What Would Jesus Buy?

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

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:

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

Zeus Gives Jesus What For

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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.