Attendance is down. Times are tough. The catch phrases churches put on their signs don't really have to be in the good book do they?
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Hitchens' Address to American Atheists
Such an eloquent man. Thank you to Pharyngula.
Christopher Hitchens was scheduled to appear at the American Atheist convention, but had to cancel because of his illness. He sent this letter instead.
Dear fellow-unbelievers,
Nothing would have kept me from joining you except the loss of my voice (at least my speaking voice) which in turn is due to a long argument I am currently having with the specter of death. Nobody ever wins this argument, though there are some solid points to be made while the discussion goes on. I have found, as the enemy becomes more familiar, that all the special pleading for salvation, redemption and supernatural deliverance appears even more hollow and artificial to me than it did before. I hope to help defend and pass on the lessons of this for many years to come, but for now I have found my trust better placed in two things: the skill and principle of advanced medical science, and the comradeship of innumerable friends and family, all of them immune to the false consolations of religion. It is these forces among others which will speed the day when humanity emancipates itself from the mind-forged manacles of servility and superstitition. It is our innate solidarity, and not some despotism of the sky, which is the source of our morality and our sense of decency.
That essential sense of decency is outraged every day. Our theocratic enemy is in plain view. Protean in form, it extends from the overt menace of nuclear-armed mullahs to the insidious campaigns to have stultifying pseudo-science taught in American schools. But in the past few years, there have been heartening signs of a genuine and spontaneous resistance to this sinister nonsense: a resistance which repudiates the right of bullies and tyrants to make the absurd claim that they have god on their side. To have had a small part in this resistance has been the greatest honor of my lifetime: the pattern and original of all dictatorship is the surrender of reason to absolutism and the abandonment of critical, objective inquiry. The cheap name for this lethal delusion is religion, and we must learn new ways of combating it in the public sphere, just as we have learned to free ourselves of it in private.
Our weapons are the ironic mind against the literal: the open mind against the credulous; the courageous pursuit of truth against the fearful and abject forces who would set limits to investigation (and who stupidly claim that we already have all the truth we need). Perhaps above all, we affirm life over the cults of death and human sacrifice and are afraid, not of inevitable death, but rather of a human life that is cramped and distorted by the pathetic need to offer mindless adulation, or the dismal belief that the laws of nature respond to wailings and incantations.
As the heirs of a secular revolution, American atheists have a special responsibility to defend and uphold the Constitution that patrols the boundary between Church and State. This, too, is an honor and a privilege. Believe me when I say that I am present with you, even if not corporeally (and only metaphorically in spirit...) Resolve to build up Mr Jefferson's wall of separation. And don't keep the faith.
Sincerely
Christopher Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens was scheduled to appear at the American Atheist convention, but had to cancel because of his illness. He sent this letter instead.
Dear fellow-unbelievers,
Nothing would have kept me from joining you except the loss of my voice (at least my speaking voice) which in turn is due to a long argument I am currently having with the specter of death. Nobody ever wins this argument, though there are some solid points to be made while the discussion goes on. I have found, as the enemy becomes more familiar, that all the special pleading for salvation, redemption and supernatural deliverance appears even more hollow and artificial to me than it did before. I hope to help defend and pass on the lessons of this for many years to come, but for now I have found my trust better placed in two things: the skill and principle of advanced medical science, and the comradeship of innumerable friends and family, all of them immune to the false consolations of religion. It is these forces among others which will speed the day when humanity emancipates itself from the mind-forged manacles of servility and superstitition. It is our innate solidarity, and not some despotism of the sky, which is the source of our morality and our sense of decency.
That essential sense of decency is outraged every day. Our theocratic enemy is in plain view. Protean in form, it extends from the overt menace of nuclear-armed mullahs to the insidious campaigns to have stultifying pseudo-science taught in American schools. But in the past few years, there have been heartening signs of a genuine and spontaneous resistance to this sinister nonsense: a resistance which repudiates the right of bullies and tyrants to make the absurd claim that they have god on their side. To have had a small part in this resistance has been the greatest honor of my lifetime: the pattern and original of all dictatorship is the surrender of reason to absolutism and the abandonment of critical, objective inquiry. The cheap name for this lethal delusion is religion, and we must learn new ways of combating it in the public sphere, just as we have learned to free ourselves of it in private.
Our weapons are the ironic mind against the literal: the open mind against the credulous; the courageous pursuit of truth against the fearful and abject forces who would set limits to investigation (and who stupidly claim that we already have all the truth we need). Perhaps above all, we affirm life over the cults of death and human sacrifice and are afraid, not of inevitable death, but rather of a human life that is cramped and distorted by the pathetic need to offer mindless adulation, or the dismal belief that the laws of nature respond to wailings and incantations.
As the heirs of a secular revolution, American atheists have a special responsibility to defend and uphold the Constitution that patrols the boundary between Church and State. This, too, is an honor and a privilege. Believe me when I say that I am present with you, even if not corporeally (and only metaphorically in spirit...) Resolve to build up Mr Jefferson's wall of separation. And don't keep the faith.
Sincerely
Christopher Hitchens
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Evidence 4 Faith
I try to be unbiased and listen to both sides of any argument. I cannot be quick to judge, especially since I am a teacher. But when it comes to the guys at Evidence 4 Faith, I just have to speak my mind. This is a Christian apologetic blog and podcast site. The podcast I was listening to was Choosing among the world's religions.
The first thing that should sound the alarms is one host stating that someone proved to him that God exists. I shouldn't have to elaborate on the consequences of this. Next, the other host attempts to explain how to prove God's existence. How you may ask? By looking around at the natural world. "This is a God thing. God must have done this." The logical fallacy meter is now broken. "I can see God in nature. I can see natural order. I can see things that go well beyond the primordial soup." What does this even mean? "There are great evidences in the natural world that we can see if were open to looking for them." They go on to describe the beauty of the stars and of the pictures of cells at the sub-microscopic level. I can absorb this beauty and let it fill me with awe and wonder, but I am not invoking their wants.
Later on they state that "all religions cannot all be true. One of us is wrong. You can't have everybody correct in their choice of religion." No justification. Wow! I didn't know pluralism was invalid. News to me. I have heard apologists state that all religions might not be true, but never definitively like this.
Next point: they claim there definitively was a beginning with the Big Bang. Now I know this is the reigning theory of how all the cosmos came into existence, but the way they fashion this statement is intellectually dishonest. "This is how the atheist attempts to explain our origins. You can't create nothing out of nothing." The way apologists make this claim seems arrogant in its defiance of how the process that is science works.
The next section's focus is lost on me. "The Big Bang, I call it the Big Flash on purpose because in space there is a vaccuum, you don't have noise you don't have the Big Bang per se. Flash of light, and I try to frame this in Einstein's equation E = mc^2, which means the energy is equal to mass, the mass of the planets and the universe and everything, times the speed of light, which is 186,000 miles per second, squared, which is an astronomical number. If you look at that in the context of energy and mass and light, yes there was a Big Flash, and that's my news flash to the secular humanists." I was truly at a loss for words when I heard this. Does this man think that because he remembered the speed of light and one of Einstein's equations, that he is now a cosmologist? No where does he state how this equation has anything to do with the Big Bang, Flash I'm sorry. The sad thing is that the Christians hearing him attempting to sound scientifically literate are thiking to themselves, "Wow, this guy is smart. God must exist and Christianity must be true if he says so."
Next: We can learn that God is a personal God by studying nature. He has volition and is conscious and has thoughts. If we read a holy text and that God is not described like that then we know this religion is not correct. How is God's "personal" side reflected in the beauty of a landscape of snow-capped mountains? When I walk through a forest I do not stop at the stream and conclude that some deity has thoughts, let alone that I can realize what those thoughts are.
The "connections" these guys try to make are not even connections. They seem to be rambling on incoherently with a smitter of science and a smatter of 'feel-good, Christian God is conscious and loves you' talk. For them to be propagating their rhetoric to the world through this podcast is dishonest and disingenuous. Period.
The first thing that should sound the alarms is one host stating that someone proved to him that God exists. I shouldn't have to elaborate on the consequences of this. Next, the other host attempts to explain how to prove God's existence. How you may ask? By looking around at the natural world. "This is a God thing. God must have done this." The logical fallacy meter is now broken. "I can see God in nature. I can see natural order. I can see things that go well beyond the primordial soup." What does this even mean? "There are great evidences in the natural world that we can see if were open to looking for them." They go on to describe the beauty of the stars and of the pictures of cells at the sub-microscopic level. I can absorb this beauty and let it fill me with awe and wonder, but I am not invoking their wants.
Later on they state that "all religions cannot all be true. One of us is wrong. You can't have everybody correct in their choice of religion." No justification. Wow! I didn't know pluralism was invalid. News to me. I have heard apologists state that all religions might not be true, but never definitively like this.
Next point: they claim there definitively was a beginning with the Big Bang. Now I know this is the reigning theory of how all the cosmos came into existence, but the way they fashion this statement is intellectually dishonest. "This is how the atheist attempts to explain our origins. You can't create nothing out of nothing." The way apologists make this claim seems arrogant in its defiance of how the process that is science works.
The next section's focus is lost on me. "The Big Bang, I call it the Big Flash on purpose because in space there is a vaccuum, you don't have noise you don't have the Big Bang per se. Flash of light, and I try to frame this in Einstein's equation E = mc^2, which means the energy is equal to mass, the mass of the planets and the universe and everything, times the speed of light, which is 186,000 miles per second, squared, which is an astronomical number. If you look at that in the context of energy and mass and light, yes there was a Big Flash, and that's my news flash to the secular humanists." I was truly at a loss for words when I heard this. Does this man think that because he remembered the speed of light and one of Einstein's equations, that he is now a cosmologist? No where does he state how this equation has anything to do with the Big Bang, Flash I'm sorry. The sad thing is that the Christians hearing him attempting to sound scientifically literate are thiking to themselves, "Wow, this guy is smart. God must exist and Christianity must be true if he says so."
Next: We can learn that God is a personal God by studying nature. He has volition and is conscious and has thoughts. If we read a holy text and that God is not described like that then we know this religion is not correct. How is God's "personal" side reflected in the beauty of a landscape of snow-capped mountains? When I walk through a forest I do not stop at the stream and conclude that some deity has thoughts, let alone that I can realize what those thoughts are.
The "connections" these guys try to make are not even connections. They seem to be rambling on incoherently with a smitter of science and a smatter of 'feel-good, Christian God is conscious and loves you' talk. For them to be propagating their rhetoric to the world through this podcast is dishonest and disingenuous. Period.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Gratuitous Evil: God's Dagger
So I am listening to a debate between William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott. This is one where Craig's opponent actually gets to speak first. In watching the thread at Debunking Christianity the other day about WLC vs Sam Harris, I realized that WLC always speaks first. This in itself is interesting. However, I digress. WLC begins with "As a strictly intellectual problem" (ignoring emotion), "the problem of evil does not constitute a disproof of God." Well duh! There can never be a proof of a negative. Here is where WLC summarizes Sinnott's argument: 1) If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist. By this WLC means "evil which is morally unjustified, evil which God would have no morally sufficient reason to commit." 2) Gratuitous evil exists. 3) Therefore, God d.n.e. Now of course as a math teacher I will use shorthand notation whenever I can.
Let's look at WLC's interjection between 1) and 2). Gratuitous evil is evil which God would have no morally sufficient reason to commit. Why does God need a reason to do anything? If God is the supreme being of all that has ever and will ever exist, does he need to act morally according to human standards? How does the objective morality exuding from God translate into a code which humans must live by in order to attain salvation? I know, I know, it seems like salvation comes only in our dreams. Wait a minute, that's Nine Inch Nails. I digress again. If evil is something which we should try not to be, why does our supposed creator make evil seem the way it does to us humans, as, well evil, even if it is supposed to balance the cosmic scales at some future time?
I am now reading this to my wife,(so she can proof read it - I suck at writing) and I think she just realized that she is not a Catholic or a Christian. Her beliefs would categorize her as a pantheist or animist, I'm not sure.
Anyway, I might report on the rest of the debate, but for now these are my thoughts.
Let's look at WLC's interjection between 1) and 2). Gratuitous evil is evil which God would have no morally sufficient reason to commit. Why does God need a reason to do anything? If God is the supreme being of all that has ever and will ever exist, does he need to act morally according to human standards? How does the objective morality exuding from God translate into a code which humans must live by in order to attain salvation? I know, I know, it seems like salvation comes only in our dreams. Wait a minute, that's Nine Inch Nails. I digress again. If evil is something which we should try not to be, why does our supposed creator make evil seem the way it does to us humans, as, well evil, even if it is supposed to balance the cosmic scales at some future time?
I am now reading this to my wife,(so she can proof read it - I suck at writing) and I think she just realized that she is not a Catholic or a Christian. Her beliefs would categorize her as a pantheist or animist, I'm not sure.
Anyway, I might report on the rest of the debate, but for now these are my thoughts.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
And people ask what's the harm...
I saw that The Religion Virus blog tried to post about this. I couldn't raise the post so I found it watched it and now I am disgusted, yet villified. This girl's message is one of only a few reasons for which religion is bad for humanity and its progress.
We should all know now that this was a spoof. However, I do not think it is necessarily a good thing seeing how there are people in the world like this whose unintelligence would be imboldened, however that occurs.
We should all know now that this was a spoof. However, I do not think it is necessarily a good thing seeing how there are people in the world like this whose unintelligence would be imboldened, however that occurs.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Quiz Bowl
I am the coach for our school's quiz bowl team. It is similar to Academic Challenge. We compete against schools from our conference mostly. A match consists of 10 category rounds, an alphabet round and a lightning round. The category round is self-explanatory. The alphabet round is random general knowledge questions where every answer starts with a designated letter. The lightning round is also general knowledge but you have to be the first to buzz in with the correct answer.
I was going through the rules for our conference finals and came upon this:
The match will conclude with 20 questions in a Lightning Round. The
questions will be drawn from the previous ten categories (American Literature, Mathematics, World History, Fine Arts, Life Science, English/World Literature, U.S. Government/Economics, Physical Science
World Geography, U.S. History) as well as mythology, spelling, popular culture, world religion, world literature, philosophy, earth and space science, quotations, and theater.
I was wondering why they kept mythology separate from world religion. It is quite strange exactly how many religion-based questions come up and how few are answered correctly. When the kids don't answer (much of the time) I look at them in awe. The majority of the students I run into are not believers, but I don't think it is because they have read of all the absurdities and contradictions in the bible.
I was going through the rules for our conference finals and came upon this:
The match will conclude with 20 questions in a Lightning Round. The
questions will be drawn from the previous ten categories (American Literature, Mathematics, World History, Fine Arts, Life Science, English/World Literature, U.S. Government/Economics, Physical Science
World Geography, U.S. History) as well as mythology, spelling, popular culture, world religion, world literature, philosophy, earth and space science, quotations, and theater.
I was wondering why they kept mythology separate from world religion. It is quite strange exactly how many religion-based questions come up and how few are answered correctly. When the kids don't answer (much of the time) I look at them in awe. The majority of the students I run into are not believers, but I don't think it is because they have read of all the absurdities and contradictions in the bible.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Not Alone
I found this article, Cleveland Atheists: A Christmas story, in the Cleveland Scene Online Magazine. It is informative and unbiased in its delivery of the holidays from an atheist's perspective.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
More Christian Hypocrites
I watched Outside the Lines this morning, a behind the scenes news show for sports. Usually there isn't anything interesting, but today they had a special on Lisa Howe, the former soccer coach of Belmont University, who is a lesbian. Yes, emphasis on the boldfaced words. Belmont is a christian university with a discrimination clause in their contracts. They did not come out and say that her sexual orientation was the reason for the decision, but we (rational people) all know it was just another example of chrisitians being hypocritical. We accept everyone, so long as they are not gay. So this must mean that Belmont must not think of the LGBT community as humans. Christian university, an institution of higher learning. I smell an oxymoron.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Follow up on Bible Study in High School
An anonymous person found my blog, printed off the Bible Study entry and placed it in Mrs. Pullin's mailbox at the school. They highlighted the footer at the bottom of the printout with my blog title with my last name in it. Now there are only 2 reasons why someone would do this. #1: They don't like her or something she is doing and found someone else with the same outlook, which by the way would be their opinion. At no point did I write anything about animosity between us. Our working relationship is very functional and friendly. #2: They don't like me or something I am doing and decided to give her ammo to discredit me in some way. There is one problem here - either reason is completely negated by the fact that they did this anonymously. If you want to express your feelings on this type of situation where there is choice of sides to take, the only sensible and worthwhile way to do so is in person. There is no rationalizing away fears or shyness. If you have a reason to do this, you must have the backbone to personalize it. In conclusion: this anonymous person is just a plain old pussy. If you have something to say, whoever it is directed to, say it. Right now, after reading this post, because I know you are, because you found my blog. Take the time out to address me or her directly. Trust me when you do, it'll feel great.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Science Saved My Soul
I have to thank John Loftus for linking this video. It is wonderfully presented, so I just had to link it myself for future viewing pleasure.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
These are my students
I have an "interesting" group of students in my 7th period Pre-Calc class. On Carl Sagan day I decided to take some time out of the normal schedule to show some videos of his in honor of him. The six classes before my last one were all respectful of the content and Sagan. 7th period - not so much. I have extremely bright students in this class, but for some reason, when it comes to commonly accepted views in the science realm, aka evolution, they are plain defiant. They made rude comments about Sagan just because he was talking about the wonders of the explanatory power of evolution. I stopped the video and layed into them. I asked them what they believed about how species on earth evolved. I got comments like "The bible says this or that" and god created man. I asked them to prove this. Naturally they are not fully matured or evolved in their thinking, let alone true biblical knowledge, so they fell back on what their parents said their bible says. "SORRY! But you need to provide me with evidence without referencing a book full of reprehensible and immoral acts carried out in the name of your god." Yes I did. That sure sent a shock through the class. They sat in silence until the bell rang. The next day they brought in this book
Still trying to be funny, a couple of students wrote comments on their quizzes referencing how the problems would be solved because jesus said they would be. Oh how I wish I could teach them how to be critical thinkers and to analyze their religion they way I did. The problem is: I like my job. One dim light of hope was one student now actively engaging with me in defending Christianity. I asked if his parents knew and they do and have no problem with it - this student is the most "religious" in his family, oddly enough.
Another interesting thing happened. I received this email the day after from a 2nd period parent.
Mr. D,
My son (name) shared that his class watched a video on Carl Sagan. He showed me the video on You Tube. Could you explain how this fit in with your Math class?
Thanks,
Mr. xxxxxxxx
He was referencing the evolution video. Really? WTF? I immediately responded by saying that it was to honor one of the greatest deliverers of science to the public we have ever known on a day that is recognized around the world as Carl Sagan day. I ended the response with "Let me know if you need anything else." Does this bible thumper really think someone is stupid enough to deconvert minors who are not your own children? Naturally, I did not get any other emails from this brainwasher. And people wonder why our country's science education is as sub-standard as it is.
Another interesting thing happened. I received this email the day after from a 2nd period parent.
Mr. D,
My son (name) shared that his class watched a video on Carl Sagan. He showed me the video on You Tube. Could you explain how this fit in with your Math class?
Thanks,
Mr. xxxxxxxx
He was referencing the evolution video. Really? WTF? I immediately responded by saying that it was to honor one of the greatest deliverers of science to the public we have ever known on a day that is recognized around the world as Carl Sagan day. I ended the response with "Let me know if you need anything else." Does this bible thumper really think someone is stupid enough to deconvert minors who are not your own children? Naturally, I did not get any other emails from this brainwasher. And people wonder why our country's science education is as sub-standard as it is.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Here's your Sign
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Bible Study at the High School
Another crazy friday was winding down after a spirited pep rally where I was the anchor of the staff tug-o-war team pulling against the seniors in which we got demolished. We all filed back inside from the football field for the end of the day announcements. "Next Tuesday there will be a bible study in Mrs. Pullin's room." I heard that and spoke out loud to my students, "Whatever happened to separation of church and state?" Well I researched the legal aspect of this and found out that it is legal to hold religious group meetings in public education buildings. This is only my third year teaching and I never really thought too much about this. I learned something new.
But this isn't why I am posting this. We had a "religious" discussion in lunch the other day and it was no secret what my thoughts were. Mrs. Pullin never addressed me directly but the way she conversed with the group and the way she became defensive in her posture told me she had a problem with this. Let me remind you that we have had a perfect working relationship in my first 2 years. All of a sudden she organizes a bible study to be held in her room by her (I did find out it is illegal for a non-educator to hold religious meetings in a public school). Now I have no reason to link the 2 events but it seems to me a little more than coincidence. If there is a link, I want to know if this is an offensive move to combat any possible discussions on the topic occurring in my class? The topic does come up in brief snippets here and there but naturally, I am careful with my choice of words. I am considering sitting in on this study and offering an open-minded opinion of how to interpret and read the bible - READ THE WHOLE DAMN THING!
But this isn't why I am posting this. We had a "religious" discussion in lunch the other day and it was no secret what my thoughts were. Mrs. Pullin never addressed me directly but the way she conversed with the group and the way she became defensive in her posture told me she had a problem with this. Let me remind you that we have had a perfect working relationship in my first 2 years. All of a sudden she organizes a bible study to be held in her room by her (I did find out it is illegal for a non-educator to hold religious meetings in a public school). Now I have no reason to link the 2 events but it seems to me a little more than coincidence. If there is a link, I want to know if this is an offensive move to combat any possible discussions on the topic occurring in my class? The topic does come up in brief snippets here and there but naturally, I am careful with my choice of words. I am considering sitting in on this study and offering an open-minded opinion of how to interpret and read the bible - READ THE WHOLE DAMN THING!
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Can I get a Witness?
I came home from the mechanic shop today to see my friendly neighborhood Jehovah's Witensses walking down my front steps. I thought to myself, Fun times - I have some time to burn. I gave them a warm greeting and let them do their terribly abrupt schpiel. No introductory paragraph. I'm going to tell my fellow english teachers at school on Monday.
Their pamphlet was titled 'Why people do bad things'. I was very polite as George summarized it and John stood by in the dugout. Blah blah, good people doing bad things, blah blah, in the bible it says, blah blah divine inspired word of god. I stopped him and started on my 'I can't base my morals off of a book that is divinely written by the highest power in the universe who has bipolar disorder' rant. I don't think he quite got around to completing a semi-informative response before I went to my 'Science can explain so many things in our world whereas religion only becomes more detrimental to humans' rant. Then he was about to say that science can't explain everything, but I beat him to the punch! I know it can't but that is one thing that is great about the sciences - they carry out experiments that can lead to falsifications. Religion cannot and will never be able to.
Then he tried to talk about design and complexity. 'Do you mean specified complexity?' Yes. 'Cause I've read stuff by William Dembski and Stephen Meyer and it's pretty much a bunch of cool sounding techincal terms thrown around in different order but never really saying anything different from what has already been discounted.'
All in all, I did most of the talking and they did more of the listening. John barely even said ten words. George tried to get cozy with me by saying he loved math because of some genius math teacher he had in high school who needed to imbibe so that he could stop his mind from working non-stop. I am still not sure why he brought that up. Anyway, it was a fun conversation and I got his email. He said he would be back to give me some 'really interesting info' on origins of life. Oh goodie! Hopefully it's something that I haven't heard before!
Their pamphlet was titled 'Why people do bad things'. I was very polite as George summarized it and John stood by in the dugout. Blah blah, good people doing bad things, blah blah, in the bible it says, blah blah divine inspired word of god. I stopped him and started on my 'I can't base my morals off of a book that is divinely written by the highest power in the universe who has bipolar disorder' rant. I don't think he quite got around to completing a semi-informative response before I went to my 'Science can explain so many things in our world whereas religion only becomes more detrimental to humans' rant. Then he was about to say that science can't explain everything, but I beat him to the punch! I know it can't but that is one thing that is great about the sciences - they carry out experiments that can lead to falsifications. Religion cannot and will never be able to.
Then he tried to talk about design and complexity. 'Do you mean specified complexity?' Yes. 'Cause I've read stuff by William Dembski and Stephen Meyer and it's pretty much a bunch of cool sounding techincal terms thrown around in different order but never really saying anything different from what has already been discounted.'
All in all, I did most of the talking and they did more of the listening. John barely even said ten words. George tried to get cozy with me by saying he loved math because of some genius math teacher he had in high school who needed to imbibe so that he could stop his mind from working non-stop. I am still not sure why he brought that up. Anyway, it was a fun conversation and I got his email. He said he would be back to give me some 'really interesting info' on origins of life. Oh goodie! Hopefully it's something that I haven't heard before!
The Stoning of Soraya M
I just finished watching this movie and I can honestly say that I have never felt more angry at the end of a motion picture. I know that all religions are man-made myths, and I also know how un-evolved the followers of Islam are, but when you see with your own eyes the vile, pure evil that the default religion of the middle eastern region creates, it makes you angry. It made me cry. The director of this movie laid instance upon instance of symbolism in this film. When you see the crowd that forms around Soraya's residence when the "verdict" of guilty comes down from the "town's authority", any non-muslim can understand the picture being painted - how religions spreads like a virus.
There was only one moment that evoked a laugh from me. The high counsel is the first person to cast a stone. He completely whiffs on his three throws before passing his obligation off to the deceitful husband of Soraya. The symbolism was not lost on me. The institution of religion, no matter how long its tendrils have been in place, has no ultimate power over humanity.
Despite all of the monstrosities, there is a tiny bright light shining through. In the process of creating the idea that Soraya is guilty of adultery, the town authority figures blackmail an innocent man, Hesham, into being the final witness needed to bring a verdict of death by stoning. When Hesham is presented with the stones, he lets them fall from his hands. Even after being inundated by and told that religion is exempt from criticism, we find that humanity will prevail in the end.
This is my message world - keep moving forward, out of the grips of ancient superstitions, together against the evils perpetuated by the institution called religion.
There was only one moment that evoked a laugh from me. The high counsel is the first person to cast a stone. He completely whiffs on his three throws before passing his obligation off to the deceitful husband of Soraya. The symbolism was not lost on me. The institution of religion, no matter how long its tendrils have been in place, has no ultimate power over humanity.
Despite all of the monstrosities, there is a tiny bright light shining through. In the process of creating the idea that Soraya is guilty of adultery, the town authority figures blackmail an innocent man, Hesham, into being the final witness needed to bring a verdict of death by stoning. When Hesham is presented with the stones, he lets them fall from his hands. Even after being inundated by and told that religion is exempt from criticism, we find that humanity will prevail in the end.
This is my message world - keep moving forward, out of the grips of ancient superstitions, together against the evils perpetuated by the institution called religion.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Tyler, my nephew
One of my sisters has triplets - Vinny, Tyler, Teigan. They will be 2 years old on October 1st. Tyler has caught the short end of the stick when it comes to his health. He struggled the most at birth, has auditory implants, and has strabismus (lazy eye). He recently had surgery for this and it went well. However, in the recovery stage, a physician's assistant at the hospital failed to catheterize his antibiotics correctly - three times. Needless to say this caused Tyler some inconvenience and led to a rather scary situation with an eye infection. He is still in the hopsital recovering. The reason I bring this up is because my mother has consistently asked me to "pray for the poor little guy." I don't know if anyone can relate with a situation like this, but I cannot tell her "No, that won't help him." She has asked me if I believe prayer works and I flat out said no. I have not actually told her I am an atheist. I cannot tell her that it is the probabilistic genetic makeup, mixed with environmental factors that are responsible for his health problems. This speaks to the main reason I believe people, including my mother, believe in a prayer-answering god. They don't have to think about whether or not rational explanations feel "cold and empty". They have a false oasis that welcomes them whenever they "need it". But my questions to her and others are how do you know it worked?, and what about all the other prayers you made? Were they answered? Make no mistake, my mother is brilliant. She absolutely does not fall into the deluded, fundamentalist category. Her belief in a personal-intervening god is the only irrational idea she harbors. At some point in time, I need to have a long conversation with her about her beliefs. At least one, as anyone who comes upon this blog will know.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Catholic Studies Professor Sticking to his Guns, and Silly Logic
I was reading Michael's Picks from Rationally Speaking on InsideCatholic details for its readers five ways to talk to the Left about same-sex marriage. The fifth way, Show that Gay Marriage is Harmful, compiled a list of people and organizations that were 'harmed' by gay marriage. Two groups of Catholic charities were affected. Boo-hoo. A Canadian teacher was disciplined by the teacher's governing body for denouncing the school’s teaching on homosexuality. His statement: "Sexual orientations can be changed and the success rate for those who seek help is high. My hope is that students who are confused over their sexual orientation will come to see me." Oh yeah by the way he is a school counselor. Umm, it is completely unethical for a counselor to project their own beliefs onto students who have complete trust in them. So once again, boo-hoo.
Now one of the people on the list, Kenneth Howell, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois, lost his job teaching Catholic Studies for explaining why the Church teaches against homosexuality. A student complained via e-mail to the head of the department - "Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one's worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation." Howell states 'he disagrees with the idea that a professor must present lessons without even hinting at his own beliefs on a subject.' And, "It doesn't seem to me to be particularly honest or fair to a student. If you believe something, you can tell the student that. Where it becomes problematic is if it becomes injurious to a student by penalizing them for their beliefs. I always tried to be fair and honest and upfront with my students, and engage them on questions of human reason." Now I have to admit that the student complaining was the one taking the course. What else would you expect to be learning in Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought? As much as I want to help rid the world of all harmful anti-thought, I have to admit that I am in defense of this guy. It is his job to promote the uselessness of Catholic dogmas. However, I hope to one day see secondary and higher education using curriculum like this to address what humans once believed and why they believed it.
Another way to discuss gay marriage with lefty liberals is to focus on the words 'Right' and 'Marriage'. That statement left me unsettled right from the start. I thought, word-play, right? Correct. They focus on what it means to have rights, and that the freedom to marry is not a right. ??? For example, you can't marry someone who is already married, or someone who is related to you, or who is too young. How in the hell does this argue that the freedom to marry is not a right? The age argument is completely irrelevant to our society anymore. Kids aren't going to get married because their parents aren't arranging them anymore. With respect to incest, it just ain't fun! Lastly, who the hell wants to attempt to avoid the IRS as they claim their taxes twice and hope for two refunds? I know, that was a far reach. My point is that these "examples" of why it is not a right to marry are in no way connected to Inside Catholic's argument against gay marriage. Sure, free speech is a right, but with some basic, common sense limitations, so is marriage.
Now one of the people on the list, Kenneth Howell, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois, lost his job teaching Catholic Studies for explaining why the Church teaches against homosexuality. A student complained via e-mail to the head of the department - "Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one's worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation." Howell states 'he disagrees with the idea that a professor must present lessons without even hinting at his own beliefs on a subject.' And, "It doesn't seem to me to be particularly honest or fair to a student. If you believe something, you can tell the student that. Where it becomes problematic is if it becomes injurious to a student by penalizing them for their beliefs. I always tried to be fair and honest and upfront with my students, and engage them on questions of human reason." Now I have to admit that the student complaining was the one taking the course. What else would you expect to be learning in Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought? As much as I want to help rid the world of all harmful anti-thought, I have to admit that I am in defense of this guy. It is his job to promote the uselessness of Catholic dogmas. However, I hope to one day see secondary and higher education using curriculum like this to address what humans once believed and why they believed it.
Another way to discuss gay marriage with lefty liberals is to focus on the words 'Right' and 'Marriage'. That statement left me unsettled right from the start. I thought, word-play, right? Correct. They focus on what it means to have rights, and that the freedom to marry is not a right. ??? For example, you can't marry someone who is already married, or someone who is related to you, or who is too young. How in the hell does this argue that the freedom to marry is not a right? The age argument is completely irrelevant to our society anymore. Kids aren't going to get married because their parents aren't arranging them anymore. With respect to incest, it just ain't fun! Lastly, who the hell wants to attempt to avoid the IRS as they claim their taxes twice and hope for two refunds? I know, that was a far reach. My point is that these "examples" of why it is not a right to marry are in no way connected to Inside Catholic's argument against gay marriage. Sure, free speech is a right, but with some basic, common sense limitations, so is marriage.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
God doesn't work for the SEC
God-damn it. Literally. Everyone once in a while I happen upon a story that just gets my blood boiling and that makes me want to punch someone in the throat. This is it. I wonder if we should rewrite the song 'Imagine' to include modern atrocities directly atttributed to religion. Imagine there's no god to use as bait in a ponzi scheme to take money from people just because they are gullible. I know, I know, what rhymes with gullible? I'm still pondering. People may choose to look at my view and say, "Hey they're the morons who should have seen it coming." No one deserves this. And christians say atheists have no morals.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
The Slow Whining Death of British Christianity
The title of this blog is an article written by Johann Hari for the magazine GQ. In it is the description of how the Chruch of England has gone from being the bully and persecutor to becoming the 'bullied and persecuted'. It is interesting to note that it is not faux pas to be openly irreligious in England, yet the religions control over a third of the state-funded schools. There is state-enforced prayer in schools. This does not resonate with the educational system in the states at all. But why the contradiction? How can America, with it's back-asswards view on a 'connection' between winning a presidential election and belief in a three-O god, not have an educational system like Britain's? I believe that the church's hold on the ed. system in Britain is the last piece of the puzzle to a truly secular nation. You might say that America is closer to this notion because our schools do not have state-mandated prayer, or that religion doesn't have as much influence in the schools here. This struggle can be seen in the ID/Creationism in the classroom debate. But I believe Britain has the correct model to apply in moving the human race forward towards rationality. The governing body needs to shed the assumption that irrational beliefs guide decisions which affect the populace. Then the younger generations (in colleges and universities, as well as primary education) will see the actions and attitudes displayed by their parents, their politicians, and their role models.
I tell my students that they always have a choice. They can choose to come to class, do their assignments, and treat each other with respect. If they choose to not do these things, there will be consequences. The consequences of not speaking up in favor of rationality in the educational arena and the political arena is the creation of a theocracy. We don't need to look any further than North Korea to see the consequences of this.
I tell my students that they always have a choice. They can choose to come to class, do their assignments, and treat each other with respect. If they choose to not do these things, there will be consequences. The consequences of not speaking up in favor of rationality in the educational arena and the political arena is the creation of a theocracy. We don't need to look any further than North Korea to see the consequences of this.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Religion and Science
For anyone wondering if Einstein believed in the human concept "god".
Religion and Science
The following excerpt was published in The World as I See It (1999).
by Albert Einstein
Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and desire are the motive forces behind all human endeavour and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present itself to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions—fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connexions is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates for itself more or less analogous beings on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. One's object now is to secure the favour of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed towards a mortal.
I am speaking now of the religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases the leader or ruler whose position depends on other factors, or a privileged class, combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.
The social feelings are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes, the God who, according to the width of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even life as such, the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing, who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.
The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, which is continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in a nation's life. That primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that they are all intermediate types, with this reservation, that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.
Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. Only individuals of exceptional endowments and exceptionally high-minded communities, as a general rule, get in any real sense beyond this level. But there is a third state of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form, and which I will call cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to explain this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.
The individual feels the nothingness of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvellous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. He looks upon individual existence as a sort of prison and wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear in earlier stages of development—e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learnt from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer especially, contains a much stronger element of it.
The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no Church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with the highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as Atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.
How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are capable of it. We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events—that is, if he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it goes through. Hence science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear and punishment and hope of reward after death.
It is therefore easy to see why the Churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion which pioneer work in theoretical science demands, can grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labour in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics!
Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a sceptical world, have shown the way to those like-minded with themselves, scattered through the earth and the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man strength of this sort. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.
You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man. For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.
Religion and Science
The following excerpt was published in The World as I See It (1999).
by Albert Einstein
Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and desire are the motive forces behind all human endeavour and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present itself to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions—fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connexions is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates for itself more or less analogous beings on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. One's object now is to secure the favour of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed towards a mortal.
I am speaking now of the religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases the leader or ruler whose position depends on other factors, or a privileged class, combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.
The social feelings are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes, the God who, according to the width of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even life as such, the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing, who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.
The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, which is continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in a nation's life. That primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that they are all intermediate types, with this reservation, that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.
Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. Only individuals of exceptional endowments and exceptionally high-minded communities, as a general rule, get in any real sense beyond this level. But there is a third state of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form, and which I will call cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to explain this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.
The individual feels the nothingness of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvellous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. He looks upon individual existence as a sort of prison and wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear in earlier stages of development—e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learnt from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer especially, contains a much stronger element of it.
The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no Church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with the highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as Atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.
How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are capable of it. We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events—that is, if he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it goes through. Hence science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear and punishment and hope of reward after death.
It is therefore easy to see why the Churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion which pioneer work in theoretical science demands, can grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labour in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics!
Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a sceptical world, have shown the way to those like-minded with themselves, scattered through the earth and the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man strength of this sort. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.
You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man. For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)