On “Miner Miracles”

I’m sure most of you have heard about the West Virginia mining tragedy. (It was mistakenly reported that 12 of the 13 trapped miners were alive, when in fact, the opposite was true.)

During the time in which most of the men were believed to be living, the Boston Herald ran a headline which read: “Miner Miracle! America’s Prayers Answered. Greg Saunders rightly takes issue with this:

Now that we know the twelve miners were killed, does this mean America’s prayers weren’t answered? Just like gambling addicts remember their big wins but not their losses, the fate of the twelve miners has transformed from a faith-inspiring act of God to another horrible tragedy in which it’s impolite to mention religion at all. Cute little sayings like “the Lord works in mysterious ways” are cop-outs for the logical conclusions that many of us draw from experiences like this. If something fantastic and improbable can be used as proof that there’s a benevolent god, doesn’t the reverse point toward the conclusion that a higher power is indifferent at best? If you believe in a god that could have saved these men’s lives (which I don’t, btw), why didn’t he? People are quick to throw around the word “miracle” when something wonderful happens, so what the hell do we call this?

Well said.

Religious Discrimination

The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be “excluded from holding office” if she/he does not “acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”

This would specifically exclude all Atheists and Agnostics from holding public office. It would also exclude:

• Most Buddhists, who do not believe in a personal deity.
• Members of the Church of Satan; they are typically agnostics.
• Some Unitarian Universalists.
• Some followers of the New Age who do not believe in the existence of a personal deity

Remember, that by excluding agnostics and atheists alone, you’re saying that roughly 10% of the United States population can’t hold office.

Legal bullshit withstanding, there’s still no way anyone but a Christian could win office in any but the bluest of blue states. Is this what freedom feels like?

Link

FSM

Too late for Christmas, but here’s a Flying Spaghetti Monster tree topper. No angels for us. We’ve been touched by his noodly appendage.

On Atheism

An excellent quotation:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.

-Isaac Asimov

Personally, I’ve always used a metaphor to explain why I’m an atheist and not an agnostic: If you were a vegetarian, but said that maybe someday you might consider eating meat again, would that make you less of a vegetarian? Would you be veg-nostic? No.

Right now, all the evidence leads me to believe that there is no higher power intervening in our lives. However, I hope that I never become so nearsighted, in any of my beliefs, that that I ignore obvious proof to the contrary.

Tax-Exempt Churches

From Reuters:

The Internal Revenue Service has threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of a Los Angeles Episcopal church because a priest implied to parishioners before the 2004 presidential election that Jesus would not have voted for George W. Bush.

I’m all for crackdowns like this one, as long as they’re applied fairly. That means any church which encouraged its members to vote for any Republican candidate should also lose their tax-exempt status. I suspect there are far more churches that fit this description.

Links

• Jib Jab takes on Wal-mart in a new spoof called Big Box Mart
• Watch a CGI machine make some pretty cool music in Pipe Dream.
• “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion”. So says a study profiled in The Times

On Schiavo

“Come down, President Bush. Come talk to me. Meet my wife. Talk to my wife and see if you get an answer. Ask her to lift her arm to shake your hand. She won’t do it.”

“Have they ever met her? What color are her eyes? What’s her middle name? What’s her favorite color? They don’t have any clue who Terri is. They should all be ashamed of themselves.”

“Instead of worrying about my wife, who was granted her wishes by the state courts the past seven years … Why doesn’t Congress worry about people not having health insurance? Or the budget? Let’s talk about all the children who don’t have homes.”

—Michael Schiavo

Source: St. Petersburg Times

And from the conservative New York Post:

“…the idea of Congress convening a weekend session to push through a potentially precedent-setting law for one single individual, with little regard to the long-term consequences, is profoundly troubling. Political opportunism? No question about it.”

God’s Will

Pro-birth advocates state that pregnancy begins at conception, when sperm meets egg. Since a large number of fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterine wall, over 60% of these pregancies fail. Inevitably, this is chalked up to “God’s will”.

My question is, does that make God the greatest abortionist of all?

Abortion, et al.

I’m not worried about Roe v. Wade, given the rampant hypocrisy of many people who vote on “moral issues”. The so-called “red states” have far higher abortion rates than more progressive states. They also offer far less sex education and don’t have networks offering social benefits to pregnant women, both of which reduce abortion rates. (Funny how that works.)

Being a trained scientist, I naturally approach the question of life from a biological perspective. First of all, the assumption that humans are somehow vastly superior to the rest of the animal kingdom is just ridiculous. We’re made up of the same matter, the same cellular mechanisms, and most of the same DNA. Why should a mass of undifferentiated cells in a uterus have any more rights than the steak on my plate right now? Or the leaves in my salad?

Some other species like chimps and dolphins are even able to do complex problem-solving, equivalent to what many children are capable of. Killing them is not murder, though. So why should a glob of undeveloped human cells be subject to a different set of standards?
The point is that without human sentience, we’re just another lump of meat. And we base our legal protections on possessing that kind of human sentience, which a fetus clearly doesn’t have.

In fact, we don’t even extend legal protections to all organisms that are fully developed humans. What about people in a coma? Once they are “brain-dead”, ending their life becomes legal, because they lack the mental capabilities that distinguish humans from any other animal.

So, when you look at it from this perspective, the question becomes “at what point does a human gain sentience?” Seeing as how humans don’t possess any real self-awareness, rational thought, or coherence until well into our toddler years, I don’t feel that birth is an unreasonable cutoff point for abortions.

Please don’t get me wrong - no one likes abortions. They’re painful, messy, and can leave deep emotional scars. That’s why we need to educate people on how to avoid getting themselves into a situation where one seems like the best option. I do, however, see a slew of situations where they truly are the best option.

I can’t in good conscience endanger the life of a woman, or force another unwanted child into this world. There are too many needy and neglected kids as is.

American Secularism

This is an excerpt from Donna Bowman’s review of Susan Jacoby’s new book, Freethinkers: A History Of American Secularism

Organized religion, in one or another of its Catholic, Protestant, and evangelical forms, has opposed just about every advance in freedom and equality Americans have achieved since the country’s founding: an intentionally God-free Constitution, the abolition of slavery, and civil rights for blacks, as well as women’s suffrage, reproductive freedom, and economic equity.

If past leaders hadn’t been hostile to religion, the overwhelming Christian opinion of their times�that God appoints worldly powers, slaves should be obedient to their masters, and women needn’t vote�never would have been challenged.

Food for thought, all ye faithful sheep.

Yesterday was the National Day of Prayer…

In 1952, Congress passed a law establishing the National Day of Prayer as an annual religious observance.

Quick: give me another sentence that uses the words “Congress,” “law,” “establish” and “religion.”

Hint (under Amendment I)

Thanks to Slacktivist for the heads-up.

“Christian Nation”

Larry Darby, president of the Atheist Law Center (search), plans to hold a rally outside the state capitol on May 6. At the same time, Christians will gather in observance of the national day of prayer.

If it rains, state lawmakers will allow the religious gathering to move inside. But when Darby requested the same access for his atheist group, his state representative, Republican Jay Love (search), turned him down.

Gee, that’s fair. The United States was not founded as a “Christian Nation”, as people so often claim. We were colonized and founded by people who valued freedom of religion. That includes religions outside of Christianity, and even people who choose not to practice religion. Why is that so hard to understand?

Link

Faith-Based Government

As the Rev. Welton Gaddy, leader of a liberal Christian coalition, points out, in a nation founded on freedom of religious practice, promoting the Good Book as a manual for public policy is a disquieting choice. Especially since, of the $100 million so far dispensed to faith-based charities by the Bush administration, not one dollar has gone to a Jewish or Muslim organization.

Link

Thoughts on Religion and Science

These are excerpts from discussions that I’ve been in over the last few weeks on various message boards. All of the posts are my writings, unless otherwise noted:

This is the best criticism of theism and creationism that I’ve seen in a long time.

http://chrisamiller.com/articles/improb.html

Dawkins tends to ramble about the intricacies of evolutionary theory, but here’s a more succinct version of his arguement:

Religions, as with any myth, arose to fill the need of people to explain things that they didn’t understand. Over time, religion has been adapted and altered into an institution to encourage behavioral modification, but it’s origins and ultimate basis are in trying to explain where things came from.

As our knowledge of the natural world has progressed, more and more of the explanations that religion gives have been proved just dead wrong. They can be described more accurately through nature and physics. So, religion has proved itself to be based upon faulty assumptions.

Since we can adequately describe the things around us through nature, physics, and reason, there’s no need for silly creation myths and all-powerful creators.

A discussion ensued, and one poster asked why, then science couldn’t explain the brain, Black Holes, and the Big Bang.

My reponse:

Yes, you can name 3 things that we don’t understand YET. and I emphasize ‘yet’ for a reason.

If I had made this argument 200 years ago, you would have pointed to infectious disease, the sun’s source of power, and the basis for heredity as three things that we didn’t understand.

Of course, now we do understand them.

The fact that we even know of the existence of black holes and the Big Bang speaks volumes about how far we’ve come. And there’s no reason to suspect that we can’t sustain our search for knowledge until we do understand things like the Big Bang.

It’s like that quote: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. I’d like to modify it though, and say:

“Any sufficiently advanced natural phenomenon will be attributed to an imaginary being”.

In reality, it’s vastly more reasonable to assume that we just haven’t gotten quite deep enough yet, than it is to assume that there’s some all-powerful being whose existence we can’t prove at all.

Later on, a poster suggested that “religion exists because of those unwilling to accept “I don’t know” as an answer.” I responded with:

I’d argue the opposite: that religion exists because of people willing to accept “i don’t know” as an answer.

Religion is all about shrugging your shoulders, and claiming some imaginary being had it’s inexplicable reasons for making things the way they are. That’s just as good as saying “i don’t know”.

Science, on the other hand, is about saying “i don’t know yet”, but we’re going to find out.

Horoscope

Sagittarius: (Nov. 22�Dec. 21)

A bizarre misunderstanding on your part will result in your going to church every Sunday and speaking sincerely to invisible entities with the belief that it might do you some sort of good.

Good thing I’m a Scorpio. Again from The Onion

Under God

I just read a great article that summarizes why the words “under god” should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. And it’s not based on the points you might think. Read on:

The United States’ arguement in this case is essentially that the words ‘under god’ are meaningless, and do not refer to a particular god, set of beliefs, or ideals. This author argues that this cheapens the words, though, and may even break a commandment.

In a brief submitted by 32 Christian and Jewish clergy, they assert that “if the briefs of the school district and the United States are to be taken seriously,” (that is, if the words in the Pledge do not allude to God), “then every day they ask schoolchildren to violate [the] commandment” that “Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord in vain.”

I’ll leave you with this comment from the author: “The argument that a reference to God is not a reference to God is a sign that American religion is forgetting its reasons. The need of so many American believers to have government endorse their belief is thoroughly abject. How strong, and how wise, is a faith that needs to see God’s name wherever it looks?”

Link (thanks Jen).

God Hates Shrimp

The book of Leviticus is used as the primary biblical justification for discrimination against homosexuals. So, by that reasoning, God Hates Shrimp as well.

Top 12 Reasons Homosexual Marriage Should Not Be Legal

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer life spans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

(This list was found several places on the web - let me know if you know the original author so I can give them props.)

Religious Nuts

Another case of religious wackos terrorizing a flight.

Except that this time, it was the pilot…

WWJD?

Quite possibly the best politically charged satire I’ve read this year. “A Message From Pat Robertson and the “Vote No On Jesus” Campaign” should be required reading if you’re a conservative christian.

And it’s damn funny if you’re not.