ourselves and others, or if all forms of deception and assumption ought to be railed against in favor of a naturalist, minimalist, belief about ourselves and our world. This question necessarily involves determining the extent and effectiveness of manipulating our perceptions purposefully. And finally, we might ask if it is impossible to perceive anything truly, or if everything we imagine is manufactured (a classic philisophical question), a mere reflection of our own mind.

A point I'd like to make is that even if we take a minimalist view of reality, we are still perceiving it in a certain way that is necessarily tied to some emotion. The late Carl Sagan viewed the universe from the eyes of a scientist, assuming nothing that he could not see or verify factually, but he was famous for his romantic view of the universe and our life within it. Clearly he chose to manufacture a certain value or aesthetic to associate with what he knew. Was he "deceiving" himself or freely exercising his will, his mind, to control his heart? I guess it just depends on how you choose to look at it.

Imposing My Morals On the Rest of the World

2009-04-07T21:26:00.000-07:00

Cool. The Internet is back here at Cambridge Dorchestire Apartments. Now I can get back to cultivating a few ideas and offering them up for mass consumption.

I've been very focused on both work and working out for months now. Philosophy has had a seat at the very back of the bus during this period and that's a shame. I really enjoy going over issues of morality, religion, knowledge, perception, etc, etc. But my mind has been elsewhere, so it'll take some exploring around before I find out where I left off.

Something that's been in the news lately caught my attention. A law was just signed into affect by the president of Afghanistan that, as one of its provisions, grants a man the "right" to have sex with his wife a minimum of once every four days. People are rightly shocked and outraged with this law as they view it as effectively legalizing the rape of women who say no to their husbands.

The law is abhorrent for sure; but what really gets me is the simple fact that there exists societies wherein women are treated as property or slaves, to be raped or violently punished if they do not behave according to custom or religious law. Even if the controversial law signed by the president of Afghanistan (a U.S. ally) never was written, women today would still be raped or tortured or forced to live behind a veil or compelled to produce children like they were cattle.

Why does this happen? And ultimately, how can it be allowed to continue in the year 2009?

You know, the thirties are a period in every person's life when he starts to take what's going on in his community, his country, and his world a little more personally. I'm 33 and I'm beginning to feel like what's happening around me in some way represents me. My generation is just moving into positions of power for the first time. I like to think that my generation (and the similar 20somethings) got Obama elected. He represents us, our standards, our values. If he fucks up, I'm going to feel a slight tinge of responsibility. I'll feel like I fucked up as well. And because I feel as though my generation is now at the age in which we are taken more seriously and given more direct control over all aspects of society (we become fathers/mothers, move up to positions of seniority/management at work, gain adequate knowledge and experience to begin participating more in political/social/economic institutions, are looked up to as examples by nearly half the people on the planet, etc), I feel doubly annoyed by things like this law in Afghanistan. I may sound like a megalomaniac identifying myself as part owner and manager of the world at large; but dammit, this sort of shit is unacceptable in MY world, in MY generation's world.

I know that the entire world does not subscribe to progressive "Western" or "European" values. And I understand that parts of the world are not ready to secularize their governments and their ways of life-including their treatment of free individuals. But I do believe that there exists a base-level value for both human life and human freedom that the world has historically sought to preserve and uphold. The United Nation's list of human rights defines what the term means very well. I don't understand why world leaders cannot more aggressively combat human rights violations, including some ideologies/religions traditional oppressive treatment of women, even if that treatment is tied up in a web of culture and beliefs. Even if it is something that those who are being oppressed or victimized would excuse or subscribe to willfully.

This is the somewhat bold idea I'm interested in exploring-that societies should forcibly disallow or stop other nations from committing human rights violations that are culturally/historically grounded. It's not an entirely controversial or original notion. Presidents Bush and Obama both have expressed the sentiment that while we are not at war with Islam, we are opposed to those who practice extreme, violent, and oppressive forms of that faith (just as we are opposed to similar practices within Christian fundamentalist sects). President Clinton took military action to halt genocide in Bosnia (apparently). And of course there was World War II.

But from everything I've learned, it appears as though our government has rarely intervened in other nation's affairs for purely humanitarian reasons. The Civil War was not just about freeing the slaves. World War II was not just about saving the Jews. And if one were to look at the history of major and costly foreign policy actions taken by the U.S. government, one would discover that protecting corporate/capitalist powers-that-be was our counties overriding goal in the vast majority of the events.

I'm a proactive sort of guy. And I'm a moralist in the sense that I believe strongly in a set of values, as simple as they are. So, as much as I hate to condone a similar approach to the one adopted by neoconservatives in the Bush administration (though it's different, because I don't believe we invaded Iraq for moral reasons), I'll state for the record that I support increased, but more targeted intervention in the world for the explicit purposes of upholding human/individual rights.

Untenable Ideas

2009-01-26T21:07:00.000-08:00

Untenable ideas. This is the subject that kept popping up this evening whenever I considered for a moment what I to write about. Before I begin thinking this one through, let's crack open the dictionary and make sure I'm using the word "untenable" correctly. "Tenable" is defined as "capable of being held or defended". So good, I'm not pulling the word out of my ass...

I'm interested in the untenable ideas that are incapable of being held by a particular person; not because of any real logical or cognitive defect on the part of either the idea or the person; but because the idea so greatly threatens to dismantle the individuals perception of reality, including his perception of who he is, who others are, the nature of relationships, and the nature of the universe. When core perceptions are stripped away and nothing is quickly built up in its place; insanity or emotional crisis is likely to ensue...

So what are some examples of ideas that many people find untenable? Here are two classics: First, that there is no life after death. We're all familiar with how even the fleeting notion can wrench at our hearts, especially if someone close to us has recently died. For most people on this planet, the idea that someone they loved no longer exists is so emotionally traumatic that they choose to kill off the idea of death and embrace beliefs in immortality, heaven, and god.

A second example is somewhat related. It's the proposition that we are primates who have evolved from more ape-like ancestors. Its interesting to note that while this idea is still considered offensive and absurd by perhaps billions of people, the notion doesn't produce the same amount of outrage it did when it was first introduced to the world.

So why is it that I don't feel compelled to create my own reality, or deny these supposedly dehumanizing notions of mortality and natural selection while others do? You might say its because I have a passion for truth and an adversion to fiction. These positive and negative passions cause me to shift value to ideas that best describe an objective reality. The flip side is that perhaps I undervalue both fiction and the feelings associated with those fictions. When I feel, I'd like the emotion to spring from freedom and truth. I perceive belief in something that is not true as a tryannical force. Ficticious belief is something that not only falsely asserts its authority over actual truth (thus, over your ability to make wise choices) but also pulls your emotional strings-not in the way you might choose, but in a way that it (not you) is designed to. This invasion of the self, of individual autonomy, is the grossest offense.

I wanted to explore ideas that I, or atheists like myself, might still find untenable. Are there any? I'll have to return to the subject later. It's time for bed. Night...

Goodbye Christmas

2008-12-26T21:40:00.000-08:00

Well, yesterday I "celebrated" Christmas with Jennifer, her family, and to some extent, Eric. Fern and I opened presents we gave each other. Afterwards, we had a nice dinner at Fern's parent's house, with her parents, her sister and her sister's boyfriend.

The irony of me, an agnostic, voluntarily engaging in activities associated with the most Christian of Christian holidays, was certainly recognized by myself more than once in the days leading up to Christmas, during the hours I spent shopping and preparing gifts or listening to Christmas music at work. Clearly I don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Or that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to the "King of the Jews". Nor do I believe that a star led three wise men to a manger. Not only do I not believe these things, but I find the persistence of and the propagation of the myth as well as so many countless aspects of religious belief both appalling and abhorrent.

What's more, I possess a rebellious streak when it comes to most any form of tradition. I've chosen to see tradition primarily as a form of control, of enslaving bodies and minds that are already controlled and constrained beyond a level that is easy to feel comfortable with. I know good and well that I don't need to have such a negative perception of religion, tradition in general, or life itself; but I made the decision long ago (or perhaps its simply in my nature) to open my eyes to any enemies of freedom and reason, and to oppose those things-blissful ignorance and conformity be damned. Its just that I feel more alive when I'm fighting anything and everything that threatens to get in my way; whether it be the self-granted authority of religions, the systems of belief they use to enslave our minds, or something as unimportant as disorganization at my place of employment.

The reason I bring up this talent of mine for identifying the negative and seeking to eliminate it (at least from my own life) is because it provides some support for a notion I've had lately. It goes something like this: Happiness could be defined much more broadly as whatever it feels like when you fall in line with your natural inclinations. For example, I feel quite rebellious, even angry, towards tradition, or anything that threatens to diminish human freedom. One might say that this rebellious, angry feeling is a form of being happy, because it feels like satisfaction. It feels as though it is the affirmation, the realization of something deeply ingrained, something instinctual. In fact, its easy to imagine that my ancestors could have made good use of such separatist, progressive inclinations for their own survival and propagation. This is the evolutionary defense of Destiny. We are happy when we are acting on what feels like our destiny, whether that involves raising children, preaching a sermon, competing, learning, making things, fighting, etc, etc. My point is that the actual feeling that different people experience while tending to their destiny is what deserves to be called happiness, but those feelings are in fact as different and varied as individuals are.

Alright, I've veered off topic. I wanted to address the irony of agnostics and atheists celebrating Christmas. First, I have to say that Christmas has spilled out beyond its religious foundation. It is now a cultural phenomenon largely devoid of meaning beyond "love is the answer". Still, if I were truly principled, if I really had cajones grande, I'd refuse to recognize the holiday all together. And who knows, maybe I will next year. Before I blow off Christmas all together, I'd want to make sure that what is left in my life is not just another winter day. I do think that there are plenty of reasons to celebrate life, and there are so many fun and creative ways to do so. I'll need to reserve a few days on the calendar for special celebrations and special recognition of the people I love and appreciate. Better start planning.

From "The Birth and Death of Meaning" by Ernest Becker

2008-12-01T19:35:00.000-08:00

For the second time in three days, I've been blown away by something I've read. This time, it was in a book entitled The Birth and Death of Meaning, written in the early 60s by Ernst Becker. The volume melds psychology, sociology, philosophy, and personal essay. Like two other books I'm slowly making my way through (Sagan's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors and Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel) Becker's book masterfully constructs The Big Picture from a seemingly limitless supply of real scientific observation and fact (though I'm not ready to subscribe completely to his understanding of human nature/motivations-it seems a little old-fashioned and anglocentric).

One side effect of reading books like these is that the reader can't help but be humbled and made speechless by the authors' intellect and deep insight. Yes, I'm feeling a loss for words again. So here, read some of what had such a powerful affect on me today. You'll see some lines in bold. These indicate the moments during my original reading that I thought "Yes! So true!":

pg 124-5 "When we see the closet-full of clothes of a departed dear one we may feel deep pangs of injustice: that life is so ephemeral, that these clothes once so full of throbbing vitality now hang dusty and empty. Life seems an accident, its span useless, death unfair. But this is largely because we live only on the visible dimension; our lives are an intensified self-seeking for fulfillment and possession, largely because we believe there is nothing else, and life itself is so precarious. But when clothes are merely loaned for duty to another dimension of things, the feeling of injustice dims, and is replaced at least partly by a sense of the proper. Immanuel Kant, whose pietistic parents lived such a schema, never remembers them having lost their temper or complained about their earthly lot in any way-even when they were cheated by a business partner, they had no angry words or recriminations. They were after all on the mission to earth, and expected nothing here. What they really got was something much more vital than mere physical fulfillment, and if we hearken back to our previous discussion we can understand how crucial it was: those who lived in primitive and traditional society could achieve even in the smallest daily tasks that sense of cosmic heroism that is the highest ambition of man. If one is a servant of divine powers everything one does is heroic, if it is done as part of the consecration of one's life to those powers. In this way meaning can be extended up to the highest level, to the cosmic, eternal level, and the problem of highest heroism is solved."

pg 125 "...the function of culture is to provide the individual with a sense of primary heroism; this is his basic need and right. He must be able to answer the question "How does the dignity, control, bearing, talent, and duty of my life contribute to the fuller development of mankind, to life in the cosmos?" Now we can see the primitive and traditional hero-systems provided a clear-cut answer to precisely this question; and we can also judge that modern society provides no easy answer, if it provides any at all."

pg 126 "'How can we tell which hero-system is the best for man, or even true?' Yes, there's the rub, the fulcrum point, the focus of our whole conclusion on the six common human problems. Man's answers to the problem of his existence are in large measure fictional. His notion of time, space, power, the character of his dialogue with nature, his venture with his fellow men, his primary heroism-all these are embedded in a network of codified meanings and perceptions that are in large part arbitrary and fictional. This begins in earlier childhood, and it occurs as Adler said: as a reaction to the child's impossible situation. As he is fashioned by means of language into symbolic functioning, he has a way of overcoming psychologically the anxieties of experience from within his physical insignificance and relative powerlessness. The symbolic, psychological world becomes, in other words, the contrived means whereby his real limitations are overcome. Here the child can grow, and grow to "enormous size" as he identifies with giants, gods, heroes of myth and legend, or historical figures of a particular culture. The burdens of is painful existence in the here and now are overcome as he projects himself into a heroic past or a victorious future. The whole ego or self becomes indistinguishable from the cultural world view, precisely because the world view itself protects the finite individual against anxiety; the ego now feels warm about its experiences whenever and wherever they are symbolically projected. The mind flies out of its limits in the puny body and soars into a world of timeless beauty, meaning, and justice. And this is how men come to exist in largely fabricated worlds of their own contrivance, and derive their basic sustenance from these fabrications."

pg 128 ... "Whole societies have been able to persist with central beliefs that bore little relation to reality. About the only time a culture has had to pay has been in the encounters with conquerors superior in numbers, weapons, and immunity to certain diseases. Or when, as in Athens and Rome, there has been consistent failure to give priorities to urgent social and economic problems for a period of several hundred years. These societies simply could not "turn around" the conventional hero-systems. Socrates was sentenced to death because he tried to do something of this, tried to urge Athenian youth to independently assess their hero-system. We glimpse again the tragedy of Athens and Rome in the U.S. today, as the entire society is beginning to crumble around an archaic commercial-military hero-system, unrelated to the needs and challenges of contemporary life; but to turn the hero system around to one of peace, social service, the reconstruction of society, seems beyond the imagination and capability of the people.

One of the terrifying things about living in the last decades of the twentieth century is that the margin that nature has been giving to cultural fantasy is suddenly being narrowed down drastically. The consequence is that for the first time in history man, if he is to survive, has to bring down to near zero the large fictional element in his hero-systems. This is the critical challenge of our time and, as we shall see in a concluding chapter, the authentic preoccupation of a science of man." (Ernest Becker in The Birth and Death of Meaning)

(Back to your host, Josh)
First, let's state the obvious. Based on the topics and content that send me in a tizzy, you could say I have a healthy nihilistic streak. I've always felt that human intelligence and importance are overrated, and that meaning and purpose are quite often lame human constructs. With this cheery outlook, you'd think that I'd have no bouts of depression. You'd be wrong, of course.

But boiling beneath the surface of such a dark, tumultuous countenance, is an astounding optimism, an unreasonable manic excitement. Its this notion of "man, if he is to survive, [bringing] down to near zero the large fictional element in his hero-system". Its the prospect of meeting "the critical challenge of our time" and advancing "the authentic preoccupation of a science of man." Sure, from time to time, this modern awareness of our fragile, apparently meaningless existence grows big and frightening, resulting in depression or even panic, but I'm here to declare that this state is only temporary. The human psyche is experiencing growing pains. We're still mere children-we've only just learned that Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy don't exist. We've shed ourselves of myths, which might leave a joyless void in our souls for a time. We've become aware of the fact that whatever future awaits us and whatever happiness we hope to achieve is going to be up to us to secure. And when I say "secure" I mean either through discovery or invention, because I'm not so naive to believe that the secret to happiness (on both an individual and a societal level) is Truth alone. I think that there may be transitional moments in history when a crumbling civilization, built upon old myths and understanding, must put Truth before all else in order to reset itself and help guide it on a course for the next few centuries. But I doubt that society stripped of culture or hero-systems (as the author puts it), is desirable. Truth is only the means to an end-healthy, happy, vibrant life. Human nature can't be contained within individual bodies and restricted to the fraction of scientific knowledge available at a time. Still, its the greatest travesty when human nature is perverted or enslaved by tyrannical myths or ideologies. So what gives me hope is the idea that here we are, still children, with so much truth laid at our feet, offered up by noble men and women of science, and the primary task we have now is in figuring out how to use it best to secure greater freedom and happiness for ourselves and future generations. The difficult question is what to tell ourselves about ourselves from here on out.

From Carl Sagan's "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors"

2008-11-28T22:04:00.000-08:00

Today, I spent some quality time with Carl Sagan, or at least with his book, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. Sagan's knowledge, intellect, and understanding are keen and vast. And they had a powerful effect on me. I greatly appreciate individuals like Sagan who dare take up the grand task of melding science and philosophy to change our most core perspectives. Let me share some of his words with you here.

pg 166
"But we, who live in a more enlightened time, when the penalties for disquieting ideas are less severe, not only may, but have an obligation to, inquire further-as many since Darwin have done. What, if anything, do animals think? What might they have to say if properly interrogated? When we examine some of them carefully, do we not find evidence of executive controls weighing alternatives, or branched contingency trees? When we consider the kinship of all life on Earth, is it plausible that humans have immortal souls and all other animals do not?

pg 168-9
And when you have a massive collection on mutually integrated programs, capability for learned behavior, data-processing prowess, and means of ranking competing programs, might it not start feeling on the inside, a little bit like thinking? Might our penchant for imagining someone inside pulling strings of the animal marionette be a peculiarly human way of viewing the world? Could our sense of executive control over our ourselves, of pulling our own strings, be likewise illusory-at least most of the time, for most of what we do? How much are we really in charge of ourselves? And how much of our actual everyday behavior is on automatic pilot?

Among the many human feelings that, although culturally mediated, may be fundamentally preprogrammed, we might list sexual attraction, falling in love, jealousy, hunger and thirst, horror at the sight of blood, fear of snakes and heights and "monsters," shyness and suspicion of strangers, obedience to those in authority, hero worship, dominance of the meed, pain and weeping, laughter, the incest taboo, the infant's smiling delight at seeing members of its family, separation anxiety, and maternal love. There is a complex emotion attached to each, and thinking has very little to do with any of them. Surely, we can imagine a being whose internal life is nearly wholly composed of such feelings, and nearly devoid of thought.

pg 171
If it were possible to peer into the psyche of a spider or a goose, we might detect a kaleidoscope progression of inclinations-and maybe some premonition of conscious choice, actions selected from a menu of possible alternatives. What individual nonhuman organisms may perceive as their motivations, what they feel is happening inside their bodies, is for us one of the inaudible counterpoints to the music of life.

When an animal goes out to seek food, it often does so according to a definite pattern. A random search is inefficient, because the path would turn back on itself many times; the same places would then be examined again and again. Instead, while the animal may dart off to left and right, the general search pattern is almost always progressive forward motion. The animal finds itself on new ground. The search for food becomes an exercise in exploration. A passion for discovery is hardwired. It's something we like to do for its own sake, but it brings rewards, aids survival, and increases the number of offspring.

Perhaps animals are almost pur automatons-with urges, instincts, hormonal rushes, driving them toward behavior which in turn is carefully honed and selected to aid the propagation of a particular genetic sequence. Perhaps states on consciousness, no matter how vivid, are as Huxley suggested, "immediately caused by molecular changes in the brain substance." But from the point of view of the animal, it must seem-as it does with us-natural, passionate, and occasionally even thought out. Perhaps a flurry of impulses and intersecting subroutines at times feels something like the exercise of free will. Certainly the animal cannot much have an impression of being impelled against its will. It voluntarily chooses to behave in the manner dictated by its contending programs. Mainly, it's just following orders.

pg 173
Each species has a different model of reality mapped into its brain. No model is complete. Every model misses some aspect of the world. Because of this incompleteness, sooner or later there will be surprises-perceived, perhaps, as something like magic or miracles. There are different sensory modalities, different detection sensitivities, different ways the various sensations are integrated into a dynamic mental map of...a snake, say, in full hunting slither."

These days, if one asks whether we have free will, most scientists and philosophers-most thinking individuals-would answer "no". We are who we are and do what we do because of who are parents where, where we were born, the circumstances we are faced with, and all the talents and limitations that come with the package. This much is accepted. But are we to give up on freedom? Do we not make choices every day? And what significance is knowledge for freedom?
I've got a few ideas, but I'll leave it at this for now.

Arguments for Religion, By Josh Travis

2008-08-06T13:14:00.000-07:00

Without religion, civilization could not exist. Without civilization, freedom itself would be in peril. Or so I'll play the devil's (or god's) advocate and argue for the subject of this blog.

You see, the debate between atheists and believers about the existence of God is not the same as a debate about the importance or necessity of religion. Whereas I can more quickly ridicule a baseless belief in some sort of omniscient, omnipotent, Super Being (Zeus, Baal, Jehovah, God of the Fiery Volcano, the Spaghetti Monster, etc...), I can't as easily demonize religious institutions and religious practices because I don't have the scope of knowledge to determine whether their overall affect has been negative or positive for human progress.

This could come as a shock to friends who know me. The general line of thinking that we've all shared is that religion is not just a joke, but a primary source of "evil". See the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and so on; as well as Religion as Justification, such as justification for owning slaves, hating "fags", treating women like property, guilt abuse for having hormones, flying jumbo jets into skyskrapers, genital mutilation, cognitive quarantine, etc, etc. So yeah, I haven't expressed much sympathy or understanding for religion for the last half of my life. And I like to think that it could be understood why I haven't done this, though I admit I can sometimes be naive.

I've sworn never to stop considering all sides of an issue, especially the issues I feel the most passionately about. I try to play devil's advocate whenever I can, for practice. In law classes we were encouraged to think this way. There's a term for a weak counter argument that's constructed and easily dismantled for the sole purpose of making your main argument look better. Its called a "strawman". My law professor warned us against using such a low, obvious tactic. To do so would demonstrate an unwillingness to fully understand and appreciate whatever is legitimate and logical in your oppossition's argument. You'd come across as insensitive and underhanded. And you'd probably loose the case. How can you possibly expect to convince others that one belief is right and other is wrong if you yourself don't recognize the strongest foundations and reasons for the opposing belief?

So let's argue that religion has been amazingly constructive and good for all of humankind. The most direct, uncontroverial good is the aid religious organizations provide for the sick, poor, outcast, and troubled people of the world. I imagine the nuns, preists, and the common church members providing help for innumerable needy people. It would be impossible to quantify all the good that's been done for the world by religious believers over the ages. And whose to say what the world would be like today if that love, good will, and those services had never been gifted to humanity?

Peace and harmony are fragile states. Human's have a capacity for love and caring, but it has been demonstrated many times that we are corruptible, that we are capable of not loving and not caring. In fact, there have been periods in history during which nations have found no value in human life and human suffering, especially the life and suffering of "others". There are countless examples of horrible crimes committed against other nations and other people that instill us with a real fear, a genuine concern, for the moral foundations and continuing good will of the human race.

Religion acts as a receiver, transmitter, and amplifier of good will. A church, synagogue, or mosque is a place for friends, families, and neighbors to strengthen communal bonds. Any peaceful, ammicable gathering of people instills in an attendee a sense of security that comes from knowing your neighbor and belonging to a group. Religion has civilized the world by removing a natural and irrational fear of outsiders. And it seems to me that one of the keys to good mental health is having a semi-active social life. It rids dispels fear and anxiety, offers an outlet for both negative and positive emotions, and helps solidify our own sense of self, our own identity.

So when we think of what it means to be a happy healthy member of society, we can see how religious organizations might help foster those traits. And we can understand that for good will to spread quickly and efficiently throughout a society, people must gather and interact. And finally, when we try to think of what life must have been like before televisions, telephones, telegraphs, or printing presses, we can also understand how religious gatherings were an even more effective civilizing force.

To say that things have changed in the last few hundred years would be the most obvious statement. Modern technology, industrialization, governmental reforms, and population growth have transformed social dynamics. As is often mentioned, we (individuals, family, community, and strangers) are both closer together and farther apart than ever before. With cell phones and the Net, this paradox will only strengthen. No one really knows what this means for religion. As society becomes more and more tied together through technology (atleast superficially so), will more scrutiny be placed on the founding claims of religion? Without an emotional need compelling members to attend church services, religion will have to defend its continued existence in purely logical terms, arguing for the "truth" that serves as the basis for its authority and influence in society. And a church without its members, without its social bonds, is a naked church, completely vulnerable to reason and unlikely to survive reason's assault.

Its an interesting thought, though a little off topic.

I had a few ideas I wanted to share on the natural selection of relgious belief and how it has led to civilization as we know it, but I think the topic will require more time and thought than I have to devote to it right now. Until next time, bye.

Three good books

2008-07-18T14:35:00.001-07:00

I've been reading three books lately that I'm pretty excited about. They're helping me refocus my attention on something which is at the heart of my favorite subjects, belief and disbelief. That focus is howprecisely, belief systems grow, prosper, or fall away.

I'm reading a book entitled The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan-the Lives and Struggles of Christians Through the Ages-And the Impending Crisis. The book was reprinted in 1998 but the original work was conceived in the late 1800s by E.G. White. So far I've learned of the origins of Christianity as a separate, opposing belief to that of Catholicism. I didn't know until reading the book how many modern, fundamentalists sects view The Church, or why the conflict between the two sides has been around for so long. The author explains that the Catholic Church is a tool-or the domain-of Satan. He describes its origin when Constantine and other Romans adopted Christianity in order to pacify the masses and give limitless authority to the Roman empire. White describes how pagan symbols and rituals were melded with Christian teaching by the rulers of the time. Such bastardizations of the true teachings of Christ are evidence of Satan's role in Catholicism, the author maintains; as stands the blatant disregard popes have had for the commandments of God, like the ban on the use of physical idols and the God-like position the popes have taken in the Church. The book also describes the crimes of the church against nonbelievers and heretics over the ages.

But what is more interesting is how those who rebelled against the power and authority of the Church finally, after centuries of martyrdom, established their own churches. It is the story of modern Christianity-the Christianity that is so abundant in the United States and much of Europe. Its interesting to think that at one time a dominant force had power over men's minds, and that a liberal shift away from a rigid closed system was made towards a more open, free-thinking religious system.

If I can understand how this happened then I can understand how a similar but more complete liberal shift may someday occur. Religious belief, like the pope of old, still retains false authority, and still actively suppresses truth, freedom, and progress. Undoubtedly, modern fundamentalist Christianity has more in common with the old Catholic Church than it does with a truly free society.

A History of Evangelism in the United States by W.L. Muncy, Jr was written in 1945. So far I've been impressed with the fact that Christianity has not always been so popular in the United States. There have been definite periods of religious revival as well as long periods of religious decline. High numbers of conversions can, in large part, be attributed to the work of a small number of talented, charismatic ministers. This demonstrates the power that one man can possess and the power of the ideas which he dispenses. Or, if some of the words spoken are not deserving of the term "idea" do to their lack of meaning, we can use Richard Dawkin's more sparse, basic term, "meme". Perhaps even more evident upon reading of the success of popular evangelists is how easily transferable memes are from impressionable mind to impressionable mind, particularly when those memes are tightly bound to powerful emotions.

Probably the most entertaining book of the three is Freedom's Ferment, Phases of American Social History from the Colonial Period to the Outbreak of the Civil War, written in 1944 by Alice Felt Tyler. By detailing the rise and fall of specific religious, spiritual, and political social organizations, this book demonstrates that almost anyone can convince others of falsehoods or flawed notions. It has happened over and over and over again throughout not just American history, but world history. I cannot understand how this fact does not make any believer profoundly uncomfortable.

I do not believe. I believe.

2008-07-16T22:12:00.000-07:00

I do not believe there is a God because I see no evidence of his existence.
I've seen no real evidence nor heard any compelling argument for the existence of God.
Likewise, I do not believe in Satan, heaven, or hell.

I do not believe sex is wrong before marriage, or with someone of the same sex, or by oneself, or even with multiple people and toys. Sex is good, as is any discussion about it, and any expression of it in popular culture, including pornography.

I do not believe that the consumption of caffeinated or alcoholic beverages is wrong. In fact, like sex, the act of consuming these drinks is one of the few genuine physical pleasures we have to indulge in. One must be fully aware of the dangers and risks involved in any activity, especially those liable to be abused like sex and drugs.

I do not believe that it is a sin to work on the Sabbath, be it Saturday or Sunday.

I do not believe the Bible or any other scripture is the word of God.

I do not believe that it is a sin to make a graven image, worship any god, take the name of the Lord in vain, dishonour your parents, or covet something. However, I do agree that it is wrong to kill, steal, commit adultery, or bear false witness against your neighbor. But I also think it is wrong to kill an innocent animal for a burnt offering, or keep slaves, have concubines, or stone someone to death for working on the sabbath.

I am not offended by oaths or swearing. Nothing anyone could say would qualify as a sin in my mind.

I believe we should treat others as we would like to be treated. If we consider all humans our close kin, completely equal to ourselves, and in the same boat as we are; we will treat them with love and respect, and do whatever we can reasonably do to help them when the need is there.

I believe my life is richer and lived more fully because of this simple, pure morality.

Critique of Religious Scientists' Arguments Continued

2008-06-25T21:36:00.000-07:00

Returning to the project from a few posts ago, let's exam more scientists' reasons for believing in a creator. Bullet points indicate primary claims from each author's essay and my response or counterargument follows in bold.

"Let's look at the facts without Bent or Bias", Edward Kessel

Old proofs are enough to convince a reasonable mind of God's existence. I disagree. Some old proofs are just plain silly. Like, because you can imagine a "perfect" something, god must exist....or something like that.
Science, from the second law of thermodynamics, proves that the universe had a beginning, thus a prime mover, thus a God. Someday in the future, when logical thinking more fully displaces illogical statements driven by ego, we won't have arguments like this. "The universe had a beginning=there was a prime mover=god exists." I can understand how you might assume there was a "prime mover" but it is an enormous leap of faith to conclude that a "prime mover" is anything like us, or even anything like a god.
Science shows that the universe began in an instant. What are the implications of this fact, if it is established as it seems to be? That there is a god who answers our prayers and reveals himself to us in the Bible? I don't think so.
God used his initial laws and matter-his original creation-to keep creating by evolution. I can understand the idea--that God, in the big bang, had it all planned out, all perfectly arranged, so that everything he intended to happen would happen through the natural progression of the physical laws he put in place, so that even evolutionary change is his will; BUT, what evidence supports such a grand hypothesis?
Because mutations aren't always random-mutations tend to reduce organs and characteristics as opposed to heighten-there is an intelligence evident to genetics and evolution. Because there are bad and good mutations, God must exist? I don't get it.
"...to study science with an open mind brings one to the necessity of belief in a God." No, to study science with a religious mindset which is ready to see a god in everything brings naturally causes one to convince himself that god is really in charge, when in fact he's not.

"Applying the Scientific Method", Walter Lundberg

Orderliness and predictability in natural phenomena constitutes a revelation of God in nature. If we were looking for signs of intelligence in outer space, we wouldn't be looking for simple order and predictability. Cycles are everywhere--they are completely expected and 100% unintelligent. Intelligence would make itself apparent by standing out, by doing something different, unusual. Orderliness and predictability=automation.

"Physical Evidence of God", Paul Clarence Aebersold

"...the fact is that man has almost universally recognized a greater all-encompassing intelligence and order in the universe than could possibly be conceived from chance involving inanimate unguided matter. And furthermore, who are we to place a qualitative value on the "intelligence and order in the universe"? One thing we've been slow to accept is that despite all of our unique cognitive abilities, we're still animals with nearly infinitely limited perception and perspective. Primitive people couldn't comprehend how the sun gave life to crops, or how it made them feel better, so they bestowed divinity upon it. Not understanding something or being amazed by the complexity of something does not speak to that something's divinity, it speaks to our continuing simplicity.
No proof can be found-knowledge comes from a molding together of knowledge of the material and the spiritual. Proof in a concrete since is less important than what is readily apparent to our senses or what we've experienced to be true or what has been tested to be found highly probably and supported by evidence. Knowledge may never be 100%, but the important point is that all knowledge is not equally tenuous. Some is extremely reliable.
Since science cannot explain ultimately where everything came from and why, God is the only reasonable answer. This is the worst point yet. At least science admits that it doesn't know when it doesn't know, despite its stringent methodology for determining what it claims. Believers don't have any methodology, just a bold, arrogant claim that provides no real explanation for anything.
"The one thing we all certainly realize is that man and the universe did not spring forth spontaneously from absolutely nothing. They had a beginning, and there was a Beginner." There seems to be some agreement to there being a beginning, but that there was a beginner....well, it just doesn't follow.

Identifying Einsteins 'Creative Force" Marlin Kreider

God exists, but is unprovable, non-physical (author admits) How did the author come to this conclusion?
There are manifold evidences of Gods existence in men and nature at large No, some cherry pick natural characteristics and call them divine because it feels good to do so.
Laws of Nature, Order of Cosmos=God I can understand the temptation to make these anti-logic arguments, but because it sounds good doesn't mean it makes any sense.
Order, according to common human experience, is the result of an orderly mind If you removed all traces of humans from the earth, order would not be so obvious. Rivers meander. Mountain ranges are scattered. Ecosystems are constantly changing over time. Weather is constantly varying from day to day. Extreme order is something we are accustomed to because we live among the buildings and streets of our homes and communities. But order is just another tool we've devised to allow our feeble primate minds and bodies to gain power over our world.
Design and structure of human and animal bodies These bodies have blatant, sometimes devastating imperfections and anomalies. Human fetuses, at some stage in their development, have a tail, lung gill sacs, and fur. Men have nipples. We have skin that burns in the sun. Knees, hips, and backs go out. Our minds fail us in the end. Its sad if you choose to think it is. What can be said for certain is that whatever wonder you find in whatever "design" you see in our bodies, you feel because of yourself, not because of any god hidden in the design.
Can't explain the brain Hundreds if not thousands of scientists would disagree.
We haven't produced life in a laboratory We have produced self replicating molecules, apparently. Give us another billion or two years, I'm sure we can figure it out. Anyway, we've altered life dramatically in the short time since we started using our brains for other things besides foraging, killing, and mating. For a few thousand years, we've unnaturally selected food and animals to make them the way we want them. And now we're genetically engineering food and animals every single day, on a massive scale.
No evidence that genetics iterations could account for life Yeah, and Saddam can't prove that he doesn't have nuclear weapons. Sorry, don't know where that came from.
Actually, I don't know if I get the point. I think there's plenty of evidence.

"Scientific Revelations Point to a God", George Carl Davis

There is no proof for God (author admits) So, believers just choose to believe.
"No material thing can create itself" Fusion.
"The higher the evolutionary development to which a creation leads, the stronger the evidence of a supreme intelligence behind the creation" Who is ranking the "height" of each product of evolution? Who's to say we're god-like compared with other creatures? Genetically speaking, we share 99.8% (or something like that) of our genes with Chimpanzees. Even with less similar creatures, like squirrels, we share something like 90% of our genome.
The "greatest miracle of all": living, intricate, lovely things were formed from the stars It is pretty amazing, isn't it?

"Plain Water Will Tell You the Story", Tomas David Parks

Order and design in water See previous comments on order and design.

"Natures Complexity and God", John William Klotz

Complexity=God, not blind fate
Yucca Moth and flower, commercial fig and small wasps testify to existence of God Actually, they testify to evolution. Creatures that fit their environment best survive.

"The Most Vital Question Confronting Us", Oscar Leo Braver

"Science can establish that a creative art at some time must have taken place, implying the existence of a divine intelligence. Science can also establish that none but a divine intelligence could have been the author of the laws of the universe."
Atheism=strife and war. Atheism is illogical and false. How many wars have been waged because some people didn't believe in Zeus? How many people have starved to death because some people demand evidence and reason before giving themselves over to religious authority?

"Rank Materialism Will Not Do", Irving William Knoblach

Science cannot explain life. Science cannot explain the atom. There are massive scientific projects called particle accelerators that are trying to.
"Science demands faith in the senses, faith in the instrumentation, faith in authority and faith in probability or chance." And religion demands faith in being able to determine hard facts by assigning meaning to our emotions, and by stroking our egos.

"A Personal God, Viewed Scientifically", John Lee Abernethy

Jesus gave evidence that he was the Son of God. I'll have to look that up.

"Footsteps of God in the Plant World", Gerald T. Don Hartog

God reveals himself in the following ways:

Orderliness-Growth of Plants
Complexity-Nothing man has made compared to a plant
Beauty-exceeds that of the greatest genius among men
Inheritance-wheat produces wheat

"Facts from a Forester's Fieldbook", Laurence Cotton Walker

Order-examples from biology, forestry-is evidence of God

"Things a Fruit Rancher's Boy Learned", Walter Lammerts

The Divine Spirit usually works through spreading belief from parent to child This is of course highly offensive to an atheist--the thought that innocent children are being told what is "true" by their religious parents with no consideration for all arguments for all religions and non-religions. Children should never be "Christian children" or "Muslim children".
There is no evidence for 2 of Darwin's most basic assumptions:

The young organisms of each generation continuously tend to vary slightly from their parents in all possible directions
Favorable changes we inherited by the next generation and accentuated until extensive changes are built up

Species do not vary indefinitely
Most mutations are lethal
It is doubtful that mutations can accumulate rapidly enough Individuals or families of animals in a species may have lasting variations that do not bestow a benefit until specific outside changes take place, like increased competition, natural disaster, or invasion from other species. Only a tiny fraction of mutations need be nonlethal to allow big change over billions of years. It is interesting that mutations cannot happen too fast or go too slow...an interesting topic to think about and an interesting question that science, not religion, is equipped to explain.

"Trillions of Living Cells Speak Their Message" Russell Artist

A single simple cell is more intricate and amazing in its form and operation than a watch. What's amazing is that primates were able to make a watch; not that nature, after billions of years of evolution, could produce a cell.
"We are confronted with the formidable, even insuperable, difficulties in trying to account for its beginning, and, for that matter, its continued functioning. Unless we maintain with reasoned logic that an intelligence, a mind, brought it into existence." Trial and error; the survival of what works, the death of what doesn't; procreation for the healthiest and most attractive, a lonely life for the flawed designs; bursting populations in constant stress producing an environment that is highly favorable to any tiny improvement....these are natural insights into an automatic, mind-free reality.
All attempts to make a living thing from non-living material have failed
It is easier to believe that an intelligence brought about life instead of "accidental concourse." No, it is a simple leap of faith that only puts a larger burden of explanation on our shoulders if we answer "God" in response to the question how life came about. Who made God? How can God operate above natural law? Wouldn't God have to be more complex and require more explaining than a more simple natural view of the universe?
Inferring from complexity of cells that an intelligence, God exists, present a "justifiable inference." No it doesn't

"The Reasonableness of Theism" George Herbert Blount

"Order cannot originate from nothing, spontaneously" Order originates from previous order and underlying laws of nature.
"Order=a Planner" is an axiom of a thinking man No, thinking men do not hold many axioms, especially not that one.
(The author sums up an atheists argument quite well:)
"...the cosmological argument is countered with the possibility that matter and energy are in unending exchange, and that therefore reality, as we know it, has had no beginning. The orderliness of nature is considered as high quality mental fiction. Little evidence is seen for a standard of justice, and all aspects of nature are considered amoral."
"The atheists view requires considerably more faith than the theists view." An atheist may not make any assumptions at all, a believer must.
If you haven't seen the evidence of God, maybe you haven't looked. It all depends upon interpretation. An amateur video of Big Foot walking by may seem like good evidence to many people that Big Foot does in fact exist. Believers don't have anything as concrete to support their claim that God exists.
(The author believes in God because he claims to have encountered God. In other words, you believe in God when you've met him.) No one should claim to have received personal revelation that God exists unless they in fact did. Simply feeling a "presence" in church or elsewhere doesn't cut it. Having an epiphany doesn't either. Even hearing a voice doesn't count as proof that God exists and is talking to you.

"Geological Directives" Donald Robert Carr

It is a case of "the spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit" (Romans 8:16) There are so many ways we can feel inspired, uplifted, joyful, relieved, contented, etc...how does one tell the difference between natural emotional response to wonderful ideas and the influences of the holy spirit?
(The author was motivated by a powerful sense of need in his belief in God) This is common among believers, this need to believe. Its a psychological issue to be explained by that particular branch of science.
Signs of god-a beginning, uniformitarianism (geologically)
"In a universe which had no beginning, but had always existed, no radioactive elements would remain." I don't know enough about physics and radiation in general to respond to this.
"The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork."

"Genesis I in the light of Modern Astronomy", Peter W. Stoner

"...There is not one single item in this Genesis chapter that disagrees with science as we know it today." Which is no argument for its validity. The implication, however, that God did things by simply saying them, and those things were done instantaneously, and the whole thing was accomplished in days-science disagrees with this entirely.

"The Great Designer" Claud M. Hathaway

Believe based on experiences-knowing him inwardly The human psyche alone is not to be trusted to legitimize enormous claims about the nature of reality.
"I have found that God, the personal Christian God, is the only concept which perfectly fits the peculiar contours of the human soul." The more I experience about myself and other human beings, the more our behavior fits with the explanation for our existence and our behavior provided by Darwin and subsequent evolutionists. Anger has a purpose. Love has a purpose. Sadness has a purpose. The emotions that define us were once tantamount for our survival. They still are, but ways of life have changed since primitive times and we are left with the same emotional programming as our ancestors. We are better equipped to deal with those emotions now that we have the true explanation for them.
"Design Requires a Designer" Where does design end and design begin? A beaver designed a dam-must we glorify the beaver? Intelligence is a recent phenomenon. It is the result of evolution. Design is a product of intelligence; therefore, its an even more recent occurance. Who knows exactly how the framework for self-replicating molecules first came into being. How did the coding begin or where did it originate from? These are legitimate questions that science has already made a great deal of progress with.
"The more complex the order, the more remote the possibility of chance"
Nature is unable to order itself Read books on evolution.
God must be supernatural-a supernatural first cause

"Scholarly Witnesses and a Few Observations" Marlin Grant Smith

God=Sovereign
"We as human beings and the world around us are an aggreagate of effects, and under and behind that aggregate of effects lies the invisible, primordial Cause, which I call God."
Laws=God Sun=God; Mt Olympus=God; Jesus=God. You can't make such simple baseless claims. Besides, if the laws of physics=God, doesn't this mean he is a very impersonal, powerless God, in the sense that he is limited by his own laws? As Steven Hawkings pointed out, that if God was present at the big bang, he essentially robbed himself of all power by unleashing these natural laws that rule to this day.
Testimony of millions of men, simple and learned, through the ages=god. There are a lot of reasons why good, educated people believed in god. Primarily the fault is embedded in false logic of the kind we see used here by the scientists, as well as the culture, institutions, and limited science available to great men of the past.

"A Look Behind the 'Natural Laws'" Edwin Fast

Complexity and laws=God

"Chemical Laws and God", John Adolph Buehler

(interesting, supports atheists' arguments:) "The reason chemistry seems to obey the laws we have discovered is because we are really dealing with a statistical science. At the base of our physio-chemical laws is apparant dissorder and chaos, but because of the vast numbers with which we work the statistical laws are applicable and exact laws result. Thus, out of chaos comes harmony."
"Only by postulating a directional force with a purposeful end can we account for the harmony and order which have come from chaos." Interesting idea, but again, what is harmony, order, and chaos, and in what degree/proportion do these exist? And what exactly is this chaos underlying everything? It seems to me the author is painting a picture of reality to suit his view points on God.
Design, order, harmony=Supreme Intelligence.
Water cycle, carbond dioxide cycle, ammonia cycle, oxygen cycle=evidence of God

"Science Undergirded My Faith" Albert McCombs Winchester

"Naturalism Must Bow to Theism" Olin Carroll Karkalits

Theism provides better more complete answers and fewer unanswered questions. Wow, that is a completely ridiculous claim.
"...There are 'internal' objects of reality within man himself." Inner perception, cognition, experience, feeling, awareness, abstract thought, trancend time and space limitations with imagination, reason, memory, volition and desire, a sense of right and wrong, feelings of obligation, courage, devotion, bravery, loyalty, faithfulness, friendship, love
These are all descriptions fo Man's Nature-his "inner reality". Men used to romanticize certain characteristics and ways of behaving by envisioning them (and themselves) as divine. But you could take any one of these, like faithfulness, and argue that it is by no means obvious that it's influence on human behavior is cut and dry or definitive in any particular sense. Faithfulness, for example, seems to be the norm for some, especially for the first couple of years of a relationship or through the raising of children, but many many others do not continue being faithful with one person several years down the line. Natural science explains these nuances, not religion. Religion only states that it is wrong to be unfaithful, thus imbiding those who no longer feel any affection towards their mates with guilt, and sentencing them to spend the rest of their lives in unloving , unsatisfying relationships.

"God-Alpha and Omega" Edmund Carl Kornfeld

"Edwin Conklin said, 'the probability of life originiating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop'." Life as we tend to think of it (like a turtle or something) did not spring to life suddenly, out of the blue. That is actually how creationists think it happened. Life evolved from simpler life forms through trial and error--through the death of countless unsuccessful mutated individuals, a mutation here and a mutation there offered some sort of advantage over the norm, which allowed it to survive dramatic changes in its environment, or which allowed it to procreate more successfully, while the old way became extinct, faded away, or persisted unchanged. Life as we know it has been selected like this, bit by bit, over billions of years. No explosion went off to create life.
Complexity and order disprove chance
Christian Faith is not irrational, its superrational. Very funny.
Faith must proceed reason.

"The Universe Under Central Control" Earl Chester Rex

Design, Law, indicate a unity of purpose and god.

"The Validity of Religion" Malcolm Duncan Winter, Jr.

"facts fo the Bible have been confirmed by history-archeological findings to an amazing degree." Are there archeological facts that proof Jesus or his disciples were not deluded? Of course not. What is needed is not archeology, its psychology.
The question of whether God exists can only be answered through a step of spiritual faith, taken after inductive reasoning leads one to conclude that a personal God should exist. God gives us a personal assurance of the validity of his existence is unshakeable.
Faith is a basis for belief

"Wonders of the Soil" Dale Swartzendruber

Network of design in soil leads one to think of a great designer.
to deny a designer is as illogical as to deny a farmer when observing a beautiful field of grain. Were there not beautiful fields of grain before farmers came along? Does a bird trainer need to be present or nearbye whenever one observes a flock of geese? Its a pompous idea to think that things can't be the way they are without something like us--with a mind like ours (a simple mind actually that fixates on "design" because a lack of it is too hard to deal with).

"Soils, Plants, and a 4000 Year-Old Explanation" Zimmerman

There is a force in a seed, containing all codes to generate a full-grown plant/fruit. How? "Who" set in motion the laws of genetics and growth?" Genetic scientists are looking into that.
God is an answer to a mysterious universe. "God" is no answer but an ancient, outdated, and cowardly one.

"Man himself as evidence" Robert Horton Cameron

Thought itself proves the existence of God.
Thought is more than a system automatic-it is reasoning, judgement, appreciation of beauty, enjoyment of symphony, a sense of humor.
Emotion=evidence of creators wisdom
moral judgement, human will=evidence
God gives new outlook, new motives, new joys and sorrows to those who find him All of this is a lame attempt to inscribe divinity into human nature. There's no excuse for this. An squirrel, if it could talk, might argue that its puffy tail is evidence that squirrels are children of a god.

"Laboratory Lessons" Elmer W. Maurer

Nothing in natural science, in chemistry, conflicts with the Bible Its difficult for something that is nonsense, or devoid of meaning, to conflict with anything.

"Concord Between Science and Faith" WAyne U. Ault

Faith is how one believes, but is supported by "first cause" and possibly "continouse motivating cause."
Most have faith in the speed of light, though rarely tested. No one has seen a proton or electron, but see their effects. Much knowledge of universe must be accepted by faith. The catch here is the term "rarely tested". Even if claims about our universe were in fact rarely tested, at least they are tested in some way. The same cannot be said about the existence of God. And even if such claims were not tested at all, there is an enormous difference between saying that light is made of a photons that travel at a certain speed than saying that there is an omnipotent, omniscient God. The larger the claim, the greater the burden of proof. And no claim can be greater, more outlandish, than the claim that there is a God.
Bible reveals God, and man's relation to God. Man must worship, love, and obey a God that shows absolutely no sign of existing, let alone affecting positive change in individuals' lives. The Bible itself is rife with contradictions, literalism and symbolism, to-the-point commandments, poems, vague meaning, and so on. If God chose to reveal himself to man in this way, we'd have to conclude that he's a little off his rocker.
Thousands of "rational, reputable, and well-adjusted men have attested to a conscious personal relationship to God and the power of prayer." Rational, reputable, and well-adjusted men have sworn allegiance to the Third Reich. Doesn't mean we should do the same.

"God in Medical Practice" Paul Ernest Adolph

Hope has definite medical results. 80 percent of all illness encountered in general practice have a predominately physchic causation. 40 percent demonstrate no organic causation at all. Causes of nervous diseases are guilt, resentment, fear, anxiety, frustration, indecision, doubt, jealously, selfishness, and boredom.
"The human body finds harmonious function when it is in tune with its maker." The human body finds harmonious function when it feels secure, and fully embracing a religion that promises eternal life and glory for good works has got to feel pretty nice.

"Of Flowers and the Baltimore Oriole" Cecil Boyce Hamann
God is a more logical explanation to design, law, and order than instinct, genetics, or evolution. Cecil Hamann ought to read The Selfish Gene.

A Challenge

2008-06-23T21:20:00.000-07:00

A couple of AMAZING books I've read lately: Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, by Carl Sagan; and Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris.

I cannot fathom how someone could read these books (especially the latter) and continue to believe in the god of the Bible. Its a little startling to think about. The reason, the common sense, the insight, foresight, and overall scope of these books cuts through the nonsense of traditional religious belief, as well as the typical religious narrowmindedness, like a knife.

If someone walked up to you and said a single book would cause you to seriously question or completely abandon your faith in the god of the Bible, would you read that book?

I'm a big fan of this sort of awakening. Some of my earliest thoughts of any sort of philosophical nature had to do Nazi Germany. How could an entire nation allow the Hollocaust to take place? The question wasn't just an emotional reaction to the horrors of the hollocaust. It was an attempt to understand how millions of people could share a set of beliefs so morrally abhorrent and patently flawed. Only one thing was absolutely certain-that so many people could be so wrong.

If only the minds of Germans weren't so fully captive to Hitler and German nationalist propaganda. If only someone could break through the mental and emotional chains that enslaved Germans during those years. If only myths were dispelled, false idols destroyed, propaganda seen for what it was. If only the people could be set free.

Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation has the power to clear the fog of religious belief, and explain in detail what precisely is wrong with continuing to ally yourself with and support the various religions of the day. This is the most important point that becomes very clear when you read the book. The problem is not just religious fundamentalism, it is the ordinary religious belief of ordinary people that continues to allow immense suffering in the world and provides shelter/justification for further dangerous developements of a more fundamental kind.

Here's a great quote from the book:

"Religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are not--that is, when they have nothing to do with suffering or its alleviation. Indeed, religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are highly immoral--that is, when pressing these concerns inflicts unnecessary and appalling suffering on innocent human beings. This explains why Christians like yourself expend more "moral" energy opposing abortion that fighting genocide. It explains why you are more concerned about human embryos than about the lifesaving promise of stem-cell research. And it explains why you can preach against condom use in sub-Saharan Africa while millions die from Aids here each year.
You believe that your religious concerns about sex, in all their tiresome immensity, have something to do with morality. And yet, your efforts to constrain the sexual behavior of consenting adults--and even to discourage your own sons and daughters from having premarital sex--are almost never geared toward the relief of human suffering. In fact, relieving suffering seems to rank rather low on your list of priorities. Your principle concern appears to be that the creator of the universe will take offense at something people do while naked. This prudery of yours contributes daily to the surplus of huma misery"

The book is only 113 pages and costs $11 at your local book store. My challenge is the same one religious leaders pose to nonbelievers: Read this book completely and see if you come away unchanged.

Arguments for the Existence of God Ridiculed

2008-06-20T13:35:00.000-07:00

Months and months ago, before my connection to the net inexplicably went away and before I finally wrought a means to return, I wrote a blog entitled "The Deconstruction of 'Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe' by J. C. Monsma". In the blog, I summarized the "scientific" arguments for belief in god as presented by 40 accomplished men of science. I intended to scrutinize these arguments and the inherent logic utilized by these men to justify their continued belief in a creator. Now, almost a year later, I return to my mission.

"The Origin of the World-By Chance or Design?" by Frank Allen

The origin of the Universe has occured in time; therefore, the universe must have been created. "The universe must have been created" implies a being doing the creating, which I believe does not follow from the simple observation that the universe exists in time. The universe may have come into being, but how? Or the universe may have always existed. Or it may have existed forever in cycles of "boom" and "crunch". We're still not certain.
"The great first cause, an eternal, all-knowing and all all-powerful creator must exist, and the universe is his handiwork." More unjustified conclusions picked from thin air. A "great first cause" does not equal "an eternal, all-knowing and all-powerful creator". This is an example of anti-logic, kinda like 2+2=5.
"The adjustment of the earth for life are far too numerous to be accounted for by chance." The adjustments of the earth are presently acting in accordance with natural laws, not supernatural, outside interference. This is the way its always been. Science seeks to open up the big picture, to show how it all happened, not to resign in ignorance, which is what "too numerous" and "chance" implies--that things cannot be explained or understood naturally (as though we are incapable). This intellectual resignation or cowardice is still not justfication for making the anti-logic leap that God is an explanation.
Design seen in earth as a sphere, rotating on an axis around the sun. Inclination of the Earth. Gasses of the atmosphere ideal for life. Density of atmosphere protects the Earth from meteor impacts. Rain. Properties of water. Soil. -All too convenient for life. All pointing to design, not "chance". The universe is unimaginably vast. Perhaps every exploded star and nebula contains the essential ingredients for creating life. Perhaps most nebulae fall under the same basic laws of physics, ultimately causing their vast clouds of dust and debri to circle and coalesce in much the same way, with much the same order that formed our galaxy. Perhaps we are not unique--we're the necessary and expected result of physical laws acting upon the universe. Who are we to claim that anything about our world is "too convenient" when it is entirely possible that billions or trillions of other earth-like planets may exist in the unverse. We simply do not know. No judgement can be drawn about our own uniqueness.
Distance of earth from sun, size of earth, make life possible. Good observation. But in the universe we may be like creatures living at the bottom of the sea. We may not yet comprehend that life exists in so many other forms in so many other radical, "extreme" environments. Life may not be exclusive to a planet with Earth's exact dimensions in its exact relation to its sun.
The odds of a protein molecule randomly coming together are such that its essentially impossible, according to Swiss Mathematician Charles Eugene Guye. Life did not come together to form a protein molecule or a creature in one big, random step. If it did, then yes, maybe it would be a mathematical impossibility. Rather, there was a process that explains the existence of all life (evolution/natural selection) save for the first and most simple forms of replicating DNA. And there are enough hypothesis out there to explain how life first came into being on this planet that an intellectually honest person will not resort to answering "God" when faced with a yet unresolved scientific issue.

"A Conclusive Test" by Robert Morris Page

"The historical appearance of the Christ as prophesized, with the fulfillment of the many things that were prophesized, a fulfillment that is so firmly established historically as to be doubted by those with little knowledge, has authenticated not only the prophecies concerning Him, but also the validity of His teachings." I may need to go back an review these amazing "prophecies", but from what I can recall, its all pretty laughable really, to take the vague prophecies of the bible and claim that only Jesus could possibly fulfill them. Especially when it is apparent to Bible scholars that Jesus did not consider himself the son of god and Mary was not referred to as a virgin until John came along and revised the story a little.
"For those who study God and the relationship that one should have with him, and wholeheartedly sets out to fulfill the conditions, there will be such overwhelming influence in the person's life that there can be no room for doubt-God becomes an intimate personal reality of such nearness and such magnitude that faith grows to the proportions of positive knowledge." I don't doubt that we possess deep emotion (spirituality) and the ability to enhance that emotion over time. And its no surprise that those who mentally and emotionally fixate on an imaginary father in heaven will come away feeling very close to that being.

"The Lesson of the Rosebush", by Merrik Stanley Congdon

By analogy to our own intelligent agency in a world fraught with rational values, we must accept the implications of similar rational activity and intelligent control involved in..." the bell curve, the water cycle, the CO2 cycle, reproduction, photosynthesis, etc. We are a mirror of the universe, the universe is not a mirror of us. We see orders and patterns because our existence is dependent upon and derived from those orders and patterns.
"How could they operate rationally throughout Nature without the sustaining intelligence of a rational creator who works in and through their creation?" What is "rationality throughout nature"? Mere existence? What would qualify as irrationality in nature? Well, there are plenty of examples. Wales with hind legs under their skin. Human embryos that all, at some point, possess gill sacks, tails, and fur. Cancer. A meteorite. If one were to put a face on, and capitalize the first letter of Nature, then one would also be forced to conclude that Nature is a heartless bitch who cares not for the suffering of creatures and revels in the countless deaths off individuals and species that do not submit to her will. I choose not to personlize or deify nature in this way so I can keep my sunny demeanor (and to be intellectually honest).
One cannot "disprove the existence of intelligent activities of an unconditioned, personal God." One cannot disprove the existence of the Great Spagetti Monster in the sky.

"The inescapable Conclusion", by John Cleveland Cothran

"...the behavior of even insensible matter is not at all haphazard, but on the contrary, 'obeys' definite "natural laws." The fact that we have enough mental faculty to perceive order in our world does not justify once again personifying natural phenomena. Slavery may be an unfortunate part of human history, and it while it still exists in explicit or subtle forms (religious worship), our experiences do not mean we can say that anying "obeys" anything else--as though there were a conscious command and a conscious submission involved when water melted into ice. That is absurd. The rule is a lack of conscious reaction--it is an automatic, depersonalized state.
Periodic Law, not Periodic Chance We don't understand how natural laws came about if it ever had a beginning. I'd add, however, that it is not as though we have a 10 commandments of Physics. Physics is far more complicated, far more expansive than what can be understood by a few basic observations (water boils at 100C-but even that is not fixed. It depends upon atmospheric pressure, the purity of h20, and so on)
"Consider the 102 known chemical elements and their amazing diversities and similarities." Ok, I will.
"The materical universe is unquestionably one of system and order, not chaos; of laws, not chance and haphazards." That doesn't make God the manager of an assembly line. Again, because we are able to perceive the workings of a fraction of the universe doesn't mean the order we see there was created and is being ruled by a super being. If you were to assume that complexity and order (the universe) must arise from complexity (god), you'd still be making an ass of yourself for assuming, and you couldn't make any definite conclusions about the nature of the entity that did the creating/planning. It could in fact be a big ol' monster made of spagetti.
Matter did not create itself. A creative agent must have existed. The agent had to have a mind. But mind must have a will to act. Only a person has a will. This is a good one. "Only a person has a will"? Tell that to the beaver constructing a dam or the hungry lion. If we look at our fellow creatures, we see them doing things that are necessary for their survival. By an large, the story of our existence has been defined by the same. Only the situations, the environments, are different. "Matter did not create itself". Yeah, nuclear fusion did, actually. Until it is shown that God is molding clay into human beings at the center of the sun, I'm not buying the notion that "A creative agent...had to have a mind".

"The Answers to the Unanswered Questions", Donald Porter

"...as a scientist I derive satisfaction only by placing God in the leading role." As a bike salesman I derive satisfaction only by placing Lance Armstrong in the leading role.

More to come....

According to the Bible....

2007-08-21T15:16:00.000-07:00

According to the Bible, in the book of Numbers...

God made Moses perform a census of his own people. Apparently, God cared enough to count the children of Israel, but he could not-or would not- do it himself; and the job still wasn't quite important enough to him to count each and every individual, because the final tallies are rounded off to the nearest tenth or hundredth.

God commanded that any "outsider" who came near the tabernacle should be put to death. (Num. 1:51)

God tasked the sons of Kohath with the job of carrying the "sanctuary" and all of its furnishings whenever the Israelites moved their settlement. It was a tricky job. If any of them saw or touched any holy thing (which includes just about everything in the tabernacle), they would die.

If a man suspects his wife of cheating on him, she can be presented before a priest who will prepare a special curse for her. If she is innocent of the charge of adultery, the cursed potion will have no affect. If she is guilty, "her belly will swell, her thigh will rot, and the woman will become a curse among her people." This is "the law of jealousy". (Num, Chptr 5)

If one does not bring an offering to the Lord on passover, he shall be cut off from among his people.

God does not trust Moses to work out the logistics of warfare. God tells Moses how he ought to indicate to his different camps when they must move out (blow the horns once for the eastern camp, blow them twice for the western camp...that sort of thing). Also, God micromanages the duties of carrying each individual part of the tabernacle.

God became a little angry when the Israelites complained about being hungry. He burnt some of them to death on the outskirts of the settlement. (Numb 11:1)

When folks were so hungry they wept, God became angry, but promised to provide more meat than they could eat for a month. There was a catch, however. He sent quail to the camp and people had to scurry around to trap them. After the quail were caught and eaten, God cursed the people with a plague. That's what they get for complaining....

Because Aaron and others spoke against Moses, the Lord became angry and turned Miriam (not Aaron, mind you) into a leper. Moses begged God to heal her. God agreed to, but only after she suffered for seven days. The Lord said that he "spit in her face". (Numb 12:8+)

Apparently, God could not or would not provide Moses with information regarding their enemies. He had Moses pick some of his best men to spy on the Canaanites. Their duty was to find out what the land and people of Canaan were like. Was the land forested? Were the people strong or weak? Important information like that...

When the Israelites rebelled against Moses and sought out a leader who would take them back to Egypt, God became so angry he nearly wiped them all out in one stroke. Moses barely convinced God to stay his hand. Still, the Lord swore to kill all the Israelites who "complained against" him. He took back his promise of delivering them to a promised land flowing with milk and honey. He extended that promise only to the children of Caleb and Joshua.

The aforementioned rebellion occurred when the spies came back and told everyone of the wealth and power of their Canaanite opponents. Evidently, the spies told the truth, but since the truth demoralized the people and caused them to rebel, the spies were killed by god.

God commanded the congregation to stone to death a man who was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath. (Num 15:36)

God caused the ground to open up and swallow a group of men who challenged Moses's authority. He then killed 250 people who were with them.

God immediately sent a plague among the people, killing 14,700, after they charged Moses with killing holy people (those who were swallowed up by the earth).

When the people complained about not having water, he had Moses strike a rock with his staff, causing abundant water to flow out of it. But with God things are not always so easy. He accused Moses and Aaron of not believing that he could make water come from the rock. As punishment, he denies the people access to the land. (Num 20)

And, at "the waters of Meribah", God thought that Aaron had "rebelled against My word", so he sent Aaron away back to his people in the mountains, where he died.

God caused the Israelites to utterly destroy Canaanite cities.

Again, the Israelites complained about their suffering-their wandering in the desert-so God sent fiery serpents among the people. Many were killed. God then provided Moses with a miraculous antidote-a bronze statue of a serpent that when looked upon by those bitten, would allow them to live.

This is the Bible, Continued

2007-08-13T19:04:00.000-07:00

If you thought Genesis and Exodus were strange, get a load of Leviticus:

The god of the the Bible does not ask for mere allegiance and honor from his followers. There are extremely complex procedures which God expects to be followed when anyone wants their sins atoned, or wishes to worship god with a sacrifice/offering.

For example, when one sins against God, one must bring a 1) male bovine 2) without blemish to 3) the front door of the tabernacle for sacrifice. 4) It must be offered of the owners own free will. The sacrifice must begin by 5) placing a hand on the animals head before 6) killing it (surely, by cutting its throat). The animals blood 7) must be sprinkled 8) by the door. Next, it 8) is to be skinned and 9) cut into pieces. The priest would then 10) lay the pieces on the fire, being sure to 11) arrange the head and fat in order on the fire alter. The legs and entrails 12) are to be washed with wather before the sacrifice 13) burnt.

This is just one of dozens of ceremonies with hundreds of specific requirements spelled out in the book of Leviticus. If you're really really bored, go ahead and read the rest of Leviticus for yourself. The Bible's focus on the minutia of sacrifice, "law & justice", and "medicine" is indicative of a God with all kinds of unhealthy psychological issues.

Leviticus Chapter 5
You have sinned if you:

Do not tell on a person who utters an oath...?
Unknowingly touch an unclean thing/carcass
After unknowingly touching "human uncleanelyness", you realize you did...?
As soon as you realize that you spoke an oath or swore.
Lie to a neighbor about a pledge or a robbery.
Lie about something that was lost.
Eat blood. It must be poored out and covered with dust if the animal is caught during hunting.
Get a tatoo
Are a psychic/medium

You shall be cut off from your people if you:

eat of a sacrifice/peace offering
touch any unclean thing
eat the fat of a sacrificial animal
kill an animal away from the tabernacle door (levit 17)
have homosexual or animal sex
uncover the nakedness of a relative
have sex with a woman during her period

These are things the God's chosen people CAN eat:

Animals with cloven feet that chew cud
Animals that live in water and have scales and fins
Locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers

These are things that God's chosen people CAN'T eat:

The fat of oxen, sheep, goats, or animal that dies naturally
Camel, Rock Hyrax, Hare, Pig
Animals that live in water but do not have scales or fins
Eagles, Vultures, Buzzards, Kites, Falcons, Raven, Ostrich, Owl, Seagull, Hawk, Stork, Heron, Hoopoe, and Bat
All flying insects with 4 feet without jointed legs to leap
"Whatever goes on its paws on all fours."
Mole, Mouse, Large Lizards, Gecko, Chameleon
What creeps on the earth on its belly or on all fours

Women are "unclean" for 7 days after giving birth to a boy-14 days if its a female. She must give a burnt offering at the end of her unclean period.

Leviticus 10
God caused Aaron's (one of his chosen servants, next to Moses) 2 sons to burn to death for the crime of creating a "profane fire"...?

Leviticus 15:19
A woman is "unclean" during her period and for 7 days afterwards. During this time she must be set apart from others and cannot touch anything or else she makes it "unclean" as well. A sacrifice must be offered to a priest at the end of this time.

God commands that anyone who "gives any of his descendents to Molech" shall be stoned.
Those who do not stone this person shall be cut off.

It is not as bad to have sex with a man's concubine as it is to have sex with his wife.

Adulturers "shall surely be put to death".

Those who have sex with animals will be put to death, as will the animal.

Those who have sex with their father's wife shall be put to death.

If one marries both a woman and her mother, he (or all) shall be burnt to death.\

If one is a medium, has spirits, then that person shall be stoned to death.

A priest may not marry a defiled or divorced woman-only a virgin.

The daughter of a priest who "plays a harlot" shall be burnt with fire.

"Defective" people may not make a blood offering.

Those who blaspheme the name of the lord, even strangers, will be stoned.

God will fuck you up royally if you disobey and continue to disobey (levit chpt 26).

The Deconstruction of "Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe" by, J. C. Monsma

2007-07-24T08:52:00.000-07:00

Dear reader, in a few moments you will have stopped wondering which direction to bow whenever the urge to glorify, serve, or sacrifice fills you. While The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe provided by forty of America's top scientists may leave the debate open to dimmer stars, I have seen the answer like a beacon in the night. Towards the east, to Mecca I will pray, the Prophet Muhammad's example showing me the way.

Ok, seriously, you will want to continue reading even after you've realized I was being sarcastic about following Muhammad (yikes, better watch my neck!). I like to think that despite my joking, sarcasm, ridicule, mocking, and lambasting, one can sense that I really do care about religion and that I don't take the subject lightly at all. If I don't subsrcibe to any religion and instead align myself with a camp which finds religion not only offensive but oppressive, I'd hope that what I write would not immediately give away that position. And, for my own sake, I'd hope that I'm never so confident or so afraid as to stop considering the other side's best arguments.

These are reasons why I give you The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe. The book was put together in 1958 by schooled minister and writer John Clover Monsma. It's exactly the sort of book I've been looking for for years. In it, the writers (who are all scientists with Masters or Doctorates) express their belief in a personal God, the Christian God of the Bible, and present reasons for that belief. Some scientists claim their reasons are in fact evidence which in turn is tantamount to proof of God's existence, while most contributors admit that their reasons and the so-called evidence merely lend support to a strong personal faith which serves as the ultimate foundation for their belief.

We will start with the first article:

"The Origin of the World-By Chance or Design?" by Frank Allen

The origin of the Universe has occured in time; therefore, the universe must have been created.
"The great first cause, an eternal, all-knowing and all all-powerful creator must exist, and the universe is his handiwork."
"The adjustment of the earth for life are far too numerous to be accounted for by chance."
Design seen in earth as a sphere, rotating on an axis around the sun. Inclination of the Earth. Gasses of the atmosphere ideal for life. Density of atmosphere protects the Earth from meteor impacts. Rain. Properties of water. Soil. -All too convenient for life. All pointing to design, not "chance".
Distance of earth from sun, size of earth, make life possible.
The odds of a proteing molecule randomely coming together are such that its essentially impossible, according to Swiss Mathematician Charles Eugene Guye.

"A Conclusive Test" by Robert Morris Page

"The historical appearance of the Christ as prophesized, with the fulfillment of the many things that were prophesized, a fulfillment that is so firmly established historically as to be doubted by those with little knowledge, has authenticated not only the prophecies concerning Him, but also the validity of His teachings."
"For those who study God and the relationship that one should have with him, and wholeheartedly sets out to fulfill the conditions, there will be such overwhelming influence in the person's life that there can be no room for doubt-God becomes an intimate personal reality of such nearness and such magnitude that faith grows to the proportions of positive knowledge."

"The Lesson of the Rosebush", by Merrik Stanley Congdon

By analogy to our own intelligent agency in a world fraught with rational values, we must accept the implications of similar rational activity and intelligent control involved in..." the bell curve, the water cycle, the CO2 cycle, reproduction, photosynthesis, etc.
"How could they operate rationally throughout Nature without the sustaining intelligence of a rational creator who works in and through their creation?"
One cannot "disprove the existence of intelligent activities of an unconditioned, personal God."

"The inescapable Conclusion", by John Cleveland Cothran

"...the behavior of even insensible matter is not at all haphazard, but on the contrary, 'obeys' definite "natural laws."
Periodic Law, not Periodic Chance
"Consider the 102 known chemical elements and their amazing diversities and similarities."
"The materical universe is unquestionably one of system and order, not chaos; of laws, not chance and haphazards."
Matter did not create itself. A creative agent must have existed. The agent had to have a mind. But mind must have a will to act. Only a person has a will.

"The Answers to the Unanswered Questions", Donald Porter

"...as a scientist I derive satisfaction only by placing God in the leading role."

"Let's look at the facts without Bent or Bias", Edward Kessel

Old proofs are enough to convince a reasonable mind of God's existence.
Science, from the second law of thermodynamics, proves that the universe had a beginning, thus a prime mover, thus a God.
Science shows that the universe began in an instant.
God used his initial laws and matter-his original creation-to keep creating by evolution.
Because mutations aren't always random-mutations tend to reduce organs and characteristics as opposed to heighten-there is an intelligence evident to genetics and evolution.
"...to study science with an open mind brings one to the necessity of belief in a God."

"Applying the Scientific Method", Walter Lundberg

Orderliness and predictability in natural phenomena constitutes a revelation of God in nature.

"Physical Evidence of God", Paul Clarence Aebersold

"...the fact is that man has almost universally recognized a greater all-encompassing intelligence and order in the universe than could possibly be conceived from chance involving inanimate unguided matter.
No proof can be found-knowleddge comes from a molding together of knowledge of the material and the spiritual.
Since science cannot explain ultimately where everything came from and why, God is the only reasonable answer.
"The one thing we all certainly realize is that man and the universe did not spring forth spontaneously from absolutely nothing. They had a beginning, and there was a Beginner."

Identifying Einsteins 'Creative Force" Marlin Kreider

God exists, but is unprovable, non-physical (author admits)
There are manifold evidences of Gods existence in men and nature at large
Laws of Nature, Order of Cosmos=God
Order, according to common human experience, is the result of an orderly mind
Design and structure of human and animal bodies
Can't explain the brain
We haven't produced life in a laboratory
No evidence that genetics atterations could account for life

"Scientific Revelations Point to a God", George Carl Davis

There is no proof for God (author admits)
"No materical thing can create itself"
"The higher the evolutionary development to which a creation leads, the stronger the evidence of a supreme intelligence behind the creation"
The "greatest miracle of all": living, inricate, lovely things were formed from the stars

"Plain Water Will Tell You the Story", Tomas David Parks

Order and design in water

"Natures Complexity and God", John William Klotz

Complexity=God, not blind fate
Yucca Moth and flower, commercial fig and small wasps testify to existence of God

"The Most Vital Question Confronting Us", Oscar Leo Braver

"Science can establish that a creative art at some time must have taken place, implying the existence of a divine intelligence. Science can also establish that none but a divine intelligence could have been the author of the laws of the universe."
Atheism=strife and war. Atheism is illogical and false.

"Rank Materialism Will Not Do", Irving William Knoblach

Science cannot explain life. Science cannot explain the atom.
"Science demands faith in the senses, faith in the instrumentation, faith in authority and faith in probability or chance."

"A Personal God, Viewed Scientifically", John Lee Abernethy

Jesus gave evidence that he was the Son of God.

"Footsteps of God in the Plant World", Gerald T. Don Hartog

God reveals himself in the following ways:

Orderliness-Growth of Plants
Complexity-Nothing man has made compared to a plant
Beauty-exceeds that of the greatest genius among men
Inheritance-wheat produces wheat

"Facts from a Forester's Fieldbook", Laurence Cotton Walker

Order-examples from biology, forestry-is evidence of God

"Things a Fruit Rancher's Boy Learned", Walter Lammerts

The Divine Spirit usually works through spreading belief from parent to child
There is no evidence for 2 of Darwins most basic assumptions:

The young organisms of each generation continously tent to vary slightly from their parents in all possible directions
Favorable changes we inherited by the next generation and accentuated until extensive changes are built up

Species do not vary indefinitely
Most mutations are lethal
It is doubtful that mutations can accumulate rapidly enough

"Trillions of Living Cells Speak Their Message" Russell Artist

A single simple cell is more intricate and amazing in its form and operation than a watch.
"We are confronted with the formidable, even insuperable, difficulties in trying to account for its beginning, and, for that matter, its continued functioning. Unless we maintain with reasoned logic that an intelligence, a mind, brought it into existence."
All attempts to make a living thing from non-living material have failed
It is easier to belief that an intelligence brought about life instead of "accidental concourse."
Infering from complexity of cells that an intelligence, God exists, present a "justifiable inference."

"The Reasonableness of Theism" George Herbert Blount

"Order cannot originate from nothing, spontaneously"
"Order=a Planner" is an axiom of a thinking man
(The author sums up an atheists argument quite well:)
"...the cosmological argument is countered with the possibility that matter and energy are in unending exchange, and that therefore reality, as we know it, has had no beginning. The orderliness of nature is considered as high quality mental fiction. Little evidence is seen for a standard of justice,a nd all aspects of nature are considered amoral."
"The atheists view requires considerably more faith than the theists view."
If you haven't seen the evidence of God, maybe you haven't looked.
(The author believes in God because he claims to have encountered God. In other words, you believe in God when you've met him.)

"Geological Directives" Donald Robert Carr

It is a case of "the spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit" (romans 8:16)
(The author was motivated by a powerful sense of need in his belief in God)
Signs of god-a beginning, uniformitarianism (geologically)
"In a universe which had no beginning, but had always existed, no radioactive elements would remain."
"The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiword."

"Genesis I in the light of Modern Astronomy", Peter W. Stoner

"...There is not one single item in this Genesis chapter that disagrees with science as we know it today."

"The Great Designer" Claud M. Hathaway

Believe based on experiences-knowing him inwardly
"I have found that God, the personal Christian God, is the only concept which perfectly fits the peculiar contours of the human soul."
"Design Requires a Designer"
"The more complex the order, the more remote the possibility of chance"
Nature is unable to order itself
God must be supernatural-a supernatural first cause

"Scholarly Witnesses and a Few Observations" Marlin Grant Smith

God=Sovereign
"We as human beings and the world around us are an aggreagate of effects, and under and behind that aggregate of effects lies the invisible, primordial Cause, which I call God."
Laws=God
Testimony of millions of men, simple and learned, through the ages=god.

"A Look Behind the 'Natural Laws'" Edwin Fast

Complexity and laws=God

"Chemical Laws and God", John Adolph Buehler

(interesting, supports atheists' arguments:) "The reason chemistry seems to obey the laws we have discovered is because we are really dealing with a statistical science. At the base of our physio-chemical laws is apparant dissorder and chaos, but because of the vast numbers with which we work the statistical laws are applicable and exact laws result. Thus, out of chaos comes harmony."
"Only by postulating a directional force with a purposeful end can we account for the harmony and order which have come from chaos."
Design, order, harmony=Supreme Intelligence.
Water cycle, carbond dioxide cycle, ammonia cycle, oxygen cycle=evidence of God

"Science Undergirded My Faith" Albert McCombs Winchester

"Naturalism Must Bow to Theism" Olin Carroll Karkalits

Theism provides better more complete answers and fewer unanswered questions.
"...There are 'internal' objects of reality within man himself." Inner perception, cognition, experience, feeling, awareness, abstract thought, trancend time and space limitations with imagination, reason, memory, volition and desire, a sense of right and wrong, feelings of obligation, courage, devotion, bravery, loyalty, faithfulness, friendship, love
These are all descriptions fo Man's Nature-his "inner reality".

"God-Alpha and Omega" Edmund Carl Kornfeld

"Edwin Conklin said, 'the probability of life originiating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop'."
Complexity and order disprove chance
Christian Faith is not irrational, its superrational.
Faith must proceed reason.

"The Universe Under Central Control" Earl Chester Rex

Design, Law, indicate a unity of purpose and god.

"The Validity of Religion" Malcolm Duncan Winter, Jr.

"facts fo the Bible have been confirmed by history-archeological findings to an amazing degree."
The question of whether God exists can only be answered through a step of spiritual faith, taken after inductive reasoning leads one to conclude that a personal God should exist. God gives us a personal assurance of the validity of his existence is unshakeable.
Faith is a basis for belief

"Wonders of the Soil" Dale Swartzendruber

Network of design in soil leads one to think of a great designer.
to deny a designer is as illogical as to deny a farmer when observing a beautiful field of grain.

"Soils, Plants, and a 4000 Year-Old Explanation" Zimmerman

There is a force in a seed, containing all codes to generate a full-grown plant/fruit. How? "Who" set in motion the laws of genetics and growth?"
God is an answer to a mysterious universe.

"Man himself as evidence" Robert Horton Cameron

Thought itself proves the existence of God.
Thought is more than a system automatic-it is reasoning, judgement, appreciation of beauty, enjoyment of symphony, a sense of humor.
Emotion=evidence of creators wisdom
moral judgement, human will=evidence
God gives new outlook, new motives, new joys and sorrows to those who find him

"Laboratory Lessons" Elmer W. Maurer

Nothing in natural science, in chemistry, conflicts with the Bible

"Concord Between Science and Faith" WAyne U. Ault

Faith is how one believes, but is supported by "first cause" and possibly "continouse motivating cause."
Most have faith in the speed of light, though rarely tested. No one has seen a proton or electron, but see their effects. Much knowledge of universe must be accepted by faith.
Bible reveals God and mand's relation to God.
Thousands of "rational reputable, and well-adjusted men have attested to a conscious personal relationhip to God and the power of prayer."

"God in Medical Practice" Paul Ernest Adolph

Hope has definite medical results. 80 percent of all illness encountered in general practice have a predominately physchic causation. 40 percent demonstrate no organic causation at all. Causes of nervous diseases are guilt, resentment, fear, anxiety, frustration, indecision, doubt, jealously, selfishness, and boredom.
"The human body finds harmonious function when it is in tune with its maker."

"Of Flowers and the Baltimore Oriole" Cecil Boyce Hamann

God is a more logical explanation to design, law, and order than instinct, genetics, or evolution.

This is Your Bible; or, Did You Know? Part III

2007-07-06T13:48:00.000-07:00

The father's of God's chosen people were cowards. Abraham and Isaac pretended that their wives were their sisters because they were afraid that they would be killed if other men knew that their wives were actually their wives. Jacob did not tell his stepfather that he and his family were leaving because he was afraid his stepfather would keep Jacob's wives, his daughters by force (Gen 31:31).

Jacob's wife Rachel stole her father's stuff when they were leaving (Gen 31:19).

The God of Abraham was one of many gods connected to different nations of the region in that time. There also was a God of Nahor (Gen 31:37).

Jacob was afraid that his brother would slaughter him and his family. He hid from his brother when he approached. It does not seem as though Jacob had any faith in God.

Jacob's sons were liars, murderers, and thieves. They told the Hivite prince that if he and all his men became circumcised, then they would forgive his son for having sex (defiling) with their sister, and their people would become as one. The prince agreed and had all the men circumcised. While all the Hivite men were sore and bedridden because of their circumcisions, Jacob's sons entered the city and killed them, took their livestock, wealth, children, and wives. (Gen 34)

Jacob's household had "strange gods" among them.

Jacob's first born, Reuben, had sex with Jacob's concubine.

Jacob's-now named Israel-sons hated their brother Joseph and conspired to kill him because he was loved so much by Jacob and because Joseph claimed to have dreams that indicated that he would rule over his older brothers.

Gen 38:7 God killed a baby who was wicked.

Gen 38:10 God killed a guy who ejaculated on the ground rather than impregnate his brother's wife. He wasted his semen despite being told to father his brother's children for his brother.

Gen 38:14 Judah had sex with a woman disguised as a prostitute. She turned out to be his own daughter-in-law. Judah wanted her burnt alive when he found out.

Gen 47:6 Joseph, acting as the Pharoah's governor, demanded that the people give the Pharoah everything they had and 20% of the crops they produced in the future in exchange for bread during years of famine.

Exodus 2:12 The first act of Moses recorded in the Bible was to kill an Egyptian and bury him in the sand.

Ex 2:24 & 12:41 God seemed to have forgotten his covenant with his people for over 400 years as they toiled as servants/slaves of the Egyptians.

Ex 4 To prove to others that Moses was sent by God, God gave Moses a handful of tricks that were actually reproducible by the Pharoah's magicians.

With these tricks and spectacles that come later, God seems to recognize that people will not believe without seeing with their own eyes.

Ex 4:21+ The Lord treats people like puppets. He tells Moses what to say. He hardens the Pharoah's heart. Etc.

Ex 8-9 The Lord does things in long, drawn out ways. He tries different ways of torturing and killing the Egyptians over the course of days and weeks.

Ex 12 There is something very wrong with leaven and leavened bread. If eaten during passover, God will disown you.

Ex 12:29 God murders babies and children. He killed all the firstborn of Egypt.

Ex 15 The Israelites really thought God was awesome after he caused the Red Sea to fall in on Pharoah's soldiers. They sang and rejoiced.

Ex 15:3 "The Lord is a man of war..."

Ex 12+ The Lord allows his people to come close to dying of thirst or starving before he finally provides for them after they complain.

Ex 17:16 God swears to "have war with Amalek from generation to generation."

Ex 20:5 God does not just punish the sinner, but punishes the sinner's children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and perhaps further down the line, all for the sins of the father.

The Other Commandments:

Ex 21:6 If a servant loves his master and does not wish to leave, the master "shall bore his ear through with an aul", and the servant shall serve him forever.

Ex 21:7 (Men may sell their daughters as maidservants)

Ex 21 The death sentence for murder, kidnapping, and cursing your father or mother.

Ex 21 One will only be punished if they beat and kill their servant or beat a pregnant woman and cause an abortion.

Ex 21:26 If one puts out a servants eye or tooth, that servant can go free.

Ex 21:28 If an ox gores a man, that ox must be stoned to death.

Ex 21:29 If someone knows that the ox they own is dangerous, and that ox kills someone, then the owner shall either be put to death or pay a ransom.

Ex 22:16 If one has sex with an unattached woman, then one must marry that woman.

Ex 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Ex 22:19-24 The death sentence for bestiality, sacrificing to any God other than the lord, and afflicting a widow or fatherless child.

Ex 22:25 Interest shall not be charged with a loan.

Ex 23:29-30 God will drive all others out of the land of Canaan-all those who currently live there-to make way for the Israelites. At least three nations already lived there-the Hivites, Canaanites, and Hittites.

Ex 31:15 Anyone found doing any work on the Sabbath shall be put to death.

Ex 32 Moses' right-hand man Aaron, who was chosen by God to be his mouthpiece, oversaw the making of a Golden Idol for the people. The people wanted a God they could worship, and they hadn't seen Moses in a long time, so saw to the construction of the Golden Calf, worshipped it, and had a big naked (yes, naked) party, despite the fact that the first commandment was that "thou shall have no other god before me".

Ex 32:14 The Lord has thought to do evil. He is capable of loosing his temper. He nearly did so, and nearly forgot his covenant with his people. Moses told him to repent, which God did.
Ex 32:27 Moses oversaw the killing of about three thousand men of his own people.

True Stories From The Bible; or, This is Your Bible, Part II

2007-07-03T20:34:00.000-07:00

Whether or not you have cut off a flap of skin from your penis is of the utmost importance to your creator. Gen 17; 14. God will refuse to be your god if you are not circumcised.

God's aim is off, or else he purposely fires indiscriminately. God's wrath was sent down upon the city of Sodom in the form of fire and brimstone. The only righteous family living there was allowed to escape....except, inadvertently, Lot's wife looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt. Gen 19:26.

Gen 19:33 God does not intervene or express objection when the daughters of Lot decide to rape their own father. These girls, who were two of the three people God let escape his slaughter in Sodom, decided to get their father drunk and take turns having intercourse with him so that his "seed" would be preserved.

Gen 20 God threatens to kill people and closes the wombs of women even if they don't do anything wrong. God admitted that the king of Gerar did not know that Sarah was Abraham's wife, and despite the fact that the king did not sleep with her, God nearly killed him and his people anyway.

Gen 21:9 Sarah, the wife of God's chosen one, Abraham, had Abraham's mistress and son "cast out" so that there would be no rival to her son Isaac for heir. "Casting out" involves being left for dead, I presume.

Gen 22 God demands blind, unquestioning obedience. He blessed Abraham when Abraham prepared to and fully intended to stab his son and burn him on an alter in response to God's command. Just as Abraham was about to kill his own son, God told him it was all a test-God must not be so cruel after all, just ask Lot's wife...

Gen 24:58 The wife of Isaac-Abraham's son and a man blessed abundantly by God-did not even meet the man she would marry before agreeing to marry him.

Gen 25:6 Abraham, one of God's chosen, had concubines and many son's by them. Abraham gave them gifts and sent them away. Abraham was essentially worse than a polygamist.

Gen 25:31 & 27:14 Jakob, son of Isaac, and the chosen heir of Abraham, refused to feed his starving brother until his brother agreed to sell him his birthright. Later, Jakob lied to his own father in order to receive blessing that were meant for Jakob's brother.

Gen 29-30 Jacob's wives enlist their servants to have sex with and bear children by Jacob in order to win Jacob's love and attention.

True Stories From the Bible; or, Did You Know? Part 1

2007-06-26T13:18:00.000-07:00

The Truth About Heaven

Where do we go after we die? If we're good, we go to a place that lies just beyond the Pearly Gates, somewhere above us in the clouds, a place called Heaven...or so we're led to believe.

Actually, Heaven isn't as glorious as you might imagine. In fact, according to the Bible, its not even the place you go after you die (that would be the earth-and you'd return there as dust).

Heaven is a place between two waters: the waters above (!?) and the waters of the Earth (ocean and land). To put it plainly, Heaven is the Earth's atmosphere. Except, somehow, all the stars along with the Sun and Moon reside in the firmament of Heaven. Remember, Heaven is sandwiched between two waters. The great ocean above our heads must be the blue we see when we look up at the sky.

Genesis speaks of Heaven as a simple area of space-not of a paradise in which we'll spend an eternity feeding each other grapes directly from the vine...

Why God Made the Cosmos

God made every star, every galaxy, the Sun, the moon, all the planets-the entire universe-so that Man could receive signs and keep track of time. The universe is Man's Swatch Watch, his calendar, and his mirror ball.

The Moon is a Light, just like the Sun

God Can Get Burned Out On Work Too

God Is More Productive Some Days Than Others

One day, God made the entire Cosmos. The next day he only made every thing that lives in the air and sea.

Man is Master of Every Living Thing, And Every Living Thing Fears Man.

This necessarily includes mosquitoes, bacteria, great white sharks, polar bears, packs of wolves, wildebeest, snakes, spiders, thorns, and every other living thing that has, on occasion, demonstrated a talent for kicking our asses.

God Commanded Man to be a Vegetarian.

Man was Formed by Dust and Will Return to Dust. Also, Women Came From Man's Rib (the one that's missing).

Al Basrah, Iraq is the Garden of Eden.

Or at least it's very near there. Genesis lists four rivers that are branches of the river that runs through Eden. One of these is the Euphrates which converges with the Tigris and other major rivers in southern Iraq, near the Persian Gulf.

Snakes Eat Dust (Genesis 3;14)

Women Were Cursed By God

They are to be ruled over by their husbands, desire only their husbands, and have lots of children. Moreover, God wanted childbirth to be extremely painful, as punishment for offering fruit to Adam (or whatever the symbolic meaning of the story is...[as punishment for giving Adam the key to know good and evil]).

Forcing Men to Grow Food was God's Curse to Man

God May be a Member of a Club of Immortals

Genesis, Chapter 3 Verse 22 reads, "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become one of us, to know good and evil..." God continues to say that there exists the possibility that Man could eat from the tree of life and live forever. To prevent this from happening, he kicks Man out of the garden and puts guards and defenses up around the tree of life.

Giants "Walked the Earth"

God Regretted Making Life

"Clean Beasts" and Birds were taken onto the Ark by the Seven, (Making Things A Little Crowded)

During the Flood, Birds Preserved The Seeds of All Species of Plants in Their Shit

The Flood was Caused By Underwater Fountains and Rain

Mountains are 15 Cubits High (Genesis 7:20)

The Ark Was 300 Cubits Long

After Killing Every Living Thing, God Realized That the Evil of Man is Completely Natural (Genesis 8:21)

God Commands the Death Sentence for Murderers

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesis 9:6)

A Rainbow is a Sign of God's Promise to Man that He Would Never Again Kill Everything with a Great Flood

Noah Got Drunk and Passed Out Naked in His Tent (Genesis 9:21)

The Reason God Made All the Different Languages Was So That Man Would Not Achieve Too Much (Genesis 11:16)

Abram's Wife Was Extremely Hot.

Abram fooled the Pharaoh into thinking Abram's wife was Abram's sister. His wife then went to live/spend time with/seduce? the Pharaoh in order to gain supplies for Abram during a time of famine. God didn't like the fact that Pharaoh was seeing Abram's wife, so he sent a plague.

God Promised Abram that Abram's Seed Would be as Numerous as the Dust.

(Which is a lot)

Worthy Words

2007-06-24T10:22:00.000-07:00

Boys and girls, its time for another fun filled blog lifted straight from the pages of my notebook. Are you excited? I am, YAY!

I have not forgotten that I have on more than one occasion primed readers for some deep insight into that which is worthy of discussion. I have wondered openly what is worth saying. And I don't mean this in a casual sense. I intend to discover and discuss the sorts of things you would say to your great great great grandchildren, if you were somehow alive to say it. Or, pretend you could travel back in time and find yourself an audience in ancient Greece; what would you care to say which would transcend time yet still speak directly to the people and lives of centuries past? Finally, imagine being in Time Square, New York, and yelling "Stop!" What if everyone did stop? What if everyone would listen? What would you say?

So I've always wondered what is worth saying in that grand sense. This fascination is coupled with disdain for the amount of time some people devote to both words and actions which bring them no closer to truth or no closer to satisfaction. I'm thinking of religious studies, of conformity, of laziness, and so on. More than anything, I'm sure this disdain is more indicative of a personal 'neurosis' of mine-the feeling that life is wasted through the distraction of unworthy, unhealthy, and untruthful pursuits. This all implies great judgement on my part, and I won't deny that I am in fact an extremely judgemental person on some sort of nebulous, moralistic level. I try to identify phenomena, ideologies, notions, and such and judge these completely apart from the persons either blessed or victimized by them.

Lets get back to the point of this blog. I've made it seem as though I was ready to talk about that which is worth talking about. Well, let's see. The following are unstructured thoughts which I wrote down in my notebook on some lazy afternoon at a coffee shop:

Worth is defined as what? Something that brings happiness? Something, if read, that has a profound effect on those who read it?

In response to time going by quickly, if you could yell STOP! what then would follow? If you were standing in the middle of time square and all of a sudden everything came to a halt and all eyes turned to you, what would you say?

What would you tell your grandchildren? What would you write about in an essay entombed in a time capsule for 200 years. What would you say to the distant future, to the dark past?

So, what is profound?

What is not profound? What are big wastes of time and energy? Working 9-5, 40 hours a week, doing nothing, accomplishing nothing, until the day you die. More specifically, not coming upon anything significant. What is profound is determining, finding anything that is profound. Not seeing. Not appreciating. Not loving. Seeing, appreciating, loving-these are profound?
Struggling for something that will never come-this is a waste...struggling and then the End.

Hope in nothing vs. a heightened living. Both may involve a belief in God. Both may involve a disbelief in God. They are not tied together completely. But its common to narrow ones actions and thoughts in life drastically-to live in a particular way-when one believes in God. They call it "the straight and narrow". Which is fine, if somehow there is great reward in the straight and narrow. Undoubtedly there can be.

Its more to do with approach, with attitude, with personality. With the insight you have into the consequences of your actions and behavior towards others-because we are tied together emotionally when we are together physically. And more often than not, coming together produce positive emotion--or I'm inclined to believe.

For some, satisfaction comes from religious and traditional conservative life. for others, a more individualistic life-creativity and self reward, individual immersion in nature and society as opposed to integration. Belief then, seems tied to personality. What then determines personality? Nature or nurture? If is is nature, it is largely out of our hands, or at least limited to nutrition, chemical, and self medication. Alcohol, for example, allows us to alter our personality-to become less concerned, less self conscious, more of a socialite. Caffeine may make us more intense, vital, and individual thinkers. It increases focus. Both seem to produce happiness to some degree, but with alcohol, its a secondary affect of social interaction and with caffeine its possibly in the thinking-the heightened vitality of the mind and the reward of individual achievement.

How does personality develop? Does language structure play a big part? Does language flow affect feeling? How important is intelligence to personality and happiness? Have scientists observed babies with distinct personality types? What is the scientific consensus? Is personality encoded in our genes? What then philosophically is the best personality for a) an individual, and b) society?

Personality is worth talking about because it helps explain belief and whether belief should be suppressed, and it controls our degree of happiness.

Intelligence/wisdom is worth talking about. What sort of information should people have to create the most opportunity-to grant them the most freedom-freedom being necessary to satisfy personality? Can intelligence be increased or decreased? If a large percentage is predetermined, can it be modified through science and practice? Does greater intelligence aid in greater happiness, as I imply?

Happiness is worth talking about. How does one 'measure' happiness. Besides individual happiness, is there something we should be striving for? Like, if a person is perfectly content, and joy is abundant, what else is worth knowing or saying? This is where obsession comes in. Obsession is a desire beyond general satisfaction. It's wanting more and more with no conceivable end. A wanting for the sake of the "high" of wanting-or temporary rewards. So, obsession will lead a person to seek more knowledge, despite the journey taking the person out of a comfortable, satisfying state. Still, that state is replaced with something equally or more compelling-an unconventional "high". Some might say that modern 'western' culture is afflicted with obsession. But then, one must ask whether it is natural to stop everything at a base level of satisfaction.

But philosophically-not psychologically speaking-what is worth saying, once contentment is had? What is worth saying to others? Why open one's mouth?

How about the cliche "follow your heart". Do that which you feel compelled to do. Does that even need to be said? Yes and no. The implicit bit which should be stressed is-expand your feeling-be happy-grow your happiness. There can be great experiences if you follow your heart. Something else-a reality check-should be made. Your "heart" is not like the heart of a prince in a Disney cartoon or a character in a Shakespearean play or a character in a Hollywood film. Yours is a true human heart that is sometimes full of feeling, but can sometimes feel less-it can often be difficult to hear what your heart is saying and it may indeed not be dictating anything to you at times. Communication between head and heart is not always loud and clear. Mixed signals are often common. So, in this state, the best course of action is unknown. How might one not flounder their whole life away? How does one connect their head and heart so that their movement towards joy is direct and constant. How much does this involve personality, intelligence...

If read with a certain tone, my question "what is worth talking about" can be found to imply that there isn't much worth saying-that a lot of what is said is of low value. Yes, I do think that a lot of what we say is of low value because the ideas do not bring positive, happy feelings or they are not things of our own choice, we have to do them or say them, and they don't serve to enlighten or empower us in any way. This reminds me of the old adage "if you've got nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all". Also, the so-called secret to success is positive thinking. I think that there is really something to this beyond the usual barfy self-help literature out there. There are many artists and intellectuals I'm familiar with who seem to think extremely highly of themselves. Some are undoubtedly quite narcissistic. I would go so far as to posit that a good amount of narcissism is a key ingredient for happiness as well as success. Drugs like marijuana and alcohol were used by many legendary artists. These drugs are known for sparking greater feelings of love-self love and love for others. Feelings of confidence supposedly follow from this-and confidence breeds excitement and energy for creativity. Of course, I'd like to believe that drugs aren't absolutely necessary if one wants to foster a grandiose, extra-positive self image. I think most people can "fake it till they make it", given some practice.

Ok, I've begun adding to that which I wrote in my notebook a few weeks ago. I'll leave it alone for now, despite the fact that the thoughts are barely structured or intelligent enough to post without a great deal of embarrassment.

Claims of "The Myth of Neutrality, A Time for Anger" and My Rebuttal

2007-06-04T21:29:00.000-07:00

An analysis of the author's claims and charges: Franky Schaeffer, A Time for Anger
...with my responses in bold.

1.2 "Our world is deeply deceitful."

This sentiment sets the mood of the book for the reader. "Distrust everthing" and "everything is against you" are messages hammered into the readers' heads. Also, one is led to believe that there is a massive bias and great injustice pervading the systems of modern society (politics, media/journalism, education, judiciary, culture, etc).

1.3 Liberals do not play fairly--with an open mind and equality under the law.

See below for the author's more specific charges and my responses.

1.4 "Liberals have used deceit and evil to define 'choice' as 'death', 'government assistance' as control of population, 'liberal' as an indefinite tolerance of anything and everyone-except those who disagree about issues on the basis of 'moral principle' and 'pluralism' as 'truth does not really exist outside the limited sphere of science'.

The author views the issue of abortion so extraordinarily simply-so black and white. Abortion is murder, he says. People who have and perform abortions are murderers. Life begins at conception. Case closed. The fact that the author does not demonstrate even the slightest understanding of the reasonable arguments on the side of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia speaks loudy of his own dismal intelligence and his complete emmersion in emotional reactionism. Moreover, the author creates and reinforces sectarianism with gross generalizations regarding liberals.

Only a religious fundamentalist stoops so low and bypasses all intellectual consideration by charging that a group uses "evil" to get their way.

Still, it is true that the word "choice" has, in some way, served to gloss over the fact that with an abortion a killing takes place. However, I think it would be a terrible insult to most women who get abortions if you were to claim that they were not aware of the consequences (death of fetus) of the operation.

1.5 Liberals have made words denoting conservatism/religious belief into putdowns, and have skewed the implicit quality of words like "moderate", "liberal" "civil libertarian" to be greater than deserved.

I don't think you can explain how bias attaches itself to words by implying that a group of people who share a common disregard for religion/conservatism and strive for racial & gender equality planned to skew the implicit quality of certain worlds. If such a thing is done, then I'd expect it to originate from a smaller source, like Fox News or The Daily Show. Dealing with the population at large involves a cultural study--an expert in sociology.

At some point, I'm sure the phrase "slave owner" had more implicit quality to it. How that quality changed demands a study in how culture and morals change over time, not a blame game that resembles the creation of a conspiracty theory, replete with an evil mastermind and his minions the liberals.

2.1 Liberals have abused labelying to condition people to respond negatively to religion in the public sphere.

The author goes on the attack to avoid debating and considering the real issues. Does school prayer violate the consitution? Saying that it does is not tantamount to abusing labelying--the conclusion that the Supreme Court has reached was the product of a thorough investigation and a long consideration into the meaning of the Constitution. Clearly, schools are government-run institutions, and the Consititution charges that government does not involve itself in the relgious sphere, therefore, prayer should not be a part of the school day.

And it is no crime to take offense to the idea of government endorsing a particular religion (or religions)-most people do have a problem with this. Liberals have not had to call people names are tack on biases to words like "conservative" to sway peoples opinions on this matter.

17.4 When secular humanists claim to be objective reporters that do not make value judgements, they are lying.

I'm sure there are thousands of people who would take offense to this comment. Their job is to report the news, and I'm confident that those whose job it is to be objective do a pretty good job at being objective. So much news is not conducive to anything but objective reporting. Of course, those whose job it is to be subjective, or to personalize/humanize a story, will rightly do so in response to value judgements that are an inseperable part of who they are.

18.5 The New York Times is not being objective when they denounce incest and child abuse yet urge a pluralistic, do-your-own-thing society when it comes to abortion.

Must one subscribe to absolutist, Christian morals to be objective? I think not.

I could write my own commandments, like:

1) Thou shalt love thy Josh with all thy heart.
2) Thou shalt eat icecream every Tuesday night.
3) Thou shall not drive a car more than twice a week.

Using these as a basis for morality wouldn't constitute being objective. Even if one could derive something more akin to traditional morality from these commandments (like, "eating icecream every Tuesday demonstrates that enjoying good food in moderation is God's will"), I still don't see what objectivity has to do with it. And I don't see how it validates the believers' judgements over the non-believers'.

19.2 The New York Times and other media have double standards; on-again, off-again morality.

I doubt you will find the New York Times condeming a war one week and praising it the next. I don't think the New York Times and most any other media outlet would hold completely different views about issues that are completely the same. I don't see the issues of abortion and murder as exactly the same things.

19.3 The Times has no basis on which to make value judgements of any kind.

The Times has the collective brains that produce the paper to serves as a basis for their value judgements. Intelligence is a basis. Perhaps the author has been too busy reciting scripture to become aware of this thing called intelligence.

20.1 "The Constitution seperated the institution of the church from the state, but not a religous understanding of truth from the state."

The author admits it. But then he throws us a curve ball. A "religious understanding of truth"? I accept the concept. A religious understanding of truth is that there is truth beyond what is demonstratable in the real world. Something can also be truly good (in other words, there is no debate, it just is good, it just is bad...) because it is written in the Bible and preached by ministers.
Still, this truth-these laws-are not precisely the same as the laws of the state. They are religious laws that are true to believers, and those laws that are wholly religious in nature, with no further justification other than because it is written in a holy text, cannot be forced upon non-believers. If they were, the government would be overstretching its role, or violating the constitution. A law that punishes those who consume pork would be unconstitutional. This does not mean moral principals do not lie at the heart of a nation's laws-it just means those principals must be as secular as possible.

20.1 "The (first amendment) provided freedom for religion, not freedom from religion."

Wrong.

20.2 The Declaration of Independence justified the American Revolution on religious grounds, stating that "inalienable (God given)" rights had been denied.

At the time of the Declaration, the country's founding fathers' conceptions of God were not strictly Christian. They were highly influenced by the enlightenment, naturalism, science, and general deism.

There is no greater proof that these "inalienable (God given) rights" were not derived from Christianity specifically than the observance that the God of the Bible does not provide a long list of said rights. One would think that he would if they were so important.

20.2 The new union was, by design, to be in accord wiht the "Laws of nature and of natures God."

This is an extremely broad statement that could be fleshed out a million different ways.

20.3 "Religions truth, specifically the Judeo-Christian tradition, was the ground on which the Republic stood.'

Actually, the ground was the home of Native Americans for thousands of years prior to colonization....

The truths that really set the foundation for our country were the liberal ones-both social (john locke) and economic (adams) as well as governmental (jefferson, adams). Freedom and liberty to live as one would want to live, to believe what one would choose to believe-even those who were not a part of a majority: these are liberal principals.

20.3 British common law, which formed the basic legal framework of the United States, looked to the Ten Commandments and biblical absolutes as the basis.

The Ten Commandments has enjoyed a special stature that comes from the simple fact that it was the first list of laws to be written and to have survived to this day. Once a list of commandments solidifies itself in history and culture, its good merits are taken for granted-no one can imagine that morality ever existed before the commandments, and everyone is sure morality would disappear if the commandments disappeared. They are wrong, ofcourse.

The fact that British common law was inspired in part by the Ten Commandments doesn't prove that the latter was sent to us by God. It just demonstrates that governments came after religion, and there was no way to prevent religion from influencing the structure and law of government. And I'm not arguing that this is bad. Religion held a near monopoly on morality and authority for hundreds of years.

Poor ol' Golden Rule! Oh, the commandment "Thou Shalt not Kill"! These genuinly good moral guidelines have been held captive by mythology for thousands of years. Accept the rules and you accept the myth, they say. I say they are 100% seperable.

20.4 Seperation of church and state is a misbegotten notion-and an idea taught by historical revisionists to our youth.

Distrust, hate, our education system, the author implies. It is using evil, deceit, to turn your children into heartless, mindless, liberal zombies.

I say that a large church, like the Catholic Church, is a complicated thing. The Church has much it must attend to in order to successfully maintain and serve its members. Likewise, a government is expected to perform even more complex and far reaching duties. I highly doubt that both could accomplish what they need to accomplish if they took upon any of the duties of the other. Seperation of church and state is possible. A government that provides security, infrastructure, and basic guidelines for communal interaction does not need to involve itself in the religious life of its citizens.

20.5 Abortion is a human rights issue, not a secular constitutional question.

The consitution deals with human rights issues. That said, yeah, abortion is a human rights issue.

21.3 (Falwell pointed out:) Liberals said it was wrong for Christians to "impose" their moral viewpoint on everyone else, yet they found nothing wrong with imposing liberal views on civil rights, vietnam, busing, school prayer, and abortion.

I don't even want to respond to something Jerry Falwell said. He was a monster. He represents everything that is wrong about the far religious right.

23.1 (George F. Will:) "But liberal societies do not provide 'freedom of choice' without having certain expectations about which choices will be made. And they try to shape choices by shaping attitudes. All societies do this. Only liberal societies pretend to be neutral."

I'm trying hard to restrain myself--to not immediately dismiss as absurd claims that sound absurd. Chances are, there is some sense in even the most ridiculous statement, and why would I devote any time to a project like this if I didn't make a real effort to seperate the sense from the nonsense?

In this case, I can see the author's point if I squint really hard. Yes, some societies under theocratic, fascist, or tyrannical rule might declare that the shaping of attitudes is a national goal. Furthermore, it is evident that our government has played a definite role in shaping attitudes to affect "free" choices people make by making kids say the pledge of allegiance, by having national holidays, and so on. It might take a small leap in logic to say that laws play a role in shaping people's attitudes, but you could say it.

I get what the author is saying only in terms of the role of government. I think the author is way off track to cast such a broad net by accussing society in general of deceit-pretending to not purposely shape attitudes in a way that it channels our choices, our freedom, down a narrow path that is most preferred by society. The police department catches criminals, the schools teach algebra, media reports and editorializes, stores sell shoes--there is no grand purpose, and even the cummulative effects cannot honestly be construed to serve a purpose beyond securing the most free human condition as possible.

There are popular ideals regarding the vision of the perfect citizen/human, and they may in fact change little from individual to individual, but there is a great difference between a society made up of free individuals holding preferences (as is the case) and a society organized to work towards a common goal of shaping individual character. I may differ from the author and a majority of philosophers in my opinion that the community should not direct the individual (at least as little as possible). I think there is a degree to which a government and a society as a whole purposefully organizes itself to manipulate the attitudes of the individual. I believe that manipulation should be as little as possible. This may define me as a Liberal. The author, on the other hand, not only sees a role for government in setting expectations for the ways in which people use their "freedom", but he envisions the transference of Christian values and Christian beliefs from government to citizen, which unconstitutional and completely unacceptable. This ofcourse defines him as a Christian Conservative.

23.3 Christians helped (or are responsible for) end slavery.

Christianity does not deserve credit for the morality that defined slavery as inhumane, just as the Bible does not deserve credit for making murder immoral simply because it is stated within.
That said, Christians did help end slavery. Interestingly, Christians were those slave holders in the South who opposed the abolitionists as well. This fact makes the authors point moot.

23.4 Humanitarianism is almost always connected to Jews or Christians-or a conception of morality derived from these faiths.

There is great good in much of the morality derived from Judaism and Christianity. Nothing should take away from the good of the individuals who fed the hungry and otherwise provided for the poor, sick, and elderly today and throughout history. To the extent that religion has provided aid and comfort, it deserves credit. It deserves credit for helping to spread humanitarian tendencies among nations.

How exactly morality is to be safeguarded in an institution or system or society without the fantasy, the hierarchy, the perversion, and the natural divisiveness of its current steward-religion-is perhaps humanities most pressing concern. It is a challenge that I consider both exciting and possible.

23.5 "Every human being has a religion: he holds values, and these values imply a rationale; in this it makes no difference whether someone has accepted the values of an organized religion or has chosen his own."

The difference is found in the vitality of the mind and the freedom of the body.
Those who accept the values of a religion bow to tyranny-they enslave their minds. They declare that they will no longer think, no longer consider, all the intricacies and factors in all the myriad circumstances in which a demand for moral judgement is called for. The mind shuts off as the tyrant (religion) takes over.

Yes, all must consistently abide by something close to an absolute moral code. The moral code of the religious, however, need only be justified by the statement, "because it was commanded". Unbelievers must think beyond this. Their rationale must run deeper. Greater reasons than "because it is evil" or "because God doesn't like it" must be found. Irrational morality is responsible for things like genital mutilation and animal sacrifice. These things are possible when thorough reasoning is discouraged in favor of Biblical recitations.

Reasoning is not foolproof by any means, however. This is where the study of philosophy-particularly morality & ethics-comes into the picture. A best morality can be built upon best reason, and active discussion can help secure a consensus on what the best morality is.

24.1 .."There is.. no such thing as a nonreligious view of truth: to value one thing as opposed to another is to make a declaration of faith".

This is too abstract for me. Hmmm... I value water over oil because water keeps me alive. What is religious about this? Truth is that which is demonstratable or that which is supported by a preponderance of evidence. What does faith have to do with it? I have faith that I like icecream more than tripe....? WHa?! Is there a difference between holding the conviction that 1+1=2 and holding the conviction that Jesus was resurrected? Can one be called truth and one religious faith? Call me gullible, but I like to think so.

24.3 Secular humanism is dangerous, imposing, intollerant, exclusive and dedicated to elimnating 'traditional theism from participating in American culture.

Sorry, I shouldn't have included this. Its all opinion and no honest claim...it can't be-who would really think its true?

28.2 The media has become the enemy of religious principle.

Whatever. The reason the media is seen as the enemy of religious principle is because it is not posted at the start of every article that the Bible is the true word of God, as Christians would like. Also, religion has felt threatened ever since the Enlightenment during which time books and book reading that didn't involve the Bible became all the rage. Knowledge that either had nothing to do with religion, or actually eroded support for it (through simple objective fact-science, etc) was disseminated for all to read. The media is an enormous institution with magazines on every available subject, news articles covering the globe, and entertainment of tremendous variety. Ofcourse religion is going to feel like a small fish in a big pond. Ofcourse religion will feel-and be-threatened.

46.2 "Time for those christians in the media to stand up and push their own agenda with conviction."

I'm fine with people pushing their own agendas as long as they don't mind people pushing back. I'd hope that if someone pushed an agenda as unreasonable as requiring blindfolds to be worn while driving that plenty of people would stand up and call it what it is-a demonstrable, dangerous idea. Likewise, Christians can expect a backlash if they put themselves on Fox News or talk radio and begin sharing their particularly twisted views of the world with millions of people. There's a good chance that millions of people will see how ridiculous and dangerous it is a feel compelled to speak up in response. Indeed, I see this happening everywhere. Atheism & agnostism has never been more prominent and acceptable than it is now, after nearly a decade of a Christian Right onslaught.

46.3 "It is time that Christian money be used to acquire news organizations and use them to editorialized for justice and life."

The author would be proud to know that this has happened since he wrote those words in 1982. However, he might have done religion a favor if he'd not encouraged it to open its big mouth...(see above).

54.4 "We must develop this militant indifference to the edicts of mere men when they contradict God's law."

Religion is never far from calling for militant responses at any given time. Otherwise, I don't get this statement.

59.1 The law and justice system is in dissarray-is a mockery to the words law and justice.

People like to say this about the justice system. I wish they'd make more specific charges.

59.1 Violent criminals are freed and child murder sanctioned.

Oh, here are more specific charges. Hmm, we might need to get even more specific before we discuss these issues. Yes, its a travesty that a violent criminal could go free because police didn't read him his rights. Most would agree that there needs to be a better way to ensure that police read the accused their rights.

When the author say's "child murder", I think its safe to assume he means abortion. ("NO", I can here the author say, "I meant CHILD MURDER!" There's no need to debate abortion here and now. At any rate, since the majority of people are pro-choice and abortion is legal, I don't think you can point to the fact that abortion doctors aren't prosecuted as evidence that the justice system is all screwed up. Well, the author did do that, but he shouldn't have....

61.3 It is impossible for government to be completely neutral towards relgion and do absolutely nothing to advance it, since all of life involves religious issues.

All life involves religious issues? Give me a break. That may be true for a religious fanatic like the author, but its not true for normal human beings or the government.

61.4 The casual slaughter of the innocent, the total breakdown of the family and sexual morality, the horrible use of medicine as a means of destroying life, deliberately removing treatment from unwanted handicapped children: these evils would not be possible or legal if christians had power in proportion to their numbers.

Its not a casual slaughter, its a regrettable termination of life but a best choice in most cases. It's not a total breakdown of the family, it's women refusing to be their husbands slaves and seeking their own happiness. It's couples expressing love their way, instead of being compelled by tradition. Its not a breakdown of sexual morality, it's reversing the damaging sexual repression that religion inflicts. Its not the horrible use of medicince as a means of destroying life, its empowering individuals to take control of their own futures, or lack thereof. In some cases, its loving mercy for babies so horribly deformed that life lived would be unbearably painful.

70.2 Life begins at conception.

The construction of the body begins at conception. Life existed before, actually, because the sperm and the egg were alive. God did not grant these two living things any special protection at all. In fact, he designed them to go to waste every time a woman has her period; and when a man pees, sleeps, dreams, and has sex.
It does not take long for an embryo to take the shape of a baby. At what point along this development, or during further develpment, does the embryo possess such awareness and potential for feeling pain that would cause us to label it an individual person and grant it the right to live--this is an important question that's worthy of honest debate. Even just before birth, I have heard that a baby is essentially brain dead-his mind a jumble of unconnected neurons. Personally, I think partial-birth abortion is wrong, but the fact about the development of a baby's brain could be significant to the debate, when determining the morality of killing a somewhat developed fetus that may feel pain, yet lack awareness.

77.1 "It is time for a massive assault on this humanistic and bigoted culture in the name of freedom and compassion."

I get the feeling that the author is just really pissed off about abortion, and thinks that because it is legal, a "massive assault" is in order to correct the evil.

77.2 The liberal experiment with human lives is a horrible failure, is crazy, and should be abandoned.

78 Believers should agitate...to eductate without interference from the pagan government that now rules us.

The author is promoting home schooling or private schools, it seems. Controlling the information children recieve has always been the way religion secures its own survival. Its a dastardly tactic, propaganda.

99 Planned parenthood is not a neutral organization-they in fact draw on public funds and lobby intensely to legislate their morality.

The author is right. But given the fact that the author believes in pushing agendas, he cannot honestly blame planned parenthood from pushing its agenda of helping women control their own future. I do not think that this is an adequately religious value (freedom to choose) to make it unconstitutional.

101-102.1 "Within the Judiciious boundaries given to us by a wise and loving Creator, we find freedom to be human: freedom to care for others in ways that they can depend on and trust in; freedom to love in a way which makes others free; freedom to fight for life and compassion. Christianity is Life! It is Joy! It is warmth, comfort, consolation, and humanness."

I think the author has a bias. I would say the same, but in place of "wise and loving Creator", put "reason". In place of "Christianity" I'd put, simply, "Life".

102.2 "It is the mean-spirited, selfish, so called liberated sexual world that is narrow and confining to the human spirit."

I'd say the same thing, except about religious sexuality.

102.3 The issue of life is a life and death struggle with the forces of evil.

And this is how it happens. A religious zealot defines a debate that does not lack reason on either side as a struggle with the forces of evil. Let the Crusades begin....again.

103.2 "...the science today contains a liberal humanistic bias as twisted as the bigotry of the media."

Science cannot be trusted. If we can't trust science, public education, the media, government, and society in general, who can we trust? Only the church remains...

The author calls science that holds that there is no single organizing principle in the world "humanistic". He thinks that proper science follows from simply observing that there is order and governing laws, and accepting that these originated from a controlling being...The Christian God, duh! He points to the fact that early prominent scientists were of the later inclination-to assume a controlling source behind the order.

I think that the proper scientific way of thinking is to assume as little as possible. Conjuring up a God to explain why hydrogen atoms always have one proton or why water always freezes at 32 degrees (which it doesn't) is a radically unscientific way of thinking.

Being able to perceive order is what allows us to survive. Its what our eyes and minds are programmed to do. If we weren't already biased towards seeing order in everything, I'm certain we'd be awed by how much is random. Nothing is perfectly ordered forever.

103.5 the agenda of modern science is death as a solution to problems real or imagined.

Funny, I had the impression that modern science was attempting to-and succeeding at-curing sickness, injury, disease, malnutrition, a laborious life, ignorance, etc, etc, etc. ...the author's statement is so asinine.

103.5 The agenda of science is based on a philosophy, not science.

Science has an agenda. Let me ponder this. And whatever this agenda is, its based on a philosophy. What might this philosophy be...? Oh right, the agenda is DEATH. And the philosophy is "a lack of organizing principle".

103.5 The agenda of science is not neutral.

Well, the author says modern scientists only believe in chance and randomness. Then he goes on to say that they must trust in order and consistency to perform their studies/experiments. I think the author just contradicted himself.

104.1 Modern western science was based on views of God as reasonable, orderly, and consistent.

Modern science was based on observation. But things can only be observed in small segments of time. From this perspective, of course things seem very consistent. But as science advanced and became able to "observe" back in time hundreds, thousands, and millions of years, they saw that things changed, and are constantly changing.

104.4 (William B Provine) "The belief in a grand design shaping both the physical world and ethics was based on abundant, obvious, and emotionally satisfying evidence: regularities of the heavenly bodies, patterns in animals and plants, and the existence of human reason.... Belief in overarching order was dominant."

Some stars explode; some simply fade away and die. The larger of two stars will sometimes rob the smaller of its mass. Some stars collide into each other. Some planets travel in a perfect circle, some travel in elipses. There are planets of primarily gas, planets of liquid, and other made up of mostly rock. Some planets have moons the size of other planets. Being able to predict where a star or planet is going to be in the sky at any given time of the year is not such stupendous regularity in the movement of the earth and heavenly bodies as to outweigh the significance of variety and change in the universe.

Nothing follows logically from observing patterns. If one looks at a cheetah and observes spots, he may say "look, patterns! order in the universe!". But the cheetah's spots end-they do not extend outside the cheetah's body. Pattern interrupted by another pattern interrupted by another patter....ultimately this equals less of a pattern and more randomness than it does a pattern.

The existence of human reason is evidence that God exists? But what about all the reason that human's don't possess? Human's have a mechanism to that allows them to remember, and to make correlations. This mechanism-the brain-happens to be far more advanced than most animals. So it is natural that we will be able to observe, imagine a likely future, and shape our actions with the goal of shaping our futures. Being able to think mathematically and logically-this is a bonus that comes with such a large brain. We can "think" or imagine one apple and then another one, and see that now there are two. Its far more complicated than this, but I don't think the mind is so mysterious that one must throw themselves prostrate before a God just to obtain an explanation.

104.6 (William B Provine) According to Darwinianism, there is no organizing principle in the world and no purpose except for the laws of probability and cause and effect; thus, there are no moral or ethical laws that belong to the nature of things, no absolute guiding principles for human society.

Guiding moral principles can follow from absolute facts. Like, if you stab me, I will feel pain and likely die. I would not like that. If you tried to stab me, I might rather stab you first. You would not like that. No one likes pain and no one wants to die. (do not do to others what you would not like done to you) It doesn't take a genius to realize that morality springs from self interest within a communal situation. Negative actions are discouraged because of this natural law-sometimes they are encoded in law. Positive actions don't need to be encoded in law. Positive feelings come naturally. Love is natural and would exist without religion. Without some absolute guiding principle, people would still find great satisfaction in helping others and expressing love. (do to others what you would like done to you)

105.2 Consistency in governing principles denotes purpose.

I don't agree. What is the basis for this claim?

106.1 Darwin's evolutionary theory "survival of the fittest" made legitimate the tremendous brutality of the Industrial Revolution. It also legitimized the race war of the Nazis. It is being used to justify abortion and infanticide.

No, individuals chose to abandon any moral principals and used others for their own gain. This has happened throughout history.

The Nazis followed the rule "survival of the most murderous". Whether Darwin's theory was used to justify the holoscaust to the Nazis is something only an individual Nazi could answer.

106 "The philosophy upon which scientists base their work has very specific effects in what types of technologies (and moralities) grow out of scientific research."

?

122.1 The new scientific way of thinking considers oneself a God-or god like. This is as pervasive as it is pernicious.

No one could consider themselves anything close to God-like. Death is guaranteed. No one fools themselves into thinking they will live forever and without pain. No one thinks they can create or change the course of events at will.

122.2 "And we have come into an electronic dark age, in which the new pagan hordes, with all the power of technology at their command, are on the verge of obliterating the last strongholds of civilized humanity. A vision of death lies before us. As we have the shores of Christian Western man behind, only a dark and turbulent sea of despair stretches endlessly ahead...unless we fight!"

Wow. The author is a drama queen.

124 The true God given rights of men and women have been replaced by man-made, materialistic "rights".

Which rights are given of God? It is evident that god did not take care to enumerate those rights or express them both strongly and clearly enough to guarantee them over the last many thousands of years-not to mention the last hundreds of thousands of years.

Rights are indeed man-made constructs and man-guaranteed conditions. There is nothing ominous about this, and it does not lessen the importance of these enduring rights.

134 "Deceipt, duplicity, double standards, unrighteousness, the committing of abominations, the roles of the sexes reversed: what could be a more accurate description of our own day and age? Our humanistic society has fallen in love with sterility and ugliness and death. It calls good evil and evil good. "

Naturally accelerating in numbers, technology, and knowledge. Gifts of science and technology aboud. Extreme efficiency in market place, still too many overworked and living in poverty. Not using existing wisdom to is fullest. Well intentioned but still capable of great selfdestruction. Sexually inhibited. Views of sex perverted by tradition. Religious and liberal values vying for dominance.

I don't know, I think that that is a more accurate description of our own day and age.

137.2 The status quo is the reign of the devil.

What does this mean?

137.2 God directs history in an important way.

What is it? God directs history or Man is doing his own thing, ie being an evil, deceitful bastard..?

138.3 "The myth of neutrality holds sway in the arts, as it does in politics and the law.

I think the author needs to come to terms with the fact that artists, politicians, and lawyers have more sophisticated things to occupy their minds with than stories from ancient text. Believe it or not, but life is much larger than religion. The author simply can't accept that individuals are choosing to create and desciminate art n' ideas that don't originate entirely from religious text n' teaching.

139 The reason non-christian books appear on the best seller lists, while Christian books that sell more don't "is simple: the secular world is provincial, narrow-minded, and bigoted."

The reason I am right and the author is wrong is because the author is a big fat dummy head! I mean, c'mon.

141 Christians who work in any branch of the arts face the open discrimination of liberal zealots.

I think its ok to criticize a painting of Jesus on the cross as highly unimaginative-and if the painter fell far short of the standards set by renessaince artists for this particular genre, it is ok to criticize the painting as lacking skill n' beauty.

The fact of the matter is that Christianity is associated with soliciting-and soliciting in art is in bad taste (unless your Andy Warhol). The experience of true art should not be all about persuasion to buy a product--or atleast if it is about that it is an experience most do not wish for. You don't have to be a religious zealot to look down on religious art.

142.3 Liberals have a book burning mentality

Funny, I thought liberals were anti-book burning. I mean, the issue pretty much defines liberalism--tolerating or embracing diversity.

142.3 "sex fairness", the notion that boys and girls are the same, and the dismantling of "sex roles" are a part of the most extensive thought control compaing in American educational history.

"the notion that boys and girls are the same" is an incorrect representation of what liberals would mean by "sex fairness". No one is claiming that they are the same-how could they? What I'm sure agitates conservatives like the author is the liberals' insistence that men and women have the right to abandon traditional male and female roles if they so choose. Women can be in charge in business. Men can stay at home and take care of the kids. If deciding to do whatever a man or woman is capable of doing without falling in line behind religious or traditional norms means that a man or woman thinks that he or she is the same as the opposite sex; well then, all I can say is that its a ridiculous notion that completely ignores the value of freedom, which is the real issue here.

Liberals are simply trying to inform young people that "sex roles" are expectations put upon them by other people-they are roles that have developed somewhat accidentally-and these roles are by no means laws that they must obey. Liberals remind children that they do have a choice in how they want to play out their lives. What may be fulfilling for one may not be fulfilling for another.

142.4 This "dismantling of 'sex roles' has virtually superceded transmission of information as the aim of the classroom."

I don't know how the author can say this and look in the mirror with any self respect afterwards. The author must admit that there is true neutrality in the classroom-boys and girls are taught the same things-and if this neutrality constitutes the "dismantling of 'sex roles", then the transmission of information and the dismantling of sex roles are the same thing. Its like complaining about teaching black people math because one's religion declares that the "role" of black people is to pick cotton for their masters. How dare liberals teach black people all that there is to know just like white people are taught!? And how dare liberals tell black people that they don't have to pick cotton if they don't want to!?

147.2 The moral vision of Shakespeare plays depend utterly on Christianity.

I know very little about this Shakespeare fella. One thing I do know however, he wrote much better than the authors of God's book, and he demonstrated a much better understanding of human nature than even Jesus did. One could create a religion more easily from Shakespeare's words than of the Bible's I'm quite certain. Too bad Christianity was too entrenched, too tyrannical, to allow anything close to competition. The Holy Grail is morality. Religion planted its flag upon morality a long time ago; and since then, nothing has challenged its empire.

148.4 Turning to Christianity because one observes that artists of quality and favor are Christians is being openminded.

I cannot say for certain that several generations of a completely secular, atheistic society would produce artists of greater or lesser quality than a society that has constantly exploited myth to fuel its artists passions. Claims going either way would be conjecture at the most. I'd listen to what prominent sociologists/historians would have to say on the subject though.

150.2 "Every person of true moral principal should be prepared to stand and fight..."

What if one's moral principal was to never stand and fight? Interestingly, Jesus himself taught this sort of principal. Is the author contradicting Christ?

152.3 "The public education system turns out generation after generation of baffled, restless, religiously neutered neo-barbarions, who have been taught that there are no moral absolutes."

I'd prefer to call them "thinkers".

154 "Truth equals confrontation." (the authors final words)

Confrontation is such a harsh word. I like "truth equals teaching" or "truth equals discussion". If a group of people think they possess "the Truth", I think they are obligated to try to convince others that they are right. Of course, I'd prefer they do this scientifically or logically, which makes things especially difficult for believers; but then again, they can use whatever method they wish, as long as it doesn't involve cutting throats or dropping bombs...

Not All Claims Are Equal

2007-05-31T21:43:00.001-07:00

The fruit I cultivated from a day off, approximately a week ago, is this:

I dissected A Claim of Truth, generally speaking. I got a little silly with this project. Its a bit dry, a bit academic, and overly analytical for sure. But if understood, I think it could be a useful tool for explaining how I decide what to believe in, what I think is probable, and what I decide to act on...because they're not always the same.

So, Claims of Truth can be better qualified and understood by exploring all of their inherent traits. I fleshed out 6 of these traits. They are:

1) Specific Response
2) Response Immediacy
3) Response Dependence
4) The Stakes
5) Response Extent
6) Consequences of Action vs. Consequences of Inaction

I'm sure one could come up with more ways to dissect a claim, but I'll set that possibility aside for now and deal with this list as I've created it.

First, as a guide, take a few examples of Truth Claims.

a) That is Sirrus the Dog Star, one of the brightest in the sky.
b) There is a bear behind you about to bite your head off.
c) God exists and reveals himself to man through the Bible, written by divine revelation.

If you care to, I'll let you think about this, and see how each of the claims will have different traits.

But to see how claims should not be treated equally, we can see that some have implicit responses while others do not. After someone points out the Dog Star overhead, I don't think they expect much from you, only perhaps an "oh, that's neat" or "pretty!". If one declares that a bear is about to bite your head off, the implied response is undoubtedly to get the hell out of the way. If a preacher claims that God exists and the Bible is His revelation to man, then the implicit response might be to devote one's life to God and his church as is commanded in the Bible.

So determining if there is an implicit response to a claim and spelling it out if it exists is 1) Specific Response. How quickly one must respond to the truth is 2) Response Immediacy. The degree to which the Truth Claim depends upon the truth of other claims in order to illicit a response is called 3) Response Dependency. Ask yourself if the claim "God exists" demands a specific response by itself, or if it is depends upon which denomination of the God is being referred to (Buddhist, Jewish, Islam, Mormon, New Age, etc) 4) The Stakes qualifies the consequences of succeeding or failing in your response to the claim. Because the stakes connected to religious claims (eternal glory or eternal torment) are so dire, millions have been compelled to believe absent much more justification. The size of a response in total time, space, and energy is the 5) Response Extent. The Response Extent of religious claims are so immense (a lifetime of devotion and more) that I approach the claim much more differently than I would any other kind. Finally, given that one accepts a claim as true, and given that one identifies the consequences of failing or succeeding at the implicit response, one must still weigh the costs of action vs. inaction. This is 6) Consequences of Action vs. Consequences of Inaction. Say a person develops a slow growing but terminal cancer very late in life. Without radiation, the person is sure to die within 2 years. So, the stakes are pretty big-it is the person's life. But that's not the end of the story. The person may weigh the stakes against the consequences of taking chemo; namely, constant sickness and enough time spent in a sterile, souless hospital for who knows how long, and still the treatment's success is not guaranteed. That might not be the way a senior citizen would like to live out his last days. As we can see, even if a truth claim is indeed true, the implied response might be refused after weighing all factors. --Yeah, this last one's a little convoluted, but, eh...

Ok. Hopefully I'll take the time to give names to types of claims based upon their makeup of these six traits. And I'd like to describe religious claims in greater detail so that when all of their traits are seen, it will be easier to appreciate agnostic & athiest positions on the subject. But you don't need me to put those claims to the test. Now you should have some analytical tools to help get started on your own.

What's worth thinking about?

2007-04-27T09:09:00.000-07:00

Last week at the M, I procured a Mocha and began to jot down random thoughts in an attempt to overcome a little writers block. The following are those not-so-deep thoughts:

Why isn't morality something we make up as we go along?
Morality wouldn't be morality if it weren't principled or axiomatic.

Why care about morality?
Morality is a part of a large debate.
So?
Because all things, including our happiness, are contingent upon the morality that guide us in our decisions.

Is it natural for people to get along?
Absent prejudice, hatred, I'm inclined to answer "yes".

Can one thing be the cause of all good and all good behavior?
Positive experiences-a lack of fear, frustration, and anger is perhaps the most crucial factor for goodness to flourish.

Is it important to change people's belief about God?
It is important to soften/moderate these beliefs-to humanize mankind w/love.
Attacking beliefs-not effective. Challenging beliefs-maybe effective.

A lack of certainty means a lack of faith means a lack of allegiance means..what?
Less of a backlash-hatred-defensiveness. More open minds. More open to ideas coming from all directions. A fair playing field on which reason can slowly enter minds and prevail.

What about a lack of intellectual commitment, increased nihilism, confusion, and resulting depression?

What about lively discussion, camaraderie, embracing the beauty of mystery, and diligently working to improve one's quality of life?

Isn't friendliness, camaraderie, happiness things that exist apart from ideology/philosophy?
If the meeting of simple basic needs, the provision of entertainment, and successful social/romantic relations achieve happiness, what does it matter to think beyond this?
Why wonder about "god", economics, politics, and morality?

Why not replace morality with pragmatism?

Why not set up government in such a way that community participation is not an unspoken virtue/requirement? -since it shouldn't be a big part of our lives...

Is there not a best way to deal with homelessness, crime, poverty, health care, corruption, etc? Shouldn't these be simple matters that are taken up by paid bureaucrats?

Is anything worth thinking about?
Is this a part of the conclusion?

So perhaps convincing others that there is little to discuss should be a goal...?

What is important beyond myself and that which affects me?

What is good in and of itself, and not because it affects me?

These are leading questions whose answers are purely abstract...aren't they?