Posts tagged ‘Religion’

August 12th, 2010

The Religious Hate Science

Le Penseur, Musée Rodin, Paris

Image via Wikipedia

I think that overstates the case. I don’t get the impression that the average theist “hates” science, just that they’re too dismissive of it without an interest in actually learning anything about it. I call it “willful ignorance”. “Ignorance” as in not being aware of something and “willful” because this attitude is intentional and encouraged by religious leaders. Christianity and Islam alike show a preference for believing what their leaders say over what science actually teaches. It’s not as if they’ve come to understand what science says about the natural universe and are able to argue against scientific conclusions with an informed rebuttal. They don’t want to make that effort since to do so is not considered a religious virtue. Listening to your leaders and book(s) and disdaining the false and devilish “worldly wisdom” are virtues and is a point of pride for the true believer.

“Hate” is too extreme an emotion to apply to how I see a majority of the religious I encounter every day. It’s more like they just don’t care.

One of my favorite Sagan quotes is: “I don’t want to believe; I want to know“. Any realist understands that we’ll never individually “know” everything. But some of us prefer to always seek to know, to not stop at some point along the journey and declare “I now know all I need to know”. That’s way too presumptuous and intellectually lazy.

Theists will pick and choose what science they will accept and somehow figure out a way to justify it in their own mind. They perceive themselves as having more to lose by actually studying science with an open and honest, skeptical and curious mind than they do by rejecting what openly conflicts with their core beliefs all the while blithely accepting the benefits of science on a daily basis without giving it much of a thought.

Enhanced by Zemanta

April 14th, 2009

Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect

No one has ever overcome every human weakness, it’s simply not possible. Perfection isn’t even a concrete concept. Theists themselves admit they don’t become perfect because of their belief, they don’t become saints.

So what difference has religious belief made to human behavior? It introduced the idea that some of our common behaviors were bad, evil, an affront to its god. It introduced guilt and shame. Religions make being a human a bad thing.envelope-small

Religions invent superhuman gods as personifications of what we wish we could be; everlasting, error free, beyond reproach, spotless and pure. Religion preys on our ability to sense our imperfections, our awareness of our stumbles and falls throughout life. Theism has to knock its followers down first so it can claim the win when it helps them back up again. All us humans are essentially the same, imperfect and subject to forces both natural and social beyond our control. All religious belief does is offer a refuge from the feelings of guilt and imperfection religious belief itself created.

Religious belief poisons minds, then offers an antidote that doesn’t cure the symptoms but only promises that the poison won’t kill you, not really dead.

April 13th, 2009

The Difference

It’s the difference between you believing something and you wanting me to believe something.

February 6th, 2009

Athesim and Science

Atheism display at Borders
Image by Colin Purrington via Flickr

There appears to be, in the minds of many theists, a determination to wed atheism and science, though
unnecessary and not supported.

An atheist is any non-believer in gods. There are atheists who think
crystals hold some sort of magical properties, those who see auras,
Mystics, Buddhists, all kinds of folks who only share in common a lack
of belief in gods. “All atheists worship science or have faith in
science” is as inaccurate as saying “all theists blindly follow their
leaders and know nothing of their own beliefs.”

Atheism does not espouse a set of morals, it does not determine what
else you do and don’t believe. It doesn’t endorse any political party
or manner of determining reality. An atheist can believe the scientific
explanation of the universe and reality or they can believe we were put
here by aliens, they might believe in ghosts and Earth spirits or they
may try to live by logic and reason. Atheists can be really smart and
abysmally stupid, and everywhere in between.

My humanistic attitudes are far more influential on my behavior and
belief system than my atheism. Atheism addresses a single disbelief
among hundreds I hold. It does give me the freedom of mind to
appreciate science while at the same time enjoying medieval polyphonic
motets, to learn from religion while not falling back under its spell,
to examine any claim and subject it to the standards I’ve adopted in my
life. It facilitates these things, but I do none of these things “in
the name” of atheism or even because of my atheism. I loved medieval
music as a Christian and I love it still.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

August 25th, 2008

Swedish government – it’s illegal for schools to teach religious doctrine as if it were true.

Courtesy of The Guardian:

The Swedish government has announced plans to clamp down hard on religious education. It will soon become illegal even for private faith schools to teach religious doctrines as if they were true. In an interesting twist on the American experience, prayer will remain legal in schools – after all, it has no truth value. But everything that takes place on the curriculum’s time will have to be secular. “Pupils must be protected from every sort of fundamentalism,” said the minister for schools, Jan Björklund.

Creationism and ID are explicitly banned but so is proselytising even in religious education classes. The Qur’an may not be taught as if it is true even in Muslim independent schools, nor may the Bible in Christian schools. The decision looks like a really startling attack on the right of parents to have their children taught what they would like. Of course it does not go so far as the Dawkins policy of prohibiting parents from trying to pass on their doctrines even in their own families – and, if it did, it would certainly run foul of the European convention on human rights. It does not even go as far as Nyamko Sabuni, the minister for integration – herself born in Burundi – would like: she wanted to ban all religious schools altogether. But it is still a pretty drastic measure from an English perspective.

The law is being presented in Sweden as if it mostly concerned fundamentalist Christian sects in the backwoods; but the Christian Democratic party, which represents such people if anyone does, is perfectly happy with the new regulation. There is little doubt that combating Islamic fundamentalism is the underlying aim, especially in conjunction with another new requirement that all independent schools declare all their funding sources. This would allow the inspectors – whose budget is being doubled – to concentrate their efforts on those schools most likely to be paid to break the rules.

It’s good to see a few governments brave enough to take a stand against supernatural thinking being presented as established fact.  Theists demand we accept their opinions as fact without feeling compelled to offer any sort of credible evidence to support their claims.

Sweden has issued a challenge with this law; if theists want their beliefs to be taught as fact, provide as much proof as science has for evolution or gravity.

March 29th, 2008

Bakunin’s thoughts on religion

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.
– Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State (1871), quoted from The Columbia Dictionary Of Quotations

People go to church for the same reasons they go to a tavern: to stupefy themselves, to forget their misery, to imagine themselves, for a few minutes anyway, free and happy.
– Mikhail Bakunin, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

Religion is a collective insanity.
– Mikhail Bakunin, from Rufus K Noyes, Views of Religion, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

The idea of god implies the abdication of human reason & justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty & necessarily ends in the enslavement of manking both in theory & practice.
He who desires to worship god must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but bravely renounce his liberty & humanity.
– Mikhail Bakunin, his classic statement on the matter

All religions, with their gods, their demi-gods, and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the prejudiced fancy of men who had not attained the full development and full possession of their faculties.
– Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State (1871), quoted from Emma Goldman, “The Philosophy of Atheism” (1916)

March 2nd, 2008

Religious prattle

Following is an actual letter to the editor, a shining example of parroting unoriginal clichès without making any effort on the part of the writer to think for himself or even put his canned comments into his own words:

Thoughts on the ‘God’ question

“In God we trust.” Well, except for Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ellen Johnson, Michael Newdow and a minority portion of the rest of the population that sometimes labels themselves “brights.”

The evidence of an intelligent creator surrounds us: Everything from the vast wonders of space to the mysteries of quantum physics stand as witnesses. So, if there is a God, his word is the Bible. The Bible tells us either heaven or hell awaits us after we depart the tent of flesh we now occupy. As a believer, I trust I’ll be in heaven. But, if I’m wrong, then there is no consequence of hell, there’s just nothing. I either win big or get away free and clear.

For the atheist, if they are correct, they’d get the same nothing. Unless of course they are wrong, which would mean an eternity of torment in hell. They’ll only know for sure when they get there, and it will be too late. Dawkins would have his evidence then. He can deny, but he’ll know the truth soon enough. I’d say Madeline Murray O’Hair, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Lenin, Mao, Hitler and many others are believers now.

–Bill Cook of Mission Viejo

Let’s break this down and see if Bill is speaking the “truth” or just repeating the same tired arguments that have been debunked many times before.

“In God we trust.” Well, except for Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ellen Johnson, Michael Newdow and a minority portion of the rest of the population that sometimes labels themselves “brights.”

While I sincerely doubt Bill has ever read anything written by Dawkins, Harris and the others or actually knows what the Brights stand for, he is essentially correct that these people do not trust in god.

The evidence of an intelligent creator surrounds us: Everything from the vast wonders of space to the mysteries of quantum physics stand as witnesses.

If you expect to find an intelligent creator, I’m sure nature appears to support your preconceived notion. It is not, however, a universal truism. Different people will interpret nature according to their own beliefs and conclusions. A personal perception is proof of nothing beyond a person’s individual mindset. To the scientist, skeptic and non-believer, the awesomeness of nature illustrates the awesomeness of nature, nothing more.

So, if there is a God, his word is the Bible. The Bible tells us either heaven or hell awaits us after we depart the tent of flesh we now occupy.

So if there is a god, he has to be your particular god? What supports that contention? Why couldn’t a god be one of any of the hundreds of gods humans have believed in throughout history? You said nature was a witness to (perhaps you meant evidence for) an intelligent creator. How did you get from that thought to supposing that an intelligent creator is necessarily the Biblical god? That seems to be a combined leap-of-logic-leap-of-faith. As to your last point, many Christians would disagree with your “heaven or hell” position. There is no unanimity among Christians on that subject.

As a believer, I trust I’ll be in heaven. But, if I’m wrong, then there is no consequence of hell, there’s just nothing. I either win big or get away free and clear.

Bad news, Bill. That would only be true if you knew for sure you believed in the right god. What if you almost got it right and the god of the Jews was the real god. And here you are worshiping a false messiah. No cookies for you, Bill. And since god has steadfastly refused to visit the Earth in person lately, you only have your own assurances to convince yourself your god is the correct god to believe in. If there is a god but it’s not the god you worship, you might not enjoy the afterlife after all.

For the atheist, if they are correct, they’d get the same nothing. Unless of course they are wrong, which would mean an eternity of torment in hell. They’ll only know for sure when they get there, and it will be too late. Dawkins would have his evidence then. He can deny, but he’ll know the truth soon enough.

A continuation of your misapplication of logic as detailed above. If there is no hell because the real god is a different one than you suppose, the atheist won’t suffer any worse than Christians who picked the wrong horse in the race. In addition, you expose one of the least convincing arguments in Christianity. “You’ll know once you die.” Isn’t it convenient to posit a truth that can only be appreciated after death. That’s no better than saying there’s a book in another galaxy that backs everything I say. Just go there and read it, you’ll see.

I’d say Madeline Murray O’Hair, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Lenin, Mao, Hitler and many others are believers now.

Whether they are or not no one, including you, Bill, can say. What we do know with having to resort to faith is that they’re dead. Any more than that is just speculation on anyone’s part. No one knows from experience what happens after death. Factually, we have no reason to believe anything does.

signature

January 25th, 2008

“You can’t prove there is no god”

Why do we only require disproof of an unproven hypothesis when it comes to religion?

If I claimed I had built a machine that generated energy out of thin air and ran forever, is anyone obliged to spend time disproving that claim? Wouldn’t any rational, sane person simply say, “Let me know when you have proof of that” and dismiss such nonsense out-of-hand? Is there even a need to be agnostic about such a claim? Of course not. Not even the PC crowd would insist we respect this claim as possible. It’s nonsensical, and anyone who paid attention in school after the third grade would know that.

That’s why we argue against religion. It’s been given a free pass for too long. It’s time those of us who remain unconvinced by theistic claims that defy reason and nature explain and defend our reasons for not buying this silliness.

signature

January 1st, 2008

Huckabee adjusts his position

From PageOne:

According to presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, homosexual behavior is a choice.
“We may have certain tendencies, but [we choose] how we behave and how we carry out our behavior,” Huckabee said in an interview Sunday with Tim Russert of MSNBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Huckabee is known for his controversial remarks regarding homosexuality; as Russert reminded him, Huckabee once said he felt it was a “aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle.”

Although Huckabee asked Russert to understand that “when a Christian speaks of sin, a Christian says all of us are sinners,” he asserted that “the perfection of God is seen in a marriage in which one man, one woman live together as a couple committed to each other as life partners.”

Huckabee said that he believes he has been asked more about the topic of faith than any other presidential candidate, and that he’s “OK” with that.

“I’ve never tried to rewrite science textbooks. I’ve never tried to come out with some way of imposing a doctrinaire Christian perspective in a way that is really against the Constitution,” Huckabee told Russert.

When Russert then asked why he would ban all abortions, Huckabee responded, “that’s not just because I’m a Christian, that’s because I’m an American. Our founding fathers said that we’re all created equal.”

He believes that a ban on abortion would not be an example of imposing his faith on Americans, but that his pro-life stance is “a human belief. It goes to the heart of who we are as a civilization.”

“If you take the life and suction out the pieces of an unborn child for no reason than its inconvenience to the mother, I don’t think you’ve lived up to your Hippocratic Oath of doing no harm,” Huckabee said.

Therefore, he said he would support “sanctioning” doctors who perform abortions.

While Huckabee says he believes the government should not prefer one faith over another and that he would have no problem appointing atheists to his cabinet, he asserts in an ad that “Faith doesn’t just influence [him], it defines [him].”

“At this time of year, sometimes it’s nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration and the birth of Christ,” says Huckabee. (Emphasis mine)

So now Huckabee seems to be saying that his objections to homosexuality are based on the gay lifestyle, not the gay person’s orientation. Careful, Mike, you’ll anger your conservative religious base by insinuating you don’t endorse the wholesale persecution of gays.

Next, he claims that a perfect (in god’s eyes anyway) marriage is one in which the couple is committed to each other as life partners. Why does he think that’s only possible between couples of the opposite sex? Commitment to your partner is something practiced by all couples who truly love one another, regardless of their orientation.

His attempt to convince us that he doesn’t want to impose Christian doctrine on every citizen of the U.S. is simply disingenuous.

“Who we are as a civilization” is that we’re a country that values individual liberty. We are a country without a state religion. We’re a civilization that respects the right of a woman to choose what’s best for her own body.

Most Christians are smart enough to know that December 25th is not considered the birthday of Jesus except by the most literal fundamentalists. It will never be “a time of year” to allow someone so dedicated to establishing a theocratic United States and so ignorant of state’s rights to occupy the White House.

December 31st, 2007

Evangelicals finally find their candidate: Huckabee

The rocketlike rise of a once-obscure former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist minister to the front ranks of the Republican presidential campaign owes much to the likes of Don Swisher.Chatting between Sunday services about the campaign in the foyer of First Assembly of God Church, Swisher said he plans to vote for Huckabee Thursday night at the Iowa precinct caucuses, the first official nomination contest of the 2008 presidential campaign.

“I like Huckabee,” the semiretired West Des Moines resident said yesterday. “He’s pro-life, a Baptist minister, so he’s Bible-based.”

Evangelical Christians are a formidable force in the Iowa caucuses: They are believed to make up more than 40 percent of the Republican electorate.

Religious issues have dominated the campaign to an uncommon degree even in a state where televangelist Pat Robertson placed first in the GOP caucuses in 1988.

The debate hasn’t centered just on issues such as abortion and gay rights that are important to religious conservatives. Much of the discussion has involved the personal religious faiths of the two leading Republicans – Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon.

“I’m really surprised how much religion has been an issue in the campaign,” said Bruce Nesmith, a professor of political science at Coe College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, who studies religion in politics.

Throughout most of 2007, evangelicals were deeply split, with pockets of support for Romney, former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and even former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, despite his support for abortion rights and a turbulent personal life that includes three marriages.

But many evangelicals stayed on the sidelines in the hope that a candidate they found acceptable would emerge.

For many of them, that person – Huckabee – was there all along. It just took people a long time to notice.

“They were deeply split until about a month or so ago. There is no one particular candidate who seemed like the obvious candidate to them,” said Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University in Des Moines.

“They liked what Romney said about social issues but didn’t trust how sincere he was. They wanted to like Thompson, but Thompson entered with such a splat. What happened, of course, was Huckabee slowly but surely made an impact.”

Huckabee won supporters thanks to his amiable campaign style, a succession of well-received debate performances and unflinching views on abortion and gay rights – in contrast to other Republican contenders whose social-conservative credentials are suspect to evangelicals.

For Huckabee, being a former minister who often wears his religious values on his sleeve closes the sale with some evangelical voters.

“I’m a born-again Christian,” said Eleanor Bauer, a retired graphic artist in Ankeny, Iowa. “And if I see something in life that I have a question about, I ask God about it. I feel like we are being led by God.

“Where someone else tries to go by their own wisdom instead of God’s, we just get in trouble. Huckabee would turn to God.”

But others, such as retired pastor Phil Carroll, a McCain supporter, thinks that when it comes to religion, Huckabee lays it on too thick.

“He’s a good man, but pastors get called to the ministry by God,” Carroll said. “Did God call him to be president? I don’t think so.

“John McCain, being a Christian, does not play the God card. He thinks that’s unethical, and I agree with him.”

Huckabee, interviewed on NBC’s “Meet the Press” yesterday, said he had no religious tests as governor of Arkansas when it came to public policy issues and would not as president.

“I never proposed a bill to remove the Capitol dome and replace it with a steeple,” he said. “We didn’t do tent revivals on the grounds of the Capitol.”

But critics question whether religion influenced Huckabee as governor to push for the early parole of a convicted rapist who went on to rape and kill two other women. They suggest Huckabee was swayed by a friend who was also a pastor who befriended the prisoner, Wayne DuMond, along with the rapist’s contention that he had been “born again.” Huckabee says he did not pressure the parole board to act.  (Source)

Americans seem determined to blindly set course for a theocracy without the slightest qualm.  They don’t seem to consider the fact that should we become a “Christian nation”, all our future wars will be similar to those fought in the Middle ages.  Once again it will be god against the heathens.

They also don’t seem to realize that religion is not tolerant of dissent.  At some point our rights will be suppressed to the “glory of god”.  And which god is destined to become our national savior?  The Baptist concept of god, the Lutheran, The Catholic, the Mormon?  If they all worshiped the same god, there wouldn’t be so many denominations across the nation.  If you’re a theist but worship the wrong god (i.e. not the national god) you’ll be no better off than those who don’t believe at all.

I’d like to think that this religious sturm und drang  is simply the dying cry of an outdated philosophy, religion’s disparate, dying breath.  Those who support Huckabee or Romney out of sympathetic religious views had best consider what will become of the United States should religion become a primary criteria for the next president.