Fun With Church Signs

PrayerTonight I passed a church that frequently updates their sign with (sometimes) clever sayings. Today, they have the old saying, “After all is said and done, usually a lot more is said than done.”

There’s nothing innately religiousy about that phrase… except that it immediately struck me as a perfect analogy for prayer.

If you’re relying on prayer, then all that ever happens is the saying… and none of the doing… since prayer is basically mental masturbation under the guise of religious piety. As a popular bumper sticker says (Hooray for bumper sticker psychology!), “The hard work of one does more than the prayers of millions.”

If prayer truly worked and religious-minded people actually believed that it worked, it would seem that prayer would solve every problem. It doesn’t, of course, and therein lies the basis for explanatory shenanigans… as follows.

If a prayer is made and the wish comes true, it was God answering the prayer and is a delightful, miraculous experience, be it large or small. If a prayer is made and the wish doesn’t come true, then it wasn’t God’s plan for it to happen or the non-answer is a test of some sort. It never means that God wasn’t listening.

If I pray for a flipped coin to land heads up, what will happen is that my prayer is answered roughly fifty percent of the time. It’s a miracle! The other fifty percent of the time, God chose not to make the coin land that way.

A funny thing, though… if I don’t say any prayers (because perhaps… I don’t know… there’s nobody listening?), then the coin will land heads up (are you ready for this?) roughly fifty percent of the time!

Amazingly enough, anyone that believes in prayer will dismiss that little example by calling it trivial or nonsensical. Of course God isn’t going to intervene in something so silly. That’s a useless request. However, those same people will, no doubt, claim divine intervention for small things like a cool breeze or for help with the tricky loading of a lawnmower onto a truck or for the serendipitous discovery of a ten dollar bill blowing down the sidewalk. It seems there’s a double standard in operation there.

I will concede one possible benefit of prayer. For some people, it no doubt makes them feel calmer and more at peace. However, the same can be said for meditation or a quick nap or deep breathing or even spending time with friends, all things that can be used to accomplish the same effect without the superstitious notion of a all-powerful voyeur.

It’s not that God isn’t listening. It’s that he doesn’t exist.

The Hand of God?

Click to embiggen
Click to embiggen

Okay, maybe it’s the “hand” of  an x-ray nebula that spans 150 light years. The image was taken by NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory. The bright object in the center is a “very young and powerful” pulsar. Check out the link for the details and a bigger image.

I can SO see this being on the view screen of the Enterprise bridge… right before the shields fail and really bad things start to happen.

Fearmongering Bigotry?

I just got an email about a new commercial being aired by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) concerning a “storm” that’s brewing in this country. What is the storm? Same-sex marriage, of course. The commercial is just filled with nonsense, but attempts to convey a sense of dread about how same-sex marriage is taking over the country and taking away the rights of our citizens.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI

Some quotes:

“Some who advocate for same-sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same-sex couples.”

“They want to bring the issue into my life.”

“My freedom will be taken away.”

“I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.”

“I’m part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we can’t support same-sex marriage.”

“Those advocates want to change the way I live.”

It goes on, but then turns brighter by saying that a “rainbow coalition” (oh, the irony!) is “coming together in love to protect marriage.” Then it invites viewers to visit the website and join them (the bigotry there is even more prominent, enhanced by the vehement denials of bigotry).

At the bottom of the video, there’s s line of text stating “The stories these actors are telling are based on real incidents.” No detail is provided, however, so we don’t know what happened to the woman who says, “My freedom will be taken away” or how the New Jersey church group was “punished by the government.”

Regardless of each story’s details, the one common thread is that all of them are born of religion-based bigotry. Sadly, in a country where about a third of the people see evolution as false, it’s not all that surprising. Religious belief removes the motivation for scientific inquiry and curiousity in the same way that it accentuates and validates bigotry and intolerance. Any time a claim is made of “absolute truth,” you can be somewhat sure that “truth” is nowhere to be found. Any time a claim is made of “objective morality,” you can be somewhat sure that “morality” is the last thing you’ll find.

The same-sex marriage opponents are the worker bees of religious dogma. If the ancient holy book claims that same-sex marriage is wrong, then same-sex marriage must be the evil storm of Satan trying to overtake and destroy this nation “under God.” Oh… and no shellfish.

Maybe they’d better form a rainbow coalition.

*snicker*

A Dubious Win in Texas

DNS StrandThe Texas Board of Education managed to squeak a vote through that shot down the addition of anti-evolution language into their education standards which would have specified the standard nonsense about evaluating the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. However, in a series of equally nonsensical ammendments, the anti-science creationists and IDers added all kinds of detrimental (and somewhat incoherent) language to try to bolster their untenable position.

Don McLeroy didn’t win his big desired change (the “strengths and weaknesses” language), but he was probably reveling in the little jabs that were inflicted by all the amendments. McLeroy displayed a gross misunderstanding of both science and evolution in the now infamous Youtube video. In the ars technica article linked above, John Timmer says…

[In the Youtube video] McLeroy urges the board to join a crusade against the scientific community. “Somebody has to stand up to these experts,” he said, while expressing incredulity about their opposition, stating, “I don’t know why they’re doing it.” Elsewhere, he argued that evolution isn’t science, saying, “it’s an ideology” and “evolution goes back to someone who came up with a philosophical speculation.”

I’m almost speechless… but not quite. How do people like this gain a position that has influence over the education of our children? On one hand, he admits that he’s not an expert, yet he then continues to essentially say that the experts are wrong and that he knows better. I’m not sure where he gets his definition of “expert” but it’s seemingly not from anywhere in this reality.

Timmer also comments:

So, instead of “strengths and weaknesses,” the new standards call for students to “analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations” based in part on “examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific experiments.” Not only is the grammar fractured, but scientific experiments are usually notable for not supporting “all sides” of an argument.

As might be expected, the age of the universe came in for some questioning. A standard that mentioned the universe was roughly 14 billion years old was amended to require students to evaluate “current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe.” Elsewhere, students are instructed to consider how the data “reveal differing theories about the structure, scale, composition, origin, and history of the universe.” Apparently, the board was unaware that our estimates of the age of the universe have narrowed considerably in the last few decades.

The creationists seem to be attacking science on all fronts now, but we seem to be missing the evolution-specific attacks that are so common from them.

Oh, wait… here they are.

Students are expected to consider the “sudden appearance” of lineages in the fossil record, which the creationist literature argues is an indication that these lineages were instantaneously created.

[…]

[The Board] added a new standard, directing students to “analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of natural selection to explain the complexity of the cell.”

[…]

Teachers now have to ensure that students can “analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.”

Wow. So much for science in Texas. Fortunately, high school science teachers tend to ignore this type of language and teach evolution the best they can in the tiny amount of time granted for the topic… sometimes as little as three days, from what I’ve read (can’t find the link anymore. Sorry).

Even so, the addition of language of this nature does nothing to enhance science education… or education in general. Creationists spend so much effort coming up with twisted, devious ways to push their mythical ideas into the agendas of otherwise rational education standards that one would have to begin to question their premise.

If their ideas were so scientific and plausible, why have to be so obscure about their intentions? Furthermore, where is the evidence to support their ideas? Where is the grounded thinking and scientific explanation for even a single one of their postulates?

Nowhere.

They’ve got nothing to go on. I’ve said it before. The only thing they have to work with is an infantile attempt to attack the scientifically supported theory of evolution. They prey upon the uneducated with blatantly false propaganda, knowing that anyone who doesn’t understand real science or the actual theory of evolution might, perhaps, think that their position is tenable. Then they’ll get the “Why not teach both sides?” reactions from people and their battle is halfway done.

The solution is education. Real education… based on real facts and real evidence and real logical thinking. The more our educational system descends into this anti-intellecual, anti-science, irrational way of thinking, the more this country will fall behind in this world, not only intellectually, but influentially. Texas seems to be leading the way into the pit.

Way to go, McLeroy.

When will it end?

As if the inanity in Texas wasn’t enough, Senator Steve Wise in Jacksonville, Florida had to go and file more legislation in an attempt to dilute the teaching of evolution. It seems these anti-science, anti-education cretins won’t give up until schools are teaching kids that science equals magic. They aren’t even being intellectually honest about their intent, which just makes it even more aggravating.

Next up, Astrology!

Clueless in Texas

TiktaalikWith the Texas Board of Education narrowly voting yesterday to keep the creationists from adding bogus language to their education standards, the religious conservative frenzy is at a peak. Not only were outrageous (and blatantly untrue) statements made during the school board’s meeting, but creationism-supporting commentators were out in force… and they just keep coming, each one showing just how well they can ignore evidence and misunderstand issues.

The example I ran across today is from Don McDonald, a guest columnist at the Waco Tribune-Herald. His editorial, titled Evolution crowd is censoring science, claims that by disallowing the proposed “strengths and weaknesses” language, the school board is squelching academic freedom and censoring science.

It is heartening to see that in January, the State Board of Education upheld academic freedom when learning evolution by crafting science standards that require students to “analyze and evaluate” the evidence for evolution, and asking students to consider “the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.”

Two things come immediately to mind here. First, as Kenneth Miller enthusiastically and eloquently points out, everything in science should be critically examined. That’s what science is all about. Scientific theories change, live, and die by the examination of new evidence. It’s one of the things that makes the scientific method so wonderfully effective at explaining the natural world.

Second, given that all science should be critically examined, why was the proposed language focusing only on evolution? What about astronomy? What about chemistry? What about geology? The reason, of course, is that the language is specifically focused on evolution because it’s being used as a creationist weapon. There is no reason, other than religious zealotry, to use that kind of language focused solely on evolution.

By supporting these amendments, the board supported developing critical thinking skills among students. Anything less than analysis, evaluation, and free discussion of arguments for and against any theory amounts to censorship, and censorship never serves the advancement of science.

The first sentence is bogus for the reasons I already mentioned. The second sentence is almost perfect. The phrase “free discussion of arguments” is far too open to be of any use. Perhaps the “free discussion of evidence” might be better? McDonald is trying to make the point that any alternative ideas to evolution should be given discussion time, regardless of their scientific merit (ie… creationism). However, allowing discussion time for any alternative ideas will only serve to confuse students as to what real science is, and would completely waste valueable and preciously-limited time for real science education.

Objectors to the proposed language in the science standards commonly express fear of “creationism creeping into the classrooms.” But the amendments say nothing of creationism or intelligent design. They are about exploring and discovering science.

The amendments really don’t say anything specifically about creationism or intelligent design. However, what other purpose could there be to focusing solely on evolution? Given the history of the creationism and intelligent design “movement,” it’s blatantly evident that the goal of the language is to target evolution and attempt to cast doubt on a theory that has been tested and challenged for more than 150 years… yet has held up under such intense scrutiny without scarcely a blemish. Details about evolution have changed over the years due to additional evidence and study, but the basic premise has remained intact since its inception.

The creationist attempts to throw doubt on evolution and to introduce supernatural explanations for life’s progression are becoming more and more transparent and pathetic… yet they continue, nonetheless. The phrases “teach the controversy” and “only a theory” have become dogmatic mantras of the unscientific and uneducated. The same long-since-debunked issues come up repeatedly (bacterial flagellum, blood clotting proteins, etc) as “proof” that evolution is not valid. The same tired rhetoric is used over and over, ad nauseum, in an attempt to disguise the religious intent of creationism and ID supporters.

Yet, with all the effort put forth by these anti-intellectual snake-oil salesmen, one thing is glaringly missing.

Evidence.

They have none. There is no evidence to support intelligent design. There is no evidence to support creationism. Not a single piece of evidence exists. Their sole strategy is to attempt to discredit evolution so that they can claim “God did it” as the “obvious” alternative. That’s all they have and that’s all they will ever have. It’s called the “God of the gaps” argument… if we can’t explain it, it must be God.

If they want to believe that, they are free to do so. They can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. They can believe that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth together. They can believe in talking snakes and virgin births and resurrections as devoutly as they want. They can believe that life was created by an “intelligent designer” and raise their hands to the heavens in tribute.

But do not try to pass it off as science.

Psycho Fan Stalks Shawn Johnson

Shawn JohnsonThere was a story in the news today that Olympic gymnast Shawn Johnson was being stalked by a psycho fan, who has since been arrested. The man left his family and drove from Florida to California where Dancing With the Stars was being filmed in hopes of being with Johnson.

Evidently, his car contained two loaded guns, duct tape, zip ties, a “map to the victim,” and love letters. He believed he was meant to have a child with Johnson.

Why did he believe this?

Documents also indicated O’Ryan “believes that she speaks to him personally through the television set and through ESP.”

I’m not sure what the psychological diagnosis is for something like that. It’s probably not schizophrenia, but that’s what pops into my head. It leaves no doubt, however, that the guy definitely has some mental health issues.

After reading the story, my initial reaction was that he was pretty crazy and that it had to be pretty nerve-wracking for Johnson… and I believe that.

My next reaction is the point of this post. If you take away the duct tape, zip ties, and the loaded guns (or maybe not in some cases), you basically have a guy that’s considered crazy because he was hearing a very specific voice speaking only to him.

How is that any different from people who claim that God speaks to them?

I don’t think that’s an unreasonable comparison. Christians routinely talk of having conversations with God and some actually say that they hear God’s voice. In religious circles, this is viewed as a wonderful, spiritual thing… even when God commands someone to kill his son.

Hearing someone else’s voice, however, is seen as a sign of psychosis. Sometimes even hearing God’s voice is seen as a sign of psychosis when “God” is telling the listener to commit a crime (outside the bible).

It seems that hearing voices is considered spiritual in some cases and psychotic in others, regardless of the speaker. How do religious believers know which is which? Supposedly God told Abraham to kill his son. Was Abraham psychotic? Some murderers have claimed that God told them to kill people. Are they psychotic? The book of Genesis says that God told Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Was Adam psychotic?

In each case of supposed divine communication, someone hears one or multiple voices. Christian interpretations of these incidents are completely inconsistent. Some claims of godly discussions are seen as wonderful… others as dispicable and crazy. Shawn Johnson’s stalker heard a voice, too, so for Christians to see him as crazy seems disingenuous at best. Their religious stories are chock full of people hearing voices.

Personally, I’ll chalk it up to insanity.

Finding Life’s Meaning

Ocean Sunset“Nothing in this world has meaning without a life devoted to God.”

Variations of that phrase can be heard from Christians of all stripes. It’s a common statement frequently directed toward atheists, letting them know in no uncertain terms that their lives cannot be truly meaningful without religion… without faith… without God.

After hearing that point (far too often), I began to wonder just what “meaning” religion brings to the table. For simplicity, I’ll refer to Christianity in particular, but other faiths probably have similar concepts.

I think a distinction needs to be made between the meaning of life and meaning in life… why we exist versus what we do with our existence. Christians make claims with respect to both issues (though generally the same claims for each). I do not.

So what is the meaning of life for Christians? What meaning is there in life for them? Here’s a small sampling from various sources.

You were put on this earth for one, and only one, reason, and that is so that you can have a living relationship with God. Every other reason is meaningless. This relationship with God is the Meaning of Life.
– SeekersTrove.com

Rather, real meaning in life is when one begins to follow Christ as His disciple, learning of Him, spending time with Him in His Word, the Bible, communing with Him in prayer, and in walking with Him in obedience to His commands.
– GotQuestions.org

What is the real purpose of life? “Fear God and keep His commands.”
Our main concern in life must be to work in God’s kingdom and have a right relationship with Him.
– The Gospel Way

So, this is what man is here for, to serve and worship an Almighty God for a few short years in order to obtain a life forever and forever in glory with Him. It is the duty of man, it is the meaning of our life.
– Joel Hendon on SearchWarp.com

[The meaning of life] is to love God by choosing to have a relationship with Him through His Son, Jesus Christ.
– All About Worldview

Some other passages attempted explanations for why God actually created humans (the meaning of life), but they were usually either weak (he wanted to have man serve him) or vague and circuitous (because of events regarding Lucifer and the “Angelic Conflict”).

What I get from all those quotes (and from many others that I didn’t include) is that what gives life meaning for Christians is serving and worshipping God… and in one case, fearing him. It seems that, without subjugating yourself to God, life is pointless.

Continue reading “Finding Life’s Meaning”

Hypocrisy? I think so.

Sarah PalinToday I saw a video of an interview with Sarah Palin about gay marriage. The interview was The Christian Broadcasting Network in October of 2008, so it’s nothing particularly current. However, I think it highlights something that is all too common, not just regarding the gay marriage debate, but religious issues in general.

Here’s what Palin says during the interview.

In my own state, I have voted […] to ammend our  constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage. Ummm… I’m… You know I’m not gonna be up here judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgement, telling them what they can and cannot do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take action that I believe would be best for traditional marriage […]

I want to be clear on something here. I 100% support her right to have and voice an opinion that is contrary to mine or anyone else’s. I would never want to squelch free speech on any issue.

What I have a problem with, in this particular case, is the blatant hypocrisy. She says that she supports a constitutional ammendment on a state and federal level that would ban gay marriage by defining it as between one man and one woman. Then she says that she’s not “gonna be up here judging individuals” or “telling them what they can and cannot do, should and should not do.” That’s in complete contradiction with her first statement.

So which is it? Only Palin knows for sure, but I can speculate based on information from other statements she’s made. She does want to tell people what they can and cannot do. She is judging people. Not only that, but she’s doing it based on teachings from her religious holy book. If you listen to the entire interview, she goes on to say the following.

[…] speaking up for traditional marriage… that… that… instrument that it’s the foundation of our society is that strong family and that’s based on that traditional definition of marriage.

Putting aside her mid-sentence shift of meaning, she started out saying that “traditional marriage” is the “foundation of our society.” At least it is today. Tomorrow, our foundation might be the Ten Commandments. Perhaps later it could be Christian values or the right to life or a good work ethic. It seems that the foundation of our society can shift and morph and become whatever it needs to be to support the argument at hand, whether that argument is about gay marriage, religion in schools, abortion, political prayers, or other religiously-motivated topics du jour.

The all-too-common refrain, however, closely mimics Palin’s statements. You’re free to do what you want and believe what you want… as long as it goes along with biblical teachings. Nobody will judge you or tell you what to do… as long as what you’re doing is acceptable according to the bible.

I guess I won’t be having scallops for dinner. (Leviticus11:11-12)