This is Why We Need Freedom From Religion

Posted on July 1, 2013 by wellsdc

A Pennsylvania Republican state representative in Pennsylvania blocked a Democratic representative from speaking on the floor of the House, citing “God’s law” (h/t Jason). Rep. Brian Sims, a Democrat and the first openly-gay Pennsylvania state legislator, wanted to speak about the U.S. Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling during a time when “legislators can speak of uncontroversial issues.” It requires the unanimous consent of the other House members, so one legislator can stop anyone from speaking.

A tale of two legislators: Brian Sims on the left; Daryl Metcalfe on the right (see what I did there?)

Someone, or several someone’s, objected to what Sims intended to say. The Republican Speaker of the House, Sam Smith, declined to reveal who objected. In the midst of the hubbub, Republican Rep. Daryl Metcalfe decided to take credit for blocking Sims from speaking, although it is apparently still not clear if he raised the original objection. I’m not too clear on how this procedural rule works, so I don’t know if Metcalfe, or anyone else objecting, needed to give a reason for objecting, but oh boy, did Metcalfe ever give a reason: Continue reading →

Growing Up Non-Religious in the Bible Belt

Posted on May 29, 2013 by wellsdc

A horrifying piece on xoJane by Joanna Clark recounts her experience at an optometrist’s office in her hometown, in which the doctor and two technicians locked her in a room and prayed with her without giving her any real opportunity to opt out. Her story is compelling, but the background of her story particularly jumped out at me:

As religiously unidentified liberals in the third most Bible-minded city in the United States, my family has always been very conscious of how we deal with discussions of religion. I grew up learning that I needed to respect other religions while keeping quiet about my own beliefs.

As far as my parents were concerned, I could choose any religion that suited me, and we even attended services at a Unitarian Universalist church for years before deciding that we just weren’t very committed. In elementary school, my mom briefed me on proper religion-talk etiquette. I was supposed to be vague and accommodating, never mentioning my own affiliations, or lack thereof. I should listen and nod, but offer as little information about myself as possible.

She and my dad would accept whatever decisions I made about my own faith, but others would probably not be so understanding.

It’s this “keeping quiet” aspect that has bothered me for a very long time. Nonbelievers, or even people who simply do not wish to pursue an active religious life, are not exactly welcome in many parts of America. I am a strong believer in not deliberately trying to deconvert someone without their express invitation. This means, of course, that if you ask me what I believe, I’m going to tell you until you tell me to stop, and you have no right to get angry if I say things that contradict your faith. I wish people who are so eager to spread their own version of the Gospel or whatever they wish to call it were so observant (or at least aware) of the boundaries the rest of us have had to develop.

When Christians talk about being “oppressed” in America today, I have to laugh, because the alternative would be screaming at what a phenomenally inane concept that is. Few American-born Christians have the first clue what real oppression looks like. Nonbelievers (of which atheists are one category) are not oppressed in America the way many other groups are, but the message many children seem to be getting is that if you do not believe exactly as certain groups of Christians do, you are somehow less.

Anyway, I have yet to hear of an atheist or agnostic optometrist locking a teenager in an exam room and reading selections from Cosmos to her.

“Literally, as a fundamentalist”

Posted on May 29, 2013 by wellsdc

800px-The_Creation_of_Adam From an account of a debate between Richard Dawkins and Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth in the U.K., Lord Jonathan Sacks:

The Jewish leader then asked Dawkins how many Judaic commentaries he read before writing about the Old Testament in his book, to which the atheist professor admitted that “enlightened Jewish commentators would repudiate these horrific stories,” referring to the slaughter of the Ammonites in the Bible.

The author insisted, however, that he was referring to the God of the Old Testament as he actually appears in the text. This prompted Lord Sachs to accuse Dawkins of reading the Bible “literally, as a fundamentalist.”

“How do you decide which bits are symbolic and which bits are not?” Dawkins later asked.

“Very simple,” the Chief Rabbi replied. “The rabbis in the 10th century laid down the following principle: if a biblical narrative is incompatible with established scientific fact, it is not to be read literally.”

Two comments on this:

First, I cannot speak for how religious texts are interpreted in Judaism, although I know there are a wide array of interpretations. There is likely to be an even wider array of interpretations in Christianity, mostly just because there are quite a few more Christians. Most Christians, I suspect, do not derive their religious beliefs from studious review of theological texts. I suppose it is possible that an intensive reading of Judaic commentaries informs the religious views of most of the world’s Jews, but for Christians, I very much doubt it. It is mostly based on what people learn from their families and communities, often delivered in easy-to-digest bites by ministers, pastors, etc. The argument that a person cannot argue against a foundational religious text without first reading an extensive array of supplemental materials is fallacious thinking at its finest. It even has a name: the Courtier’s Reply.

My main comment, though, is Lord Sachs’ assertion that the question of scriptural literalism is based on the extent of its overlap with established science. There’s a name for this, too: the God of the Gaps. Scientific knowledge keeps growing, you see, as we continue to explore, research, and learn. By the standard set forth by Lord Sachs, religion can only get smaller, as formerly-literal teachings become figurative. Sooner or later, if a teaching has to give way to science, how can any of them have literal meaning?

Just saying.

Photo credit: “The Creation of Adam” [Public domain], via RationalWiki.

Pope Corky IX (Do It for George!!!)

Posted on March 13, 2013 by wellsdc

George Carlin offered his suggestions, in his stand-up routine and in his book Brain Droppings, about the nomenclature process in the papacy.

George_Carlin_Standup_in_2001

Through all these years, I have kept alive my one remaining childhood fantasy: I’m hoping that someday a new pope will choose the name Corky. Just once in my life, I want to look up at that balcony and see His Holiness, Pope Corky IX. I think you’d have to skip straight to nine to give him a little credibility, don’t you? Somehow, Pope Corky the First doesn’t command a great deal of authority. (Page 24)

New Pope, take the name Corky. Do it for George.

Retirement and Infallibility

Posted on February 12, 2013 by wellsdc

The world is all abuzz about the news that Pope Benedict XVI will retire at the end of February. This news does not affect me at all, but it gives me an opportunity for snark, and I have let far too many of those pass by of late.

What follows is a series of stupid and sarcastic questions. I know they’re stupid. I’m wasting time on purpose here.

This is the first time that a pope has resigned his, uh, popedom since Gregory XII in 1415, who stepped down because of reasons (do you actually care?) Here’s the thing, though: they didn’t dogmatically define the doctrine of papal infallibility until the First Vatican Council of 1869-70. When the current pope steps down, does he have to do something to give up his infallibility, or does he get to keep it? (I am aware that infallibility is quite a bit more complicated than this. To me, that just makes it sillier, but to each their own.)

If he has to give it up, is there a ritual or ceremony for that? Do the books explaining it still exist? I mean, they’d be really old.

If God takes the infallibility powers back, are there any safeguards to protect the outgoing pope’s other senses? What if God accidentally takes his sense of smell too?

If the soon-to-be-ex-pope gets to keep his infallibility, what happens if he and the new pope disagree on a matter of doctrine? I mean, there would be no reason for anyone to ask the previous pope, I assume, but the guy is still going to have opinions? Could this possibly destroy the universe, sort of like in the movie Dogma?

Like this, times infinity

If the Earth Really Were Only 9,000 Years Old

Posted on November 23, 2012 by wellsdc

Some people believe the earth is only six to nine thousand years old, while others prefer to remain (to use a phrase ironically) agnostic on the subject. Specifically, Georgia Republican Paul Broun expressed his “opinion” that the earth is only 9,000 years old. Florida Republican Marco Rubio, however, stated that the question of the earth’s age “has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States,” but that he thinks that “there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all.”

Can we really just live and let live on what may or may not have happened sometime between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years ago? You know, agree to disagree? Also, is this question irrelevant to our present-day economic concerns?

No, to both questions. And here is why.

One reason is scientific, and the other is political. First, the science: If the earth is only 9,000 years old, then all of observed science is wrong in ways that put everyone’s lives at imminent risk, and that also strip me of any certainty that this blog post will ever make it from my iPad to the server, and then to your computer.

Alex Knapp, writing at Forbes, explains why science is important to our modern economy:

…the age of the universe has a lot to do with how our economy is going to grow. That’s because large parts of the economy absolutely depend on scientists being right about either the age of the Universe or the laws of the Universe that allow scientists to determine its age.

For example, fiber optics:

Virtually all modern technology relies on optics in some way, shape or form. And in the science of optics, the fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum is taken for granted. But the speed of light must not be constant if the universe is only 9,000 years old. It must be capable of being much, much faster. That means that the fundamental physics underlying the Internet, DVDs, laser surgery, and many many more critical parts of the economy are based on bad science. The consequences of that could be drastic, given our dependence on optics for our economic growth.

In other words, if we don’t know the speed of light, then our entire fiber optics-based communications infrastructure is incorrectly calibrated. Our nuclear industry is in even bigger trouble, though:

Here’s an even more disturbing thought – scientists currently believe that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old because radioactive substances decay at generally stable rates. Accordingly, by observing how much of a radioactive substance has decayed, scientists are able to determine how old that substance is. However, if the Earth is only 9,000 years old, then radioactive decay rates are unstable and subject to rapid acceleration under completely unknown circumstances. This poses an enormous danger to the country’s nuclear power plants, which could undergo an unanticipated meltdown at any time due to currently unpredictable circumstances. Likewise, accelerated decay could lead to the detonation of our nuclear weapons, and cause injuries and death to people undergoing radioactive treatments in hospitals. Any of these circumstances would obviously have a large economic impact.

If the Earth is really 9,000 years old, as Paul Broun believes and Rubio is willing to remain ignorant about, it becomes imperative to shut down our nuclear plants and dismantle our nuclear stockpiles now until such time as scientists are able to ascertain what circumstances exist that could cause deadly acceleration of radioactive decay and determine how to prevent it from happening.

This is not to say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old because our economy needs it to be so. This is to say that our economy, and all of the technological marvels it has produced, would not exist if the earth were significantly younger (or older), based on the observations scientists have painstakingly compiled over the course of centuries, confirmed experimentally, and harnessed for our benefit. That is, unless you think your cell phone runs on Jesus.

If Paul Broun does not immediately call for the dismantling of our entire nuclear arsenal, then he is either a fool or a liar. That brings me to the political reason this is important.

Any politician who honestly believes in something like a 6,000 to 9,000 year-old earth has disqualified themselves from taking an active role in developing science policy. They can go off and debate angels dancing on the heads of 6,000-year-old pins all they want, but unless they are willing to go to bat for the full impact of what they believe, i.e. the risk of imminent nuclear meltdown worldwide, they need to take a seat.

Any politician who doesn’t believe this, but plays along to get votes, is among the worst sort of craven liar out there, and that should disqualify them, too. I’ll give Ron Chusid (who provided the Knapp quote) the final word on that:

Politicians who are ignorant of basic science are not capable of making rational decisions on public policy in the 21st century. It is possible that Rubio might be more knowledgeable about science but feels it is necessary to deny scientific facts to maintain the support of the anti-science right wing. If this is the case, such cowardice is also not desirable from those in government.

Photo credit: ‘Earth Structure’ [

Bookmark on Delicious

Digg this post

Recommend on Facebook

Subscribe to the comments on this post

Print for later

Bookmark in Browser

Tell a friend

In the Name of Atheism

Posted on September 14, 2012 by wellsdc

There were non-ideological reasons why World War II was so destructive. Bombs, for example.

The title to this post is intended to be a paradox, if that is even the right word. “Atheism,” in its most basic sense, denotes nothing more than a lack of belief in gods, supernatural forces, and so forth, in the absence of evidence. Atheism is therefore a “negative” viewpoint, in that it only addresses what a person does not believe. Atheism may, but by no means must, accompany “positive” views such as humanism or other philosophies, but by itself the word “atheism” has limited descriptive powers.

That does not stop others from ascribing traits to atheists as a whole, of course. (Part of this post is yet another re-phrasing of an irate Facebook comment, FYI.)

A Facebook commenter alerted me to an article on the website Evidence for God titled “What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion?” It is yet another effort to move the goalposts on the question of evil in the world, and to cast aspersions on modern-day atheists by citing the activities of people more than half a century ago who may or may not have shared minute aspects of a worldview. The author begins, in the very first sentence, with a logical flaw: Continue reading →

No, he means the other founding documents… (UPDATED)

Posted on September 5, 2012 by wellsdc

Paul Ryan is unhappy with the Democratic Party. In other news, water is wet and I like donuts.

Specifically, Paul Ryan is unhappy that the Democratic party’s platform doesn’t mention the capital-G man even once. (Because if Democrats should be taking pointers on their platform from anyone, it should be the other party’s Vice Presidential nominee.)

The Democratic Party’s platform makes no reference to God, drawing criticism from Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan.

Ryan tells Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” the change is not in keeping with the country’s founding documents and principles and suggests the Obama administration is behind the decision. The Republican platform mentions God 12 times.

The 2008 Democratic Party platform made a single reference to God, referring to the “God-given potential” of working people.

“Founding documents and principles,” he says. Does he mean the Declaration of Independence? I’ll throw him a bone there, since it does mention “God” one time.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Well, it says “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” Is that different from Paul Ryan’s God? Probably. Thomas Jefferson is credited with writing the Declaration of Independence, and he generally does not seem like a man who wasted words. Historians can argue over the precise meaning of “Nature’s God,” but the important thing to note is that, between this and the U.S. Constitution, i.e. the two “founding documents” that matter, this is the only time anyone uses the word “God.” He uses the word “Creator” elsewhere in the Declaration of Independence, but that’s even more ambiguous than “Nature’s God.” Continue reading →

That did not take long

Posted on August 27, 2012 by wellsdc

Remember that Atheism+ thing I blogged about, like, five days ago?

I used to scoff at the notion that atheists could challenge hard-core religious folk in level of smugness. I now see that there may be no limit to the doucherocketry of some who identify as “atheist.” In fact, it is going on and on on the interwebz. Most people arrived at atheism after being raised in one religion or another. Once getting there, it can be tempting to feel a certain smugness, a certain enjoyment of discovering rational thought, and an associated joy in feeling right. But here’s the thing: you might still be wrong. In fact, nearly everyone still has some unexamined privilege that makes them wrong about something (yes, even me, pretty much every day.) As the saying roughly goes, though, you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

My point being, I believe the Atheism+ concept is a good thing, but some people can’t seem to help being trollish douchecanoes about it.

Richard Carrier wrote a couple of posts on the topic last week that are worth checking out, but I particularly liked Jason Thibeault’s summary of what the whole Atheism+ concept is supposed to represent. It might just be because he used pretty Venn diagrams, though.

In essence, Thibeault says that Atheism+ is the overlap of “atheists,” “humanists,” and “social justice advocates.” He points out that people who could fairly be described as humanists and social justice advocates could overlap with the category he labels “religious.” Overlapping both the “atheist” and the “religious” labels are two separate circles of what he describes as “scumbags, privilege-deniers, misogynists, anti-feminists, anti-gay bigots, people who hate social justice causes, and other miscreants.” He goes into some detail about what he means by those phrases, so you should go read what he wrote. He specifically notes that this category does not overlap with Atheism+. Finally, he adds a category that overlaps everything, including Atheism+, “loudmouthed jackholes who enjoy giving offense for its own sake – trolls.”

If you don’t like the causes that the Atheism+ people are trying to support, at least don’t be a loudmouthed jackhole.

Photo credit: Atheism+ logo, via FreeThoughtBlogs.

Time to lay down some Proverbs

Posted on August 23, 2012 by wellsdc

320px-Texas_State_Fair_honey A few weeks ago, a Texas state legislator came up with an alternative to having public school teachers lead their students in prayer, or posting the Ten Commandments over the periodic table, or whatever else it is that people want to do these days. Via the Texas Freedom Network:

In a post on her Facebook page Monday, [Texas state Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball] seems to accept the fact that government-sponsored prayer is not allowed in public schools — though students are free to pray in public schools as long as it’s not officially sanctioned by administrators — and she offers an alternative:

I say have a reading out of Proverbs each day in our classrooms.

No, really, she said it. Here’s her full post:

Formal prayer has been taken out of our schools. How about this idea? Read from the book of Proverbs from the Bible. Proverbs is a book of wisdom. Proverbs is in the Holy Scriptures for Christians and Jews. As for other religions — the wisdom won’t do them any harm. This nation was built on Christian and Jewish values and the Bible was actually used in the classrooms in our early days. To toss the very foundation on which our country was built because of political correctness is wrong and we see the results in society today. I say have a reading out of Proverbs each day in our classrooms. What do you think?

Ever mindful that not everyone shares the same faith, Riddle assures all who don’t follow the Bible that “the wisdom” in Proverbs “won’t do them any harm.” See? She’s thought of everything. Except maybe the inevitable avalanche of lawsuits.

I wholeheartedly agree with Rep. Riddle. The Book of Proverbs is full of Bibley goodness, and the children of the state of Texas need to know that far more than they need to know history, or how the human reproductive system works. Let me throw out my suggestion for the first proverb to read, from Proverbs 25:16 (NIV):

If you find honey, eat just enough—
too much of it, and you will vomit.

That bit of wisdom spared me from quite a bit of barfing as a child. With honey-induced vomiting accounting for seventy-one percent of all public school absences [citation needed], Rep. Riddle’s proposal could not come at a better time.

Photo credit: ‘Texas State Fair honey’ by Photo: Andreas Praefcke (Own work (own photograph)) [GFDL or CC-BY-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Cryptic Philosopher

This Blog Has the Death Sentence on Twelve Systems

Category Archives: Belief