Atheists are brainless

Via Triabolgue

I have to admit, this is one of the more clever putdowns of atheists I've read. And yet, it fails miserably at understanding even basic atheists arguments.

Atheists often argue that they don't "deny" or "reject" gods, they simply don't believe in them, just like most Christians simply don't believe in Zeus or Vishnu or Amun-Ra, etc. It's an attempt to counter strawman arguments about atheism as well as communicating to theists that the burden of proof is on them to explain why people should believe in their god, rather than on atheists to make the case that every god concept is false.

It's not complicated. It's not difficult. Any reasonably intelligent person could understand these concepts.

Yet, theists (and more specifically, Christian apologists) either genuinely don't understand this or are simply being dishonest and are intentionally mischaracterizing the position in order to curry Amens from their flocks. (which of course would be tantamount to lying and prohibited by their Ten Commandments)

They do things like quibble about whether or not babies are atheists, sometimes even going so far as to consider inanimate objects as atheists in the vain attempt to construe a simple, straightforward statement of disbelief into some absurd (and therefore false) conclusion. They often times don't realize that their logic inevitably caves in on itself. One could also argue about whether or not one's chair is an undecided voter or a neutral party in some war, but all that does is reveal the intellectual confusion of the author - it never negates the meaning of terms like undecided voter or neutral party.

Instead of pwning atheism, it's self-pwnage. It's declaring to the world that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and encouraging people not to take you seriously.

The coming Evangelical Collapse

Some people have already taken the ARIS news and run with it. The Christian Science Monitor, apparently using their psychic powers, predicts the imminent downfall of evangelical Christianity and (predictably) the resurgence of Christianity.

The author claims:

• within 10 years, half of American Evangelicals will leave the fold.
• a wave of Christian persecution will sweep the land (I'm sure it's supposed to sound really ominous, but I can't help but remember that the whinier voices in the religious right claim persecution for everything - these nuts consider even saying Happy Holidays or teaching science to be persecution of Christians)
• Conservative Christians will lose the culture war (I could have predicted that!)
• Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear (I can't think of it happening to a nicer bunch of people)
• And finally, from the ruins, "new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement". (I doubt it)

I do agree with him that Evangelical Christianity has entwined its religious views with political conservatism (and is suffering the consequences of it by sharing in conservatism's unpopularity) and that young people who are "on fire for the Lord" are frequently ignorant about their own religion. But these "predictions" are just an assortment hunches and wishful thinking. It's just not good logic. Assuredly, some of this will come true (indeed, some of it already has), but if you spray and pray enough prophecies, some of them are bound to be true.

You Can't Handle the Truth

“Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.”
- Benjamin Franklin

Heh, here's a rather bizarre editorial - one that makes the case for less truth-telling and more secrecy from the Vatican.

The common wisdom is that stuff involving, you know, child molestation should probably be put to light to catch criminals and prevent them from amassing even more victims. Pretty common sense stuff.

Well, as it turns out, that's wrong. Some secrets ought to be kept, if for no other reason than to keep an authority legitimate in the eyes of the people.

Does that sound a little strange to you, too?



Well, it all makes sense if one considers the author's personal experiences - a catholic reporter whose investigation in priestly misdeeds unleashed a maelstrom of religious turmoil and doubt. But rather than embrace the doubt and concede that the institution has flaws and that one's faith may be misplaced, the author took it in the other direction - that secrets are good because the truth brings sorrow and recrimination. Somehow, I rather doubt this conclusion would have been reached if the author and the child-molesting priests were not of the same religion.

Societies cannot survive without authoritative institutions. But which authoritative persons or institutions can withstand constant critical scrutiny? In our culture, we are predisposed to see damage done from failing to question authority. We are far less capable of grasping the destruction that can come from delegitimizing authority with corrosive suspicion. How much reality must we choose to ignore for the greater good of our own souls, and society?

Indeed, which reality should we choose? One of harsh (and politically disadvantageous) truth or one of hidden evil, of vile misdeeds carried under a veil of secrecy?

Is our commitment to truth and honesty so flimsy and half-hearted that we must sacrifice it to protect our beloved institutions from public scrutiny and scandal?

20 Feet of Respect

Interfaith relations have apparently progressed to the point of Christians and Muslims arguing about whether or not the Quran gets the top shelf at libraries. I'm having a hard time imagining how this could really be a pressing issue for any sane person. Even an insane person would have better things to do, like wall-scribbling or knitting. I know people can be petty and concerned with frivolous things, but this is really taking it to a whole new level.

Fortunately, I have a solution: 20-foot-high bookshelves. Everybody's holy book can go right up top, where they can enjoy all the undisturbed respect they deserve.

Religion in Brief

• Martin Luther spins in his grave - indulgences are back, limbo is out. Latest patch for Catholicism buggier than ever.

• Astrologer does a reading for James Randi and surprise surprise, thinks he might be a skeptic. What a prediction! Oh yeah, and he used the wrong birthdate on the first attempt. And we're not talking about a day or two - it was off by 20 days - not even the correct zodiac sign. /facepalm. (Watch Randi's response over at Bad Astronomy. It's priceless!)

• Crazy pastor says that abortion caused Australia's wildfires, apparently forgets how weather works. (hat tip to Dark Christianity)
  

• Forever in Hell atheist blogger mocks some idiot's anti-atheist site. Hey! That's my schtick! Heh, there's plenty of idiocy to go around, so I guess we can share. *gives EAC salute*

• And in other news, Ray Comfort is still an idiot.

Born Believers

An interesting article in New Scientist.

Highlights some scientists' claims that religion, rather than being selected by evolution as an individual and social boon, is actually a byproduct of how the brain works.

Of particular interest:

People are predisposed towards mind-body dualism:

"We very naturally accept you can leave your body in a dream, or in astral projection or some sort of magic," Bloom says. "These are universal views." There is plenty of evidence that thinking about disembodied minds comes naturally.

People readily form relationships with non-existent others: roughly half of all 4-year-olds have had an imaginary friend, and adults often form and maintain relationships with dead relatives, fictional characters and fantasy partners

Based on these and other experiments, Bering considers a belief in some form of life apart from that experienced in the body to be the default setting of the human brain.

Over-attribution of agency:

"You see bushes rustle, you assume there's somebody or something there," Bloom says.

Predisposed to teleological explanations:

Put under pressure to explain natural phenomena, adults often fall back on teleological arguments, such as "trees produce oxygen so that animals can breathe" or "the sun is hot because warmth nurtures life".

Seeing patterns where there are none:

The subjects who sensed a loss of control were much more likely to see patterns where there were none. "We were surprised that the phenomenon is as widespread as it is," Whitson says.

The conclusion:

as Barratt points out, whether or not a belief is true is independent of why people believe it.

It does, however, suggests that god isn't going away, and that atheism will always be a hard sell. Religious belief is the "path of least resistance", says Boyer, while disbelief requires effort.

Breaking news: evolution, theism compatible

Via the Columbus Dispatch

The debate between creationism and Darwin's evolution theories often pits religious leaders against scientists. But many pastors find the two ideas compatible -- and are speaking out about it.

More than 11,800 Christian clergy members in every state have joined the Clergy Letter Project, a campaign started with a letter in 2004 to explain that harmony can exist between religion and science.

It is commendable that Christians are standing up for science. Indeed, they may have one more motivation for defending against creationism than atheists do - creationists preach a theme-park version of natural history as biblical fact that is so silly, so embarrassing, so monumentally untrue that it hurts the public image of Christianity by mere association. Non-creationist Christians are obliged to counter such nonsense as much for God's sake as science's sake.

There's an excellent quote by Augustine of Hippo on this matter:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."

"Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Faith leaders supporting evolution is not new, said Michael Zimmerman, a dean and biology professor at Butler University and founder of the Clergy Letter Project. Some of Darwin's most vocal supporters were faith leaders, he said.

In fact, shortly after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, the Anglican clergymen of Essays and Reviews gave it a glowing review, praising "Mr Darwin's masterly volume" that "must soon bring about an entire revolution in opinion in favour of the grand principle of the self-evolving powers of nature." Completely coincidentally, those seven were called "The Seven Against Christ" and two of them were slapped with heresy charges and lost their jobs, culminating in Samuel "my grandfather wasn't a monkey" Wilberforce getting a synodical condemnation of Essays and Reviews from the Convocation of Canterbury.

Of course, we're far removed from such blatant intolerance today. That's why in Dover, non-creationist Intelligent Design Christians were merely harassed and condemned as atheists and threatened with hell and not burned at the stake as heretics.

It's little surprise that non-creationist Christians are wary of the repercussions of such zealots achieving political domination of our country's educational institutions.

The Rev. Paul Hamilton of Westerville Bible Church said that creation and evolution are completely incompatible. Hamilton adheres to the narrative of creation described in the book of Genesis.

Darwin had a bias against God, Hamilton said. He feels a mix of pity and disgust for clergy members who say the two theories can coexist.

See? Nothing but Christian love.

Additionally, he supplies the incredibly convincing argument that Darwin was wrong about evolution because he didn't believe in God. (Nobody tell him about atoms!)

Actually, Darwin didn't stop believing in God until well after his voyage on the Beagle. Prior to the voyage, Darwin had been well educated in theology, greatly admired Paley's Natural Theology, and was most definitely a self-professed Christian. Heh, bias indeed.

For him, creation and evolution are mysteries, and humans can't presume to know for sure.

And unlike creation, evolution isn't quite so mysterious as it once was, as new discoveries inevitably lead to a greater and more detailed understanding of evolution.

Despite their efforts, all the zealous dismissal of evolution in the world can't turn back the clock and make creationism viable. Nor will vile slander of fellow Christians intimidate them from making a stand for science.

The maw of the Bible Belt

Gallup has new poll results out: the religiousity of individual states in the USA.

They asked people "Is religion an important part of your daily life?"

Unsurprisingly, a majority (65%) said yes. And again, a real shocker is that people from the Bible Belt states were far more likely to say yes than people from Pacific or New England states. This data matches nicely with gallup's previous poll, which indicates that these states have large non-religious populations while the Bible Belt states have relatively few. The religious epicenter is undoubtedly somewhere in Alabama, spreading like kudzu to all nearby states, including my own state of North Carolina, #8 on the rarely-coveted most religious states in the Union category.

It's official, I live in Jesusland USA.

In North Carolina in particular, the joke is that we have two religions: Baptist and Catholic. (Other protestant denominations are dwarfed by the baptists, there are very few non-Christian believers, and evangelicals are humorously known to view Catholicism as another religion entirely rather than a different denomination in the same religion)

The good news is that the religious stranglehold is slipping, with national dips in approval of organized religion and increasing secular outlooks among the younger generations. So maybe there's hope after all.

Atheists are Insane

Via Catalyst

Oh man, you're definitely going to need a padded cell after this anti-atheist diatribe is over.

First, let's raise a toast to one brave soul - an Amazon forums spiritual warrior named Paul. Hallowed be his crazy rants about atheists quoted with admiration from the next cell over.

First up, atheists only talk about God because they hate God. They're mini-devils who apparently aren't as even-minded as the devil, who himself believes in God.

They hate God. It is very clear. Oh, they hate Christians too, and the Bible and the church.

Well said, Paul. You truly are a fountain of wisdom.

The atheist responses? What nuggets of madness do they bring? What evil, Satanic hatred will they inflict on these poor, persecuted believers?

Well, it turns out they just dislike believers who define moral goodness through religious affiliation, thus condemning atheists as evil. Awkward...

From that short pit stop at sanity, we just hang a right on the Damascus road straight to crazyville.

Every tenet of Christianity is just assumed to be true, complete with frequent bible verses, and therefore atheism is only explicable through insanity or outright malevolence. Why else would someone reject an obviously true deity?

Read the whole thing, it's great. It's essentially a few sentences worth of actual thought stretched out to a couple pages worth of how evil and crazy atheists are for not believing in the author's God.

Many Christians think that atheists are fools. Rightly so for so does God. “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psalm 53:1) In fact I call it a conscious and deliberate insanity. Perhaps that’s fair, because many atheists think that Christians and theists are fools as well.

I'll give it the author one thing, deliberate insanity is certainly in the air.

The fact is the depravity of the human heart proves that all sinners hate God more than anything else. There is no REAL CAUSE for their hatred still they hate Him. Every hatred has a cause, but in their case it is a falicy and a myth. They think it very real and reasonable, but it is evidence of their hatred and insanity. They ought to love Him. Yet they hate Him. And so store up more and more wrath for that day of judgment.

Quick question: I was sort of under the impression that everlasting torment is pretty much the maximum possible punishment. Explain how more wrath is supposed to make that worse.

Well this is definitely shaping up to be fstdt material, because it has requisite ALL CAPS and egregiously misspelled common word, "falicy".

Okay, now that we've established that there is no REAL CAUSE for atheist hostility towards God/goodness/Christianity/puppies, let's go ahead and pretend like we know the cause. It's a breeze - all you have to do is apply armchair psychology to millions of people. Ready?

The insanity of the atheist is all to clear. No doubt they hate Him for He is holy and they are not and darkness always flees at the entrance of light. He is pure and they are not. He is altogether lovely and they are not. He insists on their obedience but they will not. Therefore they hate Him. This is insanity!

The real reason atheists hate on God/believers: they're jealous of our freedoms holiness. That's right, "The atheist hates God because He is so good."

Most atheists are usually avid evolutionists for all they have is eternal matter. There is no eternal God. Self is of supreme importance

Those crazy evolutionists, believing in that pseudoscientific hooey about how the world and all life wasn't poofed into existence by an intelligently designing God 6,000 years ago. How gullible! And they actually believe that their self is of supreme importance. How self-centered! They should totally have the God of all creation come down to Earth and get murdered for their sins.

The atheist thinks all Christians should be placed in a mad-house, an asylum for the insane, for they believe in God, in Jesus, in Sin, in Heaven, in Hell, in Angels, in Demons etc. etc.

Atheists think all Christians are insane? Strawman ahoy! Palin 2012 crazy, maybe. Clinically insane and in need of a padded cell, no.

the atheist is supremely convinced of his reality - so very much so. Look at all the websites and books by skeptics and atheists.

Yay, atheists genuinely, sincerely don't believe that a god exists.

There's just one problem with that: you just said that they somehow "know" that God exists ("While they inwardly know he is their real friend") and simply choose to hate him.

My dear atheists, does your own moral course commend itself to your conscience and your reason? If not, what are you but a moral maniac? Atheist man, atheist woman, must you in truth write yourselves down as moral maniacs?

Uggh. Nope, can't say mounds of drivel are very convincing. Berating the kids for not believing in Santa Claus isn't a very good apologetics technique, but it's painfully common and the endless froth gets lots of laughs. Thanks for the entertainment, I feel sorry for you if you're serious.

Atheism is a Religion

From the ironically-named blog, Atheism's Fallacies:

1) Atheism is not a religion.
2) Atheist activism! Humanist chaplains!
3) ZOMG, atheism is a religion!!!!1

I love it. The train of thought is great. It's linguistic torture with deliberate obfuscation, all designed reinforce one bumbling, obviously incorrect myth - that atheism is a religion. It's exactly the kind of godly dishonesty that makes one proud to be an atheist.

Jesus appears in lava lamp

Australia man finds Virgin Mary and baby Jesus in his lava lamp, the latest in a long line of nuts who claim to see religious figures in such unlikely places as toast, a concrete underpass, floor tiles, even road rash.

“This is a true, tangible miracle that is not just an optical illusion", he exclaims. Because you know, if I were a deity, I'd choose to broadcast my presence by gracing an assortment of mundane objects in a manner that's utterly indistinguishable from pareidolia (and therefore supremely unconvincing) rather than actually trying to interact with people in a normal manner. That makes perfect sense.

Christians fast for the new year

Christian Post

You guys know we're already hip-deep in January already, right?

Over 300 churches are hoping to make a tremendous impact on the body of Christ and throughout the world through 21 days of prayer and fasting.

For 21 days, thousands will be going without food, certain meals, television, Internet or "anything that feeds your flesh-man."

"It’s really not about the food. It’s about denying your flesh-man the things that feed it," Chris Hodges of Church of the Highlands Birmingham, Ala., stressed.

21 days? That's not a very good symbolic number. If you really want to please the guy upstairs and usher in the new year with a *reads from the pamphlet* "supernatural, miraculous tone", I think ya ought to go at least 77 days without consuming any health-sustaining organic matter. It's either that or the flesh-man wins.

God wants you weak, poorly nourished and on the verge of hallucinating, otherwise this revolution around the sun (which have been happening like clockwork since time immemorial) might potentially be less than supernatural or not very miraculous. And we wouldn't want that, now do we?

Church removes crucifix for being too scary-looking

This story still has me in stitches. It's like an irony onion, layer upon layer of folly.

Basically, a church removed its own crucifix because it was "too scary" and conflicted with their Christian mission of hope and happiness.

Rev Souter, formerly a cell biologist, said: "The crucifix expressed suffering, torment, pain and anguish. It was a scary image, particularly for children.

"Parents didn't want to walk past it with their kids, because they found it so horrifying.

"It wasn't a suitable image for the outside of a church wanting to welcome worshippers. In fact, it was a real put-off.

Indeed, it is horrifying - a man brutally tortured and killed. But you know, that's sort of the whole basis of Christianity.

This part is pure genius:

"We're all about hope, encouragement and the joy of the Christian faith. We want to communicate good news, not bad news, so we need a more uplifting and inspiring symbol than execution on a cross."

Yeah. We're all about sharing Jesus here. You know, that guy who was crucified...oh wait.

What's going to replace the crucifix? A nice, shiny "ultra-modern stainless steel cross". Modernity's a-knockin'.

I like the deadpan snark from one churchgoer who disapproved of the change:

One long-standing member of the church, who asked not to be named, said: "The crucifix is the oldest and most famous symbol of the Christian church.

"Pulling it down and putting up something that would look more at home on the side of a flashy modern shopping centre is not the way to get more bums on seats.

"Next they'll be ripping out the pews and putting sofas in their place, or throwing out all the Bibles and replacing them with laptops. It's just not right."

Pastor: Humans innately seek the right religion

News and Observer

Most people don't "find" or discover their religion - it finds them.

Doubtful. Most people get their default religion (the religion of their parents or community), some exposure to outside ideas (in modern, cosmopolitan societies, the amount of exposure can be quite large), and whatever ideas they can conjure up themselves.

Contrary to the assertion that people's religions "find them", religions tend grow and spread in fairly predictable, mundane ways - passed down from generation to generation and through evangelism. Native Americans don't just up and convert to Christianity prior to contact with Christians. Individuals are the same way, they work with what they have, and traditions tend to weigh heavily.

But according to the pastor, humans have to innate qualities that pull us towards religion:

I believe humans have two inward drives: The first is a drive or desire to know why they exist. Man has a sense that we are "effects" from a "cause" that is outside of the effect. We exist because of something or someone else greater than ourselves. We yearn to find that someone. There is an innate appetite to discover and admire him.

Sheesh, just say the G-word already.

Second, there seems to be a moral code or law written in our hearts.

We have something inside of us that tells us that we are not only in trouble with earthly authorities but accountable to a "higher power."

Okay, even assuming there aren't massive logical errors hiding there (like say, erroneously projecting your own Judeo-Christian reasons for belief in God unto absolutely everybody), how do we know which religion is right?

The response is pure genius:

Is the belief system accurate from an anthropological, genealogical, geographical, scientific and social perspective?

Scientifically accurate? This is religion we're talking about here. Here's a quick run down of a few of them:

• A dead guy comes back to life and decides whether or not you get tossed into everlasting fire for all eternity.

• All of humanity's problems are caused by spirits of space aliens who were sent to Earth and blown up by their evil ruler.

• Magical spells really work.
  

• The world is not only a lie, but is inherently full of anguish and suffering, which can be escaped through a regiment of religious practices.
  

Up next is the remarkably helpful question:

Does the religion claim to be authentic and sanctioned by God?

...

This is just a wild guess here, but yeah, chances of that are pretty high.

Does the religion claim to be salvific and capable of appeasing the anger of a just God?

Remember that projection thing from earlier? You're doing it again.

Long story short, whichever religious claims that are most similar to Christianity (claims of historicity, salvation, appeasing God's holy wrath) are most likely truthful. Circular logic triumphs again.

On Conversion

Recently, the atheosphere lost an atheist blogger - The Raving Atheist has converted to Christianity.

Here are some reactions from the atheosphere: PZ, God is for Suckers, and The Raving Atheist forums. Additionally, Daylight Atheism and The Uncredible Hallq soured on his blog long ago, with both PZ and Pandagon predicting his conversion, and assuming it isn't a joke, they have now been proven right. There are some Christian blog reactions as well: The Curt Jester is rooting for him to convert specifically to Catholicism, and Think Christian has a fairly brief review (with hilariously stereotypical comments).

I'm certain that an explanation for his change of mind will shortly come to light, but it seems instructive to note his strong abortion views and his attempt to ground them in metaphysical terms (specifically, dualism) claiming that humans are more than the sum of their parts (sadly, the the concept of emergence was ignored while magical souls were invoked) and that the mind is more than a "bubbling cauldron of cranial soup". From there, it's only a hop, skip, and a jump to Jesus.

Well, actually, it's not really that easy, which is why I find the process of conversion fascinating - it's not just changing one's mind on a single idea (whether or not a god or multiple gods exist), it's quite the leap of faith in quite a number of areas - what kind of God exists, whether God has any offspring, whether any sort of afterlife exists, if miracles occur, if angels exist, which books are holy, etc, etc. It's quite surprising that such a turnabout would happen simultaneously in all areas. Alternatively, I suspect that conversions are frequently more about social psychology, purely pragmatic reasons (for example, converting for marriage) and emotional/ideological hooks than rational contemplation - religious avowal seems more like an Asch conformity experiment than an honest appraisal.

But this kind of thing does lead to no small amount of (forgive the pun) soul-searching. Conversions (and deconversions) happen ever day - someone wakes up one day an atheist and an evangelical Christian on the next (or vice versa), or converts to Scientology or Hinduism or Islam. The joke is that Americans change their religion about as often as their long-distance plan (and phone companies hassle people far less!), a whopping 44% if you include shifts from one Protestant domination to another.

As a deconvert, I consider myself fairly resistant to conversion - I've already peeked behind the curtain and figured out the whole great and powerful Wizard of Oz shtick. You can't unlearn that sort of thing. Emotional appeals don't work (only the facts matter, and they either support the conclusion or they don't) and pragmatic pressures fail (I refused to compromise what I believe, even when it may be substantially in my interest to do so). Barring the unlikely event that I look out an airplane window and see God, complete with attendant angels merrily playing their harps, I consider my atheism fairly secure.

For thousands of years, theists have insisted that a God created the cosmos, and for thousands of years, no one has ever been able to give the slightest confirmation of such claims, and certainly not for a lack of trying, but tricks of logic (the tastiest possible steak dinner would have to exist to be delicious, therefore it does exist) simply do not convince. Sure, I might be wrong about a million other things, but when it comes to the supernatural, I'm betting on black.

Angel heals girl with pneumonia

This has been circulating like mad recently: link

Not only is it a supposed to be a supernatural/miraculous healing, but it's also an angel caught on film - finally the proof believers have been waiting for.

There's just one problem - it's almost assuredly a hoax. That's my take, at least. I suppose we'll have to wait until more information comes to light.

Priest ruins Christmas forever

BBC

A Catholic priest has been criticised by parents in a city in northern Italy for telling their children that Father Christmas does not really exist.

Hahaha. Oh the irony!

The priest got a lot of flak from angry parents who accused him of ruining their family's Christmas by daring to suggest that Santa may be a human invention rather than a real being, but he said that he wasn't trying to hurt anyone's feelings.

Oh the price Santa-atheists pay for challenging the prevailing dogma - the legions of Santa-worshiping fanatics who go into hysterics at the slightest criticism of their Great Red Lord. The Yuletide defense mechanism makes any criticism of Santa a social taboo. It's very fortunate for humanity that Saint Nick is the only manifestly implausible belief that people hold to be sacrosanct, otherwise, we might be in real trouble.

Pope: Discriminating against gays just as important as the environment

Reuters:

Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

Wow. I'm speechless.

My faith in my ability to dodge Poe's Law has been shattered. It is now officially impossible to tell conservative Christianity from its many parodies, as well as real church leaders from your average sign-wielding, Westboro-esqe fundamentalist. Heaven help us all.

God VS Science

From Science Daily:

A person's unconscious attitudes toward science and God may be fundamentally opposed, researchers report, depending on how religion and science are used to answer "ultimate" questions such as how the universe began or the origin of life.

Especially considering that scientific theories regarding the origins of the universe or the origins of life are very controversial topics amongst religious people right now, with denialism still very much in ascendence. This is a recurring thing (evolution/cosmology is the new outrage, heliocentrism is an old and settled one) - religions tend to build their monasteries in human ignorance and when human knowledge expands - due to science - a conflict between science and religion is inevitable. Whenever any religion makes a falsifiable claim (a testable claim about the natural world), you'd better believe that the claim is going to be scrutinized and that the truth of the matter will eventually come to light - and the discoverable truth seems to contradict the premature dogma at every turn. Miracles, resurrections, depictions of the structure of the universe, and especially origin myths are all fair game. Only by restricting itself to the airy, insubstantial plane of utterly unfalsifiable claims will religions fail to conflict with science, and religions fail at attracting and keeping followers when supernatural beings no longer have real, tangible effects on the world.

"It seemed to me that both science and religion as systems were very good at explaining a lot, accounting for a lot of the information that we have in our environment," she said. "But if they are both ultimate explanations, at some point they have to conflict with each another because they can't possibly both explain everything."

Indeed, both science and religion are explanatory systems. But religion relies on faith while science relies on evidence. Science grows with new discoveries, while religions are threatened by them and find it difficult to change their old dogmas, which are (sometimes literally) set in stone. It's not hard to figure out which one will inevitably falter as humanity grows and learns.

But all this is hardly a recent revelation, the experiment is the new thing. It's interesting, but a little odd: subjects read an excerpt about the Big Bang theory or the Primordial Soup hypothesis, which ends with either positively or dismissively. Then the subjects had to categorize various words as either positive or negative, but before each word appeared on the screen, a 15 millisecond subliminal message appeared, saying "God" or "science", which seemed to nudge the subjects in that direction. Long story short, subjects primed for a positive evaluation of God tended to score science negatively and vice versa.

Why is this the case? Because these are two are very different systems of figuring out the universe, because they have historically been at odds, and because however artfully believers can mesh the findings of science with their dogmas, the methodologies of science and religion conflict at a fundamental level - the rugged skepticism of science has never been able to sit well with the magical thinking of religion.

Many Americans say other religions can lead to eternal life

Pew Polling Results

While this isn't exactly earth-shattering news per se (the U.S. has a history of ecumenism and inclusivism, almost to the extent that one can be considered a "person of faith" in good standing and pray to a beached sperm whale), exactly which other religions Americans give high marks to is interesting.

Here's the crunch:

80% of Christians identified at least one non-Christian religion as granting eternal life (that number is surprisingly high even among evangelical Christians at 72%)

The non-christian religion most favored is Judaism (69%), followed by Hinduism (53%), which just barely edged out Islam (52%). Dead last (pun, get it? bah) are atheists (42%), which somehow managed to be less of a route to eternal life than not being religious at all (56%). I guess they didn't realize that a lot of atheists would fit very comfortably in the non-religious category as well. Or maybe it's just good ol' fashioned fear of atheists.

But how exactly does one obtain eternal life? Beliefs. No, actions! *gets dragged into theological debate with both views seemingly supported in the Bible* Each view enjoys about 30% popularity.

And unsurprisingly, views on exclusivity are linked to church attendance. As church attendance goes up, exclusivity goes up and as attendance goes down, exclusivity goes down. If they go to church at least once a week, 42% say that their religion is the only path to eternal life. If they go less than once a week, that number changes to 18%. (Evangelicals are 60% to 30% respectively, while Catholic numbers don't change much at all, from 85% to 84%)

What does this poll tell us? Judaism rocks. Granted, the other "religions" on offer are kind of weaksauce: Islam, Hinduism, atheism, and no religion at all. No deism, pantheism, Buddhism, Taoism, Baha'i, or any pagan religion. I'm really surprised Buddhism in particular didn't get on the ballot, considering that the Dalai Lama is one of the few non-Christian religious leaders that Americans are likely to be familiar with. Maybe next time, they'll increase the ever-widening net of interreligious inclusiveness and endorse my beached whale religion as a path to everlasting life just as valid as whatever crazy religion they believe in. For the sake of tolerance, let's all pray for it, towards whatever human (or whale) died for our sins. Ramen.