Help Boston: Retweet #prayforboston

In the wake of the Boston bombing, many religious individuals have offered prayers of support for the victims, asking God to comfort and heal the wounded.  In a stunning break from tradition, God has released a statement to humanity regarding some reactions to this tragedy.


Hey guys,

So, after that bombing many of you prayed that I comfort the victims, that I provide guidance to the FBI as they hunt for the perpetrators, and that I heal the wounded.  While I appreciate the attention, I thought it might be good to clarify some things about which you seem to be confused.

First of all, I'm omnipotent.  You don't need to tell me the bombing happened.  I am aware of it.  And if you want me to do something?  I know that, too.  Telling me that you want me to heal someone, when I know you want me to heal them, is a bit redundant.  Our lines of communication don't get clogged like cellphone towers, but hearing the same request gets old after a while.

Second of all, doctors heal people, not me.  I don't know why y'all haven't picked up on that yet, but medical science is, generally, the best way to remove shrapnel from an appendage.  As an incorporeal entity, it's very difficult for me to operate a scalpel.  Maybe you should focus upon aiding doctors and medical personnel instead of talking to me; they're the healers.

On that note, you may want to rethink how you approach aiding your fellow human beings, in general.  I don't want to tell you how to live your life, but right now there are hundreds of people donating blood, and thousands donating money.  In the wake of the bombing some opened their homes to individuals who had no place to stay.  A few restaurants in the Boston area enacted a "pay if you can" policy last night.

That's helping.

I'm sure you feel like talking to me, or retweeting #prayforboston, counts for something...but in the grand scheme of things?  That's really just a way for you to make yourself feel like you helped out; you haven't actually done anything.  And believe me, I know all about non-action in the face of tragedy.

Speaking of the face of tragedy, you guys have some strange priorities.  A few hours ago there was an earthquake in Iran.  A series of attacks in Iraq resulted in 55 deaths yesterday, with 300 injured.  You aren't omnipotent, like me, but you do get CNN.  Any reason why you're silent on these deaths, but can't seem to shut up about Boston?  It's a bit confusing to me, and I understand everything!

Look, I get that existence is scary.  I designed it to be that way.  But it's supposed to make you all band together and form a community of cooperation against a common enemy:  me.  I'm the asshole who forced you to exist, who knowingly allows these events to happen.  You're supposed to turn to one another, to help your fellow man.  If you're talking to me, or posting on Facebook, then you've missed the fucking point.

I mean, come on.  I let an eight year old child be ripped apart by shrapnel.  I watched it happen and didn't do shit.  Given that, what makes you think that I'm inclined to help people?  I'm a fucking prick!

That being said, if you guys could find a way to fuck up the Westboro folks when they picket the funerals that would be great.  Even I am disgusted by those folks.

Yours in Christ,
God

Sandy Hook Interfaith Vigil

Yeah, we're going to talk about this.

MSNBC streamed Sunday's Interfaith Vigil for the Sandy Hook shooting, a community gathering in which Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, People came together to grieve for the community's loss.

Throughout the event, there were numerous mentions of our shared commonality.  A recognition that each religion has something to offer, that each faith has words of comfort to share.  As human beings we can gather together without artificial borders of faith to grieve, to comfort, to heal one another in the wake of tragedy.  Our religious differences are insignificant when compared to our similarities as human beings.

So, here's the question:  Why involve religion at all?

If religious particularities can be diminished in the face of tragedy, if Dogma and difference are cast aside to clear the way to genuine community, then isn't it sensible to maintain that religion, itself, can be cast aside as well?  If we can abandon the differences between Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, and Abraham then why involve them at all?  These characters are only meaningful in their particularity, in their specificity.  When we abandon those particulars, we've abandoned the individuals, and so abandoned the meaningful aspects of the particular faiths.

Absent the particulars, we're left with an appeal to some notion of a higher Being, some hope for another life, a better realm of existence.  Throughout the vigil there were constant appeals to the children being in a better place, not truly lost, or waiting for the day when their parents could rejoin them.  Regardless of the particular religious beliefs about an afterlife, there were numerous appeals to an afterlife writ large.

Yet after we've abandoned religious particulars we've also abandoned the particularities of any specific afterlife.  We're left with a hollow, vague hope that our feelings of loss can be quashed if we simply convince ourselves that the children, while dead, are not truly gone.

But that's bullshit.  And we know it's bullshit.

It's bullshit because the actual commonality and community achieved in the vigil happened here, on this planet, between embodied human beings.  Community occurred between biological organisms seeking a way to deal with their emotions.  To manifest a better emotional state, they pretended as if their religious differences were insignificant, just as they pretended that their children are now in a better state of existence.

I won't deny that pretending does not have emotive utility.  It's probably comforting for a parent to imagine its dead child hopping about in the clouds.  Yet once we admit that we're pretending religious differences don't matter, and we're pretending that the children are not gone, then we've admitted to two levels of fiction being posited onto the reality of our situation.  It's an attempt to deal with a tragic situation by undermining both the tragedy and the situation, itself.  If we convince ourselves that the children aren't really gone, then it's less painful to think about their being dead.

That strategy is naught but believing a lie to mask the truth.  It's the fabrication of a happy story to keep the pain of loss at bay.  And it seems strange that our primary method of dealing with reality is to lie to ourselves about it.  We'll lie about religious difference.  We'll lie about our metaphysical stories.  We'll lie about the loss of death.  We'll strive to restructure our interpretation of reality to be what we want, in order to deal with what we actually have.

This despite the fact that Newtown, Connecticut has something that is pretty damn great:  A community.  A community of individuals who are willing to cast aside their differences to come together in an effort to overcome their grief.  Yet while all these human beings are in a room, together, mourning their loss they feel compelled to invoke the notion of some external reality, some higher Being, who can get them through this.

The individual particular humans, working together, get themselves through the pain...and then give credit to a collection of fictional characters.

That's fucked up.

I realize it's what some people do, and I realize it probably won't change.  It just seems that accepting reality, and being secular humanists, isn't the worst thing.  If only because it's in reality that we have to live.  And there ain't no invisible sky daddy in reality.

It's just you.  And me.  And the people of Newtown, Connecticut.

I suggest that we start, and stay, there.

Marco Rubio: Science, God, and the Economy

Marco Rubio opened his mouth again.

"I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that."
- Marco Rubio

Many articles about this quote replaced the GDP / economic section with an ellipsis, choosing to focus on the "Mark Rubio is a young earth creationist" theme.  This is unfortunate, since that edit masks some of Rubio's crazy.  To wit:  Mark Rubio doesn't understand how his beliefs in God serve as presuppositions to his economic policies.

Back in July, Paul Froese wrote an article entitled 'How Your View of God Shapes Your View of the Economy'.  Here's the relevant passage:

"...approximately 31 percent of Americans, many of whom are white evangelical men, believe that God is steering the United States economy, thus fusing their religious and economic interests."

Now, let's smash these two ideas together.

1)  Marco Rubio isn't prepared to dismiss the idea that Young Earth Creationists are batshit insane.

2)  Marco Rubio potentially maintains a belief in an invisible sky daddy.

3)  Persons who maintain a belief in an invisible sky daddy may believe that the Invisible Hand of The Market is actually The Invisible Hand of God.

So, Marco Rubio may believe that Jesus controls the U.S. Economy.

That seems important.  And it's the part of the quote many news sites glossed over.

There is a very strong connection between one's religious beliefs, and one's understanding of reality.  There is a strong connection between one's understanding of reality, and one's political ideology.  When we attempt to break these into individual component pieces we're being disingenuous.  One cannot "leave religion at the door", so to speak.  That shit doesn't come off so easily.

So, yes, Marco Rubio's belief in Invisible Sky Daddy does relate to the GDP, to the economic growth of the United States.  If a person maintains that there is no God, that this existence is all there is, that we human beings are biological organisms alone on a rock in space, then that ontological picture will foster a significantly different political mindset than some goatfucker who thinks there is an invisible man in the clouds who gives a shit about our well-being.  If Rubio believes that, ultimately, it's all in God's Hands then he'll probably enact different fiscal policies than someone who realizes that the economy is simply the product of the discrete, particular actions of particular human organisms.

It's the difference between living in reality, and reifying fabricated bullshit into a security blanket.  Rubio probably maintains the security blanket approach to the economy.  When things get bad, then God will step in and save us.

I can understand the utility of that world view:  It makes reality seem far less precarious.  It removes some of the danger, some of the uncertainty.  It makes a person feel like their decisions, while important, are all observed by some all-knowing omnipotent father figure who can rush in to save them at the last moment.  It's a comforting, understandable story for someone to tell himself.

But it's sure as fuck not helpful for lawmakers to think that.

Which is why, in a sane world, Marco Rubio would be a priest, rather than a politician.*




*Ignoring the fact that in a sane world there would be no priests.

God will [chat] you up.

Old Testament God is best God.

Science: Teach the Controversy

I recently had the opportunity to listen to some professional philosophers argue about the concept of rational belief:  In a society of differing opinions, what constitutes a rational belief?  While pondering different aspects of this discussion, I began to think about the controversy surrounding evolution v intelligent design.  Specifically, I thought about the position that one ought to "teach the controversy", the idea that evolution needs to be presented as one view among many.

I am supposed to think that teaching the controversy is an incredibly fucktarded idea that subverts education and fosters religious indoctrination.  It's supposed to be a laughable notion.  Yet as I think about it some more, and mentally temper some of the religions motivations for the political movement that fosters the position, I think there might be something to it.  Perhaps there is some virtue to teaching the controversy.  The question is what is meant by "teaching the controversy".

Let me be clear:  By "teach the controversy" I do not mean that a teacher says, "Science says X.  Religion says Y.  Whelp, I dunno!  You figure it out."  What I mean is that a science class could focus upon the historical development of scientific ideas and teach the genuine controversies that have occurred in the history of human thought.  Science classes are modified to favor "history of ideas" rather than "here is a spreadsheet of facts".  I think this change would behoove scientific education and provide a better response to religious opposition than simply ignoring it.

Point 1:  Let the arguments play themselves out.

Suppose you're teaching astronomy.  Currently, it seems that we state the planetary mnemonic and then quiz students over planet order.  But what if we taught the historical development that occurred as we transitioned from a geocentric model to a helicentric model?  Suppose we teach astronomy like this:  "Once upon a time humans thought the earth was the center of the universe, because God said humans were special.  Over time, as we tried to explain our observations in terms of that system, we employed goofy notions such as retrograde motion, epicycles, and various other quirks to try to get our observations to mesh with our beliefs.  Once we junked the idea that humans were super-special, and placed the sun at the center of our solar system, shit made more sense."

How is that story detrimental to a developing mind?  Moreover, how does it not speak to the exact debate that happens now with evolution?  We start with a religious belief, we test it against the experiential world, and we find better explanations than "GOD!"

Or take the belief that the earth was flat (since Jesus ascended into heaven, and you can't ascend from a sphere).  Or the belief that illness resulted from demonic possession.  Or the belief that dancing was causally efficatious in precipitation.  Are we really worried that we'll start from a point of religious superstition, apply science, play out the developing ideas, and find that religion was correct?  It is advantageous to teach the historical development of ideas and demonstrate to students why science is more advantageous than religion for explaining phenomena.

Moreover, students already believe this.  When they get sick, they go to a doctor.  When their tooth hurts, they go to a dentist.  All science teachers have to do is utilizes these experiential habits as a gateway into the conversation about science's merits.

Point 2:  Science is fallible.

The key difference between science and religion is that science is fallible whereas religion is dogmatic.  Despite this fact, students who enter science classrooms are handed scientific facts that they must memorize and regurgitate, just as, historically, priests were tasked with memorizing the Psalms.  Instead of handing facts to students, we ought to allow students to partake in the scientific endeavor.  Allow them to formulate and test a hypothesis.  Allow them to learn how we came to think of light's speed as a fixed constant, why germs explain illness better than demons, why the beaks of finches differ.

I mean, hell, why don't all sixth graders raise a few generations of fruit flies over a school year?  Let them do the experiments.  And for the love of fuck, don't give them a experiment and tell them how it's supposed to turn out; let them test it for themselves.

When we hand down scientific facts as unquestionable dogma, we're blurring the distinction between religion and science.  When I took a geology class, I was told how one goes about discerning which mineral is which.  I was not allowed to speculate, to form a hypothesis, to test different ways of exploring the world.  I was told, quite dogmatically, how to do a scratch test.  In the world I'm suggesting, I would have been handed a box full of minerals and told to find a way to meaningfully categorize them.   Which, interestingly, is probably how geological science actually progressed.

Point 3:  I am correct.

Our current method of teaching science does not adequately communicate the fundamental difference between religious dogma and scientific fallibilism.  When we hand students information and demand that they memorize it, without questioning its merits, we are replicating what they find in religious institutions.  When we allow students to conduct simple experiments in chemistry class, but tell them what is "supposed to" happen, we skew their understanding of the scientific method.

It's no wonder that many students cannot discern a difference between religious belief and scientific hypothesis.

If we actually taught the controversy, if science classes engaged the history of ideas, then they could better communicate both the "facts" they wish to present and the core values that makes science what it is.

Poe's Law: Santorum 'Game On'

For your consideration, I submit my candidate for Poe's Law:

Mormonism: Your Own Universe

Over the past few weeks I’ve talked with some delightful Mormon missionaries about their theological system. During our first meeting I asked how Mormons can get their own planet after they die. The Mormons replied that the story takes a while to tell, so they’d have to come back later to explain it. Last Friday was the day of explanation. Having learned how to get my own universe, I herein pass on the information I learned regarding…

WHAT MORMONS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!

or

Jesus Has His Own Planet, And You Can, Too!

Once upon a time, Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father were floating around with their flock of spirit-babies. Heavenly Father (hereafter referred to as ‘God’) decided that He wanted to enable His spirit-babies to become more like Him, but this could not happen while floating around. So, He devised a plan and presented the plan at the Celestial Counsel.

At the Counsel, God presented His plan for how to enable the spirit-babies to become Gods. Jesus would create a planet (earth) upon which the spirit-babies could be embodied and prepare for their future as Gods. Satan, Jesus’ brother, presented an alternate plan whereby every spirit-baby would be embodied with full, certain knowledge and so bypass the need for trials or growth. The two plans were put to a vote. 1/3 of the attendees voted for Satan’s plan while 2/3 voted for God’s plan. When Satan lost the vote he became pissed off and he and his 1/3 were cast out of the Counsel, forever doomed to be pissed off.

Having won the vote, Jesus created the Earth and placed upon it Adam and Eve, who went on to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. After they ate from this tree, God placed cherubim, with a flaming sword, in the Garden of Eden, which was in Missouri, to keep them from eating from the Tree of Life. You see, had they eaten from the Tree of Life, they would have become immortal, which is different from having eternal life, and their immortality would have prevented them from following Heavenly Father’s plan.

Heavenly Father’s plan is for the earth to be a state of preparation for eternal life with Him. Additionally, the earth is required for persons to have bodies, which is a higher state of being than mere spirits. Since God has a body, He wants his spirit-babies to have bodies as well.

One should note that since Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they and their offspring exist in a fallen state. But what is passed on to the offspring is the fallen state and not any particular sin. You see, every person is born (embodied) sinless, and remains sinless until they are eight years old. Once a person is eight years old, they are capable of sinning, since they are capable of understanding and making decisions.

So, now we have Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father watching over their newly embodied, fallen, spirit babies on the Earth Jesus created in accord with Heavenly Father’s plan, for which 2/3 of all existing entities, ever, voted. You’re probably thinking, “-J-, this all makes perfect sense, but I want to know about getting my own universe!” Patience. First, we have to talk about death!

Every embodied spirit-baby who lives upon the earth Jesus created shall eventually die physically. When the embodied spirit-baby physically dies, its body dies but its spirit goes on to the Spirit world. The Spirit World is sort of a waiting room wherein the spirit-babies wait for the final judgment. The Spirit world is divided into two sections: Paradise and Prison.

Paradise is a peaceful realm of the Spirit World wherein those who are faithful to Jesus wait for the final judgment. Prison is a realm of the Spirit world wherein the unfaithful, or those who did not know of Jesus, unhappily wait for judgment. One interesting feature of the Spirit World is that those who are in Paradise can travel to Prison and teach those who are in Prison about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I asked my Mormon friends if the spirit-babies in Prison are able to migrate up to Paradise from Prison if they repent. They said it would make sense for the spirit-babies to be able to migrate if they repent, but ultimately the answer is not known.

Once every spirit-baby has been embodied, lived upon the earth Jesus created, and died we move on to the resurrection and Final Judgment. At the resurrection, every spirit-baby shall be re-embodied. Then God shall cast the Final Judgment on all of his embodied spirit-babies. Depending on the life the embodied spirit-baby lived on earth, and what it did in the Spirit World, and whether it was baptized after death by a relative, that embodied spirit-baby will be placed in one of three Kingdoms of Glory, or cast into the outer darkness.

Celestial Kingdom: This is the Kingdom within which Heavenly Father and Christ reside. If you were awesome, you get to exist here.

Terrestrial Kingdom: Those who do not accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but were fairly nice, dwell here.

Telestial Kingdom: Those who do not repent and continually sin shall be placed here.

Outer Darkness: Those who, like Satan, know the full Gospel but deny it are cast into the outer darkness.

Here’s where the “I get my own universe” happens. Since we are all the offspring of Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father we are all brothers and sisters of Christ, who is also one of their offspring. All of those entities who are placed in the Celestial Kingdom are on the same level as Christ. Since Christ is a God, every spirit-baby in the Celestial Kingdom is also a God. Since Christ could create the earth and its universe, so too can any spirit-baby in the Celestial Kingdom create its own universe. Finally, since God wanted to enacted His own plan for His spirit-babies, and His spirit-babies are made in His image, each of these spirit-babies will want to create its own universe for its own spirit-babies.

So, if an embodied spirit-baby is placed within the Celestial Kingdom at Final Judgment, it has the ability to create its own universe and planets.

It’s just that simple.


One of the things I like about this story is that it takes seriously the familial structure of the God-Jesus-You narrative. God is the Holy Father. Jesus is God’s son. But we’re all God’s children. So, it doesn’t make sense to posit an ontological difference between Jesus and any of the other spirit-babies. Once we get that up and running, the “Your Own Universe” narrative follows fairly well.

Of course, that’s going to sound a lot like polytheism, insofar as any spirit-baby has the potential to be a God. The distinction they made is that they aren’t polytheists because they only believe in one Heavenly Father. However, they explained the trinity as three separate entities* that are “one in purpose”. My suspicion is that they’d be comfortable with the “polytheism” label if it didn’t come with all the baggage. Or maybe they’re monotheist because Heavenly Father is the one supreme God, and all the other Gods are little ‘g’ Gods? I’m not sure. That might be the question for next time.

I also like the distinction between “original sin” and “fallen nature”.

It's an interesting theological system, and it seems just as crazy as any other. So, I'm thinkin' about it...




* When Jesus was on the Cross, He called out to God. If Jesus was God, He wouldn't have needed to call anything out; one does not call things out to one's self. On this count, I think the "one in purpose" is a far more sensible articulation than "three forms of the same being SHUT UP".

Sex in the Garden of Eden: Augustine, City of God

So, I found a copy of the City of God online which is easily navigable. I started reading it and remembered how fucking awesome it is. Everyone needs to read all of these chapters, but one especially needs to read chapters 23 and 24. They are only a few pages long. It is some of the greatest shit ever written.

Augustine, City of God, Book XIV.

Chapter 17.—Of the Nakedness of Our First Parents, Which They Saw After Their Base and Shameful Sin.

Chapter 18.—Of the Shame Which Attends All Sexual Intercourse.

Chapter 19.—That It is Now Necessary, as It Was Not Before Man Sinned, to Bridle Anger and Lust by the Restraining Influence of Wisdom.

Chapter 20.—Of the Foolish Beastliness of the Cynics.

Chapter 21.—That Man’s Transgression Did Not Annul the Blessing of Fecundity Pronounced Upon Man Before He Sinned But Infected It with the Disease of Lust.

Chapter 22.—Of the Conjugal Union as It Was Originally Instituted and Blessed by God.

Chapter 23.—Whether Generation Should Have Taken Place Even in Paradise Had Man Not Sinned, or Whether There Should Have Been Any Contention There Between Chastity and Lust.

Chapter 24.—That If Men Had Remained Innocent and Obedient in Paradise, the Generative Organs Should Have Been in Subjection to the Will as the Other Members are.

Chapter 26.—That We are to Believe that in Paradise Our First Parents Begat Offspring Without Blushing.

Theodicy: Smile, Jesus loves you!

The term "theodicy" always confused me. Back in 1710, when things made sense, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz coined the term by combining θεός (theós, "god") and δίκη (díkē, "justice"), to make theosdike, theodicy, "the justice of god". The problem I always had was that I thought the term a combination of θεός (theós, "god") and (Ὀδύσσεια, Odýsseia) so theos-odysseia, a theo-odyssey, a God-adventure, which is entirely not what the term means.*

Anyway.

So, a theodicy is an attempted explanation to the problem of evil: Why bad shit happens if God is not a jackass. And while I've been aware of the fact that bad things happen my immediate situation is pressing me into a mindset such that I need contemplate why the fuck so much bad shit happens if
1) There is a God.
2) God is not a jackass.

This afternoon I was at Wal-Mart, which might be an explanation for why bad shit is happening to me, when some random person handed me a piece of notecard. One side presented a smiley face with the word "Smile" above it. The other side contained the message that "Jesus loves you!" followed by some Bible verses to serve as textual evidence of this love, a Prayer I need say in order to invite Jesus into my heart, and a helpful list of instructions (Read the Bible, go to Church) for what to do after I offer Jesus occupancy in my cardio-vascular system.

Given the apparent randomness of this event (no one else ever gave me a "Jesus loves you" card at Wal-mart before) as it relates to my life at the moment (everything is fucking terrible) this has me thinking.

I've always thought a deity to be a necessary component of one's ontology. I am something of a fan of the Quinque viae, Aquinas' five arguments for the existence of God. So I'll accept God's existence for reasons of unmoved mover, first cause, contingency, etc. But the notion of a personal deity, some invisible man in the sky hovering around giving a shit about me, never made much sense.

The thing I realized this afternoon is that I've always replaced the notion of a personal God with concepts such as Love, Truth, or Good as somehow being controlling, regulatory processes of reality. I've clung to the notion that, in the end, things will work out for the best; Truth will overturn Falsity, Goodness will triumph over Evil, and Love has the power to actualize any possibility. Polio is pretty shitty, but we created a vaccine. The Nazis were Evil, but they lost. And they never did make a sequel to that god-awful Golden Compass movie.

So I've, apparently, subconsciously based my life on this notion that things will get better, that there is some regulatory process controlling reality whereby, though things may become shitty, wrongs are eventually righted, evil is eventually triumphed over by good, and truth will overcome all falsity.

The problem is that I think I lost that a few weeks ago. And I'm not sure what to do without it.

Living makes sense when one can maintain hope, when one believes in a triumph of good over evil or can articulate a theodicy whereby one can reconcile the abysmal aspects of life with some consolation that there will be a better tomorrow, that there is an answer, a truth, which will make sense of reality. But when one loses that core component of their being and understands life to be simply a neutral, inert medium within which various things happen for no reason, to not end, regulated by only the laws of physics and whatever force particular beings exert...nothing really matters anymore; we're all just sort of here.

So I can reflect upon this little smiley "Jesus loves you" card. I can read my Leibniz and my Aquinas and cling to some notion of a better tomorrow, or a victory of Good and Truth over Evil and Falsity. But at the moment it seems to be the case that these are simply coping mechanisms designed to stave off a realization that the entirety of one's existence is simply a haphazard amalgamation of random nonsense the meaning of which is void and the purpose of which is null given that soul-less, viscous, self-centered, unreflective, terrible people are capable of performing unconscionable acts without ever receiving any form of comeuppance.

I would like for there to be a God; I would like for there to be a Good, a Truth, a Right, a regulatory process to reality which ensures that meaning and purpose are preserved. But I think that, in the end, that might all be bullshit. And while we can hand out little index cards at Wal-Mart and cling to our hopes...in the end Evil wins, Lies persist, and the entirety of existence is a meaningless void of pain and suffering within which we all delude ourselves until we just plain give up.

So maybe the whole project of a theodicy is flawed project from the beginning. Not only may there be no God, but perhaps there is no Truth, no Good, no Falsity, no Evil. Perhaps people just do shit and spout little contextual pseudo-truths which are simply linguistic articulations of perceived or understood temporary referents. Maybe we're just little biological machines fucking about for no reason. Maybe this whole thing of existence is a neutral, inert cesspool of dumb.

I'm not necessarily advocating nihilism; I'm not really advocating anything. I'm just saying that there are times when the events of one's life fundamentally challenge one's core beliefs; when one's faith and primary understanding of self are tested from without.

And, sometimes, the beliefs, the faith, and the self do not pass the test.


* This may have resulted from my having spent a wealth of my childhood watching Superbook

Philosophical Impact of Comic Character Religions

Religion of Comic Book Characters

If anyone would like to engage in a discussion of the religions of various comic characters with a slant towards the philosophical implications of the religious views these characters maintain feel free to comment.

For example: Does religion provide a core defining component of a character or do religions exist as tacked-on additions to suppliment an already defined character? Is Nightcrawler's Catholicism as integral to the character as, say, Shadowcats Judaism?

Free Speech and Death Threats

So I really like this.
'Godless' Billboard Moved After Threats Against Owner
I wonder if God told the person to send death threats?
Love thy neighbor, as long as they believe what I do.

AntiSpore.com

I bring a gift.

antispore.com: Resisting EA’s War on Creationism

Have Fun.

Here's a little snippet from the Debating Creation post:

Seems a lot of Evolutionairyists have been stopping by and commenting.

I am not afraid of a debate. I just wish they would be a little nicer. But I understand that some people get pretty defensive when they know they are wrong.

Yeah. That's it.

Richard Lenski, E. Coli, Conservapedia

Per today's You Are Dumb we have a wonderful example of what happens when faith meets science. The overview of the situation is that Richard Lenski spend 20 years observing, collecting, and growing E. Coli, eventually producing E. Coli which consume citrate, an activity which does not "naturally occur". Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia, "learned" of this, acted like a creationist asshole, and was then made a fool of by Richard Lenski, who is awesome.

So go read today's You Are Dumb. Then check out the Lenski Dialog on Conservapedia. And if you're just plain tickled by the exchange check out Richard Lenski's Homepage and delight in his awesome.

James Dobson: Cognitive Dissonance Immune

If you read this survey of 35,000 Americans by The Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life you'll probably come away from it with both an idea of what 35,000 Americans think about religion and a severe migraine. Why the migraine? Well, try this one:
There is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion.
64% of Protestants agree.
77% of Catholics agree.

Ok, the foundation of Protestantism, the Protestant Reformation was the idea that Catholicism did not have a monopoly on religious truth. According to Protestantism: The Bible, Church teachings, Christianity are open to interpretation. So, really, to answer that question in a manner consistent with one's beliefs as stated by one's religious affiliation? The response ought to have been that 100% of Protestants agree while 0% of Catholics agree.

This one is even better:
Many Religions can lead to eternal life.
66% of Protestants agree.
79% of Catholics agree.

Fine, except 0% of John 14:6 agrees! "Jesus said to him, `I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'"

You see my point: Religious laypeople (Or "pewfillers") do not know what the god-damned fucking hell they're talking about. They waft about on their ignorance mindlessly following and changing rules they do not understand. Which is just fucking terrific when you couple it with this shit James Dobson said yesterday about Obama:
"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology."

Are you fucking kidding me? Contemporary Religion is a deliberate distortion of the traditional understand of the Bible. Fuck attempting to assess what "traditional" means in a historical context. How about we just focus on reading comprehension and go from there? Regardless of your own personal feelings about Fred Phelps let's at least acknowledge that he read the fucking Bible. If that survey is any indication at least 35,000 people haven't even done that.

Obama's point, which James Dobson apparently missed, is that, well, I'll just quote him:
"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?"

Different factions of Christianity have different beliefs. So to apply one strict Christianity we would need one strict Christianity, which we obviously lack because apparently the only person capable of reading the fucking book and doing what it says is A.J. Jacobs, and he's a fucking tool.

'Critical Analysis' of Evolution

State Legislators Seek Bills to Allow Questioning of Evolution Theory in Schools

"The Florida House of Representatives passed a bill this week that will require schools to teach 'critical analysis' of evolution." Which in the words of Alan Hays means that:

"I do not expect teachers to go into the classrooms and present a bizarre array of theories," Hays told FOXNews.com. "The theory of evolution, which most practicing biologists are teaching today, is inadequate in explaining our existence in the eyes of some scientists. Teachers need to be able to bring their students up to date."

Which is cool because the theory of evolution isn't meant to "explain our existence", asshole. The theory of evolution is meant to explain the manner by which biological diversity came about, asshole. "Explaining our existence"? That's what Philosophers do, asshole. But thanks for ensuring that students in Florida will now be even more confused than they already are.

The best part is when chuckleheads like John Moolenaar try to defend this shit:

"Educators should have the freedom to bring in the best scientific information to facilitate those discussions," Moolenaar said. "We’re trying to get students to ask the question: What scientific evidence exists for what theories?"

Yeah. Because students are obviously equipped for assess for themselves the merit of any given scientific theory.

It's like John Duncan, R-Tenn. said: "It seems rather elitist that people with academic degrees in health think they know better than parents what type of sex education is appropriate.”

Who the fuck are these educated people to tell us what is or is not a useful scientific theory? Fuck them and their "facts" and "empirical observations". Fuck them and their pansy-ass degrees. "OO! Look at me! I spent my life researching this shit!"

God, fuck you and your knowledge. This is America! Everyone gets to decide what is true for their self! If parents want to pray for their diabetic daughter rather than take her to the doctor that's their fucking right! Wait, what's that? The parents were charged with second-degree reckless homicide? Well, shit, I guess there is some standard to which we appeal which is greater than an individual's particular beliefs and thoughts.

Except in Florida with regard to education.

Because FUCK KNOWLEDGE that's why.

Expelled: Weekend Box Office

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed's Box Office Stats:

Friday: $1,205,000
Saturday: $990,000
Sunday: $958,000

Expelled appeared in 1,052 theatres.

No Intelligence Allowed: The April 18th Earthquake

If on the day of the theatrical release of Ben Stein's movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed an earthquake violently shakes the Bible Belt I think we need to address the situation and, where necessary, reconcile what happened in reality with our beliefs.

Some might argue that this is merely a coincidence which contains no meaning or message; an earthquake is entirely a geological, natural process. Such individuals will cling to science and empiricism and so offer an explanation rooted in mechanical explanations of reality. They will argue that upon this earthquake there were no fingerprints of a deity, that this quake was not intelligently designed and triggered but rather this was merely a geological process.

Others will argue that this earthquake, this violent shaking of the Bible Belt on the exact same day that Ben Stein's movie is released could not have happened by chance, by coincidence. The last Wabash Valley Fault System activity occurred in 1968 after which it remained inactive for 40 years! Certainly it is not mere chance, mere coincidence that this Fault System would release a 5.2 quake violently shaking the Bible Belt on this day! Certainly this is a sign from God, a divinely created event meant to convey a message!

How are we to rectify this situation, to discover the truth of the April 18th earthquake? To answer this question one must assess one's primary assumption of reality.

If one's primary assumption of reality features a preference for scientific, empirical, observable, falsifiable explanations and understandings of reality then one ought to dismiss this situation as mere coincidence. Films are released, tectonic plates shift, and there is no relation between the two.

If one's primary assumption of reality features a preference for theological, unempirical, unverifiable, non-falsifiable, Biblical explanations and understandings of reality then one ought to embrace this situation as a sign from God; a certain display of his displeasure and a warning against buying tickets for this film. If on the day a film arguing for intelligent design is released a 5.2 earthquake occurs within the Bible Belt on a fault which has been inactive for 40 years this must be a sign from God that one must not attend the film.

So which is it? Coincidence or Providence? Darwinian Chance or Intelligent Design? Which does consistency require you to accept?

Cult or Religion

The following quotes come from an article entitled Children of Polygamy.

"But on the other hand, you're not encouraged to think for yourself or have an imagination and learn and grow. You're encouraged to conform and be a clone."

"In the mind of someone who has a phobia, they can't imagine [living outside the compound] will have a positive result," said Hassan. "They'll develop phobias of losing their salvation or burning in hell."

"It can also be things like [fearing] they'll be raped by the outsiders, or that the outsiders will beat and torture you or that you'll get cancer or AIDS if you leave the compound," said Hassan. "Some believe they'll become drug addicts or will commit suicide if they leave."

"The ideology of the theology of the group is that their boss is ordained by God," said Wood. "Initially it's going to be very difficult for them to trust people."

"Inside extremist organizations the addiction is deliberately induced," said Wood, who said the effect a cult has on an individual is similar to that of a drug or alcohol addiction. "When someone comes out, part of the process of healing and recovering is letting go of the addiction, and this case that means letting go of the theology, ideology of the group."

"As long as they still believe, they're still addicted," added Wood.

"People often do go back," said Wood. "Some come all the way out and then they just fall back into them – they don't find the way to survive as free agents."

The article is about the difficulties children raised on that polygamist ranch will experience when they enter society. But if you read the quotes outside of that particular context and delve into the thoughts and ideas behind them? They're discussing what happens in any religion, any group in which indoctrination occurs.

"You're not encouraged to think for yourself", "Their boss is ordained by God", "They'll develop phobias of losing their salvation or burning in hell". In what way do these not describe Catholicism? "...[fearing] they'll be raped by the outsiders, or that the outsiders will beat and torture you or that you'll get cancer or AIDS if you leave the compound." Replace "outsiders" with "homosexuals", "compound" with "the fold", and then pretend that we're talking about James Dobson's followers.

And then we have the best one: "They don't find the way to survive as free agents." The fucking mantra of every dipshit who embraces the notion of an invisible man in the sky.

So, explain to me the difference between a cult and a religion. Because as far as I can tell? The only difference is semantic. It's ok for Catholics to think that the Pope is ordained by God but it is crazy for a bunch of polygamists to think that their leader was ordained by God? It's ok for Methodists to scare their children with threats of Hell but it's not ok for this polygamist group to scare its children with threats of Hell?

Really?

I don't think this is apples and oranges, that there is some fundamental difference and distinguishing quality to a religion that a cult lacks. Cults and religions are fundamentally the same thing: indoctrinating clubs for weak-minded dipshits terrified of the notion of being "free agents".

And I'm trying to figure out why we can lambaste this polygamist group for indoctrinating its members while just a few months ago people were voting for Mike Huckabee.

Madeline Neumann

Madeline Neumann, an 11 year old girl, died from diabetic ketoacidosis after her parents prayed for her instead of seeking medical attention.

Read the articles if you want. Defend or berate the parents if you must. Feel free to reprimand the parents while defending religion; engage in the mental gymnastics required to self-servingly ignore the situation and fabricate a meandering stream of illogic through which you can paddle your shoddy raft of incompetence and ignorance. Do whatever you like with this story.

Save one thing.

Madeline Neumann, an 11 year old girl, is dead because of her parent's belief in the power of prayer alone, the belief that all things are possible through Jesus Christ, the belief that a new and better and truer way of living in the world can be found through an embrace of the doctrines of antiquity and the clinging to an idea of a more perfect, loving, caring deity whose powers and love transcend the mundane abilities of our flawed human existence.

Madeline Neumann is dead as a result of her parent's faith in Jesus Christ.

Do not ignore or forget that.

Physics, God, and Rumination

There is a Newsweek Interview with theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg on the MSNBC.com which discusses the Large Hadron Collider, Physics, and God. And while you really ought to read the whole thing for yourself there are a few select quotes on which I would like to ruminate.

"As science explains more and more, there is less and less need for religious explanations. Originally, in the history of human beings, everything was mysterious. Fire, rain, birth, death, all seemed to require the action of some kind of divine being. As time has passed, we have explained more and more in a purely naturalistic way. This doesn't contradict religion, but it does takes away one of the original motivations for religion."

This weekend peoples watched 300. In the film King Leonidas must consult the Oracle before he may go to war with Xerxes and so defend Sparta. The Oracle says that Sparta must not go to war so that the Carneian Festival can be observed and not interrupted. When we watch the film we think "He had to consult an Oracle? That's fucking stupid." Yet we watched the film on Easter Weekend as a result of my having Good Friday off.

That situation intrigues me. We acknowledge the history of religion and know damn well that its utility decreases as naturalistic explanations of the world in which we live are discovered, tested, and found to be useful and empirically grounded; we can read Greek mythology and think "Wow. That is silly". But some people still do it; still religion. It is bizarre that we can watch 300 and recognize the idiocy of Leonidas having to consult the Oracle at Delphi before defending Sparta from Xerxes yet after watching the film we can go to church and sign praises to invisible sky daddy and listen to sermons from our own little Oracles. And that duality, that lack of self-awareness, is completely absurd. It's a miniature example of the quote, "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

The problem, though, is the requirement of understanding which to this day still eludes some people.

"We don't see any purpose dictated to human beings in nature. Human life does have a purpose, but it is a purpose that we invent for ourselves. It takes a certain act of courage to look at nature, not see any plan for human beings in there and yet go on and live good lives, love each other, create beautiful things, explore the universe. All these take more courage without having some divine plan that we discover, but one that we rather create for ourselves."

This is something upon which I have dwelt for a few years now. Purpose is the result of beings who purpose and purpose only ever happens when purposing beings purpose; We invent purpose. And while we can dismiss the notion of whether or not courage is involved, since that complicates the conversation considerably, we are left with the truth that purpose is something we create and maintain; purpose does not exist apart from our saying purpose exists.

And I am not entirely sure how it is that people can miss this and belabor the notion that purpose comes from something other than ourselves.

"I don't think that we can ever prove that God does not exist. But if he does exit it might be possible to prove it."

If I had a craw this would be the thing forever stuck within said craw. It is impossible to prove a universal negative; this is simply how proof works. But the inability to prove a universal negative does not somehow indicate that the universal negative claim is false.

If we claim that there are no ducks we can look at the world in which we live and seek out ducks (a potentially hazardous venture as ducks are omnivores). If we find ducks then the claim "there are no ducks" is incorrect. This is simple enough. If we claim, however, that there are no fuchsia ducks and after seeking said fuchsia ducks we find no fuchsia ducks this does not mean that there are no fuchsia ducks. Since "there are no fuchsia ducks" is a universal claim our inability to find fuchsia ducks within the particular area in which we searched does not indicate some flaw with the universal claim.

Given that there are a nigh-infinite number of universal negative claims it is nonsense to suggest that our inability to prove "There is no God" is somehow uniquely indicative of the existence of a God. God's existence, based upon the inability to prove a universal negative, is just as substantial as the existence of fuchsia ducks and, really, anything else one desires to pull from one's ass.

When we combine these ideas and ruminate on the concepts at large and the manner in which they interact we are left with the notion from yesterday's rant about perinatal hospisces: observe the world in which we live and live in accord with the world in which we live.

And that is really not a difficult task provided that you shut the fuck up and pay attention.