Religion, Criticism, and Education… Oh my!

Science education Atheists tend to deliver a lot of criticism of theology, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or some other flavor. We find fault with the resurrection of Jesus, the winged horse of Muhammad, Moses and the Ten Commandments, the Holy Trinity, and a myriad of other theistic claims made by these religions. We debunk their holy books, criticize their faith-based messages, argue against their primitive views of morality, and generally demand evidence for their extraordinary claims.

All of these issues, however, rest on one basic foundational principle of theistic beliefs… that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god exists and has always existed without a creator of its own.

Many atheists spend time refuting the existence of a god while at the same time acknowledging that it’s not possible to prove the nonexistence of said entity. The refutations generally come in two main forms: pointing out the complete lack of any credible evidence and dismantling apologetic arguments (such as the cosmological argument). Many of the apologetic arguments consist of so much circus-like, semantic, hoop-jumping that they really should be dismissed out of hand for their absurdity, but we still go through the mental exercise of pointing out the fallacies or refuting the (attempted) logic or issuing counterpoints to invalidate the conclusions.

If the existence of a god cannot be proven (or even demonstrated), then why do we need to continually debunk the other theistic claims of specific religions? Why do we have to repeatedly explain how the biblical flood didn’t happen? Why do we need to point out flaws in the bible? Why do we need to show how the Qur’an is riddled with statements demanding violence? Why do we need to present evidence for evolution… again? Why do we need to do any of this since its validity all rides on the existence of a supernatural, all-powerful deity whose existence cannot be proven, demonstrated, or sometimes even coherently defined?

If there is no god, theistic religions are bunk.

Whatever the biological or psychological need is that nudges humans toward superstitious beliefs, it works fairly well. Most people believe in a god of some sort. Most people are brought up believing in a god, indoctrinated from birth to believe in, not just a deity, but in an entire system based upon stories of miracles and supernatural wonders that defy all rational understanding. It’s a system that can rarely be dismantled simply by attempting to remove the foundational block of god-belief. In most cases, the only way for it to be taken apart is from the top down, starting with the doctrinal beliefs.

The goal, for me anyway, isn’t to rid the world of religion. The goal is to keep religions from being forced upon unwilling recipients, be it via government intrusion, corruption of education, or imposition of archaic moral philosophies. I don’t care if John Q. Public believes in a deity. I care if he lets that belief affect decisions that effect me. I care if he wants to base public policies on unsupported religious doctrine instead of rational thinking. I care if he wants to impose his 1st-century view of morality on me and my family. I care if his religion dictates to me what I can and cannot do.

Most religious folks can handle this just fine. Their day to day living and decisions are based on societal norms and they don’t go around preaching to everyone they meet about how Jesus is the only way to be saved from eternal damnation. They’re generally friendly, fun, trustworthy, and enjoyable to be around. Many don’t even discuss religion except when they go to church on Sunday. It’s just not that important them in a social sense.

Sadly, the religious loud-mouths ruin it for them. From self-righteous abortion protestors to fire-and-brimstone evangelists to morally dubious right-wing politicians who attempt to push biblical policy into our political system, religious fundamentalists are a significant cause of atheists’ vociferous criticisms. And since asking them nicely to keep their religious ideology out of the political system tends not to work, the only way to combat their insidiousness is to speak out, often and loudly, against their theology… and since saying "there is no evidence for your god" tends not to work, the only way to block their religious tentacles from insinuating themselves into our government is to debunk their dogma… debunk their holy books… debunk their claims of biblical truth… debunk their muddled, 2000-year-old ideas of morality.

That’s what we have to do now to maintain our religious freedoms, but how do we keep the situation from continuing ad nauseum? How do we make sure that our children, and our children’s children, don’t fall prey to the same ideological black hole into which we are threatened to be pulled?

Polls show there is an inverse correlation between education levels and religious belief. It would seem that the best approach to stemming the tide of religious fundamentalism and its attempts to creep further and further into our governments, our schools, and our private lives is better education. Real education… education that includes not just memorization of numbers and historical facts, but tools for critical thinking and problem solving.

We need to teach our children to have a sense of wonder and curiosity about the universe instead of settling for the unenlightening answer of "God did it." We need to show them how science is the best way we have for understanding how things work and how language and communication skills are key to spreading knowledge. We need to help them learn the tried and true methods for evaluating evidence and reaching conclusions. We need to teach them that it’s okay if the facts leads somewhere new. We need them to understand that claims of truth require evidence. We need them to learn… learn… learn.

Until then, we’re destined to continue in the fight against superstitious ideology that fundamentalists want to impose on us. We’ll keep debunking, keep criticizing, keep educating, and keep learning… until we have dismantled the ivory tower of theistic dogma.

…from the top down.

Cherry Picking

This looks like a good cherry to pick! I recently spoke with a friend who is a fundamentalist young Earth creationist. I’ve known him for quite a few years and we get along great, despite our diametric views on religion and science. We’ve had plenty of discussions about religion, science, God, theology, and the bible and they’re always enjoyable because neither of us takes the points and counterpoints personally and we really listen (mostly) to each others’ views, even if we disagree. We also tend to toss in some humor to the mix to keep things light.

We started talking about science and the age of the Earth again with another friend, though it was really late and we didn’t get into anything in great detail, but one of his comments (which he’s made before) is a common one that I find exasperating. The comment was something along the lines of "We all have the same facts. However, depending on our worldview and our assumptions, we reach different conclusions."

My response was basically that the difference wasn’t a worldview or the starting assumptions. The difference was that science looks at the facts and then tries to come to a conclusion (theory) while religion starts with the conclusion already established and tries to make the facts fit. He denied that was the case (radiometric dating was the point of contention in this particular instance). Before we got any further, it was time to call it a night because we were on the verge of falling asleep anyway.

What struck me as I thought about the exchange was that creationists, fundamentalists, and other groups that deny evolution or the age of the Earth, cherry pick science in much the same way that they cherry pick from the bible.

They’ll trust science when it comes to medicine, happily going to the doctor for a prescription or to the hospital for surgery. They’ll trust science when it comes to the manufacture and operation of cars, trains, and airplanes when they want to go to work or on vacation. They’ll trust science when it provides them with a television signal or allows them to download new music for their iPods. They’ll trust science when it provides them with an inexpensive abundance of biologically improved crops, meat, and dairy products for their backyard barbecues.

They’ll trust and depend on science when it comes to the manufacture of their footwear, clothing, homes, automobiles, medicine, televisions, computers, appliances, cell phones, and a myriad of other things that don’t conflict with their fundamentalist theology… but if there’s a conflict, science is suddenly a flawed methodology where facts are interpreted differently due to worldviews, preconceptions, and baseless assumptions.

It’s hypocritical and it’s an insult to the scientific community. To be so cavalier in dismissing some of the most well-supported scientific theories in the history of science, yet depend upon science for their entertainment, convenience, and sometimes even their very survival, seems to me an irrational position at best.

But I suppose that’s what cherry picking is all about.

A Visit to Borders Books

Borders Books and Music I had a 25% off coupon for Borders that expired today, so I headed there to pick up a couple books. I ended up getting (among other things) Losing My Religion by William Lobdell and 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God by Guy P. Harrison. I also picked up The Real Face of Atheism by Ravi Zacharias to see what kind of straw men he was going to set up for his attack.

When I got to the checkout counter, the woman ringing me up paused briefly to look at 50 Reasons and then paused longer to look at the cover when she was bagging my items. I smiled and said, "That one seems to fascinate you, huh?"

She looked up and smiled and said (a bit tentatively), "Yeah. I’m kind of an agnostic. You know, I could go either way. The books in the religion section can be pretty interesting."

I nodded in agreement and simply said, "I’m an atheist."

The reaction was priceless. Her whole face lit up and she said, "Oh, our atheist section has some really great books! The God Delusion and The Portable Atheist… I haven’t read those yet, but I’ve read some of the others."

I told her that The God Delusion was, indeed, very good and that The Portable Atheist was a huge collection of essays, also very good. I think she mentioned one other book in the atheist section, but I don’t recall which one. It was as if she’d found a kindred spirit. Her statement about agnosticism was very tentative and casual, something a disinterested person would have just said "Oh" to, but after I said I was an atheist, she very nearly gushed with enthusiasm.

It was refreshing… and heartening.

Christian Closeouts

ollies I stopped at Ollie’s Bargain Outlet today to check out what they had this week. I love browsing the book section because they frequently have literary classics in hardbound editions and I get them for my library. One other thing they always seem to have is an overabundance of Christian books… Max Lucado, Billy Graham, Lee Strobel, and a lot of other names I’ve never heard. The Ollie’s I went to today had over 6 rows of "Inspirational" books, almost 100% of them were some sort of Christian denomination (as a side note, I found it humorous that there was a Battlestar Galactica book that had been "mis-filed" among them).

The abundance of Christian books at a bargain outlet got me wondering. Are the proprietors of Ollie’s religious folks? Are Christian books notoriously hard to sell and wind up in the bargain bin because of it? Are Christian bookstores going out of business because they can’t compete with the big chains like Borders and Barnes and Noble? I don’t know the answer, but the situation is the same at both Ollie’s stores in my area.

It turned out for the best because I picked up a Max Lucado book for 99 cents.

It’s a perfect gag gift for Craig.

Obama to meet with Benedict XVI

President Obama meets with Pope Benedict XVI President Obama is scheduled to meet with Pope Benedict XVI today. I don’t know if anything interesting will come of it, but it will probably be an intriguing meeting if you were a fly on the wall.

With the conservative vs. liberal views and the disagreements on abortion and stem cell research in particular, there could potentially be some uncomfortable moments, but I trust that Obama will handle it well.

It will be interesting to see if Obama gives another shout-out to non-believers, but I doubt that will happen. It’s probably not the appropriate venue for atheist talk. However, there might be some talk about Islam which could spice up the meeting.

I don’t have much confidence that the meeting will accomplish anything productive or beneficial other than, perhaps, some small modicum of camaraderie. When you meet with someone who thinks that condoms increase the spread of AIDS, wafers turn into flesh, dead men walk, and omnipotent beings communicate via burning shrubbery, it’s seriously tough to get a rational message to have any effect.

Maybe they’ll just talk about helping poor people.

Ray Comfort and Divine Injustice

876335-god_made_it_superMost evangelical bible thumpers are a parody of themselves and as such, pose little or no harm to a moderately rational person. There are however, those who appear to be well meaning , normal folk who just want to do the “Lord’s” work and help people. Many of these worry me. They appear to be harmless and as such, are left alone.

There is one man who seems to pop up on my early warning crackpot radar more than any others, that man is Ray Comfort. Ray Comfort is the man who developed the theory that the banana is inspired proof of God’s existence.I do not think Ray “Banana Man” Comfort (here after referred to as BM) is either well meaning or normal. I have spent hours watching videos of BM.

Bm has mastered the art of linguistically manipulating people. BM likes to establish an absolute such as,”lying is a sin and punishable by God”. BM then asks his prey if they have ever lied in their life. I dare say NO one is capable of saying they have not. Bm has now established you have broken a commandment ( false witness), are a liar and are due punishment from the almighty.  He then tries to summarize his point by using an ignorant analogy.

Bm says, “You have broken your “legal” contract with God. If this were in court you would be found guilty and punished”.  Bm seems to forget that in the real world we have varying degrees of guilt for different crimes, that’s why we take into account intent for sentencing purposes. We would not punish a man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family the same way we punish someone like Bernie Madoff. These are two drastically different levels of theft with drastically different levels of intent and premeditation. Bm actually tells those he speaks with in his open air preaching fests that a lie is a lie in God’s eyes. If you have lied you’re a liar, period.

What kind of God would punish a person who has lived a relatively honorable and altruistic life but told a few white lies, the same as a lying, cheating pedophile? It’s the type of God created in the two dimensional, black and white mind of primitive man. The same kind of simplistic mind that would suggest that banana’s are proof that God exists and wants us to get plenty of potassium.

I sort of agree with Brannon Howse

brannonhowse Brannon Howse is probably best known as the founder of Christian Worldview Network, an organization that tends to lean toward religiously-based conspiracy theories and tunnel-vision perspectives about the world approaching the "end times" of the bible. I actually listened to one of his entire podcasts about a month ago and it was astounding. It’s really hard to accept the idea that anyone can take him even remotely seriously, but I have very little doubt that plenty of people do.

Somehow, I got on the Christian Worldview Network’s mailing list, so I get updates every week about new podcasts and articles on their site. I stay on the list for the amusement value. This week, I hit the jackpot.

In his weekly podcast, one topic that Howse addresses is Rick Warren speaking to the Islamic Society of North America. In the summary of the podcast, here’s what Howse says.

Rick Warren speaks for the Islamic Society of North America and not only does he NOT give the gospel as usual but Warren called for "a coalition of faith" which Jan Markell says is another way of calling for a one-world religion.

I don’t know who Jan Markell is, but I’m going to take a "leap of faith" here and guess that, whoever she is, Howse agrees with her completely. The whole "one-world religion" idea is so close to "new world order" that it seems right up his alley. I could do an entire post about why that idea is laughable, but that would be (even more of) a digression.

Now here’s where I start to agree with Howse.

Warren is proving that he is extremely ignorant and foolish. Is Warren really just a false teacher that has completely duped most non-thinking Christians, including tens of thousands of pastors? […] Sadly, many Christians will continue to follow Warren because they are completely void of discernment.

That’s probably about as accurate a statement as you’re going to get regarding Warren and the Christians who admire him. Warren is a woo-peddler of the highest degree… with the added benefit of being bigoted and homophobic. He’s also got charisma, which is what makes the "non-thinking" contingent of Christians hold him in such high regard.

The thing is, you could easily replace "Warren" with a number of other names in Howse’s statement and it would be just as accurate: Haggard, Graham, Falwell, , Baker, Ham.

Oh… and "Howse."

Subtle, Yet Noticeable

piratefish I’m not a bit fan of bumper stickers on my car. In fact, I’ve never had one on any car I’ve owned. I love them on other peoples’ cars… just not mine.

However, I wanted something atheist-related on my car without the in-your-face message generally provided by bumper stickers. Being a fan of the flying spaghetti monster (and of pirates), I thought that the FSM pirate fish was a perfect solution. I got a vinyl window sticker from EvolveFish and put it on the driver’s side rear windshield.

It matches my white car perfectly, doesn’t invite theists to key my car, but lets those who are already "in the know" get the picture.

I’m diggin’ it.

Sin Yourself Righteous!

original-sin Paul Fidalgo, who is the blogger at Bloc Raisonneur, also posts as the DC Secular Examiner on Examiner.com. He posted a piece today about “The Apparently Weak Faith of the Unfaithful Republicans” which had a bit to say about Governor Sanford, but more about the bigger picture.

One great point he made about those politicians who are so in-your-face about their religious piety and moral values (“Christians all, and every one of them extremely noisy about it” says Fidalgo), is that the reason they fessed up isn’t because of… well… here’s what Fidalgo said (emphasis his):

It was not the wrenching guts of a tortured soul that got Sanford, Vitter, Ensign, or Craig to fess up. They didn’t fear for their timeshares in the afterlife, nor did they see a vision of a tut-tutting Jesus hovering over them while in passionate throes. They held their conferences, released their dour statements, and apologized to those unwise enough to have faith in them, because they got caught.

His post is definitely worth reading and highlights the pseudo-devotion of this type of Christian.

What also got my attention was a comment made by Chris Henson about Christian morality in the comments section at the end of the post. I’ve posted similar things myself here, but he phrases it in a wonderfully colorful way that I needed to share.

Yeah, but “God gave his only begotten son” so that Christians can break all the rules they want to. Probably the most convenient twist of religious chicanery ever devised. You’ve got one book spelling out the “Commandments” and “Deadly Sins.” Then you’ve got the other book with this hippy dude who died so you can pretty much sin all you want to.

It’s like “Eat Yourself Thin.” Or “The Four Hour Work Week.” Combined, the Old and New Testaments should be called “Sin Yourself Righteous!”

Sin Yourself Righteous!

Christians tend to make the claim that morality comes from God or the bible, but in reality, biblical religions just teach that you can have a free pass to sin without consequence.

It seems that some politicians take advantage of that.