The Skeptic Review

Does God Exist? Why Or Why Not?

2011-02-01T08:49:00.000-08:00

Jason Boyett over at Beliefnet is asking that age-old question and soliciting responses. He frames the issue by giving a rundown of some of the best-known arguments for God: The Ontological, the Transcendental, the Teleological, and the Anthropic arguments. The board wasn't crowded with responses, so I thought I'd weigh in with my own opinion:

The mere fact that we have to continually ask this question is a good indication that there is no God. If there is one, then he/she/it has decided to exist at such a remove from our affairs as to be undetectable and inferred only by stretched arguments as detailed in your introduction. Many people have personal experiences and strong convictions that convince them there is a God (I once shared such beliefs - I'm judging none of my brothers or sisters here), but understandings and definitions of God are countless and often mutually exclusive. It makes more sense to think of God as a place holder word for the things we do not understand or the things we wish to be true.
I feel no need to substitute the genuine mystery of how our universe came to be with anyone's ancient myths. There's no reason to think that our fore-bearers had any greater purchase on truth than we do now; in fact, we should reasonably expect that they had understanding limited in comparison with our own. With science, our knowledge is improving at an admirable pace, and it's the best we can do to objectively learn about the universe. One by one our poor ancient guesses are being replaced with evidence-based explanations; often counter-intuitive to the intuitions we evolved for survival. Our religions come from charismatic individuals who have told us with straight face their teachings come from the almighty. We have seen it in modern times with the likes of L Ron Hubbard, David Koresh and Joseph Smith, and we can extrapolate backward that similar individuals convinced their contemporaries with claims of special knowledge. I demand better.
We would live forever if we could, and we would like there to be a supreme law-giver who rewards good, punishes evil, and defines both. I say "we" because those options sound good to me as well. And yet I am content to live in the real world where I only get to live once. I am thankful that I have won the genetic lottery to accomplish even that. There is ample opportunity to live, love, do, and share. I am also content to admit the truth - morality is tough, rarely straight-forward, and is something we need to struggle to agree upon and improve upon. The march of history, while filled with setbacks, is encouragingly advancing on the trajectory of civil rights and a widening circle of regard for our fellow humans, our animal cousins, and our planet.
I wish you all the best as we ponder these wonderful questions together.

Weigh in yourself, here or at the original site.

Morality and the Bible

2010-03-22T14:17:00.000-07:00

For the third year in a row, my friend Jerry invited me to speak at The Unitarian Universalist Church of the Verdugo Hills. This talk is titled "Morality and the Bible".

Direct link to the MP3 here. The service was moderated by Howard Richman, who gave a perfect introduction that included two scriptures that I reference in the talk:

"If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve. I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted.
"If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters. I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars and pile your dead bodies on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I will abhor you."
- Leviticus 26:21-22,27-30 (NIV)

"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. 'Go on up, you baldhead!' they said. 'Go on up, you baldhead!' He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths."
- II Kings 2:23-24 (NIV) (Read my previous commentary on this passage)

Funny enough, after the discussion Howard had prepared a joke from the comedian Emo Philips, the same comedian I quoted! What a hilarious coincidence! I had just read it to my wife last night:

When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realised, the Lord doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me ... and I got it!

In my presentation, I refer to some quotes from the 19th century by advocates of slavery; arguments derived directly from biblical morality. Here are those quotes and some additional ones:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond.

"If we apply sola scriptura to slavery, I'm afraid the abolitionists are on relatively weak ground. Nowhere is slavery in the Bible lambasted as an oppressive and evil institution: Vaughn Roste, United Church of Canada staff.

"... under the same protection as any other species of lawful property...That the Ten Commandments are the word of G-d, and as such, of the very highest authority, is acknowledged by Christians as well as by Jews...How dare you, in the face of the sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments--how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin? When you remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job--the men with whom the Almighty conversed, with whose names he emphatically connects his own most holy name, and to whom He vouchsafed to give the character of 'perfect, upright, fearing G-d and eschewing evil' (Job 1:8)--that all these men were slaveholders, does it not strike you that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy?" - Rabbi M.J. Raphall (circa 1861)

Another point I'd like to make here that I did not address in the talk is one that Sam Harris has made. Any person reading this, simply by virtue of being born in the 21st century, is eminently more qualified in knowledge about how the world works than any author of the Bible. The authors of the scriptures had no more access to information than any of us do. In fact, they had far less.

One of my favorite things about the Unitarian Church is that they provide time after the talk for a question and answer session. We never got to ask the pastor questions about his sermon (certainly not in front of the congregation) when I was growing up! A couple good points came up about the golden rule, which I neglected to address in my already-overly-long talk. It doesn't work for masochists (who enjoy pain being inflicted on them), and in general someone else may not appreciate having done to them what you want done to you. It could be a generally better heuristic to try to think in terms of what the other person would want and do that, or simply ask them. As Howard summed up with another classic joke:

Before you criticize your enemies, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

10 Reasons Gay Marriage is "Wrong"

2009-04-12T19:06:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone! Sorry I've been missing in action over the past year... I've had a lot of stuff worthy of posting, but just kept putting it off. Hopefully I'll be more reliable going forward. The following was being passed around on Facebook, and I thought it was incredibly brilliant. It really captures the absurdity and illogic of waging a campaign against same-sex marriage:

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) 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.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) 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.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Humans Did Not Descend From Apes

2008-05-01T08:43:00.000-07:00

I ran across a post by John Shore of the Suddenly Christian blog titled, "If We WERE Descended From Apes, At Least I Wouldn’t Have To Work." His commentary is meant to be humorous, detailing how he is personally averse to labor and how this relates to the Genesis story of Adam and Eve. But I thought the premise itself was worth a reply, as so many Christians I speak to are confused about this point of our relation to the apes (and all life, for that matter). And some seem just downright fearful of the prospect.

For example, I attended a Whitworth College alumni event (my pastor told me about it - I am not an alum) titled, "Christian Evolutionist: An Oxymoron?" Whitworth biology professor Craig Tsuchida gave an excellent explanation of how evolution works and various ways Christians can reconcile their faith with science. Afterward, a member of the school's board repeatedly asked Professor Tsuchida questions about our relation to the apes. She had a pained look on her face, and misunderstood his answers, rephrasing the question in an attempt to be told there was no connection between ourselves and the apes. If she had spoken her true feelings, I suspect the line of questioning would have been more of a plea, "Just tell me I'm not related to those damn, dirty apes!"

I think this particular aversion is based in [misplaced] pride, and it seems to extend from the same mindset that put Earth at the center of our first planetary models. But I don't buy the premise - that being related to apes, or being classified as animals, makes us somehow less valuable. First, imagine the worst possible human being (yes, I know who we're all thinking of). We are far more closely related to him than to any modern ape, but does that really affect the way we see and define ourselves? Surely, the horrible acts committed by humanity are a blight upon us all, but that just means that we are capable of both good and evil. No one wakes up and says, "I am distantly related to a criminal, so I might as well go murder and steal."

My second observation is that being a subset of the category "animal" need not sully the word "human." Why not simply expand our understanding of the word "animal" to encompass all that we find good about humans? I remember my sister and I trying to convince our mom that people were animals. My mom would say, "I just don't like that word." My sister had a quick repartee, "Well, we're not vegetables or minerals."

I should also make the third point that animals in general (and apes in particular) and not necessarily so bad. They, too, perform acts both good and evil by our standards. Chimps, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans all demonstrate love for their children, reciprocal altruism, and some even aid hurt members of other species. There is much more to be said about this, but I will briefly recommend Frans de Waal's book Our Inner Ape.

So, in the comment section of John's blog, I wrote the following:

Just a technical note for clarification… we are not descended FROM modern apes. We share a common ancestor WITH modern apes, the same way you share ancestors with your cousins, rather than being descended from your cousins. As to whether our shared common ancestors would be classified as apes, well, that’s simply a taxonomy question. The various species, genera, families, and other categories we place animals in are convenient groupings that help us organize, but do not capture the continuum of evolution. If you held your mother’s hand, and she held mother’s, and so on for about 300,000 generations back (approximately the time we split from chimps and bonobos), you’d have a chain about 216 miles long, and the individual at the other end would not be called human. However, you would never identify two individuals along the chain for whom you could say that one was human and the next was not.
It’s well enough to find inspiration from ancient tales like those in Genesis, and apply the insights of their authors and their times to our lives, but I’d recommend making that endeavor part of a fuller and more robust outlook. We are storytelling animals, and we want to be part of a narrative. What better narrative is there than the one that shows us where we REALLY came from, and demonstrates that we are cousins with all life? It is not merely a beautiful, humbling and awe-inspiring story, but one that is demonstrably true.

The World Is Just Awesome

2008-04-30T21:09:00.000-07:00

My friend Stacey sent me a link to this video, a commercial produced by the Discovery Channel, and I thought it so perfectly captured why life is worth living. We live in an amazing world, with so much to do, learn and enjoy. Just this short clip is, I think, more powerful than any of the traditional explanations of our purpose and place. I especially enjoyed the cameos at the end by Adam and Jamie of Mythbusters and Stephen Hawking.

Happy Pi Day!

2008-03-14T23:23:00.000-07:00

Since 1988* people have been celebrating the number pi (π) on March 14th, or 3.14. Some celebrants are more precise, and wait for 1:59 PM and 26 seconds to begin their festivities, as pi approximates to 3.1415926.

Of course, any numerical expression of pi is approximate, as pi is an irrational number (it cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers), and thus it never stops and never repeats itself. Pi is also a transcendental number. As I hope all of you know, pi (pronounced like "pie", hence the visual pun to the upper-right) is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. The history of mathematical progress in finding more precise values for pi is a fascinating one (In the Bible, 1 Kings 7:23-26 gives the value as 3), and pi currently has been calculated to over a trillion places. You can see pi up to a million places here. Pi (π) is a greek letter, an abbreviation for the greek word for perimeter.

Pi has long held a sentimental value for me. When I was in fourth grade, my dad (who is a high school math instructor), offered extra credit to students who could memorize 35 places of pi. He and I decided to have a contest to see who could learn the most places, and I (with my 9 year old plastic mind) was able to memorize 105 to his 65 (I can currently rattle off 120 from memory). This has served no practical purpose in my life, but it has been an excellent conversation starter and ender. The closest it came to being useful was in high school, when my good friend Frank told Brian, his fellow football team member, that I knew 105 places. Brian was skeptical, saying I was probably bluffing and offered a $10 bet to prove it. Frank took the bet, and Brian approached me with a printout from the internet. Frank won the $10. Pi memorization is an age-old nerd exercise, and the Guiness Book of World Records tracks the individuals who have memorized the most. Apparently Daniel Tammet is the current record holder, with 22,514 places.

(More on Pi and Pi Day at Wikipedia, and Science Friday's tribute to Pi Day here.)

*I was not aware until I started writing the post, but Pi Day began in 1988 at the San Francisco Exploratorium! You can see video of their 20th annual celebration here. The Exploratorium was one of my favorite places to go as a kid, with interactive science demonstrations that you weren't just allowed to touch, but encouraged to touch! Highly recommended if you're in the SF area.

Awkward Bible Passages Part VI

2008-03-14T22:02:00.000-07:00

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."
- Deuteronomy 13:6-10 (NIV)

This one starts out so nicely, evoking images of our closest loved ones. Ah yes, my brother, my son or daughter, the wife I love, my closest friend. But it's all down hill from there. We are instructed by Yahweh that if anyone, no matter how close to us or loved by us, should try to lead us away from him to worship other gods, then it's okay - nay, necessary - to murder her. And not just to hand her over for others to murder - we ourselves must be the first to put her to death (and then everyone else gets to join in).

Once again we see the jealous Yahweh (he freely admits as much - see here, here, here, here and here for a few examples) throwing a hissy fit because his tiny creations might worship some other god. There are quite a few problems with this, but I will mention some of the most salient:

1) Why the insecurity? Why does Yahweh need to be so jealous, anyway? He has lots of followers; is it really such a big deal if a few go astray? I'm not sure if his feelings are just hurt, or he doesn't feel appreciated, or what - but this seems awfully petty (and anthropomorphic) for the supposed creator of the universe. As Roy Zimmerman says in his brilliant song Jerry Falwell's God, "...If people are jealous and judgmental and vengeful and violent, maybe it's because you made them in your image."

2) Where's the free will? I thought the reason God allowed suffering was because he wants us to have free will. But how free can our wills be if we are threatened by force to remain believers? "You have two choices... you can believe in me, or you can DIE AT THE HANDS OF YOUR LOVED ONES!!" That's not really much of a choice. And it's rather immature. It's like telling your children, "You have two options... you can stop arguing, or I'll drive this van off the cliff." The subtext is clear... there's only one option.

3) Why does he remain hidden? If God is so insistent on being believed, then why doesn't he act like he exists? Why make the world seem chaotic and indifferent? Why let good things and bad things happen to good and bad people without any overriding pattern or justice? Why let there be other gods to worship? Why not just show up on a regular basis and confirm your existence? If blind faith is required, and punishment is death, then it just seems like Yahweh's trying to lure people in by entrapment.

4) There are other ways. Immediately killing a person to stave off deconversion is hardly the best option here. If I were a god, I could devise a better, moral way to handle the situation. First of all, I'd trust in my believers to think for themselves. I wouldn't be worried that someone else's mere suggestion could turn them away from me, especially because I wouldn't make myself so hard to believe in in the first place. Perhaps I'd give my follower the words to entice the loved one to believe in me instead, rather than killing her.

Of course, modern Christians and Jews do not adhere to this passage, and I've never heard it mentioned, let alone endorsed, in a sermon or Sunday School class. But here lies the rub: if we can all recognize this command as immoral, then why would Yahweh attribute it to himself in his word? And why would anyone persist in saying the Bible is a source of morality if we must purposefully ignore this kind of nonsense? If the Bible is the word of God, then God is as immoral as it says he is.

The image above is one I created after getting the idea that it would be funny to have an inspirational photo (like one of the Footprints in the Sand pictures) that looks like a beautiful scripture verse until you actually read it. I figured the Deuteronomy passage was ideal, because the first few lines sound so sweet and gentle. I've already given this, in a 5x7" frame, as a gag gift to some of my Christian friends, and they've gotten a kick out of it (or so they told me). The photo was taken by my wife, and shows the cliffs in Santa Cruz just down the street from where I was raised. I added the cross (it was actually just a sign warning people to stay away from cliff edges), for extra effect. I'll make prints available on a future site I'm building.

Evolution and Christian Faith

2008-02-12T23:47:00.000-08:00

My presentation on February 11, 2007 at Westminster Presbyterian Church entitled "Evolution and Christian Faith" (read more below):

Part 2 (More Q&A):

Every year, churches around the world celebrate Evolution Sunday, an effort resulting from the Clergy Letter Project, in which over 11,000 fair-minded clergy members have signed a statement affirming evolutionary theory as confirmed truth that cannot contradict Christian teaching.

I approached my pastor in late 2006, mentioning that the following February would be Evolution Sunday, and that we as a church might want to spark a discussion of how evolution can be reconciled with Christian faith. I offered my services to give a lecture or participate in a panel, and honestly didn't expect it to go anywhere. Instead, I was surprised when he asked me to explain the issues involved. We met later in his office, and I provided my own explanation of evolution and intelligent design. I quoted some of the prominent people of faith who have endorsed evolution, and argued that Intelligent Design is not only bad science, but bad theology also. Once again, to my surprise, he said, "Yes, we should do this."

A couple weeks later we had a meeting with half a dozen elders of the church. We watched the pro-Intelligent Design film Case for a Creator (based on Lee Strobel's book of the same name), and then talked at length afterward about the arguments for and against. At that meeting, I was open as a someone who does not believe in the supernatural (and I can't stress enough how much I was impressed by everyone's open mindedness in listening to me), but it was agreed that if I included that information in my speech, some in the audience would stop listening and a) start worrying for my soul, or b) become furious with me.

As I put together the suggestions from that meeting and the various references I'd read (I was surprised to find just how much attention I had focused on the Evolution/ID divide), the message of the speech became clear: evolution is confirmed and compelling truth - a Christian should always be willing to embrace new truth, no matter how uncomfortable it is to re-evaluate core beliefs. One book I had recently read was Michael Shermer's Why Darwin Matters, which is a great primer on the debate that also serves to emphasize that very point. Shermer states it beautifully:

It should not matter how God created life whether it was through a miraculous spoken word or through the natural forces of the universe that He created. The grandeur of Gods works command awe regardless of what processes He used. We have learned a lot in four thousand years, and that knowledge should never be dreaded or denied. Theists and theologians should embrace science, especially evolutionary theory, for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divinity in a depth never dreamed by our ancient ancestors.

It was still difficult for someone like me, being free of supernatural beliefs, to tell a group of believers how they should approach their faith. After all, don't I believe that a thorough understanding of evolution refutes the arguments for God's existence? Well yes, I do. But those arguments are separate from the scientific evidence supporting evolution itself, which is demonstrable truth. If we can agree on that, then how we reconcile those facts with our own beliefs is another matter, and an area that I promised to avoid when giving my talk. The bottom line is, I'd hate for someone to reject good science because they are afraid of the consequences of questioning held assumptions. As I state in the talk, the outcome of honest inquiry can only be positive: either our previous understanding is confirmed, or we toss aside old beliefs to embrace new truth. And whether or not I personally think evolution and Christian faith are compatible, there are clearly many sophisticated believers who have managed to make the claims consistent to their satisfaction (Kenneth Miller, Pope John Paul II, Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francis Collins among them).

And so, on Evolution Sunday 2007, I gave my presentation after the regular services at Westminster Presbyterian Church. It's by no means a perfect speech - there's a lot of things I'd like to change or state differently - but I think the underlying messages got through to a lot of people and impacted them positively. There was some negative reaction as well, but I think that was the idea; to kick-start the thinking process.

The most common question I still receive from both religious people and fellow skeptics is, "Why do you still go to church?" I think this presentation is one of the best answers I can give.

Judge Jones Wins Religious Liberty Award

2008-02-12T22:59:00.000-08:00

Happy Darwin Day, everyone! As you may already know, February 12th is the birthday of Charles Robert Darwin. He was born in 1809 (coincidentally, on the same exact day as Abraham Lincoln), making this his 199th birthday. He published (after many years' hesitation) The Origin of Species in 1859, so next year will mark both the bicentennial of Darwin the man and the sesquicentennial (no relation to the sasquatch) of his most famous book.

To celebrate this august holiday, the American Humanist Association has awarded Judge John E. Jones III the Religious Liberty Award. For those of you who are not familiar with Jones's name, you may be surprised to find a secular organization lavishing praises on a man of faith who is a Republican judge appointed by George W. Bush. It all becomes clear when you learn that he presided over the trial of Dover v. Kitzmiller, which became a huge impediment for the Intelligent Design movement. It becomes clearer still when you read the brilliant decision he wrote after wading through copious evidence and weeks of testimony. Near the end, the decision reads:

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. [emphasis mine]

If you want to learn more about the Dover trial and the people and issues involved, I heartily recommend the book Monkey Girl by Pulitzer Prize-winner Edward Humes. It is a book we read in the monthly book club at CFI Los Angeles. He frames the entire situation with a recap of the long-lived debate between science and the readers of Genesis, describes the school board meetings that led to the curriculum change, and sets the stage by introducing all the people we saw in the news coverage as well as the individuals and organizations who worked behind the scenes. It is a fascinating story, especially when you learn how abysmally little the school board members knew about the science of Evolution, or even the Intelligent Design they were so eager to replace it with! Again, from Jones's decision:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

The funniest anecdote comes from the last day of the trial (quoted from pg. 327 the hardback edition):

Pat Gillen, soon to return to Ann Arbor and the offices of Thomas More [the firm representing the school board], had one more question to ask: "By my reckoning, this is the fortieth day since the trial began, and tonight will be the fortieth night, and I would like to know if you did that on purpose?"
"Mr. Gillen," Judge Jones responded with a smile, as the courtroom erupted with laughter and applause, "that is an interesting coincidence, but it was not by design."

What a brilliant response! That really sums it all up, and I join the AHA in saluting Judge Jones for his work in the service of religious liberty. (Thanks to Greg for the link that led me to the AHA news.)

Rediscovering the Bible (Sermon)

2008-02-12T22:05:00.000-08:00

My good friend Jerry (who happens to be a more faithful reader of this blog than I am a writer of it) is a fellow skeptic who I know from our various overlapping interests at CFI. He also attends a Unitarian Universalist church, and has told me about it in the past. I was very impressed by what I heard: the Unitarians manage to preserve the social atmosphere of mainstream religion (think potlucks and network of friends), and the social activism (think charity work and donations to good causes), without any of the dogma or supernaturalism we've come to associate with church. The emphasis, instead, is on acceptance and affirmation of all individuals, and celebration of everyone's personal journeys.

Though I was always very interested in visiting (and have been wanting to experience more varieties of religious experience), I usually wanted to spend my available Sundays at my regular Presbyterian church. Then, late last year, Jerry invited me to come and speak about the Bible. I eventually picked a date in January, and decided I'd talk about how I learned to appreciate and enjoy the Bible more when I learned to read it critically. Two weeks before I was scheduled to speak, I came to get a feel of what I was in for.

I must say, I was impressed. One of the first things I saw, in the fellowship hall, was a stack of flyers welcoming gay, lesbian and transgendered couples. For someone from an evangelical background, this seemed like an amazingly huge step forward for mankind. No church I'd ever been to before would advertise acceptance of gay people, let alone have a nice picture of two men embracing affectionately. If they did accept gay people, it would be with a "don't-ask-don't-tell" style approach, or a "let-us-try-to-fix-you" policy.

Another thing that impressed me was that after the lecture, which was about the naturalist John Muir, there was a question and answer period! As someone who usually has something to say, it's always been difficult for me to sit on my hands after a sermon and have no outlet to respond (well, I can talk about it with a buddy or email the pastor). But think of a church where you can get up afterward and tell someone you disagree!

So, on January 27th, 2007, I came to speak at Jerry's church. I first talked to the children, reading pieces of Richard Dawkins's letter to his daughter on Good and Bad Reasons for Believing (I really should have tailored it and made it more interactive), and then gave my talk on "Rediscovering the Bible." You can listen to the full audio of my talk here (or right-click the link to save the .mp3 file):

20080127 Ross Blocher - Rediscovering the Bible - UU Church of Verdugo Hills

The talk seemed to resonate well with a lot of the members there, a lot of them having been raised in conservative religious traditions as well. I got a lot of great feedback, and even someone who chose to disagree with me! I plan to attend again this Sunday to hear my friend Jim Underdown talk about the similarities between miracles and paranormal claims.

Doo Dah

2008-02-09T18:12:00.000-08:00

Since 1976, Pasadena has been home to the Doo Dah Parade, a counter-cultural alternative to the pomp and circumstance of the Rose Parade. I hadn't heard of the Doo Dah until my friend Stacey suggested that we at CFI-LA (The Center for Inquiry Los Angeles) be involved. She formed a committee, and we eventually settled on the theme of Science vs. Nonsense. Our "float" ended up as a chain gang of scientists, scholars, upright apes and intellectuals being harassed and harangued by a rag-tag cadre of religious fundamentalists, a Scientologist, a psychic, and other proponents of illogic. We passed out Red Hots candies and copious amounts of CFI bookmarks.

I was dressed as a television evangelist, replete with full suit, slicked back hair and a Bible to thump. Originally I was going to be a priest, but my outfit was pretty crummy and we already had a pope (Jay) and my friend John had a great priest/Creflo Dollar getup. This turned out to be fortuitous, as who should I see at the pancake breakfast but Reverend Billy from the Church of Stop Shopping! You may have read my previous coverage of his media campaign. I saddled up to the pompadoured man and he agreed to take a picture with me!

My friend Charles was recruited to be our Muslim cleric. I must take the blame for this, as I imagined early on that his long beard, dyed black, would be perfect for the part. He took care of dying (the beard), and I visited a couple websites to learn how to wrap a turban. I had no idea how involved this would be! First of all, there is no one standard way to make a turban. I was expecting something akin to the "Windsor knot" of turban-wrapping. Instead, I found it to be quite the art form that is a very individualized expression of the person wearing it. Turban-making also requires an extremely long piece of cloth. I was able to get a large white sheet from the thrift store, cut it into strips, and then sew two strips together to make a 17 by 2 foot cloth that was folded length-wise and then wrapped around Charles' head. All things considered, I'd say it turned out pretty darn well for my second attempt!

After our breakfast, we headed out to stand in line for the parade to begin. And stand in line we did - for nearly two hours! Though we had plenty of visual oddities to see, and people to meet from other floats, the sun was blazing and we got so uncomfortable that one of our marchers had to get a ride home. At least I had God's word to stand on, but this will certainly be a lesson to us in the future.

Another lesson we learned was to bring amplifiers if there's any intention of playing music. We had a boom box all set to play Stevie Wonder's "Superstition", but the sound was drowned out by the general crowd noise and the Raelians in front of us who were blasting Edwin Starr's equally-catchy "War". I had always liked "Superstition", but was never aware of the great lyrics. Here are some of the highlights:

Very superstitious, writings on the wall,
Very superstitious, ladders bout to fall,
Thirteen month old baby, broke the lookin glass
Seven years of bad luck, the good things in your past.
Very superstitious, nothin more to say,
Very superstitious, the devils on his way,
Keep me in a daydream, keep me goin strong,
You dont wanna save me, sad is my song.
When you believe in things that you dont understand,
Then you suffer.... Superstition ain't the way.

Once we got started up, the parade itself was only about five blocks long. This was still enough to prove quite tiring, though, what with my running about, waving a Bible, passing out bookmarks, getting into balloon-sword fights with the other cast members, and shouting things like, "Praise Jesus!" and, "It's easier to change the Constitution than to change the Word of the living God!" (a little reference to Huckabee). All of this in a suit jacket. Suffice it to say, afterward I was very sweaty, tired, and ready to go home.

See more of my DooDah pictures on Flickr, or the set posted by Paula (who played our Scientologist). She also posted video here.

Jesus - With You Always

2007-12-06T01:50:00.000-08:00

The creepiness of the "Jesus - With You Always" website is matched only by its sincerity. I remember a friend at college first introducing me to the page. Even as a Christian at the time, I felt vaguely unsettled. Showcasing 33 pencil renderings, the site has enjoyed immense popularity, boasting 2,447,073 hits at the time of this writing. The artist behind the drawings, Larry Van Pelt, was 50 when he was awoken one night with the distinct conviction that he must produce artwork depicting ordinary people doing ordinary work, and Jesus standing there beside them.

And so, without any artistic training, he set about to meet God's 10-year deadline. Van Pelt practiced sketching, took art lessons, and eventually created 20 drawings of people performing their everyday vocations and avocations. Then, he found a 33-year old (Jesus was allegedly 33 when he died - a numerological significance that may also explain the quantity of images currently on offer) model who looked the part, was willing to grow a beard, and - best of all - was a Christian! (Side note: this is indeed remarkable, as up until The Passion of the Christ, no major feature film Jesus was played by a Christian). So Van Pelt added Jesus to all of the images, and has continued on ever since, releasing new images and posting them to the website. He derived the title from Jesus' promise in Matthew 28:20, "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." It reminds me of a shirt I used to wear that, in the style of the Visa logo, said "JESUS - he's everywhere you want to be."

Artistically, the drawings generally have nice line quality, and look to be tracings from photographs. However, Jesus is often at the wrong scale (executive, juggler) or just disappearing awkwardly and suddenly, like he got cut in half (golfer, bodybuilder, jogger). One can't fault Van Pelt much for this, as he admittedly only became an artist to complete these drawings and, as I said from the start, there is definitely an endearing sincerity to the work he's done here.

What none of the drawings can avoid, however, is an all-pervading creepiness. I don't know about you, but the thought of Jesus standing around all the time is unnerving. In some drawings he's lending a helping hand to a professional, but you can't help but imagine that, if he bumped the person's arm, someone could end up getting hurt (dental assistant, welder, surgeon, construction). And even if he's invisible to begin with, I'd still want Jesus to stay in my peripheral vision, and not lurk behind me (forest ranger, trucker, expectant, student). At other times, his expression is unclear or just plain giddy (bodybuilder, guitarist). And a clown? In color?!? Clowns are scary enough without Jesus getting involved.

And if Jesus is with us always, one's imagination is quick to suggest the other times when Jesus might be watching. Is he there when you're on the toilet or getting dressed? What about other times that you normally expect to be alone, like when you're enjoying time with a sexual partner, or all by yourself? I imagine this might provide motivation not do anything sinful, but no one can help going to the bathroom. And it's poor motivation, anyway, to be moral just out of fear of being seen.

The further theological implications of this are clear. Where is Jesus, what is he doing, and what expression is on his face when a child is raped by a priest, when a bus goes off the road and kills four youth group members, or when an African already suffering from AIDS contracts a guinea worm infection? This is the standard problem of theodicy, but an ever-present Jesus makes the contrast all the more revolting. Does anyone else see the plot of a horror film shaping up here?

So don't think about it too hard: just enjoy the unintentional comedy, have a chuckle, and feel a slight shiver up your spine.

Update: Thanks to reader evilpoet for pointing me to the hilarious parody website What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar? The captions had me cracking up.

The Amazing Show!

2007-12-05T18:15:00.000-08:00

I have another podcast to recommend: The Amazing Show, starring James Randi and brought to you by the folks at itricks.com. For those of you who do not know already about James Randi, he is the grand old man of Skepticism. Originally billed as "The Amazing Randi" when he performed as a magician and escape artist (at a recent Google lecture he jokingly referred to himself as only "mildly astonishing"), Randi began focusing his efforts over the years on debunking performers who claimed to have supernatural powers. An expert on how the human mind is deceived, Randi sees through such tricks, and has publicly debunked such flim-flammers as Uri Geller and Peter Popoff. Randi is also famous for offering a $1,000,000 challenge to anyone who can prove paranormal abilities under proper observing conditions.

The Amazing Show is a series of interviews in which Randi shares memories about past events and the people he has dealt with. He's lived a long, fruitful, and interesting life, and there is much of interest here. He talks about his interactions with the likes of Isaac Asimov, Richard Feynman, Johnny Carson, Steve Allen, Penn and Teller, and even Alice Cooper. I was particularly interested in his recollections of Steve Allen, as the Center For Inquiry in Hollywood where I'm involved houses the Steve Allen Theater, and I learned a lot about him reading Inventing Late Night.

I am happy to say that I met James Randi at the 2005 Skeptics Annual Conference (on Brain, Mind and Consciousness). We talked primarily about digital cameras. This isn't a flattering photo of either of us, but I'm proud of it and I'm glad to have met such a great mind.

14-Year-Old Jehovah's Witness Dies

2007-12-05T17:08:00.000-08:00

Dennis Lindberg, suffering from leukemia at the age of 14, was given a crucial decision to make: receive a blood transfusion, or face near-certain death. For most of us, this would be a pretty easy choice - take the blood. But Dennis was a Jehovah's Witness, and for the majority of that religion's members, blood is a holy substance that is not to be transferred or taken in (for the scriptural support of this doctrine, read Wikipedia's take).

Let me state clearly that I am proud to live in a country where we afford people the religious freedom to make such decisions. And I don't mean that in some kind of Malthusian sense of, "Let the crazy people kill themselves." Nothing like that. Rather, beliefs should never be forced on anyone, or forcibly removed - it should be the right and responsibility of each individual to hear the arguments and make his own decision. As the Qur'an says, there should be no compulsion in religion.

The tougher question is, do we draw the line anywhere? What do we do when such a decision will lead to one's death, as in this case? Or when family members make the decision for children who are too young or adults who are unable to decide for themselves? It's a tricky situation, where religious freedom bumps up against commonly-shared, secular morals. We would all agree that if a religion demands child sacrifice, we should step in and save the children.

Whatever the answer, Dennis was 14, and probably old enough to understand the factors involved. The matter was brought before a judge, who said, "I don’t believe Dennis’ decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision... I don’t think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn’t something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy." A few hours after the decision was made to allow Dennis to refuse the transfusion, he died.

Read the original article at msnbc.

Scary Bible Stories 2007

2007-10-31T23:19:00.000-07:00

Happy Halloween, everyone! In early celebration of the macabre tradition, CFI Los Angeles held an event on the 24th entitled, "Scary Bible Stories!" A performance of the same name had been held in 2003 (long before I got involved at CFI), and I was asked for this incarnation to submit some good examples of gruesome, horrifying and spooky passages from the Bible. This being a specialty of mine, I compiled a long list of entries from the Old and New Testaments (that's right, even the NT has scary material). I threw in an episode from the apocrypha and two entries from non-canonical gospels for good measure. An anonymous friend provided a passage from the book of Mormon. I ended up as emcee of the event (that's me on the right with the periwinkle bathrobe and shepherd-like head covering). We took turns reading passages aloud, commenting on the absurdities of the texts, and a few people even provided dramatic readings. In the picture, Wendy and Spencer share a dialogue incorporating text from Genesis 2 and 3 with some commentary on Biblical chauvinism. Later, Jim and Karen dramatized the plight of Noah’s neighbors in Genesis 7.

At the risk of spoiling some of my future editions of Awkward Bible Passages, I will make the list available here in pdf. Be forewarned that there's lots of scary stuff in the Bible: incest, cannibalism, child sacrifice, genital mutilation, chopped up body parts, genocide, impaling, burst intestines and more! Certifiable Halloween material, to be sure.

Awkward Bible Passages Part V

2007-09-06T03:18:00.000-07:00

The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain. No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain." So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the LORD had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands. Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD...

Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you... Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same. Do not make cast idols.

"Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt. The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons. No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

"Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest. Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel. I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God. Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning. Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant — the Ten Commandments.
- Exodus 34:1-5,10-28 (NIV)

Now, you may ask what's so awkward about the above passage, other than being awkwardly long for a blog entry. After all, you've read the ten commandments before. (The full passage is even longer, so I recommend reading Exodus 34 in its entirety.)

But read it closely; these aren't the Ten Commandments you're used to. The Decalogue we all know so well was originally given to Moses in Exodus 20 (remember that whole golden calf ordeal?). Those original commandments can also be found in Deuteronomy 5. The awkwardness in Exodus 34 is that the Lord says, "I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets," and yet completely forgets what he commanded the first time around. Note the addition of maxims such as, "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk." Truly words to live by; words that should be prominently displayed in our courthouses, don't you think? Gone are the previous injunctions against killing, stealing, and adultery (some of the few useful - though entirely obvious - morals presented in the original). These have been replaced with dietary guidelines and commands to observe certain feasts. God does remain clear that he is jealous, and will not tolerate idols.

Obscure as this passage may be, you might remember this event as the Sinai visit from which Moses emerged with a so-called radiant face. Turns out, the translation of the Hebrew "karan," which is often rendered as "rays" that emit from Moses' skin, is more literally translated as "horns" [Jonathan Kirsch]. Hence, the Israelites may have had trouble looking at his face not because it was too bright, but because it was grotesque. This is the translation St. Jerome used in his Latin Vulgate edition. It helps explain the classical depictions of Moses that include horns coming from his forehead, such as the famous sculpture by Michelangelo, or this 1518 baptismal font [above].

Returning to the Ten Commandments... I memorized the standard commandments when I starred as King Josiah in a fifth grade school play. To this day, I sing the song, "Count To Ten" when I want to recall a specific number. Here's a sample: "One. Love the Lord your God with all your heart. Two. Don't bow down to idols, that's not smart. Three. Never take the Father's name in vain. Four, keep the Sabbath holy; six remain." And so on it goes. (As an aside, some scholarship suggests that the Torah was compiled around 632-609 BCE, when Josiah "found" it in the temple, especially since the Israelites did not acquire a written language until a few hundred years after Moses supposedly died circa 1235 BCE [Thomas Robinson].)

Speaking of memorization, a reader (Peter) pointed out to me something I had never known: Catholics memorize a different set of commandments than Protestants do. He sent me this website on the "Catholic deception", which I highly recommend for humorous reading. It's written by a Protestant who's hip to the clever Catholic conspiracy to remove the prohibition against idols and graven images, and make up the difference by splitting the last commandment into two. Maybe he's on to something... it is indeed the Ten Commandments that Catholics (and apparently Lutherans) learn. Check out the Wikipedia entry on the Ten Commandments to see how they are divvied up by the various branches of Christianity. The confusion is somewhat understandable, as the original texts do not present an ordinal list denoting where one commandment ends and the next begins. To illustrate the point, try breaking down the list in Exodus 34 into ten distinct commands. There's a few ways to do it.

For a little bit of trivia: how many commandments, total, are in the Torah? Answer at the bottom of this post. Hint: the "Torah" consists of the first five books of the Bible - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. These are also referred to as the Pentateuch, and authorship has traditionally been ascribed to Moses (though modern scholarship postulates a number of authors vastly post-dating Moses, who is dubious even as a historic figure).

Whether you're using the originals, or this alternate list in Exodus 34, there's not much to the Ten Commandments themselves. The useful morals are quite obvious, and certainly don't need to be codified or spelled out for a modern audience. "What's that? Killing is bad?? Brilliant!! Why didn't I think of that?" The director of CFI Los Angeles (and friend of mine), Jim Underdown, gives a great presentation on the shortcomings of the Ten Commandments. You can find a very brief synopsis online, along with Jim's Eleven Strong Suggestions, which I think will prove far more useful in your day-to-day life.

My friend Sherri also had a good insight about the Ten Commandments: isn't it odd that in common depiction the tablets look like gravestones? Something to ponder.

(Thanks to Peter for the inspiration, and Wikipedia for the images.) Answer: 613.

Psychic Wins the $50,000 Paranormal Challenge?

2007-07-30T16:43:00.000-07:00

On May 6, 2007, the Independent Investigations Group conducted a public test of the psychic Nigel Britman (and yes, that's me keeping score at the chalkboard). The audience was shocked to find Mr. Britman choosing from five Zener cards with a much higher success rate than would have been expected. Did he win the $50,000 paranormal challenge prize? Was he cheating? How should tests of paranormal ability be properly conducted? Read the report and watch the entire event to find out.

Getting The Religion Beat Out Of Us

2007-07-30T14:49:00.000-07:00

William Lobdell is a respected local [Southern California] journalist who I've listened to often on my favorite station, KPCC. What I didn't know is that he used to be the religion beat reporter for the LA Times. In this poignant article in a recent Sunday edition, William Lobdell describes the process that led him to find faith, to report on religion, and eventually to lose his faith. I use the words "faith" and "religion" carefully here, because it was the church's abuses, and not some aspect of his personal walk, that led him away from belief.

Though he was eager to write about religion, and found many positive things to report on, Bill Lobdell was shocked to encounter what my pastor refers to as "the three-ring circus of God stuff." Sexual abuse by priests - the church's campaign to cover their tracks and intimidate victims into silence - a priest's avoidance of child support on a technicality - the exorbitant excesses of the TBN Network and false healers like Benny Hinn. All of this gave religion a bad taste in Lobdell's mouth, and provided him an excuse to attend church less and avoid committing as a member of the Catholic Church. He came to see his past religious experience as the product of being ground down and made emotionally raw at a vulnerable time in his life.

I admire Lobdell's writing and his honesty, and respect the path that has lead him to become "an agnostic, leaning toward atheist" (as he described himself in a live chat following the article's publication). I was intrigued, however, by his approach to disbelief and how different it was from my own. When I set out on my own process of questioning, I made sure to separate out the actions of fellow believers. I wasn’t interested in examples of hypocrisy, or how others had treated me (Dr. Laura Schlesinger, for example, switched from Judaism to Christianity because she didn’t like how the Jewish community treated her – a terrible way to choose a belief system), or even the success or failure of Christian communities. I was more interested in the truth claims themselves (miracles/providence/resurrection/prayer/angels/biblical inspiration/virgin birth), and how well they meshed with the real world – all that other stuff seemed ancillary. It was the factual and logical truth that really mattered to me. After all, if there really is a God, and Jesus is his son, no amount of hypocrisy by co-religionists should keep a believer from being a follower of Christ.

As a result of his approach, it seems like Bill Lobdell is still on shaky ground – he wants to believe, but simply can’t. He says in the transcript, “I got a lot of crap from atheists for using the phrase ‘gift of faith,’ but that's how it feels to me. I just don't have it anymore.” Though I have no desire to give him crap, it seems Bill Lobdell has what Daniel Dennett would describe as “belief in belief.” It goes something like this: “I don’t personally believe, but I think believing in general is a good thing, and I recommend that others aspire to having faith.” In other words, he just hasn’t thought hard enough about the reality of the truth claims involved or grappled with the tough questions toward a conclusion. Why do bad things happen to good people? Why would a loving God allow his representatives to commit such abuses of power? When one truly disbelieves, there is no envy for the 'gift of faith.'

My guess is that a significant portion of the world shares Lobdell's "belief in belief" - floating somewhere between fully believing and fully disbelieving. It seems to me like Lobdell is just weary and [understandably] scarred by the whole subject, and I don’t think he’s settled yet on what the truth is. Here's hoping that he's able to find some solid answers, and some happiness along the way. (Thanks to Wendy for the link, and to Paul for kicking off the discussion)

Santa Fe Ghost: Less than Meets the Eye

2007-07-16T12:23:00.000-07:00

I was listening to a recent episode of Skepticality (another great podcast I heartily recommend) in which Derek and Swoopy interview Benjamin Radford about his investigation of the Santa Fe Courthouse ghost video. The original footage of an orange blob moving across the field of a courthouse security camera achieved insta-fame on YouTube, where it garnered over 100,000 hits in its first month online. The only problem is that the shape looks more like a small spider crawling on the camera lens than anything paranormal. It has tiny little legs and moves from one edge of the frame to the other without disappearing or flickering.

Instead of casually dismissing the footage (as I just did in the above paragraph), Benjamin Radford decided to test the "bug" theory by replicating the same effect on the same camera at the same time of day. He used a ladybug (which required him to obtain and bring tons of the critters), and replicated the footage quite convincingly. Now that's what I call an investigation.

Kudos to the Irvine Mosque

2007-07-16T11:46:00.000-07:00

When I see leaders of the Islamic community interviewed on radio or TV, they are frequently accused of silence in the face of terrorism by their co-religionists. The question usually takes the form of, "Why didn't you release a public statement denouncing that attack?" The response is, "We did, but no one picks up those stories." It seems the underlying sentiment is that Muslims in America are sympathetic to acts of terrorism, or perhaps are worried that they might draw the ire of other, more militant Muslims by speaking out against them.

After hearing this sort of exchange numerous times, I was heartened to hear about the leaders of the Islamic Center of Irvine. After Craig Monteilh, age 44, converted to Islam and joined his local Mosque in Irvine, he began making references to Jihad and showed willingness to partake in attacks on U.S. military targets. Instead of ignoring his behavior, or encouraging it, Mosque leaders notified officials and obtained a restraining order against Monteilh.

My hat's off to the Muslim community in Irvine for doing the right thing. Read more at LATimes.com.

What Would Jesus Buy?

2007-06-27T17:19:00.000-07:00

In the new documentary "What Would Jesus Buy?", produced by Morgan Spurlock (of "Super Size Me" fame), Reverend Billy and the 35-person strong Stop Shopping Gospel Choir preach a message of anti-consumerism. They make a good point, after all - the Jesus of the gospels seems like he would be very much against our rampant consumerism and fascination with shopping malls and one-click ordering. Shouldn't we be selling all our possessions, slipping through eyes of needles, and decrying these dens of thieves, or is the prosperity gospel the true teaching of Christ?

Apparently one of the hurdles for the creators of the documentary is finding a way to market and sell something so firmly against marketing and selling. And how do you get Wal-Mart to put your film on its shelves when the main character has performed an exorcism on the chain's Arkansas headquarters?

Clearly, this film shares my sense of humor. Read more from the Union Tribune. Thanks to Scott for the link!

Update (11/24/2007): Check out "Jesus Hates Coffee" on Current, and see Reverend Billy exorcise Starbucks of its demons.

Why God Never Received Tenure

2007-06-18T17:59:00.000-07:00

I got this joke in one of my daily Beliefnet emails, and thought I'd re-post it here.

Why [the Judeo-Christian] God never received tenure at any university:

He only had one major publication.
It was in Hebrew.
It had no references.
It wasn't published in a referred journal.
Some even doubt He wrote it Himself.
It may be true that He created the world, but what has He done since then?
His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
The scientific community has had a hard time replicating His results.
He never applied to the Ethics Board for permission to use human subjects.
When one experiment went awry, He tried to cover it up by drowning the subjects.
When subjects didn't behave as predicted, He deleted them from the sample.
He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book.
Some say He had His son teach the class.
He expelled His first two students for learning.
Although there were only ten requirements, most students failed His tests.
His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountaintop.

Zeus Gives Jesus What For

2007-05-22T17:55:00.000-07:00

On May 20, 2007, a 22-foot statue of Jesus at the Mother Cabrini Shrine in Golden, Colorado, was struck by lightning, blowing off one hand and the other elbow, damaging the feet and pedestal in the process. The statue, which draws thousands of visitors yearly, is perched at the top of a 373-step path, near "a cool spring of miraculous water [that] still flows today after Mother Cabrini found it on the barren hilltop." Of course, lightning is formed by ionization of molecules and the resulting static electricity, but that's not good enough for theologians - they need an explanation to reflect God's intentions. Why would he do such a thing to a prominent religious monument glorifying his son?

There's no clear positive interpretation, so Sister Casciano states that, "I'm not about ready to second-guess God" on Denver's ABC affiliate news. Of course, she is ready to second-guess God, because she wants to raise funds to reconstruct what God clearly wanted blown off. She pointed out that, miraculously, no one was hurt, and the quartz heart created by Mother Cabrini remained intact. Yeah.

The helpful skeptics at the JREF forums (where I found this story), offered some profound theological explanations. Here are some great excerpts:

"I suppose [God's] decided to start enforcing that 'No Graven Images' commandment."
"They'll claim that it's a miracle that the entire statue wasn't destroyed by the lightning."
"The fragments could form the face of Mary. Man, that could get really confusing."
"I think Zeus is angry about losing so many followers and has decided to drop some not-so-friendly reminders of his powers."
"It's clear that Yaweh hates hands and feet. Why else would he have put nails through Jesus'?"

I find this story particularly interesting, because I went to Woodbury University, where we had a hall named after Mother Cabrini with a fairly creepy relief sculpture of her over the doorway. The campus used to be owned by a Convent and was purchased by the school circa 1984.

To see more pictures of the damaged statue, and see lightning misspelled as "lightening" (why do so many people do that?), visit the official Mother Cabrini Shrine site.

Evidence That I Was A Believer

2007-05-22T16:32:00.001-07:00

Yep, that's me back in 2001, when Cara was pregnant with Andrew (who is now five years old), wearing a "Jesus is Lord" shirt without irony or sarcasm. I thought this would be fun to post, just as evidence that I used to believe passionately in God and Jesus. For people who knew me back then, this is not surprising, but others may be thrown off. I was reminded of this since my shirt matches the title of my pastor's most recent sermon, "Jesus is Lord."

It is now rather difficult for me to comprehend the way I used to look at the world. Part of the reason I still go to church is to be reminded that I too was once a believer, and that I shouldn't look down on anyone else for being a person of faith. When you tell people that you used to believe, they will often dismissively state that you didn't really believe to begin with (how could you, after all, if you left the church?). I can't really argue with that, except to say I'm pretty sure that I did.

Awkward Bible Passages Part IV

2007-05-22T14:49:00.000-07:00

"For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
- Matthew 16:27-28 (NIV)

"Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
- Mark 13:29-30 (NIV)

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
- Luke 21:32 (NIV)

"Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book."
- Revelation 22:7 (NIV)

For our fourth installation of Awkward Bible Passages, we will celebrate with four related verses from four books of the New Testament (Thanks to Doug for suggesting the first of these). Thus far, we have stayed in the Old Testament, but there is plenty of material to be found in the last 27 books of the Bible as well.

These verses focus on Jesus' repeated promise to return quickly for his second coming. You may recognize the two middle passages from the "Little Apocalypse", also known as the Olivet Discourse, which Jesus delivers in the Synoptic ("seen together") Gospels. These are found in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, and they warn of the typical fair - false Christs, the sun and moon darkening, stars falling from the sky, and the Son of Man returning in the clouds. Obviously, none of this has happened yet, and so it is very awkward when Jesus promises that "this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened," or that he is "coming soon" (a phrase used five times in the book of Revelation). C.S. Lewis even called the former, "the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." Christians have busily tried to make the word "generation" be seen as a metaphorical term describing the age of the church, but that ignores the clear meaning in Matthew's assertion that "some who are standing here will not taste death."

About 100 generations have passed (and passed away) since these predictions were made, and clearly we live in a world that, as Jonathan Kirsch says in A History of the End of the World, just refuses to end. The predictions in the Little Apocalypse and in the big Apocalypse (Revelation), are merely failed reinterpretations of Daniel's failed prophecies (read Randel Helms's The Bible Against Itself for more on that and the role of II Esdras). And yet, Christianity and the theological interest in eschatology have continued unabated.

The worst thing you can do to a prophecy is to attach a date or timetable to it. It is much smarter to say things like, "No one knows about that day or hour," because such open-ended predications are completely unfalsifiable. If Jesus still doesn't show up after 2,000 years, the unflagging believer can proudly state, "he may come back tomorrow!" Another tactic is to state generalities or use poetic language that applies to any time, such as "there will be earthquakes," or "there will be wars and rumors of wars." Nostradamus was expert at this. You can also use weird numerologies or ambiguous language like, "seven periods shall pass," or say something like, "If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast." That way, a bunch of theologians will busily crunch their own numbers and come up with dates or figures to match with current events. When their predictions prove false, they can say they miscalculated.

In each generation since the writing of these prophecies there have been many who are completely and utterly convinced that theirs is the end-time, and they will see the return of Christ. This has produced constant embarrassment over the years, and many churches (Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, Branch Davidian) were founded by the progenitors of failed end time prophecies. Hal Lindsey published "The Late, Great Planet Earth" in 1970, predicting the world world end in 1988, and it sold some two million copies. He was unperturbed (they never are) when 1989 came, pushing back the date (another prophecy which also failed). For a list of failed end-time prophecies over the years, and a good laugh, visit religioustolerance.org.

The Failures of Organized Skepticism

2007-05-22T12:07:00.000-07:00

I recently read this article on the failures of organized skepticism (link from the JREF Forums), and figured it merited some discussion, as it brings up a pertinent point. Skeptics aren't always perfect paragons of logic and truth, and can often be wrong. Skeptics often disagree with one another on many issues, and if the diversity of religion has taught us anything, it's that everyone can't be right. I was reminded of this on Saturday, when a good skeptical friend of mine and I got embroiled in a debate over global climate change (I was saying it's largely anthropogenic and a serious issue - he begged to differ). Also, a skeptic is first and foremost a human being, and is thus susceptible to confirmation biases, self-justification, wishful thinking, cognitive dissonance, group thinking, and - yes - even the occasional reliance on faith.

The article, written by Jim Lippard for The Arizona Skeptic and posted on Free Inquiry's website, highlights some cases in which skeptics have not thoroughly researched a claim, or grossly misrepresented a creationism debate to confirm their own biases. There are other historical examples of skeptical fudging - creationists often point to Ernst Haeckel's falsified drawings of embryos, which were intended as evidence that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

Dilbert creator Scott Adams, in his book God's Debris (available free online), offers a somewhat comical description of "The Skeptic's Disease" in an imagined conversation between a delivery worker and an old man who knows everything. I will reproduce the entire chapter here:

“I have some friends who are skeptics,” I said. “They’re in that Skeptics Society. I think they’d tear you apart.”
“Skeptics,” he said, “suffer from the skeptics’ disease— the problem of being right too often.”
“How’s that bad?” I asked.
“If you are proven to be right a hundred times in a row, no amount of evidence will convince you that you are mistaken in the hundred-and-first case. You will be seduced by your own apparent infallibility. Remember that all scientific experiments are performed by human beings and the results are subject to human interpretation. The human mind is a delusion generator, not a window to truth. Everyone, including skeptics, will generate delusions that match their views. That is how a normal and healthy brain works. Skeptics are not exempt from self-delusion.”
“Skeptics know that human perceptions are faulty,” I argued. “That’s why they have a scientific process and they insist on repeating experiments to see if results are consistent. Their scientific method virtually eliminates subjectivity.”
“The scientific approach also makes people think and act in groups,” he countered. “They form skeptical societies and create skeptical publications. They breathe each other’s fumes and they demonize those who do not share their scientific methods. Because skeptics’ views are at odds with the majority of the world, they become emotionally and intellectually isolated. That sort of environment is a recipe for cult thinking and behavior. Skeptics are not exempt from normal human brain functions. It is a human tendency to become what you attack. Skeptics attack irrational thinkers and in the process become irrational.”

The important distinction of skepticism is that it involves a constant refinement process that makes us aware of our weaknesses and limitations, and encourages others to point out the flaws in our arguments and demand proof. If we are good and honest skeptics, we should be eager to learn where we have gone wrong, and make admission for our mistakes. It is notable that the errors of skeptics are usually detected and publicized (as in the article linked above) by other skeptics using the tools of skepticism. The approach is not perfect, but it's the best method we've got in pursuing truth.

God Is No Good

2007-05-19T01:12:00.000-07:00

Christopher Hitchens has been working hard of late to take on the mantle religion and faith's most vitriolic opponent. This should hopefully give believers a reprieve from bagging on the more mild-mannered and easy-going Richard Dawkins, and even Sam Harris, since I'd say Hitchens is more along the disagreeable lines of a Madalyn Murray O'Hair. He's a well regarded writer/journalist/commentator, and his previous works include The Missionary Position, an exposé on Mother Teresa and why she gets too much credit. His recent book, God is Not Great, takes on the big, imaginary man himself, and blasts the role of religion in... well, everything.

Hitchens is excellent at producing sound bites, and some of them are quite apt. For example, I love his distillation of why personal experience and anecdote are not evidence for truth claims: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." However, Hitchens can also get caught up in ad hominem attacks, hyperbole, misrepresentations, rude interruptions, and other unhelpful debating tactics. The first time I saw him was in an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit!, and I must admit that on first site of the surly, smoking man, I thought, "ugh, what an unsavory character."

To see what I'm talking about, watch Christopher Hitchens on the Daily Show.

And, speaking of Jerry Falwell (see previous post), here's Hitchens's not-so-subtle expression of disdain for the departed reverend: Hitchens in conversation with Anderson Cooper.

It's tough when you agree with someone on many points, but dislike their presentation. Must be how most Christians felt about Jerry Falwell. (Thanks to Brandon for the links!)

So Long, Falwell, Auf Wiedersehen, Adieu

2007-05-17T17:59:00.000-07:00

Rev. Jerry Falwell passed away two days ago on May 15, 2007, at the age of 73. Founder of both the Moral Majority (a major political force in the 1980s) and Liberty University (a training ground for religious rhetoricians and government interns), Falwell dedicated his life to advancing fundamentalist Christianity and combating serious enemies like Tinky Winky the purple Teletubby, an imagined Jewish Antichrist, Hustler magazine, homosexuals, feminists, civil libertarians, and stem cell research. I'm not sure exactly what to say about this guy, so I'll let him speak for himself. Here are some potent quotables from the reverend:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" (After the events of September 11, 2001)
"[The Bible is] the inerrant Word of God, and totally accurate in all respects."
"I shudder to think where the country would be right now if the religious right had not evolved."
"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals."
"Thank God for these gay demonstrators. If I didn't have them, I'd have to invent them. They give me all the publicity I need."
"I do question the sincerity and non-violent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left wing associations."

Learn more on MSNBC, NPR, Beliefnet, Beliefnet's Timeline of Falwell's Life, Beliefnet's interview with Richard Land, and good ol' Wikipedia (where I got most of the quotes).

Limbo Comes Out of Limbo

2007-05-17T13:39:00.000-07:00

As does this blog. My apologies for the paucity... nay, the absense... of posts in the last couple weeks. I've been incredibly drowned in work (Simpsons Movie) and side projects. It has certainly not been for want of things to write about. I will do my best to catch up.

In pope news, Benedict XVI has resuscitated the age-old theological quandary of what happens to the souls of babies who die before being baptized into the Church. If they are born with original sin, passed down from Adam and Eve by virtue (pun intended) of being born, then shouldn't they go to hell since they haven't consciously chosen Christ? That was Augustine's conclusion (that babies would be mildly condemned). This doctrine has never been an easy pill for grieving parents to swallow, but the obvious alternative would be to admit that humans are born into a state of grace. The Church couldn't have that, so it assembled its best minds to create the speculated answer of: Limbo! Because God is loving, unbaptized babies find themselves in a loophole where they are not in communion with God, but remain in eternal happiness regardless.

Of course, the pope will focus next on giving us a numerical value of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. While we anxiously await his spectacular speculations, let's work on some real problems like global climate change, population, and women's rights.

More on ABC News.

For more misadventures of the pope, read about his recent trip to Brazil, in which he canonized Galvao. Galvao is known for inspiring the practice of writing a prayer on rice paper and delivering it in the form of a pill. These are made on a daily basis, and the text on the rice paper reads, "After birth, the Virgin remained intact. Mother of God, intercede on our behalf." 5,000 miracles have been attributed to Galvao as a result. The pope also took time to warn about the age of hedonism, premarital sex, abortion, rock music - you know, the usual.

What to do with a spare Bible

2007-05-02T12:09:00.000-07:00

Check out this site and see some of the interesting artwork created with books as the subject and medium. I don't think any Bibles were harmed in the making of these pieces.

(Thanks to Greg from the book club for the link.)

Author to Prove God's Existence

2007-04-28T12:34:00.000-07:00

Ray Comfort, the best-selling author of "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists", and Kirk Cameron of Growing Pains fame, have challenged the makers of The Blasphemy Challenge to a debate on ABC
in which they plan to prove, scientifically and without the use of faith, the existence of God. Kirk Cameron puts evolution in his cross hairs, "Evolution is unscientific. In reality, it is a blind faith that's preached with religious zeal as the gospel truth. I'm embarrassed to admit that I was once a naïve believer in the theory. The issue of intelligent design is extremely relevant at the moment. Atheism has become very popular in universities--where it's taught that we evolved from animals and that there are no moral absolutes. So we shouldn't be surprised when there are school shootings." This should be fun. The debate airs on Saturday, May 5th.

Read the original article on ChristianNewsWire. (Thanks, Wendy!)

Update: The debate went ahead as scheduled, and you can see it on the ABC website. If you've followed these sorts of things in the past, you will have heard all the arguments before. Needless to say, God was not proven 100% and irrefutably, and it's a pity that such a high-profile forum featured the arguments of Christians who don't even accept evolution.

Psychics Fail to See Complete Shutdown

2007-04-27T21:39:00.000-07:00

From CBS3 in Philadelphia: A sweeping raid by Licenses and Inspections led to misfortune for Philadelphia fortune tellers as all psychic businesses were shut down due to a decades old city law.

The seers, including five fortune tellers, were unable to foresee the issuance of cease operation and stop work orders from L&I Wednesday. Psychic Monica was stunned to see the notice that her license was revoked, essentially shutting down her business. "Unfortunately I wasn’t able to predict this," said Psychic Monica.

Read the rest of the article here. (Thanks, Wendy!)

Update (2/27/08): Another article about the same event on MSNBC.

Portraits of Mass Consumption

2007-04-27T21:29:00.000-07:00

Take a look at some of these startling and sobering images by Chris Jordan. They help to visualize some of the mind-boggling statistics of just how much stuff we use each day: soda cans, plastic bags, cell phones, vehicles. The list goes on and on.

Awkward Bible Passages Part III

2007-04-26T03:48:00.000-07:00

"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

"When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them? However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls."
- Deuteronomy 20:10-20 (NIV)

For the third installment of Awkward Bible Passages (that's right, the titles use Roman numerals - you did not miss 99 installments), we find the Lord of Hosts (literally, Lord of Armies) commanding things that are better described as immoral and despicable, rather than merely awkward. There is no justifying these words, so let's just look at the laundry list of atrocities. Nations that are far away from Israel get the special treatment of a "peace" option. This means that all their people will become slaves of the Israelites (wait, I thought the moral of the Exodus story was that slavery is bad). If they refuse, the men are murdered, and the women/children/livestock are taken as plunder. I'm going to go on a limb and say that this also encouraged rape - even if they married the foreign women, taking a wife by force after murdering her husband is not consensual in my book.

The nearby nations - six entire tribes/cities are named - don't even get the option of slavery. God commands the Israelites to completely obliterate them, leaving nothing alive that breathes (including women, children and livestock). Fruit-bearing trees are valued above human life, as they can be of use in feeding the Israelites.

The words of a loving God to his chosen people? You decide. Either God did not inspire the Bible, or he is not good at all.

When Parents Attack

2007-04-26T03:11:00.000-07:00

Yikes! This is an extremely frightening video clip of a Catholic mother's response when her son admits he no longer believes in God. I don't know if this is real or not, but it's certainly not comfortable to watch. Warning, there is some harsh language here. Notice how the man sitting nearby (I assume he's the dad) avoids getting involved. This makes me all the more thankful that my own parents were far more understanding and gracious when I told them I no longer believe in the supernatural. As a parent myself, I realize the importance of communicating to my son that my love for him will never be affected by his beliefs, whatever they may be. When he's old enough, that is - he's only five now. (Thanks, Sherri!)

Stark Contrasts

2007-04-26T02:20:00.000-07:00

Most of you have probably heard about this already, but hopefully it bears repeating. It has long been understood that, for a politician, denying the existence of God is career suicide. An oft-quoted Gallup poll in 1999 revealed that, when asked whether they would vote for an otherwise qualified candidate who happened to be an "X", Americans responded thusly: African American (95%), Catholic (94%), Woman (92%), Jew (92%), Homosexual (59%), Atheist (49%). Granted, all these numbers were up from 1978 levels, but being an atheist was still the surest way to lose support. [source]

In October 2006, the Secular Coalition for America initiated a contest offering $1,000 to anyone who could identify the highest-ranking U.S. elected official who holds no belief in God. The result was the public identification (with his permission, naturally) of Pete Stark, a Democratic U.S. Representative of San Francisco's East Bay, as a non-theistic Unitarian Universalist. A well-respected politician who, at the age of 75, has held his current position since 1973, Pete Stark made a statement that, "Like our nation's founders, I strongly support the separation of church and state. I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services."

The roughly 8-10% of the U.S. population that doesn't believe in God was delighted to find that at least 1 of the 535 members in the House and Senate (0.187%) openly shares their views. Of course, others looked less kindly upon this development. The Christian Seniors Association declared it "A sad first in the history of Congress," and issued a press release urging other members of the House of Representatives to state their belief in God at the conclusion of speeches on unrelated matters. Well, you can't please 'em all.

Read more from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Pete Stark's Congressional site.

Roy Zimmerman Teaches Creation Science 101

2007-04-25T22:05:00.000-07:00

Roy Zimmerman is one of my favorite singers; an irreverent political satirist / folk guitarist in the spirit of Tom Lehrer. If you've never heard him before, join the 589,880 others who have seen his excellent comedic distillation of the Creationist movement: "Creation Science 101." I was there when he performed it (at the 2006 Skeptics Society Conference "The Environmental Wars").

If you like that, check out some other favorites of mine: "Defenders of Marriage," "Jerry Falwell's God," and the new gem, "Ted Haggard is Completely Heterosexual." Still not satisfied? Find more of his videos on YouTube, or visit his website to purchase CDs.

There's One Place Like Home

2007-04-25T21:20:00.000-07:00

A newly-discovered extrasolar planet, dubbed Gliese 581 C, orbits a red-dwarf star 20.5 light years away from us and one-third the mass of our own sun. So far, it is the best candidate for a planet like our own potentially capable of harboring life. This is the smallest planet of the three known to exist in that solar system, yet it still weighs in at five times the mass of Earth. And even though Gliese 581 C is 15 times closer to its sun than we are to ours, that star is a lot dimmer, placing the planet within a "Goldilocks zone," or habitable zone, meaning its temperature ranges are anomalous to Earth's (32-104 degrees Fahrenheit). Computer models also predict that Gliese 581 C is either rocky or perhaps covered in liquid water. We'd have a better idea if the planet's orbit passed between its sun and our instruments. Of all the extrasolar planets found so far, this is the smallest one yet. As planets don't emit light, they must be detected by their subtle effects on a distant star's light or wobble to its rotation.

Read more on MSNBC or The New York Times

Why Do Atheists Let Bad Things Happen?

2007-04-25T15:00:00.000-07:00

If you have grown weary of rational thinking, the antidote can be found in a blog entry by Dinesh D'Souza titled, "Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?" In it, D'Souza points to the recent and horrific shooting at Virginia Tech (in which 32 individuals died), and wonders why atheists have been so poorly represented in public ceremonies commemorating the tragedy. Because Richard Dawkins hasn't been flown in to give a talk to the grieving families (in typical form for believers lacking arguments, D'Souza attacks the eminent British zoologist, in this particular case with a straw man representation of Dawkins' moral foundations), society needs something more than what science has to offer. Of course, this is in no way an argument for the truth claims of religion (though I wonder if D'Souza even realizes this), let alone a specific religion. But it is interesting that D'Souza attempts to foist religion's problem of theodicy (why does a good God allow evil things to happen, especially to innocent people?) upon atheists.

A proper and qualified response has already been written by a professor at the school, "An Atheist at Virginia Tech", and I recommend that you read it. I'd like to add a few thoughts of my own:

The reason believers flood into churches after disasters like school shootings, September 11th, or the 2004 tsunami, is that they want to be reminded why God is good. The reason they need to be reminded is that God does not seem particularly real or good at such times. God is a lot easier to believe in when everything is going well (or when we are able to ignore misery elsewhere in the world), but when grief comes rushing into our lives, believers fight to hold onto their notion of God all the more. The ministers tell them that we live in a world of physical laws, and that these laws cannot be abrogated all the time (God is only credited for intervening when particularly good things happen or when disaster is avoided). But surely an omnipotent God could have foiled the killer's plan in the first place, or turned Cho Seung-Hui's life around before he became homicidal, or enabled someone on campus to stop the act, or even cause the bullets to miss or the guns to jam. If any of these things had happened to prevent the violence (sometimes murder plots are foiled), God would have been given ample praise. There are even some ministers who, in the aftermath of tragic events, play the blame game and try to figure out who sinned, as the terrible event must be punishment from that same loving God. That is another way to reconcile a "good" God with reality, but a particularly unsavory one in my estimation.

Atheists do not waste time with these imaginary problems. Nor do we answer senseless brutality like that committed by Cho Seung-Hui with senseless explanations and speculation. Instead, we focus on real ways to comfort and explain. We comfort the grieving in whatever way we can, with long hugs, letters of consolation, and expressions of sympathy. We try to explain by looking for clues in the psychology and environment of the killer, and construct ways to prevent such horrible loss in the future. We remember how fragile life is, and we are reminded to cherish the ones we love who are still living. We commemorate the dead, share stories about why we loved them, and do what we can to carry on their legacies. We don't try to make sense of their loss, because it was a senseless act that caused it.

At the same time, we realize that the other 90% of the population does believe in a God, and we do not interrupt their prayers or sermons. There is a time for discussion and debate, and another person's period of intense personal grief is not that time. (Thanks to Wendy for the links.)

The God Disillusion

2007-04-23T12:15:00.000-07:00

From the New York Times... I just read a review of the book Easter Everywhere, the memoir of a woman whose father was an on-again, off-again Lutheran minister. He had serious doubts, and out of his own uncertainty would never give his daughter a straight answer when she tried to get his input on difficult theological questions. He'd give her some candy, or change the subject. As a result, she spent years trying to resolve the problems herself. It is sad to see the sort of confusion we artificially pile on when we assume theology is a proper explanation, and yet can't make heads or tails of how it really explains the world. It seems to force adherents to block out contrary evidence and cling to fundamentalism, or embrace a wishy-washy faith that doesn't even care to ask tough questions and challenge assumptions. I can't tell you how many Christians I've heard say, "I don't really care how the world was created." What? You don't?! Why ever not? Are you made of wood?

This is one of the reasons that I care enough to keep talking with believers and writing blogs and whatnot. It's less a matter of who's right and wrong; rather, who has given up the desire to fight and struggle for understanding.

The God Disillusion (Thanks to Scott for the link)

Deep Astronomy

2007-04-23T11:50:00.000-07:00

Need a dose of perspective? Looking for a sense of awe? See this video about the Hubble's deep field photography.

The Hubble Deep Field (Thanks, Wendy!)

Respect the Believer, Question the Belief

2007-04-22T00:36:00.000-07:00

I think some readers have gotten the false impression, primarily from my participation in The Blasphemy Challenge, that I am somehow hostile to persons of faith. I should make it clear that many of my best friends, and people I look up to in many ways, are believers. Three years ago I too was a believer, and I don't think I was much less moral or intelligent then. There is little correlation, and certainly no causation, to be drawn between an individual's belief set and her capacity for kindness or intelligence.

Christians have long faced a PR problem when taking a stance against what they see as sin in the lives of others: how to show proper disdain for actions they consider sinful while still showing care and love to the individuals they wish to help find happiness. Stated otherwise, how to be in the world and not of it. From this perceived conflict came the phrase, "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

As non-believers of conscience, we face a similar problem: how to take a stand against unnecessary superstition while not demeaning the people who feel they need it. To accomplish this, I wish to promote a parallel attitude and aphorism: "Respect the believer, question the belief."

If we are to engage in open discussion and really work toward truth, we have to get past the barriers that make us afraid to question assumptions and ideologies. In accepting The Blasphemy Challenge, I took a stand not against people of faith, but the tactic of fear and the corrosive notion of blasphemy. No belief worth having should be so fragile and indefensible that it need be defended by proclaiming as blasphemer, heretic or fundamentalist anyone who offers dissent.

On the other hand, I have sympathy toward many criticisms of The Blasphemy Challenge. Its result is often to anger and to offend, and certainly this is not helpful. When broaching these subjects in person, my attitude and set of arguments vary from person to person and time to time, depending on a variety of factors. Sometimes it is good just to hear someone out, and at other times a little bit of good-natured parody is appropriate. At other times, the truth just needs be said outright, with no sugar coating. The difficulty in posting a statement online is the loss of ability to perform that customization, and those for whom the message is not tailored are left only to be offended.

To those individuals, I wish to state my intent to engage in real discussion. I don't dismiss you, and if you have arguments in favor of belief, or supporting evidence, I'd like to hear it. I can be swayed by reasoning and evidence. I proved that three years ago.

Awkward Bible Passages Part II

2007-04-20T21:01:00.000-07:00

"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. 'Go on up, you baldhead!' they said. 'Go on up, you baldhead!' He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria."
- II Kings 2:23-25 (NIV)

In this, our second installment of Awkward Bible Passages, we find the prophet Elisha (not to be confused with Elijah, who got swept up to heaven by a whirlwind earlier in the chapter) innocently making his way to Bethel. At least 42 young people emerge from the town (must have been a really boring town) to ridicule Elisha's follicly-challenged head. This is clearly a sensitive issue for Elisha, and he calls upon the almighty to defend his pride. Yahweh sees it as fit punishment to unleash two bears upon 42 of the youths (presumably, the worst offenders). The King James version says the bears are she bears, and we know mother bears can be especially edgy, but surely they did not confuse Elijah's bald head for one of their cubs? One also wonders why the bears were able to attack 42 of the youths. If you were an incorrigible and unscrupulous youth and saw your comrades mauled by the bears, surely you'd flee for safety. The bears would have to be pretty darn fast or unrelenting to maul 21 apiece. Try to visualize this scenario; it's hard to do. Some try to defend this passage by saying the "youths" were in their twenties or thereabouts, not children. Like that somehow makes being maimed by a bear fair punishment for teasing a bald man.

Update: Come to think of it, why didn't Elisha just call upon the Lord to give him more hair? That would have still shut the youths up, without anyone getting mauled.

Biggest Conspiracy Ever

2007-04-20T20:42:00.000-07:00

No matter what you believe... No matter what you've been told... They are here. The biggest secret in the history of our world is about to be revealed! Words you were never meant to hear... "It's clear we're dealing with a cosmic Watergate." Photos you were never meant to see... Video you never knew existed... People you were never meant to meet... "Essentially, everything you'd want to know has been covered up." Things you were never meant to know about... "We are dealing with a big, big story."

This is only a smattering of the hyperbole you'll feast upon at the website for the documentary Fastwalkers. (Thanks, Wendy!)

Early Christian Writings

2007-04-20T19:37:00.000-07:00

Have you ever thought, "It would sure be interesting to read those alternate books that didn't make it into the Bible!"? Or have you pondered in quiet moments, "When were these books written, anyway?" Well, wait and wonder no more! The website Early Christian Writings is a wonderful and free resource with links and information on everything from The Gospel of Thomas to the Anti-Marcionite Prologues, and the writings of early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Polycarp and Origen. Witness the birth of specific concepts, such as the Trinity (Theophilus, and later, Tertullian), Satan as the snake in the Garden (Justin Martyr), or purgatory (wait, no, that was invented much later). Get a better feel for the order in which the books of the New Testament were written, and how they fit in with alternate accounts.

I particularly recommend reading The Infancy Gospel of James (how would Caravaggio have depicted the tale of Mary's fiery vagina in Chapter 20?) and The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Jesus was quite the enfant terrible in his youth!), both written circa 140-170.

Jesus Was No Vegetarian

2007-04-20T18:57:00.000-07:00

In its latest ploy for attention, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has been driving around in an Airstream trailer modified to house a sculptural (if not scriptural) representation of the last supper. Instead of his traditional disciples, Jesus is flanked in Dallas artist Greg Metz's art piece by the likes of Paul McCartney, lesbian singer K.D. Lang, Gandhi, Einstein, Kafka, and Leonardo da Vinci. The table before them is spread with a healthy looking assortment of plastic vegetables. On the opposite side of the trailer, visitors are confronted with horrific photos of the worse abuses in slaughter houses. Inside, they can catch a screening of the film "Meet Your Meat," narrated by Alec Baldwin.

The mobile unit has proved very effective thus far, but critics have pointed out that Jesus (at least, according to the gospels) was no vegetarian. Consider the following verse from Luke 24:41-43: "He asked them, 'Do you have anything here to eat?' They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence." Read the original articles:

Jesus is a Vegetarian in PETA Campaign
Was Jesus a Vegetarian?

The Antichrist May Drive A Hybrid

2007-04-20T11:26:00.000-07:00

Wait, stop the press! I guess Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye were wrong. According to Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, 78, in a Lenten speech given at request of the Vatican, the Antichrist will be "a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist." This environmentally friendly Antichrist will destroy Christianity from within by watering down its doctrines and reducing it to an ideology. But at least he'll help cut carbon emissions by 80% in 2050. Cardinal Biffi, the retired Archbishop of Bologna, cited the revelations of Vladimir Solovyov, a 19th century Russian philosopher and mystic. I guess we have to take this seriously, because when's the last time you've heard of Solovyov getting something wrong? What's that... you've never even heard of Solovyov? I think we can still safely rule out Britney Spears as the Antichrist.

Article at The Times (thanks to SA for the link)

Britney Spears is the Antichrist?

2007-04-20T11:02:00.000-07:00

Aw, man. When I started a blog (all of two days ago), I didn't think I would ever write anything about Britney Spears. Oh well; I couldn't pass this up. Allegedly, while in rehab, she wrote the numbers 666 on her forehead, ran about screaming, "I am the Antichrist!", and even tried to hang herself with a bed sheet. Of course, there's no way she can be the Antichrist. As eminent theologians like Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye have informed us, the Antichrist will probably be a Jew from Romania, and possibly a clone.

Read more at news.com.au (thanks to SA for the link)

Rabbi Wants to Renew Animal Sacrifice

2007-04-20T10:49:00.000-07:00

Animal sacrifices should be renewed on the Temple Mount, a member of the radical Sanhedrin organization told Ynetnews.

In ancient Israel and Judea, the Sanhedrin served as the highest court in the land, and was made up of 71 top judges. Now, a group of fringe rabbis say they have reformed the group, although the organization has received no recognition from Israel's official religious authorities.

"In the Torah there are around 200 commandments [Ross's note: that's nearly a third of the 613 commandments in the Torah!] dealing with animal sacrifices," said Rabbi Dov Stein, of the Sanhedrin organization. "The Torah of Israel demands animal sacrifices. When the people of Israel were in the Diaspora, it couldn’t be done. But now, there is the supreme institution, the Sanhedrin, made up of experts, and it can be done. The new Sanhedrin, like the old, will educate the people of Israel on how to keep and safeguard the Torah."

Read the rest of the article here (thanks to SermonAudio.com for the link)

Non-Religious Funerals on the Rise in Britain

2007-04-20T10:38:00.000-07:00

More than 30,000 funerals in Britain last year were nonreligious, as families turn increasingly to "celebration-of-life" ceremonies rather than church services, according to new figures.

The rise is being attributed to people's growing willingness to admit that they are non-believers, and to their desire to avoid "hypocrisy".

Ten years ago, a funeral without a minister of religion and reference to God was virtually unheard of but increasingly, services are presided over by a "celebrant" and involve poems instead of psalms, while mourners are often asked to wear something bright rather than black.

Read the rest of the article here (thanks to SermonAudio.com for the link)

Robert Ingersoll

2007-04-20T10:15:00.000-07:00

Robert Green Ingersoll [1833-1899] was a popular orator of the 19th century who spoke boldly and artfully about the virtues of reason, the vices of religion, the rights of women, and the cruelties of slavery. It is amazing to hear a voice from over a century ago that still holds so much currency. It is equally amazing that so few people have heard of him. Do yourself a favor and listen to these recordings (read and produced by James Carr of Simi Valley, CA) with your feed aggregator of choice (read: iTunes).

http://becominghuman.hipcast.com/rss/robertingersoll.xml

Awkward Bible Passages Part I

2007-04-19T23:41:00.000-07:00

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open."
- Hosea 13:16 (NIV)

Welcome to my new series, Awkward Bible Passages. This will be a showcase of selections from the Bible difficult to reconcile with Christian theology, incredibly violent and hate-filled, commonly overlooked, or just plain not-fit-for-Sunday-School. Fortunately (or unfortunately), there is plenty of material ripe for the picking. It may behoove you to memorize some of these, and show them to your believing friends. They will often be accompanied by my own commentary, though some [such as the one above] speak for themselves. Note, these gruesome lines from Hosea are claimed to be the words of Yahweh spoken through his prophet.

"Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand." – Mark Twain

I'll do my best to keep things in context, and references are linked to biblegateway.com's website for quick reference. Unless otherwise noted, all citations are from the New International Version (NIV), © Zondervan.

Science and Faith Explained

2007-04-19T20:30:00.000-07:00

Win $50,000!

2007-04-19T16:57:00.000-07:00

Now that you've finished your taxes, wouldn't an extra $50,000 just hit the spot? Well, here's your chance! All you have to do to qualify is demonstrate paranormal or supernatural powers. And what might those be, you ask?

Here's a few abilities that have historically been claimed, but no one has ever demonstrated under observable conditions: levitation, mind reading, telepathic communication, telekinesis, remote viewing, dowsing, faith healing, foretelling the future, or talking to the dead (and getting them to talk back).

There's many more! If you know someone who says they can do any of the above, and you're tired of saying, "that's nice," or "good for you," you can say "prove it," and direct them to The Independent Investigations Group website. IIG West is located in Hollywood, CA, and will help the applicant design a mutually agreed upon testing protocol. If you pass their test and win the $50,000, you can apply for James Randi's $1,000,000 challenge. Think of all the money you or your laws-of-physics-defying friend can rake in! Don't need the money? Donate it to your favorite charity!

Many people have the idea that "someone out there" really has the ability to do these things. Well, we'd like to find them. Spread the word.

The Blasphemy Challenge

2007-04-19T16:23:00.001-07:00

My response to The Blasphemy Challenge. If you haven't heard of this yet, it's a public campaign from the Rational Response Squad encouraging non-believers to openly deny the existence of the Holy Spirit. In Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:10, Jesus warns that, "Anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." Doing just that on the world wide web, I hope to make it clear that Jesus' warning is one false dilemma I won't be losing sleep over. It's too late to secure a DVD copy of "The God Who Wasn't There" for the mere cost of your ~~immortal~~ imaginary soul, but it's never too late make a statement and a stand for reason.

The Atheist Blogroll

2007-04-19T16:10:00.000-07:00

In my never-ending quest to mimic the Anonymous Coward, I have not only created a new blog on Blogger, but have added the Atheist Blogroll to my blog as well. Bear witness to its beautiful scrolling powers! Thanks to Mojoey for the valuable service.

Beware the Mormon Jesus!

2007-04-19T13:06:00.000-07:00

I stumbled across this humorous video on IFILM - it's an animated exposé, made by Christians in the 1970s, deriding the false theology (is that redundant?) of Mormonism:

What Mormon Theology is Really All About

I never saw this film in my youth, but I may as well have. In my protestant (Assemblies of God) church, we were taught that Mormonism is a cult. My aunt is a Mormon (I'm told she was converted after an attractive Elder proselytized to her), and she raised her children in the LDS Church. I remember talking to my cousin, when we were about 9, and found that he didn't even know who Adam and Eve were. I figured that Mormon churches had a tactic of hiding the crazy stuff until the children were older and already self-identified as Mormons. I pitied my cousin's brainwashing, and tried to warn him about spirit babies, the new worlds that Mormon couples would inherit in the after life, Jesus going to the American continent, and the multiple levels of heaven and hell. I see that didn't have much effect: years later he was overseas performing the requisite missionary training.

A friend of mine, who shall remain nameless, has within the last year abandoned the Mormon belief of his upbringing. He still remains active in the church and has not informed his family, or other members of the church, of his apostasy. I have been disabused of the notion that young Mormons don't learn their theology, as he is very knowledgeable of Mormon belief and practice and is now my answer man for questions about Mormonism. I guess my cousin just wasn't paying close enough attention in Sunday School.

Updated Update! If you've seen the video (it's a clip from the film "The God Makers" (Thanks, A.C.)), please read the comment posted on this blog by An Anonymous Coward to get the full story of how well (and poorly) it represents Mormon theology.

Filipinos Crucify Themselves

2007-04-19T12:41:00.000-07:00

Why, in God's name, would someone do this to himself? Wait, I guess one would only do such a thing in God's name. These men are whipped, tied to a cross, wear a crown of thorns, and have nails pounded through their hands. At least they're sterilizing the nails and aiming so as not to do permanent damage. But still.

Filipino Devotees Crucify Themselves
Filipinos Crucify Themselves on Good Friday

Here's a video of this absurdity:
Filipino Man Crucified on Good Friday

I saw a more detailed video on MSN (it has been removed for some reason) about one man's reasons for having himself crucified. Apparently, his daughter had been ill, and he begged God to ensure her recovery. As a bargaining chip, he offered to suffer crucifixion if God would intervene. The medical procedures were successful (I suspect they would have been anyway) and, to his credit I suppose, he kept his promise and returns each year to be nailed to a cross. He proudly showed off his crown of thorns, and said that he constructed it of barbed wire for the sake of durability.

It is easy to see why someone would offer this sort of bargain to God. One can hardly imagine anything more grievous than watching a son or daughter suffer afflictions completely out of the parent's ability to control to prevent. In a larger sense, I think that is where prayer comes from (at least, prayer of supplication). We despair, as humans, at how little control we have over so many aspects of life. Prayer often gives us the illusion of control, or at least, a sense of appealing to someone in control. The problem is that it is only an illusion and, though it can't hurt anything to try, it may prevent us from seeking some real means of affecting the outcome. And what good is hope, if it is false hope?

There is the further problem of what happens when the prayer is not answered. What if this man had lost his daughter? Instead of merely grieving at his own inability to help her, he would feel additional guilt that he had not done enough, had lacked sufficient faith, or was in some other way inadequate. Life is hard enough as it is! Why add a layer of imaginary explanations and make things worse?

Also, I feel that gratitude is often misplaced after a "successful" prayer. In church, I constantly hear people thank God that a loved one made it through a surgery. Why not thank the doctors, and the medical technology that made recovery possible? There are so many people who have lived through strokes, heart attacks, and other afflictions who would not have made it a hundred years ago. Granted, many people are thankful to God and the medical professionals. But I think this man could do much better to raise awareness about his daughter's condition, and demonstrate his love for her, than get himself nailed to a cross.

Update: This comes from boingboing.net (and NewScientistTech). Question for theologians: what was God trying to say here?

Eduardo Sese of Pampanga, Philippines may have exposed more than 100 men to rabies during a self-flagellation ritual. Sese died from rabies two weeks ago, but he had previously shared a knife with a large group of people who slashed their backs before whipping themselves with bamboo in honor of Good Friday. From New Scientist:

"The government doctor in Pampanga, Maria Clara Aquino, said vaccines had been given to 103 people who could have been exposed.

"Self-flagellation is an annual tradition in Pampanga and other parts of the Philippines in which men whip themselves into a frenzy on Good Friday to atone for their sins."

Killer Cell Phone Virus

2007-04-18T22:04:00.000-07:00

To kick things off, here's an interesting news piece from Pakistan (and apparently Afghanistan now, too). A rumor warning cellular phone users that they could receive a virus capable of killing a human being instigated widespread panic. Mosques in a major city proclaimed "that people were being killed by a mobile virus and they should be aware of God's wrath." Of course, there is no mechanism in a cellular phone that such a virus could exploit to lethal effect. And why should God exact his wrath with cell phones, when his traditional weapons of flood, fire, lightning, earthquake, hurricane, tsunami, drought, famine, and pestilence are still readily available? Just goes to show that a modicum of skepticism goes a long way.

Can 'Virus' Text Message Kill You?
Mobile Phone Virus Scare Jumps from Pakistan to Afghanistan

Welcome to the Skeptic Review!

2007-04-18T21:36:00.000-07:00

Hi, my name is Ross. I was raised in a Christian household and was a true believer for many years, both active and outspoken in my community. At the age of 21 (three years ago at the time of this writing), after much studying and contemplation, I came to the realization that the faith of my upbringing was unjustified. My world view now is that of a Skeptic; one who has high standards of evidence and is willing to re-evaluate first principles and previous assumptions in perpetual pursuit of truth.

Still, my interest in the world of faith goes on unabated. I attend church regularly, read the Bible closely, converse with my believing friends, and participate in active skepticism as a paranormal investigator and member of the Center for Inquiry and The Skeptics Society.

I would like to use this blog as a forum for my own thoughts, but also to post reviews, links, and news items related to skepticism, science and religion. This includes discussions of scientific discoveries, religious studies, the psychology of belief, pseudoscience, supernatural claims, philosophy, and political discourse. I hope that others who share my interests will find this blog a useful place to keep up with what's going on in the worlds of belief and disbelief.

Cognite tute!