and so this is christmas?

I saw the message below posted by an acquaintance on facebook.

While driving around doing last-minute Christmas errands this morning - carols blasting in my car and Littles laughing in the back seat - I drove by a woman, who was alone in her car, sobbing. My heart stopped. My perspective changed in an instant. I felt desperately for that woman. Obviously, I don't know her, or her circumstances, but I know what it feels like to be heart-broken; especially in the midst of what is supposed to be a blissfully happy holiday season. And then I remembered. That woman IS the very reason we have a holiday season. Christmas, Jesus' Birthday, is the REASON for the season. God saw how hard this life was for us, that no matter how much we tried to make everything "merry and bright," we still experience pain and suffering. He knew how desperately we needed a Savior - someone who could offer us a gift unlike anything this World could ever provide - a home with no more tears, no more suffering or pain. He offered us Heaven through the hope of His son, Jesus Christ. I'm SO thankful that I have the hope of Heaven to look forward to. I pray this woman would understand the hope that Christ offers her this Christmas. And I pray for every other individual who is suffering this Christmas season - the families in CT, those who have lost, separated/divorced families, the unemployed, the sick, the lonely, the list goes on - that the hope of Christ would shine bright and bring true peace this season. Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a GOOD night!

This has the start of a very nice story:  upon encountering a down-on-her-luck stranger, a privileged protagonist feels compassion and rethinks her worldview. 

Unfortunately, the rest of the story is a disaster. The weeping woman seemed like she'd be a character in the story, and I expected that by the end she'd have received some useful assistance.  Instead, weeping woman isn't really a character and her eventual plight is completely ignored.  Rather than help weeping woman, the protagonist continues on her way like a bizarro Good Samaritan, more convinced than ever that there's some magical force that will make everything better.  Well aware of 2,000 years of human suffering since the arrival of the magic "savior," the protagonist is still somehow expecting results.  Contrary to her claim, there's no change of perspective here; the protagonist's preexisting perspective illogically becomes more entrenched. 

I don't think it would do much good to say any of that in her facebook comments, so I've buried it here instead.  I should also say that despite her superstition, dogma, and clumsy trivialization of human suffering, I think there's a basically decent message underneath, and hopefully that is what large numbers of her facebook friends are "liking" about it.  Sometimes I forget how much pain is in the world and how little I can do about it.  Luckily, I have a community of helpful people I can turn to when times are tough, and I hope that everyone else who is suffering can find help too.

cringe and then chuckle

I've read almost everything Glenn Greenwald has written since the Unclaimed Territory days.  He's great.  I had to say those nice things because I was starting to complain about something he does every once in a while that makes me cringe.  A throw-away line he used a few days ago was sticking in my craw, something like "the founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves!"  Come on, Glenn! Fuck the founding fathers, man!  They openly sought to design a system to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority!"  They were the original 1%, ruthless exploiters of the working man, and they wanted to keep it that way!  Those rich fucks!  This whole fucking thing! That's what bugs me a little; Greenwald often seems too reverent to the mythology of The Founders, those glorious secular saints who gave us The Holy Document. But then again I refuse to acknowledge other people's sneezes lest I encourage superstition, so maybe I'm overly sensitive. 

Now I see that the piece I'm remembering was shorter than his usual, and the tone more exasperated.  I shouldn't take it especially seriously, and I certainly don't begrudge him the occasional outburst amidst his typically meticulous and methodical work.  In fact, I admit this one is pretty entertaining.  How about that next-day-update where he actually laid down some fucking scripture on us, from the 1777 Epistles of St. John!  (He's the patron saint of the 1% because when he recognized that the dependence caused by extreme inequality compromises the political autonomy of the poor, his solution was that the poor wouldn't have any formal political power in his shiny new democratic nation!)  Anyway, is Glenn making fun of himself?  Either way it is funny, and dark.

worship of state

Rolling along with the idea, popular in my head, that statism is a religion, here's the good professor (emphasis mine):

These conventions are so widely observed that further citation is unnecessary. A notable feature throughout is the lack of any felt need to justify the flattering doctrine that in the Third World, the U.S. has sought only to thwart the Russians and their totalitarian goals while upholding its lofty principles as best it can in these grim and trying circumstances. The reasoning is that of NSC 68: these are necessary truths, established by conceptual analysis alone. Scholars who profess a tough-minded "realistic" outlook, scorning sentimentality and emotion, are willing to concede that the facts of history hardly illustrate the commitment of the United States to, as Hans Morgenthau puts it, its "transcendent purpose" -- "the establishment of equality in freedom in America," and indeed throughout the world, since "the arena within which the United States must defend and promote its purpose has become world-wide." But the facts are irrelevant, because, as Morgenthau hastens to explain, to adduce them is "to confound the abuse of reality with reality itself." Reality is the unachieved "national purpose" revealed by "the evidence of history as our minds reflect it," while the actual historical record is merely the abuse of reality, an insignificant artifact. The conventional understanding is therefore self-justifying, immune to external critique.

Though the sophistication of traditional theology is lacking, the similarity of themes and style is striking. It reveals the extent to which worship of the state has become a secular religion for which the intellectuals serve as priesthood. The more primitive sectors of Western culture go further, fostering forms of idolatry in which such sacred symbols as the flag become an object of forced veneration, and the state is called upon to punish any insult to them and to compel children to pledge their devotion daily, while God and State are almost indissolubly linked in public ceremony and discourse, as in James Reston's musings on our devotion to the will of the Creator. It is perhaps not surprising that such crude fanaticism rises to such an extreme in the United States, as an antidote for the unique freedom from state coercion that has been achieved by popular struggle.

FW: GOD Is Busy

Here's another wonderful edition in the ongoing series of email forwards I get from my family, and my replies to them.

Subject: FW: GOD Is Busy

----- This is great...keep it going! If you don't know GOD, don't make stupid remarks!!!!!! A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist, and a member of the ACLU. One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, GOD if you are real then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 min.' The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, 'Here I am GOD, I'm still waiting.' It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold. The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned, and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, 'What in the world is the matter with you? 'Why did you do that?' The Marine calmly replied, 'GOD was too busy today protecting America's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like an idiot. So He sent me.' The classroom erupted in cheers!

So a student attacks a teacher for saying things he didn't like, and then delivers a sanctimonious lecture about protecting freedom of speech... this violence and hypocrisy is something theists approve of?

There have been over 4,000 US military deaths in Iraq, hundreds in Afghanistan, and tens of thousands wounded. I guess GOD didn't protect those people, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of civilians who have died in these wars and the millions who have been driven from their homes? But instead of reflecting on the carnage and terror our country's leaders and military have inflicted on our own troops and on countless innocent people throughout the world, let's all fantasize about smashing atheists in the face!

Destructive and illegal invasions of other countries have obviously made us less safe, not more, which even US intelligence agencies acknowledge (and which was understood to be the likely consequence beforehand). Holding up these murderous rampages as some glorious acts of protecting freedom is ridiculous. And making war out to be a holy act of god makes me proud to be an atheist.

the greatest evils: atheism and anarchism

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the outgoing Archbishop of Westminster, says that atheism is the "greatest of evils."

Murphy-O'Connor's comment is an excellent example of the moral depravity of the Catholic Church, depravity which generalizes to most religious institutions and belief systems. Actions, not words or thoughts, are the proper basis for moral judgment. I think people understand that basic principle rather instinctively, and that it takes a huge amount of indoctrination to convince people of anything else, which is quite a feat really. The Catholic Church is a particularly amazing example. An organization that includes large numbers of men who sexually abuse children and that systematically shields these pedophile rapists from the law has managed to position itself as a moral authority, holding as their highest virtue the unquestioning belief in obvious absurdities.

How can that have happened? Like most questions, there are multiple layers of answers.

Many people who recognize the absurdity I'm pointing out attempt to answer the question by just saying the people are stupid, or evil, or both. I understand their frustration but I think they're wrong. My ultimate explanation is that I think that most people are basically good and basically smart, but have a huge blind spot: they conform and obey far too easily. A small number of wicked people take advantage of this, thus consolidating vast amounts of power for themselves, which they use to further reinforce those tendencies towards conformity and obedience. Such people rise to the top of power structures like religions, using the power of those institutions toward their own ends. Look at the history of any religion and you'll see this basic pattern.

There are proximate explanations that I think are also important and worth investigating, meaning the mechanisms by which the indoctrination takes place. The methods of religious indoctrination are obvious, even to religious people when they examine religions or cults besides their own (i.e. outside of their blind spots): start as young as possible, regularly force people to publicly affirm their loyalty and belief in the dogma, discourage critical thinking and exposure to outside thought, etc. How and why some people are able to resist these measures are important questions.

Note that the phenomena of wicked people rising to the top of power structures applies equally well to government and business; politicians are crooked and CEOs are ruthlessly amoral, as everyone understands, albeit with blind spots for "their" guys. And note that the methods of religious indoctrination are also used by the state, most notably through the "education" system, but in numerous other ways. These parallels between religion and state, and the interconnectedness and mutually reinforcing nature of these two morally depraved institutions, are among the reasons why, to me, anarchism and atheism are closely related moral positions.

on condescension

As a followup to the previous post, on a personal level, I want to say that I think Brice Lord is a good guy and I don't mean to pick on him specifically.  The views he has expressed are very common.  

Statism, especially in America, is basically a religion into which people are raised.  And just as I don't think people are stupid or evil just because they're religious, I don't think that about those who believe in the state or in the exceptionalism of America.  But I do think their beliefs are dangerous and can lead to actions that are stupid or evil, and as such I try to challenge bad arguments defending those beliefs.  

The most hopeful outcome of such a process is to convince people to give up their religions and evaluate the world around them without the blinders of faith.  Perhaps a more realistic hope is that by speaking up we make it easier for others to do the same and to unite, gradually adding cohesiveness and force to a previously-marginalized viewpoint.

Just like when I've spoken out against religion, I suspect a reaction to what I've said here will be that I'm terribly condescending.  But all I've done here is say that I disagree with someone (or lots of people).  Implicit in disagreement is the thought that the other person is wrong. Disagreements happen all the time without accusations of condescension, so clearly there's more to condescension that simply telling someone they're wrong.  

If it is the suggestion that a perspective is based on faith, not reason, that seems condescending, I would argue that if anything that is a nicer way of telling someone they're wrong.  Personally, I'd feel better if my failure to understand reality could be attributable to complex effects of the way loved ones have influenced my emotional development and trusted authorities have deceived me.  That seems like the nicest possible way to tell someone they're wrong.  

I think this feeling that someone is being condescending is an unconscious way of insulating ourselves from challenges to deeply held beliefs, a point I've made before when I talk about "poor form".  Rather than confront the ideas, it enables us to simply dismiss the challenger.  After all, even if I am being condescending, that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

A Christmas Tale

There are lots of people who have no interest in religion but who will be going to church this week just to please family members. Others will decide not to attend church services but will feel guilty about causing tension by breaking with tradition. Both of these situations are unfortunate.

It is easy to lose sight of an important point: the tension isn't caused by you skipping a ceremony. It is caused by people who expect that you should feel obligated to do something you don't want to do. So you have nothing to feel guilty about.

But still, if you skip church, that might make someone feel bad, and you probably don't want that, even if the blame isn't on you.

It strikes me that two reasonable people who care about each other's feelings might come to an agreement. Tell Mom or whoever that you don't want to go to church, but you know that she wants you to go. Say that you thought that rather than go through the motions of showing up and daydreaming through the service just to please her and quietly wishing that you didn't have to spend your time this way, you were hoping that you could make a deal. If what is important to her is that you go, then you'll go and pay very close attention to everything. You'll even bring a pen and paper to take notes. And since you'd be giving up your time for her, in exchange you'd like her to spend an equal amount of time to a conversation about the service, where you can express things that bother you about it. That way you spend time doing something important to her, and she'll spend time doing something important to you.

It is pretty hard to imagine this actually going over well, probably because it is hard to imagine two reasonable people being in this situation in the first place.

Tuesday Misc

• But join all these morons in supporting Obama!!
• It has been over 2 weeks since we've heard from Arthur. With his bad health, that is scary. Hope he's ok.
• On Sunday I saw Romeo and Juliet for the first time. I think I read it in high school but never saw a production. It was ok. Those two sure are a couple of stupid little kids.
  
• Belief in god and support for government both linked to feelings of low personal control. That seems appropriately pathetic.
• I got my bike a couple weeks ago, and use it for my 5.4 mile round trip daily commute. I love it. I plan to do that until it is too cold or icy, then I'll have a free bus pass when I need it. Not using a car is great.

Priorities

I chimed in a bit on Crispin Sartwell's video commentary on "the new atheism" but overall I've kind of lost interest in writing much about atheism advocacy and the associated criticism of religion and theism. I was writing a lot on that for a while, but with all the other bullshit in the world, it just seems like less of a priority. This is based only on my own attention span; there are too many other things that I'm pissed off about to spend my outrage energy on pious fools.

This isn't to say I don't think atheist crusaders are doing something important. Many religious people are victims of repressive ideology. And it could well be the case that clearing the religious nonsense out of people's heads helps free their minds to then start dealing with other problems in a productive way. Atheism could well be the key to the whole fucking mess. And if it isn't, there's still nobility in fighting for reason, and fighting against lies. I'm just more motivated lately to fight against other lies than the one about the magical sky daddy.

Perhaps this shift is because I've come to terms with all the bullshit that realizing my own atheism caused in my personal life. I'm not talking about a crisis over lost faith; I never really had any to begin with. But various personal relationships were shaken up as a result of publicly announcing my own atheism; some improved, many deteriorated. But all that turmoil has settled down and I know where everything stands now and I assume it is all for the better. But there's new turmoil of course. After opening my eyes to the sham of religion, I then opened my eyes to the sham of politics, government, and popular history. That awakening has also shaken things up in my life, much more severely I think. I'm still working through it, and using this blog as a way to help accomplish that.

live blogging my visit to Obama's website

After reading Chris Floyd's recent post, where he mentions that Obama's website "calls for fighting the War on Terror in a 'smarter way,'" I decided I'd visit this website and see how Obama presents himself. I've watched very little of his speeches (though I've read the text of many), and haven't really watched any TV coverage or commercials, so this is one of my first experiences of Obama as he wants to be seen. Let the fun begin.

I googled "Obama" and found his official site. The first thing that happens is that he asks you for money. In exchange he offers a "new direction for America" and says that "This is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past." Which policies he'll be changing are not yet mentioned, nor is the direction of the new direction. But the new direction will be new. We know that much.

Before clicking through to skip the donation page I noticed something odd. The suggested donation denominations: $5, $25, $50, $100, $250, $1000, $2300. Uh, $2300? I'm guessing there's some weird explanation for that. Obama is from Chicago right? A shout-out to Michael Jordan perhaps? Anyway.

The first thing I notice on the next page is this quote. "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington... I'm asking you to believe in yours." He's also asking you to believe in fairies! If you believe, clap, clap your hands!

I look around the main page a bit more and find a part that asks where I'm from. I notice "American Samoa" on the list and click that, hoping against hope that it will detail Obama's position on issues of importance to the brave Samoans. Nope, just links to join local Obama teams. Back to the main page.

At the top there's a tab for "issues." On the drop down list is "faith." I click that. This should be good. The faith page tells us that Obama has made glorious speeches about faith. There's a link to "Barack's faith principles." There we learn that GOD is always present in our lives, and not only that, GOD is a constant source of hope. Wait, isn't Obama's campaign all about hope? This must mean GOD is for Obama! Next we learn that progressives ought to be approaching religion "boldly" which he explains means that "we" ought to be using it for our own partisan ends, so as to prevent others from using it for their own partisan ends. Truly brilliant stuff here. Back to main page.

Let's get into the meaty stuff. Issues --> Foreign Policy. Click.

We already know from Floyd that he has no problem whatsoever with the basic formulation of the US waging a war on an abstract concept. He just thinks we need to be smarter about it. So he's off to a good start.

He says he will end the war in Iraq. He also says he will leave troops in Iraq. Don't let that confuse anyone though; the war will definitely be over! He says he will "make it clear" that we won't have any permanent bases in Iraq. He also says we'll need to guard our embassy (the largest embassy in the history of the galaxy, which some people might mistakenly think was more like a permanent base, but it totally isn't). He also mentions humanitarian aid, which I suppose is nice, considering all the slaughter we've been doing. That ought to make us even.

He tells us that Iran has sought nuclear weapons. Dick Cheney says that too! He tells us Iran's leaders have threatened Israel. He doesn't mention if Israel's leaders have threatened Iran. They probably haven't.

He tells us that the gravest threat to the American people is a terrorist attack with nuclear weapons. I would have gone with global warming or heart disease or automobile accidents or a crippling recession. But terrorism is much more scary, allowing you to invoke disturbing images of Arabs, and you can spend lots of money on that without pissing off big business, so I guess recession and heart disease aren't as grave. That's why I now say that Africanized Killer Bees are the gravest threat to America!

Obama says he will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Maybe that means he'll adhere to it, unlike every other President. He says countries that break the rules should face sanctions, specifically mentioning Iran and North Korea (hey didn't someone include them in an "axis of evil" at some point?), but doesn't mention whether the US should face sanctions for breaking the rules. I think we should just assume that he'll follow the laws and accept the same justice he wants to apply to everyone else. That seems like a safe assumption, given his lack of comment on the matter.

Obama says that we need a bigger military. Whew, I was worried that spending more on military than the rest of the world combined was kind of too much already, maybe even a huge fucking waste, and that when you carry a gigantic fucking hammer everything starts to look like a nail (and by "look like a nail" I mean "we better bomb the shit out of that shit"). Good to know I was wrong about that. Obama will massively swell our military into an erect stabbing machine, suitable for deep penetration into the most dangerous of deployment regions. This will arouse the passionate love of country that Americans used to feel deep in their loins, and bring us all to a quivering climax of safety and love and relaxing naps. I suspect the neighbors won't appreciate all the noise, but they're just prudes so who gives a fuck, right? Cock-blockers.

Obama specifically mentions that he support Israel's right to self defense. He doesn't mention whether the people of the occupied territories have this right. Or the people or Iraq, or Iran, or Somalia, or Cuba, or Ecuador, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan. I'll assume that they don't. Just Israel.

Obama calls for a brutal warlord to be brought to justice. So he is interested in that kind of thing. I wonder if any brutal warlords who deserve to be brought to justice will be residing anywhere in the US during an Obama Presidency? Hmmm... probably not. Better just worry about the former Liberian President.

Alright well that's about all the BarrackObama.com I can stomach for now, as fun as this has been. I've truly witnessed a new page in history, one very different from the old pages. Obama boldly offers ambiguous notions that lend themselves to whatever glorious interpretation his supporters want to hear, while never actually committing to anything that would deviate from the imperial agenda, which I think is definitely a new direction for America.

A Clash of Kings

"What will you do when he crosses?"

"Fight. Kill. Die, maybe."

"Aren't you afraid? The gods might send you down to some terrible hell for all the evil you've done."

"What evil?" He laughed. "What gods?"

"The gods who made us all."

"All?" he mocked. "Tell me, little bird, what kind of god makes a monster like the Imp, or a halfwit like Lady Tanda's daughter? If there are gods, they made sheep so wolves could eat mutton, and they made the weak for the strong to play with."

"True knights protect the weak."

He snorted. "There are no true knights, no more than there are gods. If you can't protect yourself, die and get out of the way of those who can. Sharp steel and strong arms rule the world, don't ever believe any different."

Sansa backed away from him. "You're awful."

"I'm honest. It's the world that is awful. Now fly away, little bird, I'm sick of you peeping at me."

Wordless, she fled. She was afraid of Sandor Clegane... and yet, some part of her wished that Ser Dontos had a little of the Hound's ferocity. There are gods, she told herself, and there are true knights too. All the stories can't be lies.

Yes, Sansa, they can be. Sorry.

Why I won't vote: Religion

Nobody gets elected without proclaiming a belief in an imaginary sky daddy. This means they either have a fundamental inability to understand the world around them, or they're willing to lie to the nation they aspire to purportedly serve. These aren't qualities of someone I'd want leading an organization that controls the entire world by force. Every candidate sucks.

Of course I don't think anyone should be leading an organization that controls the entire world, so the real role religion plays in this "why I won't vote" story is illustrating what a farce elections and governments are. We claim to value separation of church and state, claim to value a system of government where there is no religious test for public office, yet make a mockery of that notion every election season.

I won't analyze here what role the population and the media gatekeepers each play in this hypocrisy. But the whole process is an elaborate ritual, with everyone playing their part, that accords religion far more respect than it deserves, thereby giving superstition far too great an influence in decisions that have profound impact on all of us. I won't play my part. I won't vote.

The Unified Theory of Bullshit

What organization rakes in the cash by exploiting the poor and making extravagant claims that never come true? What business is built entirely on mass marketing and dishonest advertising, and yet is never called into account for its failure? It isn't the tobacco companies or the makers of penis enlargement drugs — it's religion.
- PZ

And the government.

Ricky Gervais on atheism

Ricky Gervais is the comic mastermind behind The Office (the BBC comedy on which the NBC sitcom is based) and the HBO comedy Extras. Here's his story about becoming an atheist. I'd highlight the same 2 paragraphs as PZ:

Wow. No God. If Mum had lied to me about God, had she also lied to me about Santa? yes, but who cares? The gifts kept coming. And so did the gifts of my newfound atheism. The gifts of truth, science, nature. The real beauty of this world. Not a world by design, but one by chance. I learned of evolution—a theory so simple and obvious that only England's greatest genius could have come up with it. Evolution of plants, animals, and us—with imagination, free will, love and humor. I no longer needed a reason for my existence, just a reason to live. And imagination, free will, love, humor, fun, music, sports, beer, and pizza are all good enough reasons for living.

But living an honest life—for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, in the end leads to liberation and dignity.

now: Horus

So we wanted to give him a badass Japanese name like Lord Katsumoto or Hattori Hanzo, but we'd been calling him "Horace" for so long that we were finding it difficult to call him anything else, even a name like Wallace that sounded similar. We solved that problem when we discovered Horus, the Egyptian sky or sun god. If any feline ever looked like the sun, it is this guy. And it has been pointed out that Horus was a pagan archetype for Jesus, with numerous similar life events. So we're set with that name now.

He's been making lots of progress lately. He's spending more and more time out from his hiding places (see picture), letting us come a bit closer before he gets scared, playing with toys, eating treats from our hands, and letting us rub his neck and back while he eats. He still runs away though if you make a sudden movement, or loom near him, or make a loud noise. In a few more weeks maybe he'll be napping on my lap.

We haven't seen any more strays near our house since we brought Horus in. We see lots of them all around town though, so I'm guessing that maybe when the weather warms up they'll start to expand into new territory.

on the fine tradition of virgins having babies

I recently read Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great and particularly enjoyed this passage, in response to a gospel account of how Mary "was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

Yes, and the Greek demigod Perseus was born when the god Jupiter visited the virgin Danae as a shower of gold and got her with child. The god Buddha was born through an opening in his mother's flank. Catlicus the serpent-skirted caught a little ball of feathers from the sky and hid it in her bosom, and the Aztec god Huitzilopochtli was thus conceived. The virgin Nana took a pomegranate from the tree watered by the blood of the slain Agdestris, and laid it in her bosom, and gave birth to the god Attis. The virgin daughter of a Mongol king awoke one night and found herself bathed in a great light, which caused her to give birth to Genghis Khan. Krishna was born of the virgin Devaka. Horus was born of the the virgin Isis. Mercury was born of the virgin Maia. Romulus was born of the virgin Rhea Silvia. For some reason, many religions force themselves to think of the birth canal as a one-way street.

I sometimes wonder how many people who claim to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin genuinely believe that 2,000 years ago an actual human being was born whose conception didn't involve human sperm. The notion is obviously preposterous, and even the most devout Christians must have a hard time hiding behind "the mystery of faith" as their cheap cover. If those people were then exposed to the stories of all these other mythological asexual reproductive events, wouldn't that make it even harder for them not to see their beloved miraculous conception as a silly fairy tale like all the others? Knowledge is the enemy of faith.

[I couldn't resist including the last line of the quote. It would be an excellent introduction to a discussion of control over female sexuality, a topic I might revisit in another post.]

chime in

I'm having an interesting discussion in the comments of this post. The author is defending a criticism that Richard Dawkins and other atheists (who I've taken to mean Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens) are "incurious" and otherwise unserious about examining religion's root causes before they dismiss it. He's also claimed that they ignore any position effects of religion. I've generally argued that the first claim is incorrect but rather irrelevant, and that the second is just wrong. Along the way I've defended evolutionary psychology and memetics against his derision.

Go see if what I've said makes sense.

a nice church story (seriously)

This is a pretty cool story, about a preacher (with the awesome name of The Reverend Hamilton Coe Throckmorton) who did something of an experiment with his congregation, based on a biblical parable. He gave everyone $50, and asked them to use their talents double it and donate the profit to charity. They made about $40,000.

The money raised really wasn't "profit" in the business sense. While many people did produce goods and services of value, it sounds like ultimately most of the funds raised came from within the congregation, so I think of it as more a success of charity than business, not that that's a bad thing. The article emphasizes what I see as the real value of the project: bringing the community together, giving people a reason to use their talents and creativity, and providing an opportunity to enjoy life.

When I argue that religion is a bad thing for society, I am often misunderstood to be saying that nothing good comes of religion, which is definitely not my point. One of the best things that organized religion offers people is a sense of community. Charity is also commonly associated with religion, and it is possible that religious people generally are more charitable (there are some popular studies of this subject that seem inconclusive). I would argue that religion is unnecessary for either of those things, and I'd similarly argue that the success of the $50 project had little to do with religion. Helping others and enjoying community is a natural thing, and religion can be a unifying factor, but it also causes a lot of other damage.

When I argue that religion is a net negative, it is because I'm unwilling to attribute the success of Rev. Throckmorton's idea to an irrational belief in a supernatural deity who hates gay people and will condemn you to an eternity of suffering if you cross him; I attribute that success to the basic goodness of people.

no rights for godless parents

1970

now

yay God!!

Anarchy

I've always struggled to classify myself according to any of the political ideologies that I've examined in any semblance of a serious way. But that was before I examined anarchism in a semblance of a serious way, and now I think I'd be pretty comfortable labeling myself an anarchist, where anarchism is loosely defined as a philosophy that all human interaction should be voluntary and thus rejects permanent authority. I tend to see anarchy as the fullest realization of human freedom.

I anticipate that a common response to advocacy for anarchism is that government is here to stay and thus anarchy is unrealistic. It is probably true that the institution of the state isn't going away any time soon, but that doesn't mean that anarchist philosophy has nothing to offer. In an essay from 1970 titled "Language and Freedom," published in Chomsky On Anarchism, the brilliant linguist and social critic Noam Chomsky writes that "social action must be animated by a vision of a future society, and by explicit judgments of value concerning the character of this future society." One who finds the vision of an anarchist society attractive can then engage in social action inspired by that vision, and guided by anarchist principles.

Chomsky goes on:

A vision of a future social order is in turn based on a concept of human nature. If in fact man is an indefinitely malleable, completely plastic being, with no innate structures of mind and no intrinsic needs of a cultural or social character, then he is a fit subject for the "shaping of behavior" by the state authority, the corporate manager, the technocrat, or the central committee. Those with some confidence in the human species will hope this is no so and will try to determine the intrinsic human characteristics that provide the framework for intellectual development, the growth of moral consciousness, cultural achievement, and participation in a free community.

Needless to say I am one of those who hopes man is not a blank slate, and I think scientific inquiry in the nearly 38 years since that essay was originally presented has brightened this hope.

Chomsky concludes:

I like to believe that the intensive study of one aspect of human psychology - human language - may contribute to a humanistic social science that will serve, as well, as an instrument for social action. It must, needless to say, be stressed that social action cannot await a firmly established theory of man and society, nor can the validity of the latter be determined by our hopes and moral judgments. The two - speculation and action - must progress as best they can, looking forward to the day when theoretical inquiry will provide a firm guide to the unending, often grim, but never hopeless struggle for freedom and social justice.

Just like I was an atheist before I realized it, I was an anarchist before my recent investigation of the subject, and I think that my personal statement attached to my graduate school applications (I might publish part or all of it in a future post) essentially identified a similar thought progression as a primary reason that I want to study psychology (though probably not language specifically). Understanding the nature of humanity can help create a better social structure, and regular readers certainly know what little regard I have for the current social structure.