Jan 24 2010
We live in a strange world. A person can get killed for drawing a cartoon. For drawing. That’s crazy. If you think it’s crazy, exercise your freedoms to say so. Resist those who, for one reason or another, would like to put freedom on a leash.
[cartoon thanks to Jesus and Mo. Keep up the sacrilege!]
Jan 18 2010
The above NASA photo, Eclipse over the Temple of Poseidon, strikes me as awesome.
Could that “awe” be described as a religious experience? Some might take the linguistic liberty to do so. I wouldn’t.
Sure, in the case of my awe and in that of “religious” experiences there is an element of feeling slack-jawed. In one case, however, the beauty and wonder leads to thoughts of Gawd and other supernatural notions. In my own case they lead to thoughts of what we know of planets and ancient civilizations and . . . .
Equipped with science, my awe is undiminished. You might say it is further fortified and enriched with reliable information. And the awe of the “religious” experience?
Jan 17 2010
Many people have argued that religion provides comfort to people (so back off with the criticism, you insensitive brute!). Part of that comfort is likely the illusion of control and the thought of having done something. Today I prayed and lived as my supernatural guide has instructed me to. So I can relax a little.
But even if religion does provide comfort (I don’t assume that it does simply because so many people claim it does), does that comfort come at a cost? I’m sure it can. The cost of doing something ineffective can include wasted time and wasted energy.
Does religion provide comfort? Maybe. Does this comfort come at a cost? Maybe. But completely besides these moot questions is the bald falsity of fundamental religious claims. And so I believe we should find and/or make better options, even if all those options bring is comfort.
[cartoon thanks to http://www.atheistcartoons.com/]
Jan 14 2010
The question in the title to this post is bogus. Can you spot why?
Yes, it’s that word — or. The question begs black or white answers. It very likely simplifies the issue to the point of gross distortion.
Valerie Tarico made the point in a recent HuffPost: Ugandan Atrocity: Perversion of Religion or the Real Deal?
She begin with this disturbing information:
Last week, the Seattle Times featured an editorial, finally, about the horrendous anti-gay movement that has been spawned in Uganda by American Evangelicals. Unable to make sufficient homophobic headway at home, evangelists have been heading to Africa, with their literally perfect Bibles as proof that God hates gays. Ugandan leaders found God – the god of the evangelists — and submitted a law condemning gays to death.
So religion is bad, right? Well, totally bad? Of course, religious folk keep touting the positive. Religion is good; religion is necessary. So, for balance, I guess, others attempt to rebut the claim.
But the good and bad are two sides of the religion coin. Religion isn’t “or,” rather it is “and.” As Tarico aptly puts it –
I find it ironic that anything evil done in the name of religion is a “perversion” or blasphemy — and anything good, that’s the real deal. It’s an argument I hear over and over in response to my articles on the Daily Kos and Huffington Post.
The falsehood is patently obvious. It’s like saying that selfishness and greed are a perversion of our humanity, and altruism is what humans really are all about. Get real. Ask any biologist whether dogs are affectionate or predatory and they will laugh at you: Do bees make honey or do they have stingers?
My selfishness is every bit as real as my generosity. My tenderness and bitchiness, compassion and aggression all are ME. Religion’s track record of power-brokering and atrocity is every bit as integral as its history of giving voice to our moral instincts and sense of wonder.
Actually, if religion were a coin, that coin would be one very complex, multi-sided thing.
One of the problems I have with any claims about religion being good or bad is that the examples cited assume that, religion aside, all other things/variables are equal. In other words, there is no control group in these discussions. Maybe religion is like a flag people march beneath, with little real causal power, good or bad. Mind you, I suspect that isn’t the case much of the time, but how are we to know that the good or bad wouldn’t get done without religion? That is one very important question.
It does seem to me, however, that religion includes two potent risks. First, the social structure it provides can be readily hijacked for bad. Oh, and for good. Can’t forget that. Are there other social structures out there that have a lesser propensity for being hijacked for bad but still retain the potential to do good?
Second risk: religious doctrine/dogma is generally moralistic. And people feel strongly about morals. Armed with emotional concepts, people will tend to use them, even where they don’t belong.
Consider this title and line of text I read this morning in a news release by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
“Americans United Condemns TV Preacher’s Callous Statement on Haitian Earthquake”
On his Christian Broadcasting Network’s “700 Club” today, [Pat] Robertson said the Haitians “swore a pact to the devil” in order to become free of French domination.
And thus hell was unleashed on them.
If you ask me, Pat Robertson is insane. Delusional. One of the biggest “bads” religion seems to provide is a safe haven for delusions. Perhaps it even promotes their spread.
Is religion fully bad? No. Is it fully good? No. Can religion be refined to save the good while excising the bad? Maybe. But I suspect that once freed from all the dangerous and outdated content, what remained couldn’t be called religion. You’d have a secular interest group. Then why continue to call it religion? Because the term is attractive. And because we lack an equally attractive alternative.
Jan 10 2010
“The war on Christmas” spilled no blood. So please quit tooting that bogus horn. Please.
[cartoon thanks to http://www.jesusandmo.net/]
Dec 25 2009
Wishing all curious minds/freethinkers/skeptics, a day of joy. Which depends on ancient myths not a bit.
Family and friends, gifts, festive food and drink, colorful decorations: these are the real reasons people embrace the season.
Dec 13 2009
List for decorating an impressive place of worship:
Gold candlesticks . . . check.
Throne-like chair with red velvet padding . . . check.
Statue of your most favored deity, bloodied and hanging from a cross . . . WTF!?
That’s no dead man walking. Which would be creepy enough. Hung in churches across the land: Jesus Houdini Christ just prior to escaping the shackles of corporeal existence.
An encore performance was promised, but has yet to materialize. Maybe backstage one day Satan punched Jesus in the stomach and permanently terminated his act.
Dec 10 2009
Conservatives like to claim that ours is a Christian nation, founded by Christians on Christian principles. I beg to differ. For their time, the founders, on whole, were remarkably secular in attitude and philosophy. Many were deists — believing in a non-denominational creator who extends no hand into the workings of the world — which carried the reputation then as the atheist carries today.
Perhaps the most founding of our founders was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was most certainly not a Christian, having written his own version of the New Testament, subtracting out all the supernatural elements. He considered Jesus to be a teacher/philosopher and nothing more. So no, a Christian he wasn’t.
In an exciting historical development, brought to my attention by a news release at ScienceDaily, I learned of a recently discovered letter written by Jefferson. I downloaded the image of the document and tried to better clean it up for printing with Photoshop to read.
With some difficulty I did read it. One of the things that struck me was that in this personal correspondence expressing condolence over the death of a compatriot, there was not a hint of religious sentiments or mention of a god. Any of you familiar with religious folk know that one of the times believers typically trot out their god-talk is during occasions of death and loss. Not Jefferson.
The a-religiosity of Jefferson, and the secular nature of the U.S. Constitution, is no coincidence.
This morning I found a transcript of the letter online, and have included that below the fold.
Dec 08 2009
To be humble means to be closer to the earth (c.1250, from O.Fr. humble, earlier humele, from L. humilis “lowly, humble,” lit. “on the ground,” from humus “earth.” [source]). There are at least two ways that science helps us to be more humble.
1. By exposing our essential animal nature. Human beings are basically upright alimentary canals, empowered by muscles, guided by brains.
2. By bringing to our eyes and minds the grandeur of a vast universe. A universe that favors us not a whit. (At least not according to the deep-space images provided by the Hubble Telescope and other sources. As far as I am aware, no image of Jesus or “Mother Mary” has appeared in one of them yet.)
Oh sure, in our own relatively small circles we are big deals. But on a greater scale?
In the past 24 hours I encountered two pieces of humor that illustrate the varieties of human hubris.
First, this headline from The Onion: Sports Illustrated Sportsman Of The Year Award Important, Sports Illustrated Reports.
Second, this cartoon from AtheistCartoons.com:
Nov 29 2009
I would describe the state of those who accept the Bible as containing literal truth as “massive ignorance.”
The above photo is of a centuries old cathedral in Sicily. The footer of the supporting granite columns sit upon bricks fashioned from stone rife with shells. Yes, shells in the stone.
I wonder: where in the Bible does it say that God created the lands and seas, waited awhile for the seas to become populated with marine life, then converted some of the dynamic sea fringes into rock-hard land?
It doesn’t.
Those who claim that religion helps us see the “big picture” are looking through the wrong end of a telescope. If anything, by allowing their thoughts to be shaped-by and even tethered-to an ancient understanding of a relatively limited world, they have distanced themselves from a newer, clearer view of the universe.
Feeds