Egypt is trying to slaughter all of the country's pigs. Is this because they are trying to prevent swine flu from getting a foot-hold in the country?
That's what the government is telling people. But I wonder if this decision wasn't made easier by the fact that the pigs are raised for consumption by the Christian minority (being considered 'unclean' and therefore not consumable by the Muslim majority).
Of course, the Christians are going to have no trouble surviving without pork chops or ham for a few months. But those poor pig farmers are going to hurt. They're not even given compensation... Ouch.
This story made me think of the possibility that this flu outbreak can be seen by radical (and some not so radical) muslims as clear evidence that god disfavors the decadent pig-eaters from the west.
The WHO tells us that we're at threat level 5. I guess the religious wars are over. Muslims win. Oh wait, The other chosen people are still in the game.
Oh pigs... why'd you have to go an be so damn tasty!
Homer: Are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Pork chops?
Lisa: Dad, those all come from the same animal.
Homer: Heh heh heh. Ooh, yeah, right, Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
God protects us, don't you know
You know what? Maybe this guy (a congressman) is right. Maybe the bible is all the evidence we need to know, without doubt, that there is no reason to fear global climate change.
Then again, maybe this is about as sad and pathetic as irrational, unquestioning, blind devotion can get.
Then again, maybe this is about as sad and pathetic as irrational, unquestioning, blind devotion can get.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The reason for the blog
One of my many goals in keeping this blog has always been to keep a record of my adventures reading the king james version of the bible.
When I was a high school student I would often wonder through my student's version of the bible but I always had a difficult time sticking with it, for various reasons. One of those reasons was that the passages that needed the most explanation were left completely unexplained (in the annotations of my student's version). Shortly after making my way through about 10% of the old testament and all the way through MARK in the new testament I had come to the conclusion that anyone who had read the whole bible and was not completely befuddled was simply not paying enough attention. So I gave up with the impression that the only way the average person could read the bible and not be left with millions of questions was with close guidance from a parishioner or completely uncritically.
Several years ago, after gaining a little more theological background through outside reading and a little more practice in literary criticism (and logic, and philosophy) I tried going through the King James Version (KJV) on my own once again.
I couldn't even make it through Exodus.
I spent too much time searching the internet for theological explanations regarding the problems of free will and God's omnipotence. None of the explanations I found were satisfying but i trudged on. When I eventually quit I did so with the intention that I would come back to it but with a better method of note keeping, such that I would be able to come back to my issues and discuss them in a more open forum.
So one of my goals is to slowly take notes on the blog as I slowly read and analyze each book, chapter, or verse. There are over 30,000 verses in the KJV so if I went at about 500 verses per week I could finish in a year. It's easy to read 500 verses a week but it's hard to read them AND pay attention AND critically analyze and extract meaning.
We'll see how it goes.
Also, I realize that there exists something called "bible study" which is, presumably, exactly what I need. I've tried "bible study" and I have a few problems:
A) I have not been able to find a bible study group that even attempts to check out the old testament. I've been told that the old testament is too complex, that it takes several years of background knowledge to interpret accurately. To that, I say phooey. Why would God send his message to us in a language that required years of training to decipher? More importantly still, why is it that so many people justify their political actions on chapters and verses which they don't have the skill to understand?
B) The more complex explanations provided by the bible study leader I've encountered have been oversimplified and logically flawed. The idea, I suppose, is to keep things simple and digestible. I need more detail, I can handle it.
C) As a bible study participant, you are not allowed to press issues or question the logic of the explanations. In theory, of course, you are allowed, but when the flawed logic of an argument is made evident the leader tends to move things along and you get evil eyes from the other bible study participants.
D) In the last bible study I attended, one of the other attendees commended me for bringing up good points and suggested I not return to the next session, all in one sentence. To be fair, he told me that the class was not at my level of analysis yet and I should wait for a more advanced class. But his message was pretty clear "pointdexter is messing things up for the rest of us".
When I was a high school student I would often wonder through my student's version of the bible but I always had a difficult time sticking with it, for various reasons. One of those reasons was that the passages that needed the most explanation were left completely unexplained (in the annotations of my student's version). Shortly after making my way through about 10% of the old testament and all the way through MARK in the new testament I had come to the conclusion that anyone who had read the whole bible and was not completely befuddled was simply not paying enough attention. So I gave up with the impression that the only way the average person could read the bible and not be left with millions of questions was with close guidance from a parishioner or completely uncritically.
Several years ago, after gaining a little more theological background through outside reading and a little more practice in literary criticism (and logic, and philosophy) I tried going through the King James Version (KJV) on my own once again.
I couldn't even make it through Exodus.
I spent too much time searching the internet for theological explanations regarding the problems of free will and God's omnipotence. None of the explanations I found were satisfying but i trudged on. When I eventually quit I did so with the intention that I would come back to it but with a better method of note keeping, such that I would be able to come back to my issues and discuss them in a more open forum.
So one of my goals is to slowly take notes on the blog as I slowly read and analyze each book, chapter, or verse. There are over 30,000 verses in the KJV so if I went at about 500 verses per week I could finish in a year. It's easy to read 500 verses a week but it's hard to read them AND pay attention AND critically analyze and extract meaning.
We'll see how it goes.
Also, I realize that there exists something called "bible study" which is, presumably, exactly what I need. I've tried "bible study" and I have a few problems:
A) I have not been able to find a bible study group that even attempts to check out the old testament. I've been told that the old testament is too complex, that it takes several years of background knowledge to interpret accurately. To that, I say phooey. Why would God send his message to us in a language that required years of training to decipher? More importantly still, why is it that so many people justify their political actions on chapters and verses which they don't have the skill to understand?
B) The more complex explanations provided by the bible study leader I've encountered have been oversimplified and logically flawed. The idea, I suppose, is to keep things simple and digestible. I need more detail, I can handle it.
C) As a bible study participant, you are not allowed to press issues or question the logic of the explanations. In theory, of course, you are allowed, but when the flawed logic of an argument is made evident the leader tends to move things along and you get evil eyes from the other bible study participants.
D) In the last bible study I attended, one of the other attendees commended me for bringing up good points and suggested I not return to the next session, all in one sentence. To be fair, he told me that the class was not at my level of analysis yet and I should wait for a more advanced class. But his message was pretty clear "pointdexter is messing things up for the rest of us".
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Yes or No
Good old internet, always ready to ask the tough questions:
http://www.YesNoGod.com
Interesting (though questionable) results:
US of America is at 57% no, which is much higher than I would expect (though the population of internet users is not a very good sample of the american population as a whole)
Even more surprising is Australia coming in at 73% no.
The Scandinavian nations are averaging at about 73% no as well, but that's much less surprising. The largest no percentage is 76 coming from Finland (the country with the smartest kids by some measures)
http://www.YesNoGod.com
Interesting (though questionable) results:
US of America is at 57% no, which is much higher than I would expect (though the population of internet users is not a very good sample of the american population as a whole)
Even more surprising is Australia coming in at 73% no.
The Scandinavian nations are averaging at about 73% no as well, but that's much less surprising. The largest no percentage is 76 coming from Finland (the country with the smartest kids by some measures)
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Wanna be appalled?
Listen to this story about a Catholic being denied communion because he endorsed Obama.
Not appalled?
First of all, it is impossible to agree 100% on every issue with any candidate. You have to decide which issues are important to you and whether those fit with what the candidate offers. That's how we should all vote in a perfect world...
This Priest who denied the guy communion seems to not be able to realize this. What's worse, is that he is denying a member of his faith a very important element of that faith on the grounds of a personal disagreement about an issue which, as weighty as it may seem, is derivative in terms of the act of communion. I mean, denying communion, in parts of the world, is an act tantamount to excommunication, which is a pretty big deal.
Am I surprised by all of this? No. People are generally petty, even religious leaders.
But I'm sort of angry about it because many of my fellow human beings are blindly choosing to follow leaders of this caliber. Of course, this isn't as bad as child molestation, but what kind of leadership is the catholic church providing with idiots like this guy at the pulpit?
Listen to this story about a Catholic being denied communion because he endorsed Obama.
Not appalled?
First of all, it is impossible to agree 100% on every issue with any candidate. You have to decide which issues are important to you and whether those fit with what the candidate offers. That's how we should all vote in a perfect world...
This Priest who denied the guy communion seems to not be able to realize this. What's worse, is that he is denying a member of his faith a very important element of that faith on the grounds of a personal disagreement about an issue which, as weighty as it may seem, is derivative in terms of the act of communion. I mean, denying communion, in parts of the world, is an act tantamount to excommunication, which is a pretty big deal.
Am I surprised by all of this? No. People are generally petty, even religious leaders.
But I'm sort of angry about it because many of my fellow human beings are blindly choosing to follow leaders of this caliber. Of course, this isn't as bad as child molestation, but what kind of leadership is the catholic church providing with idiots like this guy at the pulpit?
A list of things
Recent events for me to be somewhat pleased about:
Things that are kind of irking me
Regarding B: This created a watered down version of biblical instruction since bible passages were interpreted differently by the different protestant churches. All such bible passages with conflicting interpretations, were taught to students devoid of interpretation. Everyone pretty much was reading the bible 'blind', that's assuming the particular school district could decide on which version of the bible was the appropriate one to use. I don't know if YOU've ever attempted to read the KJversion carefully and on your own but my experience is that it is not an easy task for the average high school kid, and from what I can tell, most adults with a high school education even have a hard time with it. Eventually this process evolved into the ditching of specific religious instruction and the incorporation of "moral" instruction in its place.
Regarding A: Christian (and Jewish) parents were not very happy about sending their kids to a public school which was indoctrinating their children in a belief system (Protestantism) not shared by them. Unitarians were sort of stuck in the middle and it ended up being a handful of them who came up with compromises. So after a spat of riots, murders, and church burnings both sides were happy to make the public schools completely secular and delegating the task of religious education to Sunday schools. The Catholic church actually STRONGLY urged members of their congregation to ignore public schools altogether and just have them pay for private catholic school. But that's another story.
I'm currently in the process of doing more research on that to make sure that the secondary sources confirm the facts, but the reason why this irks me is because I'd been made to sort of feel guilty by my elders for many years and, as it turns out, unjustly. I struggle with my views about religion and education because I think it is certainly ok for religious children to pray in school and I think that high schools should teach courses on religious texts (not just the bible) and religious philosophies (not just the christian varieties). Of course, there is nothing in the national constitution (or any state constitution that I know) that make school prayer illegal. Children are allowed to pray anywhere they'd like on school grounds during school hours, the problem is school sponsored prayer. Similarly, schools are more than welcome to provide courses on religious studies, but few want to try for either fear of complaints and litigation from uninformed parents or lack of interest from the students.
But many average religious Americans blame agnostics, atheists, and secular academics for the lack of God in our schools and this is just plain unfair. Most rational people, atheists secular or not, don't have a problem with kids practicing their religions in schools. They just don't want the teachers to be stuck in the position of inadvertently telling little Ming Tao Hsu or little Elizabeth Ebrahimi that they and their families are going to hell because they don't practice the one true religion. This is a very real and very serious problem in MANY schools around the country.
I guess I just wish that people in general were aware of the straw men they build and use in their arguments. This is one of the biggest straw men out there and one that I keep hearing over and over again in the media.
- Obama has clinched the necessary number of delegates for the nomination
- I have gotten a poster accepted at a conference on the east coast
- I have now completed all obligations for my PhD EXCEPT qualifying and dissertation
- I finally finished playing the game GTAIV (though the game is so pretty that I can see myself playing it again just to explore the fake new york some more)
- I'm going to be an uncle for a second and third time
Things that are kind of irking me
- My netflix DVDs have not come in yet and I mailed them in on Friday. What the hell Netflix!
- The more I learn about McCain (even from his own website and his own speeches) the more I am shocked by how narrow minded he is despite his (nearly) 71 years of life. Although leaps and bounds more adequate than GWBush for a CiC role, I fear that his experiences have taught him nothing with respect to governance at home (I'll go into this in more detail in future posts as that critical Tuesday approaches) and that his main obama-sticking point of experience might actually win him the office despite this.
- I now have to prepare a poster for that conference on the east coast (with less than 2 weeks to do so)
- I have to write a paper for a class
- I have to grade a ton o papers as per my obligation as a TA
- I have to come up with a dissertation topic and I have to do that over the summer in order to qualify on time.
- I learned, despite what I had been told in my childhood by respectable elders, that the reason why public primary and secondary schools in this country are secular has very little at all to do with secularist policy makers.
Regarding B: This created a watered down version of biblical instruction since bible passages were interpreted differently by the different protestant churches. All such bible passages with conflicting interpretations, were taught to students devoid of interpretation. Everyone pretty much was reading the bible 'blind', that's assuming the particular school district could decide on which version of the bible was the appropriate one to use. I don't know if YOU've ever attempted to read the KJversion carefully and on your own but my experience is that it is not an easy task for the average high school kid, and from what I can tell, most adults with a high school education even have a hard time with it. Eventually this process evolved into the ditching of specific religious instruction and the incorporation of "moral" instruction in its place.
Regarding A: Christian (and Jewish) parents were not very happy about sending their kids to a public school which was indoctrinating their children in a belief system (Protestantism) not shared by them. Unitarians were sort of stuck in the middle and it ended up being a handful of them who came up with compromises. So after a spat of riots, murders, and church burnings both sides were happy to make the public schools completely secular and delegating the task of religious education to Sunday schools. The Catholic church actually STRONGLY urged members of their congregation to ignore public schools altogether and just have them pay for private catholic school. But that's another story.
I'm currently in the process of doing more research on that to make sure that the secondary sources confirm the facts, but the reason why this irks me is because I'd been made to sort of feel guilty by my elders for many years and, as it turns out, unjustly. I struggle with my views about religion and education because I think it is certainly ok for religious children to pray in school and I think that high schools should teach courses on religious texts (not just the bible) and religious philosophies (not just the christian varieties). Of course, there is nothing in the national constitution (or any state constitution that I know) that make school prayer illegal. Children are allowed to pray anywhere they'd like on school grounds during school hours, the problem is school sponsored prayer. Similarly, schools are more than welcome to provide courses on religious studies, but few want to try for either fear of complaints and litigation from uninformed parents or lack of interest from the students.
But many average religious Americans blame agnostics, atheists, and secular academics for the lack of God in our schools and this is just plain unfair. Most rational people, atheists secular or not, don't have a problem with kids practicing their religions in schools. They just don't want the teachers to be stuck in the position of inadvertently telling little Ming Tao Hsu or little Elizabeth Ebrahimi that they and their families are going to hell because they don't practice the one true religion. This is a very real and very serious problem in MANY schools around the country.
I guess I just wish that people in general were aware of the straw men they build and use in their arguments. This is one of the biggest straw men out there and one that I keep hearing over and over again in the media.
Friday, April 11, 2008
What Christian Denomination might I join
I took a web-quiz to tell me what christian denomination best fit those religious views I may hold (were I to allow myself to believe in an benevolent and omnipotent God).
My results:
I'm not surprised by the unitarian universalism result, but I was surprised by the number of those top ten denominations that I am completely ignorant about. Those are: #2, #3, #8, #9, and #10.
For completely unrelated reasons, I'm about to start reading a book called "Religious Literacy" and I hope that it helps me to develop more refined interests in world religions, because no matter how educated about a topic you think you are, there's always more to learn, it seems.
My results:
| | #1 | Unitarian Universalism
| ||||
 | #2 | Liberal Quakerism
| ||||
| | #3 | Unity Church
| ||||
| | #4 | Episcopal/Anglican Church
| ||||
| | #5 | Methodist/Wesleyan Church
| ||||
| | #6 | Seventh-Day Adventist
| ||||
| | #7 | Mennonite Brethren
| ||||
| | #8 | Orthodox Quakerism
| ||||
| | #9 | Evangelical Lutheran Church
| ||||
| | #10 | Assemblies of God |
I'm not surprised by the unitarian universalism result, but I was surprised by the number of those top ten denominations that I am completely ignorant about. Those are: #2, #3, #8, #9, and #10.
For completely unrelated reasons, I'm about to start reading a book called "Religious Literacy" and I hope that it helps me to develop more refined interests in world religions, because no matter how educated about a topic you think you are, there's always more to learn, it seems.
Monday, April 7, 2008
a little disheartening
When you don't have time to think about what you are saying, and simply let the words pour out unchecked and full of emotion, you are liable to make statements whose conclusions -- in hindsight -- you may not agree with yourself.
Imagine a politician speaking to a buddhist or a muslim in a public hearing saying something like the following:
"It is dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists."
I suspect that it would be in the local newspapers the next day. In fact, a politician did say this to someone, but nary a thing has been printed (from what I understand). Some suspect this is because the target was an atheist.
You can hear the exchange on mp3 here.
Imagine a politician speaking to a buddhist or a muslim in a public hearing saying something like the following:
"It is dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists."
I suspect that it would be in the local newspapers the next day. In fact, a politician did say this to someone, but nary a thing has been printed (from what I understand). Some suspect this is because the target was an atheist.
You can hear the exchange on mp3 here.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Why would you stare into the sun?
Is this evidence that religious conviction is a powerful thing? That it can even lead you, apparently, to throw common sense out of the window? well, 48 people looking at the sun for the image of la Madonna have gone blind.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Praying to United airlines
I often spend 5 minutes of my morning heading over to wikipedia, hitting the 'random article button', and reading about whatever comes up. I do this because it's more interesting to make small talk for the rest of the day if you have something interesting to say rather than just talk about the god damned weather.
A few months ago, in the above described method, I stumbled across an article on Cargo Cults.
I found it fascinating and I would like to see a documentary made... I recently learned that Jared Diamond writes about cargo cults in his book "guns, germs, and steel". I read that book and I don't recall the mention of cargo cults. I guess I didn't read hard enough. (it was an interesting book full of great ideas/theories, but Diamond's writing style is awful. He expresses his academic thesis like an 8th grader would in a 5-paragraph-essay, presumably in order to make it accessible to a wide audience. So it reads like a dumbed down academic journal article, only very repetitive).
It also turns out that Dawkins has a chapter on cargo cults in his book 'the god delusion'. I haven't read that.
A few months ago, in the above described method, I stumbled across an article on Cargo Cults.
I found it fascinating and I would like to see a documentary made... I recently learned that Jared Diamond writes about cargo cults in his book "guns, germs, and steel". I read that book and I don't recall the mention of cargo cults. I guess I didn't read hard enough. (it was an interesting book full of great ideas/theories, but Diamond's writing style is awful. He expresses his academic thesis like an 8th grader would in a 5-paragraph-essay, presumably in order to make it accessible to a wide audience. So it reads like a dumbed down academic journal article, only very repetitive).
It also turns out that Dawkins has a chapter on cargo cults in his book 'the god delusion'. I haven't read that.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Frustration building...
Any college student who chooses a major based on his perception of its difficulty SHOULD NOT PURSUE HIGHER EDUCATION.
-all majors are difficult if you really put yourself into it. If you are just looking to "graduate college as easily and as quickly as possible" then do yourself, your parents, your possible future professors, TAs, and fellow undergrads a favor and re-analyze your decision to go to college.
Any college student who fears having to deal with "a lot of memorization" SHOULD RE-EVALUATE THEIR DEFINITION OF LEARNING.
-what's the difference between memorizing and remembering? What's the difference between remembering and learning? I know what the differences are to me, I've known since I started high school. That's how I've managed to go through the past 11 years of schooling without memorizing ANYTHING.
If you make a claim based on no shared evidence and someone else refutes your claim you cannot require the refuter to come up with evidence against your claim. THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON THE PERSON MAKING THE UN-EVIDENCED CLAIM.
-too many times I've heard religious faithfuls ask "rationals" to come up with proof for the un-existence of God. Unfortunately, that doesn't make much sense. Observe the absurdity of the following conversation.
Person 1: I believe that I have two pairs of lungs, but one of the pairs is incorporeal, unable to be x-rayed or MRIed or touched with human hands.
Person 2: I think you are misguided - you do not have two pairs of lungs.
Person 1: Prove it!
If person 1 is fair in his demand, then it is now person 2's job to prove that person 1 does not have a second incorporeal set of lungs. Unfortunately, due to the very nature of this pair of lungs, Person 2 will not likely come up with proof. Does this mean we are to believe that the claim of person 1's second set of lungs is true?
According to many many many folks, who don't think about stuff before they are interviewed on television, yes.
============ Rant ==================
Now I don't like to get involved in arguments about religion for many many many reasons.
The problem is that when I hear arguments between a religious faithful and a "rational" I often find major logical faults, or scientific inaccuracies/misunderstandings with the arguments made by the faithful. Similarly, I tend to have a major problem with the method that the "rational" employs to make their point. So I get angry (or involved) because most of these discussions/debates become intellectually fruitless.
In the above paragraph, by the way, "rational" is in quotes because I do want to make clear that "rational" in this sense is meant to be someone who has applied logic to his belief system without appealing to the supernatural. "rationals" might not be rational in the sense that they often get involved in religious debates with poor purpose or goal. Many such supporters of atheism feel that the goal of this discourse should be to "eradicate religion" and they do this by ridiculous tactics such as trying to show how stupid the opposition's argument is.
The goal, I think, should be for both parties, though one at a time, to incrementally build an understanding from the smallest claims that they can agree on. That way, the most basic disagreements can be identified, targeted, and resolved or noted. I've seen this type of debate happen twice before, both people keeping calm and rational, tempers unflaired.
Ultimately both of these debates ended with the rational "rational" conceding that there was no proof that a god didn't exist but believing that it was irrational to suppose one does exists, and the religious faithful conceding that the only thing they had to sustain their belief system was faith and personal experience but believing that this was more than enough to stick to their convictions.
This is a good resolution to expect because
A: the goal of the "rational" should be to make sure that everyone is using a fair and logical system to evaluate claims such as "you must prove to me that vishnu does not exist" and not to claim that the religious faithful is simply wrong. History has shown that only mass murder/extinction or the encroachment of a new idea can effectively eliminate a belief system (see the greeks or mayans for examples of these). If one really wishes to see religion disappear, one has to replace it with something really good and let time do its work (because no one should be murdering anyone). Maybe logic and compassion is enough as a replacement, but we'll never know if one side is constantly belittling or bullying the other.
B: the religious faithful should truly examine their own belief system and make sure that their comprehension of it is not simply a result of indoctrination and simply going along with the motions. If one believes something because of the joy in their heart or the personal miracles they experience, that is fine. But this is a personal belief and one has to really think about and understand the way that it should or shouldn't be applied to the rest of the world with respect to prostelatizing, relying on prayer, making laws about stem cell research, and teaching our children (especially those who don't share that belief system) about the world.
The end
-all majors are difficult if you really put yourself into it. If you are just looking to "graduate college as easily and as quickly as possible" then do yourself, your parents, your possible future professors, TAs, and fellow undergrads a favor and re-analyze your decision to go to college.
Any college student who fears having to deal with "a lot of memorization" SHOULD RE-EVALUATE THEIR DEFINITION OF LEARNING.
-what's the difference between memorizing and remembering? What's the difference between remembering and learning? I know what the differences are to me, I've known since I started high school. That's how I've managed to go through the past 11 years of schooling without memorizing ANYTHING.
If you make a claim based on no shared evidence and someone else refutes your claim you cannot require the refuter to come up with evidence against your claim. THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON THE PERSON MAKING THE UN-EVIDENCED CLAIM.
-too many times I've heard religious faithfuls ask "rationals" to come up with proof for the un-existence of God. Unfortunately, that doesn't make much sense. Observe the absurdity of the following conversation.
Person 1: I believe that I have two pairs of lungs, but one of the pairs is incorporeal, unable to be x-rayed or MRIed or touched with human hands.
Person 2: I think you are misguided - you do not have two pairs of lungs.
Person 1: Prove it!
If person 1 is fair in his demand, then it is now person 2's job to prove that person 1 does not have a second incorporeal set of lungs. Unfortunately, due to the very nature of this pair of lungs, Person 2 will not likely come up with proof. Does this mean we are to believe that the claim of person 1's second set of lungs is true?
According to many many many folks, who don't think about stuff before they are interviewed on television, yes.
============ Rant ==================
Now I don't like to get involved in arguments about religion for many many many reasons.
The problem is that when I hear arguments between a religious faithful and a "rational" I often find major logical faults, or scientific inaccuracies/misunderstandings with the arguments made by the faithful. Similarly, I tend to have a major problem with the method that the "rational" employs to make their point. So I get angry (or involved) because most of these discussions/debates become intellectually fruitless.
In the above paragraph, by the way, "rational" is in quotes because I do want to make clear that "rational" in this sense is meant to be someone who has applied logic to his belief system without appealing to the supernatural. "rationals" might not be rational in the sense that they often get involved in religious debates with poor purpose or goal. Many such supporters of atheism feel that the goal of this discourse should be to "eradicate religion" and they do this by ridiculous tactics such as trying to show how stupid the opposition's argument is.
The goal, I think, should be for both parties, though one at a time, to incrementally build an understanding from the smallest claims that they can agree on. That way, the most basic disagreements can be identified, targeted, and resolved or noted. I've seen this type of debate happen twice before, both people keeping calm and rational, tempers unflaired.
Ultimately both of these debates ended with the rational "rational" conceding that there was no proof that a god didn't exist but believing that it was irrational to suppose one does exists, and the religious faithful conceding that the only thing they had to sustain their belief system was faith and personal experience but believing that this was more than enough to stick to their convictions.
This is a good resolution to expect because
A: the goal of the "rational" should be to make sure that everyone is using a fair and logical system to evaluate claims such as "you must prove to me that vishnu does not exist" and not to claim that the religious faithful is simply wrong. History has shown that only mass murder/extinction or the encroachment of a new idea can effectively eliminate a belief system (see the greeks or mayans for examples of these). If one really wishes to see religion disappear, one has to replace it with something really good and let time do its work (because no one should be murdering anyone). Maybe logic and compassion is enough as a replacement, but we'll never know if one side is constantly belittling or bullying the other.
B: the religious faithful should truly examine their own belief system and make sure that their comprehension of it is not simply a result of indoctrination and simply going along with the motions. If one believes something because of the joy in their heart or the personal miracles they experience, that is fine. But this is a personal belief and one has to really think about and understand the way that it should or shouldn't be applied to the rest of the world with respect to prostelatizing, relying on prayer, making laws about stem cell research, and teaching our children (especially those who don't share that belief system) about the world.
The end
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
When will Jesus come already?!?
It used to be the case that if you entered www.2007rapture.com into your browser's address bar you would find yourself on the webpage of a guy proclaiming, with absolute certainty, that the end of the world would occur in 2007. Well, 2007 came and went with no return of jesus. That domain holder is a good sport though, so if you go to that website now he has written a long apology and explaination (sort of).
But, fear not. www.2008rapture.com has been up and running for a while now. Maybe this year will be the one?
Regardless of if the end is near or not, try to have a good year!
But, fear not. www.2008rapture.com has been up and running for a while now. Maybe this year will be the one?
Regardless of if the end is near or not, try to have a good year!
Friday, October 26, 2007
About 52 years ago, a scientist published a paper in a journal in which he uses contemporary (for 1955) scientific data to make some logical speculation about what kind of chemical compounds could have existed during the period in which the earth was cooling.
Much of his speculation (I assume) proved to be unfounded as its scientific field grew in the ensuing decades. That scientist went on to publish more papers and probably gave little thought to that speculative work, until many years later he googled himself to find that the 1955 paper was being cited a lot.
Problem is, it's being cited by creationists. Turns out they are using that piece of outdated speculation as scientific evidence that life could not have begun without divine intervention.
That scientist didn't like it, so he retracted the paper.
That story in itself isn't too exciting to me. However, it reinvigorated memories of a rant I often feel like giving to anyone who will listen. That is: Scientists may be experts of their field but, like any expert of any field be it a doctor, a lawyer, a mechanic, or whatever, they are fallible and sometimes wrong.
Many logically minded, thinking, near-rational creationists are desperate for scientific validity so they scour journal articles as old as 1955 and older (Newton's Principia is often appealed to) just so they can do what their opponents in the argument are doing.
People tend to take expert advice for granted. The majority of the creationists citing the paper probably don't have the skill to read scientific articles (and it is a skill which requires practice). It seems like they couldn't even figure out that it was speculation with outdated evidence. It doesn't look like they knew that the author wasn't even an expert in astrophysics, but a material scientist. Yet somewhere through the grapevine, someone heard about (or researched) this paper, gathered what they wanted from it and began to pass that info along to people who just believed it and went on citing it.
This phenomenon is prevalent in our society. Take the atkins diet. If you ask the average atkins dieter to explain to you why this particular diet works, they don't know or have a basic, but probably fallacious or simplistic explanation of why carbs are bad for dieters. Little attention is paid to other health concerns about atkins, but they presume that the "doctor" who invented the diet is an expert and "diet" is inherently healthy. (carb elimination/all protein diets are actually quite old, suggested for obese patients who need surgery and must lose weight really fast, doctors have been putting people on these diets for a long time WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THEY NOT STAY ON THE DIET FOR LONGER THAN 3 OR 4 WEEKS lest their arteries explode)
Science reporting is bad. Scientists, even good ones, make all kinds of mistakes. The press often makes a big deal out of small discoveries and totally ignores important discoveries based solely on the news organizations' speculation regarding their viewership. And just because a scientist has done something amazing in, say, the field of genetics, doesn't mean he isn't an idiot when it comes to something like social biology.
Doctors are not all geniuses, in my experience I've met at least 2 very ignorant ones. Many many mechanics are amazing with machines, but many also exploit our ignorance and make us pay huge amounts of money for scams like "break pad cleaning". Lawyers have pretty amazing memory banks for all the texts they were forced to memorize by the educational system but few can extrapolate from those books to the real world simply because it isn't necessarily important to have that skill in the court of law.
I could go on, but my point is this: Don't look to experts for the definitive word. Question everything, be skeptical. A doctor is someone you need to trust regarding your health, a marine biologist is someone you need to trust regarding the health of polar bears and sea lions in a warming arctic, and your mom is someone you need to trust for advice when you're raising your first child. The real hard trick is to learn how much of what these people say is important, relevant, useful fact and how much is human self-deluding, inaccurate, harmful fiction.
When the creationists were looking for a paper to show how life couldn't have started on its own, they found a paper which supported that view and took it for granted that, being in a scientific journal, it weighed as strong evidence. I would like it if people hearing their claims would not take them for fact but would do something to learn for themselves whether those claims were accurate.
Much of his speculation (I assume) proved to be unfounded as its scientific field grew in the ensuing decades. That scientist went on to publish more papers and probably gave little thought to that speculative work, until many years later he googled himself to find that the 1955 paper was being cited a lot.
Problem is, it's being cited by creationists. Turns out they are using that piece of outdated speculation as scientific evidence that life could not have begun without divine intervention.
That scientist didn't like it, so he retracted the paper.
That story in itself isn't too exciting to me. However, it reinvigorated memories of a rant I often feel like giving to anyone who will listen. That is: Scientists may be experts of their field but, like any expert of any field be it a doctor, a lawyer, a mechanic, or whatever, they are fallible and sometimes wrong.
Many logically minded, thinking, near-rational creationists are desperate for scientific validity so they scour journal articles as old as 1955 and older (Newton's Principia is often appealed to) just so they can do what their opponents in the argument are doing.
People tend to take expert advice for granted. The majority of the creationists citing the paper probably don't have the skill to read scientific articles (and it is a skill which requires practice). It seems like they couldn't even figure out that it was speculation with outdated evidence. It doesn't look like they knew that the author wasn't even an expert in astrophysics, but a material scientist. Yet somewhere through the grapevine, someone heard about (or researched) this paper, gathered what they wanted from it and began to pass that info along to people who just believed it and went on citing it.
This phenomenon is prevalent in our society. Take the atkins diet. If you ask the average atkins dieter to explain to you why this particular diet works, they don't know or have a basic, but probably fallacious or simplistic explanation of why carbs are bad for dieters. Little attention is paid to other health concerns about atkins, but they presume that the "doctor" who invented the diet is an expert and "diet" is inherently healthy. (carb elimination/all protein diets are actually quite old, suggested for obese patients who need surgery and must lose weight really fast, doctors have been putting people on these diets for a long time WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THEY NOT STAY ON THE DIET FOR LONGER THAN 3 OR 4 WEEKS lest their arteries explode)
Science reporting is bad. Scientists, even good ones, make all kinds of mistakes. The press often makes a big deal out of small discoveries and totally ignores important discoveries based solely on the news organizations' speculation regarding their viewership. And just because a scientist has done something amazing in, say, the field of genetics, doesn't mean he isn't an idiot when it comes to something like social biology.
Doctors are not all geniuses, in my experience I've met at least 2 very ignorant ones. Many many mechanics are amazing with machines, but many also exploit our ignorance and make us pay huge amounts of money for scams like "break pad cleaning". Lawyers have pretty amazing memory banks for all the texts they were forced to memorize by the educational system but few can extrapolate from those books to the real world simply because it isn't necessarily important to have that skill in the court of law.
I could go on, but my point is this: Don't look to experts for the definitive word. Question everything, be skeptical. A doctor is someone you need to trust regarding your health, a marine biologist is someone you need to trust regarding the health of polar bears and sea lions in a warming arctic, and your mom is someone you need to trust for advice when you're raising your first child. The real hard trick is to learn how much of what these people say is important, relevant, useful fact and how much is human self-deluding, inaccurate, harmful fiction.
When the creationists were looking for a paper to show how life couldn't have started on its own, they found a paper which supported that view and took it for granted that, being in a scientific journal, it weighed as strong evidence. I would like it if people hearing their claims would not take them for fact but would do something to learn for themselves whether those claims were accurate.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
I'm probably on the 6th level
For those who don't know, here are the levels (or circles) of hell according to Dante:
First, you need to go through a dark forest. Here there are animals which can kill you. That's to make sure that living people don't get to hell. Here, you are also likely to find loved ones from heaven who want to make sure that you don't get stuck in hell. They will provide you with a poet, probably a humanist, who will be your guide to hell.
After the woods, you get to the vestibule. This is where you go if you believed in God but didn't take sides. You were neither good nor evil, an opportunist? Then you don't quite go to hell, but you go to the vestibule. Your afterlife in the vestibule is spent chasing an unreachable flag whilst being chased by insects.
Eventually, you reach Charon the boatdude. He takes you across some river where you enter the official first circle of hell. This isn't really hell as we know it, but is more often referred to as Purgatory. This is for unbaptized babies and pre-old testament folks who were pure at heart but weren't given the choice to repent for the sins of their ancestors. Nothing too bad happens here, it's just a basically boring place.
The next circle of hell is where all the lustful go: Romeo and Juliet, Zeus, Magic Johnson. Here, from what I understand, it's very windy. And there's no one to comfort you. So far hell is not that horrible.
In the third level you got your fatties. These are the gluttons who ate and drank of God's gifts and gave nothing but garbage in return. Here there's a lot of filth and garbage, with intermittent freezing rain. Sounds like a winter in New Jersey. However things can get pretty nasty in this circle as the three headed dog Cerberus might chew you to pieces if he gets a hold of you. Things are starting to get a bit more hell like.
Next, you'll get to meet some misers. In the fourth level is where you go if you are rich and collected a lot of wealth but did not give back to the community. These are the hoarders. But they aren't alone. Here you also find wasters. These are people who were given a lot but lost it all in foolish persuits. Some presidents of the US will find themselves here some day (it would seem). Their punishment is to be pushed down by great weights...
That brings us to the level of wrath. If you can't control your temper in life, you end up here, wading through the swampy mire of Styx, endlessly fighting with your neighbors. Every once in a while, you'll trod on a miserly hermit.
The sixth circle is reserved for those who were surrounded by the word of the lord but failed to accept it. These foolish beasts will be living in the capital of hell. Supposedly, this is the turning point too. From this level on things get really bad. Here you'll find Medusa and winged furies. The air is really smelly too, makes you dizzy. But the Heretics are stuck in tombs which are set ablaze. Since they denied God and did not believe in an afterlife, they will now be stuck for eternity in a flaming grave. However, the graves are open so the heretics can go out for a nice walk anytime they want. However, once the rapture is in progress, the lids will clamp down, trapping these heathens forever. If I were there, I'd get out of my firey hole and go find medusa. Spending eternity as a statue in a stinky capital is much better than spending it in a broiling grave.
The seventh circle is actually made up of three sub-circles. This is where the violent people go. If you were violent against others, started wars or beat up neighbors, you get to go under a boiling hot river of blood. If you try to peek out, people shot you with arrows and stab you with spears. If you were violent against yourself, that is you cut yourself or kill yourself, you are turned into a tree. It is upon this tree that harpies eat and I guess it hurts because you'll bleed and scream every time the harpies take a bite. You do this forever because you are growing quite fast, as fast as you are being eaten I presume. If you were violent against God, this includes sodomites, blasphemers, and art critics (I'm not making this up) then you get to spend eternity in a desert showered upon by fire rain.
Those last two levels were pretty bad, I guess. I think that a 21st century author could have come up with much worse punishments than those. Read Harlan Ellison for an example.
The second to last level is very tough to describe. That's basically because it's like 10 levels in one. I think Dante was a bit strapped here trying to include a bunch of other sinners without including another dozen levels. So he hodge podged 10 groups in this one circle.
Who gets to go here?
1) Thieves
2) Hypocrites
3) Panderers
4) People who exchange a high position in the church for money
5) Flatterers
6) Liars
7) Pessimists who are loud about it
8) Evil counselors
9) Fortune tellers
10) ?
The 10th are referred to as grafters, but I don't know what a grafter is. Best as I can tell, a grafter is a greedy person, but I thought those people are already spending time on the 5th level so I'm confused.
Anyway, all these people are given punishments that fit the crime, but they are all pretty dull. So I wasn't very surprised at the disappointment of the last, most evil level of hell.
The eight circle of hell is Antarctica in winter. But at the center of the earth.
If you killed a member of your own family, you get buried up to your neck in ice but can move your neck about. If you were disloyal to your country, you are also buried up to your neck in ice but you can't move your neck even. If you invited someone to your house and killed them, or if you were invited to someone's house and killed them, you get buried up to your nose in ice. If you kill your master, you are entirely entombed in ice.
Whoopdy doo. Stuck in ice for eternity. That's the last circle of hell.
Give me a break, Dante!
First, you need to go through a dark forest. Here there are animals which can kill you. That's to make sure that living people don't get to hell. Here, you are also likely to find loved ones from heaven who want to make sure that you don't get stuck in hell. They will provide you with a poet, probably a humanist, who will be your guide to hell.
After the woods, you get to the vestibule. This is where you go if you believed in God but didn't take sides. You were neither good nor evil, an opportunist? Then you don't quite go to hell, but you go to the vestibule. Your afterlife in the vestibule is spent chasing an unreachable flag whilst being chased by insects.
Eventually, you reach Charon the boatdude. He takes you across some river where you enter the official first circle of hell. This isn't really hell as we know it, but is more often referred to as Purgatory. This is for unbaptized babies and pre-old testament folks who were pure at heart but weren't given the choice to repent for the sins of their ancestors. Nothing too bad happens here, it's just a basically boring place.
The next circle of hell is where all the lustful go: Romeo and Juliet, Zeus, Magic Johnson. Here, from what I understand, it's very windy. And there's no one to comfort you. So far hell is not that horrible.
In the third level you got your fatties. These are the gluttons who ate and drank of God's gifts and gave nothing but garbage in return. Here there's a lot of filth and garbage, with intermittent freezing rain. Sounds like a winter in New Jersey. However things can get pretty nasty in this circle as the three headed dog Cerberus might chew you to pieces if he gets a hold of you. Things are starting to get a bit more hell like.
Next, you'll get to meet some misers. In the fourth level is where you go if you are rich and collected a lot of wealth but did not give back to the community. These are the hoarders. But they aren't alone. Here you also find wasters. These are people who were given a lot but lost it all in foolish persuits. Some presidents of the US will find themselves here some day (it would seem). Their punishment is to be pushed down by great weights...
That brings us to the level of wrath. If you can't control your temper in life, you end up here, wading through the swampy mire of Styx, endlessly fighting with your neighbors. Every once in a while, you'll trod on a miserly hermit.
The sixth circle is reserved for those who were surrounded by the word of the lord but failed to accept it. These foolish beasts will be living in the capital of hell. Supposedly, this is the turning point too. From this level on things get really bad. Here you'll find Medusa and winged furies. The air is really smelly too, makes you dizzy. But the Heretics are stuck in tombs which are set ablaze. Since they denied God and did not believe in an afterlife, they will now be stuck for eternity in a flaming grave. However, the graves are open so the heretics can go out for a nice walk anytime they want. However, once the rapture is in progress, the lids will clamp down, trapping these heathens forever. If I were there, I'd get out of my firey hole and go find medusa. Spending eternity as a statue in a stinky capital is much better than spending it in a broiling grave.
The seventh circle is actually made up of three sub-circles. This is where the violent people go. If you were violent against others, started wars or beat up neighbors, you get to go under a boiling hot river of blood. If you try to peek out, people shot you with arrows and stab you with spears. If you were violent against yourself, that is you cut yourself or kill yourself, you are turned into a tree. It is upon this tree that harpies eat and I guess it hurts because you'll bleed and scream every time the harpies take a bite. You do this forever because you are growing quite fast, as fast as you are being eaten I presume. If you were violent against God, this includes sodomites, blasphemers, and art critics (I'm not making this up) then you get to spend eternity in a desert showered upon by fire rain.
Those last two levels were pretty bad, I guess. I think that a 21st century author could have come up with much worse punishments than those. Read Harlan Ellison for an example.
The second to last level is very tough to describe. That's basically because it's like 10 levels in one. I think Dante was a bit strapped here trying to include a bunch of other sinners without including another dozen levels. So he hodge podged 10 groups in this one circle.
Who gets to go here?
1) Thieves
2) Hypocrites
3) Panderers
4) People who exchange a high position in the church for money
5) Flatterers
6) Liars
7) Pessimists who are loud about it
8) Evil counselors
9) Fortune tellers
10) ?
The 10th are referred to as grafters, but I don't know what a grafter is. Best as I can tell, a grafter is a greedy person, but I thought those people are already spending time on the 5th level so I'm confused.
Anyway, all these people are given punishments that fit the crime, but they are all pretty dull. So I wasn't very surprised at the disappointment of the last, most evil level of hell.
The eight circle of hell is Antarctica in winter. But at the center of the earth.
If you killed a member of your own family, you get buried up to your neck in ice but can move your neck about. If you were disloyal to your country, you are also buried up to your neck in ice but you can't move your neck even. If you invited someone to your house and killed them, or if you were invited to someone's house and killed them, you get buried up to your nose in ice. If you kill your master, you are entirely entombed in ice.
Whoopdy doo. Stuck in ice for eternity. That's the last circle of hell.
Give me a break, Dante!
Monday, May 21, 2007
On becoming secular
The Scenario ------------------
A wonderful woman, mother of one, dies of old age and is sent up to heaven. She was such a wonderful [insert adjective form of denomination which requires belief of such things (e.g. Roman Catholic)] that whoever is in charge up there wants her eternal afterlife to be blissful as promised in the sacred scriptures.
Although this woman did a wonderful job of raising her one child, much of her good work was destroyed when her child decided one day that [insert religious doctrine/rule/commandment (e.g. keep that sabbath holy)] was not an essential doctrine/rule/commandment to adhere to. Little did that child know that this doctrine/rule/commandment was fundamental. Breaking it unrepentantly would be an offense unforgivable in the eyes of [creature in charge up there]. This was clearly stated in the sacred scriptures, unfortunately the one child failed to appreciate this clear warning.
Upon that child's death, unrepentant, the trip to hell is a brisk and unpleasant one.
The Problem -------------------
How can the mother's bliss be assured now that her one and only child will be spending eternity in a very unpleasant place while the mother will be spending it in such a pleasant one?
The Solution -------------------
A) Mother's entrance pass to heaven is rescinded, on account of her failure as a parent, allowing the pair to rejoin in hell.
B) Child's entrance to heaven is reconsidered as a once-in-a-millennium exception due to Mother's exemplary behavior.
C) Mother's memory of child is completely wiped, allowing her to remain blissful (though ignorant)
D) Heaven is just not as pleasant as scriptures would have us believe (i.e. we bring our own baggage).
E) Stop asking such questions, we cannot presume to ever be able to understand His plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As a child of 11, solution E) was that provided by my catechism instructor.
As a child of 26, I'm not sure I still have a better answer. And that's just not acceptable.
A wonderful woman, mother of one, dies of old age and is sent up to heaven. She was such a wonderful [insert adjective form of denomination which requires belief of such things (e.g. Roman Catholic)] that whoever is in charge up there wants her eternal afterlife to be blissful as promised in the sacred scriptures.
Although this woman did a wonderful job of raising her one child, much of her good work was destroyed when her child decided one day that [insert religious doctrine/rule/commandment (e.g. keep that sabbath holy)] was not an essential doctrine/rule/commandment to adhere to. Little did that child know that this doctrine/rule/commandment was fundamental. Breaking it unrepentantly would be an offense unforgivable in the eyes of [creature in charge up there]. This was clearly stated in the sacred scriptures, unfortunately the one child failed to appreciate this clear warning.
Upon that child's death, unrepentant, the trip to hell is a brisk and unpleasant one.
The Problem -------------------
How can the mother's bliss be assured now that her one and only child will be spending eternity in a very unpleasant place while the mother will be spending it in such a pleasant one?
The Solution -------------------
A) Mother's entrance pass to heaven is rescinded, on account of her failure as a parent, allowing the pair to rejoin in hell.
B) Child's entrance to heaven is reconsidered as a once-in-a-millennium exception due to Mother's exemplary behavior.
C) Mother's memory of child is completely wiped, allowing her to remain blissful (though ignorant)
D) Heaven is just not as pleasant as scriptures would have us believe (i.e. we bring our own baggage).
E) Stop asking such questions, we cannot presume to ever be able to understand His plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As a child of 11, solution E) was that provided by my catechism instructor.
As a child of 26, I'm not sure I still have a better answer. And that's just not acceptable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
