Archive for November, 2008

November 18th, 2008

Free Thought of the Day

Rabbi Sherwin Wine:

There are two visions of America. One precedes our founding fathers and finds its roots in the harshness of our puritan past. It is very suspicious of freedom, uncomfortable with diversity, hostile to science, unfriendly to reason, contemptuous of personal autonomy. It sees America as a religious nation. It views patriotism as allegiance to God. It secretly adores coercion and conformity. Despite our constitution, despite the legacy of the Enlightenment, it appeals to millions of Americans and threatens our freedom.

The other vision finds its roots in the spirit of our founding revolution and in the leaders of this nation who embraced the age of reason. It loves freedom, encourages diversity, embraces science and affirms the dignity and rights of every individual. It sees America as a moral nation, neither completely religious nor completely secular. It defines patriotism as love of country and of the people who make it strong. It defends all citizens against unjust coercion and irrational conformity.

This second vision is our vision. It is the vision of a free society. We must be bold enough to proclaim it and strong enough to defend it against all its enemies.

November 15th, 2008

Child Abuse-Turning Kids into Political Zombies

Free thinkers envy children with their unbiased perception of the world. Training children to become mental zombies, mouthing responses they don’t understand and can’t possibly have arrived at on their own is tantamount to child abuse. People who force their children to act as though they believe in the parent’s politics or religion are doing their kids no favor. In fact, the harm they do may not become evident for many years.

Here’s an example of the political child abuser. Look at the faces of his children. This isn’t a family, it’s a cult.

November 6th, 2008

Relativists must use relative logic

What exactly would “relative logic” sound like? And how does my being relative toward ethics and knowledge have a thing to do with logic, which is as formal and structured a tool for understanding as is mathematics. Are atheists going to be accused of using “relative mathematics” now? Are those of us who understand that morals/ethics are realtive concepts going to be barred from doing calculations?

Probability is logical and mathematical. A relative outlook on life appreciates probability. In relativism, probable actions and their outcomes are weighted, from highly possible (near certainty) to highly unlikely (near impossibility). High probability: death and that none of us as individuals will ever know everything there is to know (which is why relativists see probabilities, not certainties). Highly unlikely: gods, unicorns, leprechauns, my living to be 500 years old.

November 5th, 2008

“Atheists believe god doesn’t exist” (common theist misconception)

That in which I don’t believe cannot provide the basis for a belief system. If I believe in anything, it’s that which can withstand scrutiny and skepticism. The claim that gods exist and further, that any particular god exists, are extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. None has been provided.

Faith requires me to look at reality, which makes sense viewed through my everyday perceptions, in a way that doesn’t make sense on so many levels. I choose to no longer accept the unsubstantiated presumption that gods exist.

If I say “god does not exist”, I’m not speaking in the same absolutist frame of mind common among those who presuppose a condition to be real based on nothing more than emotions and tradition. The possibility that gods exist, based on all that’s known about gods, and further that any particular god exists to the exclusion of all the others is so infinitesimally small it’s not worth admitting a possibility exists. The odds of my hitting the lottery are far better than the odds that the Christian god exists as portrayed by its followers. The chance that I’m a child of god is on a par with the chance that I’m a child of extraterrestrials.

I’ll never know so much I could ever rule out anything absolutely. Religious belief presumes the absolute existence of its deities. To allow that they might not exist is the first step to breaking free of the shackles of presumptive belief.

I’m willing to admit that there is, however small, a possibility that a god just like yours exists just as you personally perceive your god to be. I also admit the possibility that reality is a natural process unfolding within us and around us totally unmindful of our presence is far greater and able to withstand critical examination. Theists, true believers, cannot in good faith accept even the slightest possibility that their beliefs may be mis-perceptions of reality.

Who is free to consider all possibilities? Who can more accurately call themselves free thinkers?

Isn’t the non-existence of gods as much a presumption as the belief they exist? Sure, but it’s a presupposition that invites disproof. It’s a flexible presumption. The presumption that gods exist (not can exist but do exist in one form or another) is inflexible and discourages and ignores disproof.

November 4th, 2008

A reason to hope?

I’m usually critical, skeptical, not easily given to optimism. I know enough about humanity and its history to be fairly confident in my pessimism.

Tonight, however, I’m wondering if this next year might prove my worst expectations false. Perhaps Americans have noticed the damage that’s been done to our country by Bush/Cheney and decided to change direction. Maybe our descent into near-theocracy will reverse course. It’s possible that we will return to older American values; financial security, peace internationally, peace domestically, low unemployment, high productivity, innovation.

If it turns out that proposition 8 in California is passed, I’m saddened but not surprised. Disappointed but not defeated. What is been done can be undone.

The “Yes on 8″ crowd made it abundantly clear that their sole intent was to impose religious belief upon California state law. In the last three weeks their ads have constantly appealed to religious objections to homosexuality generally, but made no effort to provide any substantiation for their non-religious claims. Their only interest has been in spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt. They provided no reason to justify the denial of rights to gays to marry and establish families. These great supporters of family values. They don’t support all family values.

Obama should remind us that progress is possible. It may take longer than we’d like. Progress may bring as much pain as pleasure. That’s life.

If there were enough people in America to elect Obama, there ought to be enough people in California to support gay marriage. I understand that accepting an Obama presidency doesn’t in itself violate Christian sensibilities the way gays do.

The issue’s been raised. This time was too soon, the idea received a knee-jerk reaction fueled by religious intolerance and bigotry. But now more people are going to think about this, and many of them will reconsider the lines they’ve been fed. They’ll start to question theological presumptions that in some mysterious way gay marriage will somehow impact on their lives. The longer they think about their support of 8, the more likely they’ll come to their senses. They’ll realize that to allow does not imply an endorsement.

At some point, I hope soon, Americans will follow Barak’s example on the state level and below.

We’ll see. The times, they are ‘a changin’. New possibilities have been exposed. Conditions exist to breed hope.

Then again, my pessimism may eventually be proven justified and I’ll be calling myself a fool for having any hope at all. Change isn’t always just for the good. Change-for-the-sake-of-change and change-for-the-worse are just as possible.

November 1st, 2008

Facts don’t get in the way of Web political rumors

With just days to go before the election, gossip, hearsay, innuendo and smears are flying through the Internet as gadflies and rumormongers hope to sway voters before they head to the polls.

“It’s a lot of mud being slung, it’s understandable, but I think it’s still kind of sad,” said Nick DiFonzo, a psychologist and rumor expert at Rochester Institute of Technology in upstate New York.

Candidates and their campaigns are circulating negative bits of information in mainstream venues, raising questions about their opponents in speeches and dropping sour hints in their advertisements. But only on the Internet can entirely false rumors persist, stories told without back up, persistently bouncing from one blog to another.

Some have been out there for years, despite repeated rebuttals from the campaigns. Others surfaced only this past week. And they range from the truly silly (Weekly World News Web site: “OCTOBER SURPRISE: ALIEN ENDORSES MCCAIN!”) to the multitude of bloggers who report results even though votes have yet to be counted: (”Has John McCain Won Florida?” asked the Red State Web site Thursday.)

Most voters say they have already made their decisions about who they want to have as their next president. So the Internet rumors are targeted at the shrinking pool of undecided voters who are still waiting, wondering and potentially still gathering information.

Some examples:

The Rumor: The Huffington Post Web site, among others, has reported that John McCain used an obscene word to describe his wife Cindy during his 1992 Senate campaign.

The Facts: This is unsubstantiated. Author and blogger Cliff Schecter initiated this rumor this spring online and then in a book called “The Real McCain.” He wrote that three reporters told him that in response to some teasing, McCain told his wife: “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop,” with an expletive. Schecter has not provided any evidence this happened, and he hasn’t identified the three reporters who he says spoke to him on condition of anonymity.

___

The Rumor: Barack Obama isn’t a citizen, suggested bloggers at the Free Republic Web site. Or if he is, he’s hiding his birth certificate for some mysterious reason. Or if he’s shared his birth certificate, it’s a fake because he’s lying about who his real father is. New iterations on this theme pop up almost everyday at various Web sites.

The Facts: Obama plainly is a citizen because he was born in the U.S. In response to the allegations, Obama’s campaign in June posted the Illinois senator’s birth certificate on his campaign Web site, http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate. The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document. On Friday, officials in Hawaii said they had personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate. Judges in Washington state, Ohio and Pennsylvania have dismissed lawsuits challenging his citizenship.

___

The Rumor: Daily Kos Web site, among others, has said Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s son Trig, born in April, was actually born to her 17-year-old daughter Bristol.

The Facts: Unsubstantiated. After McCain tapped Palin as his running mate, bloggers accused Palin of faking a pregnancy to cover up for her daughter’s accidental pregnancy. As proof, bloggers said Palin hadn’t appeared pregnant before Trig was born, and that she said she traveled from Texas to Alaska while she was in labor. In an effort to rebut the rumors, the campaign announced that Bristol was, in fact, pregnant. After all, how could Trig be Bristol’s baby if she was pregnant only months later? The announcement slowed the rumors, but didn’t stop the ongoing questions about Trig’s parentage. Even this past week, bloggers were demanding Sarah Palin’s medical records to prove she gave birth to Trig.

____

The Rumor: 1960s radical William Ayers wrote Obama’s autobiography “Dreams From My Father.”

The Facts: Unsubstantiated. Obama says he didn’t meet Ayers until 1995. The book was published in 1995, which means most of it would have been written in 1994. Blogger Jack Cashill has been floating this rumor at the World Net Daily Web site — and it has moved on to many more — hinting that the book’s “fierce, succinct and tightly coiled social analysis” was closer to Ayers’ style than Obama’s. “Utter hogwash,” said Obama organizers. (Yahoo News)

I don’t think this is the ugliest campaign on record. But at this particular moment in this country, it’s unconscionable to attempt to distract us from the serious issues we face by making unsubstantiated claims, many of which have little to do with a candidate’s ability to perform the duties of office. I lose respect for any candidate who spends more time and money trying to demonize their opponent than they do telling us what they will do once elected.