Here I go again ...

Jeez, I didn't mean to do another religious post this quick, but I saw two things yesterday that made my blood boil:

The first, a mission statement of sorts, was on the wall of a client of mine, a Mary Kay cosmetics seller.  The 2nd was a church that I saw just a a mile away.

I'm obviously not a Christian, but I pride myself on the fact that I know more about religion than most of the religious people that I know.  And I'm pretty damn sure that God, or at least the God of their own bible, did not "intend for them to have more".  More compassion or more forgiveness, perhaps.  But not more money or cars.  It's fascinating how God-centered pastors or businesses fooling people into believing otherwise.  We all know why ... people believe what they want to believe.  If they value possessions, they will seek that belief system that reinforces their desires.  And if that belief system involves God, then all the better because it will give their selfishness a legitimacy.

The second picture deserves a response in the tone in which their statement is given:

- "Your church and religion making something a sin does not make it so."

Especially when said religion picks and chooses what transgressions the bible is supposedly against to define as sin.  Just a few things the bible is against that are ignored: 19 Things The Bible Forbids Other Than Homosexuality 

Indoctrination

I saw some kids today holding signs for a car wash.  The signs' message:  "Help send us to Bible Camp."  Strongly fighting the urge to pull over and give them some money with which to help save them FROM Bible Camp, I instead reflected on the institutional child abuse that they are being subjected to.  Children are not born Christian.  They are indoctrinated at an age where they have little choice.  These children's plight reminded me of a couple of great documentaries:

Jesus Camp

and

The Education of Shelby Knox

"Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." -- George Carlin

Political Song of the Day ... Come Join Us by Bad Religion

Come Join Us by Bad Religion

so you say you gotta know why the world goes 'round
and you can't find the truth in the things you've found
and you're scared shitless 'cuz evil abounds
come and join us

well I heard you were looking for a place to fit in
full of adherent people with the same objective
a family to cling to and call brethren
come and join us

all we want to do is change your mind
all you need to do is close your eyes

so come and join us
come and join us
come and join us

don't you see the trouble that most people are in
and that they just want you for their own advantage
but I swear to you we're different from all of them
come and join us
I can tell you are lookin' for a way to live
where truth is determined by consensus
full of codified arbitrary directives
come and join us
all we want to have is your small mind
turn it into one of our own kind
you can go through life adrift and alone
desperate, desolate, on your own
but we're lookin' for a few more stalwart clones
so come and join us
come and join us
come and join us

we've got spite and dedication as a vehement brew
the world hates us, well we hate them too
but you're exempted of course if you
come and join us
independent, self-contented, revolutionary
intellectual, brave, strong and scholarly
if you're not one of them, you're us already so
come and join us

I like almost all Bad Religion songs, but especially those that touch on religion.

Challenging Stupidity

The always thoughtful vjack at Atheist Revolution brought up an interesting question on his blog awhile ago, and I'm paraphrasing, "Are we obligated to challenge stupidity, and if so, when?"

The "obligation" to challenge stupidity that vjack speaks of is from a Christopher Hitchens quote that he posts on his blog and I've posted here in a slightly longer form,

"Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses ..."

As vjack says, if we always challenged stupid claims by others, we'd have scant time for anything else in our days.  But that shouldn't dissuade us from doing so when we see fit. His query obviously comes from the atheist/skeptic community frame of reference, but it doesn't have to.

There are varying degrees of stupidity and for the criteria that determines whether one should respond.  Does my challenging this specific point really make a difference?  Am I being personally hurt by this person's stupidity?  Is their stupidity willful or is just borne of a lack of knowledge?

Obviously, the definition of stupid is important.  Stupid isn't merely someone who disagrees with us.  I believe it means to be willfully ignorant.  Knowing you are wrong but because of your prejudice or belief system, you close yourself off from fact.

That last item is where I get most upset. It's not that you don't know something. It's that you don't care ... those people that are not intellectually curious. Or it's that your worldview actively discourages you from seeking out answers. I have little problem with people that through having not been exposed to something before are ignorant. But I will challenge you to no end if you are content to stay in that state of ignorance. Being wrong is not a crime. Knowing you are and encouraging others to share in your delusions ... maybe that should be. This "willful" area, I believe, encompasses almost all religion.

"Faith is nothing more than the license religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail." -- Sam Harris

Is it just being mean to call those of faith "stupid"? Maybe. Obviously "stupid" can't help but be taken pejoratively.  But I'm trying to be serious here.  I'm honestly trying to figure out why people believe certain ways and what keeps them from analyzing their own beliefs.

I can suffer a lot of ignorance daily, and mostly bear it well. While I don't consider myself an expert in my field (computers), I have quite a bit of experience, a pretty good memory and an ability to use the scientific method to troubleshoot issues. For these reasons, there are few things that I cannot solve. I don't always know the answer, but I'm not afraid to go out and find the answer.

"The hard but just rule is that if the ideas don’t work, you must throw them away. Don’t waste neurons on what doesn’t work. Devote those neurons to new ideas that better explain the data." -- Carl Sagan

In your fields of work, do you often feel compelled to challenge ignorance? Are you more prone to challenge it on non-work related issues? Are you more likely to challenge clients, strangers, co-workers, friends or family?

I try not to challenge clients ... for obvious reasons. What will it get me ... besides one less customer?  But, there are a few areas while I will even challenge them, just to name a few:  science denial, racism, sexism.

"What is it you most dislike? Stupidity, especially in its nastiest forms of racism and superstition." -- Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir

What do you consider ignorance and how do you deal with it?

Life of Pi: The Theory of Relativity ... the relativity of truth

It may seem a bit incongruous for me to be reviewing this movie this late, but it is what it is.  I just watched Life of Pi today for the the first time.  I've had the Blu-ray since my birthday but we just recently advanced into the modern age by buying a 60" Sharp flat-screen.  I didn't want to sully the viewing experience by watching it on something so pedestrian as our 10 year old standard def monstrosity.  From the TV ads and what I knew about the movie, I expected it to be a visual experience ... at it was.

Bil at Journal Wunelle admirably reviewed Life of Pi months ago and I have absolutely no quarrels with any of his observations.  I came at my viewing of the film a little differently, as I read the book.  So I knew of its "twist", but it didn't make it any less interesting.  Unlike another critically acclaimed book with religious overtones that I didn't care for (The Lovely Bones), I did like Life of Pi by Yann Martel.

Pi, short for Piscene, is an India boy whose formative years are at his parents' zoo,  These years, while familiarizing him with the animals and training methods at the apparent heart of this story, are perhaps more important for the spiritual journey he takes.While his world is largely Hindu, Pi is a spiritual dabbler who also ventures into Catholicism and Islam.  To make sense of the world around him, he tries on whatever religion that will get to some kind of "truth".  His dad may preach reason and rationality, but Pi's mother understands Pi's yearning for something that answers the bigger questions.  Of course, one doesn't need religion to answer these "bigger questions", but this isn't my journey ... it's Pi's.

When conditions force his family to leave the zoo and relocate everyone, including the animals, to North America, several of the pillars of his emotional support are taken away ... his country, a girlfriend.  When the means of their transport, an aging ship, sinks, the last of his support, his family, are also taken away. So Pi resorts to the means he already knows to make sense of a senseless tragedy and to survive.  Regardless of one's religious views, the reader or viewer cannot begrudge him that.

While having religious faith may add a slightly different perspective on watching the movie, by no means do I think it is necessary.  I've heard the screenwriter talk about his perspective in writing the movie (which may have been different than Martel's) ... that Pi's journey required faith, but not necessarily religious faith.  Just faith in something.  It can be faith in God.  But it could also be in one's self, in humanity, in family, whatever.  Just something that keeps you going.  But even if the screenwriter didn't make that caveat, I still found it a fascinating and entertaining story.  Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I can't be interested in stories with religious themes.  By far, the scariest movie I've ever seen is the Exorcist, which doesn't make a lot of sense for me to be afraid of.  And, in general, the movies I find scariest are demon-possession types.

Religion, from a story-telling standpoint, is endlessly fertile ground because of the fascinating elements of redemption, resurrection, forgiveness, etc.  Many of those elements are present in Life of Pi.

The method of the storytelling ... the adult Pi retelling his adventure to a writer (one imagines it being Martel)... adds to the reality/fantasy blend that is at the heart of the story.

The acting is good, but not so much the focus.  Of any of the actors, I believe that Irrfan Khan (of Slumdog Millionaire fame) as the adult Pi is strongest.  The focus is gloriously on the visuals of the film.  Seeing this on Blu-ray on a nice TV was fantastic.  The colors and settings are vibrant, almost dream-like, as one would expect when a story is told through the prism of a particular person's recollection.  When that recollection is further augmented by desire and need, it is not hard to see why some considered the book unfilmable.  But director Ang Lee rarely disappoints in anything, and certainly didn't in his Oscar-winning work here.  I recommend this movie.  Grade:  A

Freedom

To co-opt a phrase from The Princess Bride:  Freedom ... "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

People need to stop using the word "freedom" to justify a political agenda. Using the word to justify one (right to bear arms) while forgetting another (freedom of religion) is disingenuous at best, heartless and calculating at worst.

There are people who are virtuous and helpful:

Conn. shooting: Principal died lunging at gunman

And then there are Christian blowhards:

Mike Huckabee: Newtown Shooting No Surprise, We've 'Systematically Removed God' From Schools

AFA: God Did Not Protect Connecticut Shooting Victims Because Prayer Banned In Schools

"There is in every village a torch: The schoolteacher. And an extinguisher: The priest" -- Victor Hugo

And don't tell me this is a time for praying. It doesn't bring those children back. Praying is one of the most selfish acts there is. It makes YOU feel good while doing absolutely nothing for anyone else.

Vote for Rationality

"Becoming atheist isn't a decision to turn your back on God. It's just awakening to the fact that there isn't anything to turn your back on." -- Sue at @TwstdFishy

Let's get beyond all the practical economic, social and environmental reasons that you might not vote for Mitt Romney. From a simple, common sense, rational approach, how can you possibly vote for a man that, with all his heart, believes the following:

• Jesus visited America
• Eden is in Missouri
• Joseph Smith could translate ancient texts (the texts and translations are both provable falsifications)
• Native Americans are Jews
• God lives on the planet Kolob

And I didn't even bring up the magic underpants things.  It's simply a question of judgment.  How can one trust in his ability to make decisions that affect people of all beliefs when his own beliefs are batshit crazy.  Why one's religious beliefs are beyond criticism or scrutiny, I'll never know.  The media walks on eggshells about these things.  If a non-Christian running for President had similar tinfoil hat type beliefs, it would most certainly be an issue.

There will be a day where candidates won't have to be afraid of admitting they are atheists.  A day when science, and evolution, and climate change can be openly discussed without fear of reprisal.  That day cannot come soon enough.

Calvin and Hobbes was always one of my favorites because of its irreverence, sarcasm and willingness to take on "touchy subjects".  CK just posted another great one on his blog:  Seeking a Little Truth

Richard Dawkins - Playboy Interview

This is a really good and funny interview with Richard Dawkins here:

PLAYBOY: You often hear evolution described as “just a theory.” Is it?

DAWKINS: The word theory can mean a hypothesis. But the word is also used in a more serious sense as a body of knowledge. It’s better to use the word fact. Evolution is a fact in the same sense that the earth orbits the sun.

---------------------------------------------

PLAYBOY: What will happen when you die?

DAWKINS: Well, I shall either be buried or be cremated.

PLAYBOY: Funny. But without faith in an afterlife, in what do you take comfort in times of despair?

DAWKINS: Human love and companionship. But in more thoughtful, cerebral moments, I take—comfort is not quite the right word, but I draw strength from reflecting on what a privilege it is to be alive and what a privilege it is to have a brain that’s capable in its limited way of understanding why I exist and of reveling in the beauty of the world and the beauty of the products of evolution. The magnificence of the universe and the sense of smallness that gives us in space and in geologically deep time is humbling but in a strangely comforting way. It’s nice to feel you’re part of a hugely bigger picture.

Nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for ...

I watched Blade Runner the other night, for perhaps the dozenth time.  A brilliant movie, obviously, with deep musings on the nature of life and consciousness.  It mostly relates to how other things besides humans can have that spark of life.  But not just that, Blade Runner is also a study in what it means to be a human ... for humans.

What I've been struggling with lately is what it means for me to be human.

Gaff: [voiceover] "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"

Tonight, it got me thinking that all too often it seems like I'm just sleep-walking through life. Especially lately.

Batty: "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave."

Fear of failing. Fear of succeeding. Fear of change. A slave to conformity.

Is this really what I'm meant to do? Does it matter what we do each day to pay the bills? I think it does ... and I always have. I've quit jobs that paid better because I do not like others controlling what I do. I like having the responsibility, good and bad, for the choices I make and the actions I take.

I'm doing a job where I have all the control, but am I happy? This is not what I see myself doing for another 10 or 20 years.

I jump in and out of the lives of those friends I consider close. With those friends I've been lucky enough to encounter on the internets, my output and interaction is sporadic.

As a person of 43, should I have this all figured out?

What does it mean to be alive for me? I think it means to be constantly learning, to be intellectually engaged, to try and make my little corner of the world better than I found it, and to be someone my son would be proud of.

I don't really know if I'm succeeding on any of those counts. I guess it says something that I'm asking the question.

"... All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die"

Political/Religious Song of the Day - BU2B by Rush

I was brought up to believe
The universe has a plan
We are only human
It's not ours to understand

The universe has a plan
All is for the best
Some will be rewarded
And the devil will take the rest

All is for the best
Believe in what we're told
Blind man in the market
Buying what we're sold
Believe in what we're told
Until our final breath
While our loving Watchmaker
Loves us all to death

In a world of cut and thrust
I was always taught to trust
In a world where all must fail
Heaven's justice will prevail

The joy and pain that we receive
Each comes with its own cost
The price of what we're winning
Is the same as what we've lost

Until our final breath
The joy and pain that we receive
Must be what we deserve
I was brought up to believe

RUSH - BU2B (Brought Up to Believe)

I just bought the new Rush album in mp3 form on Amazon. Good classic Rush sound and their always thoughtful lyrics on the nature of religion. I don't believe any other reasonably popular band has written as many songs from an atheistic/agnostic point of view as Rush has.

Thanks to @vjack and @AtheistQOTD for the quote.

Brainwashing

In a surprising, and probably unintended, bit of candor, a local church tells us what they are really doing with today's children.

The dictionary.com definition of "programming":

to cause to absorb or incorporate automatic responses, attitudes ...

“There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents.” ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

... and yet it moves

"Eppur Si Muove" -- "And yet it moves" -- words often attributed to Galileo when he was forced to recant prior to the Inquisition. He may or may not have actually said them, but the point is salient regardless. He was describing the movement of the Earth around the Sun, a configuration that the Church did not want to concede as it would shatter their world view. Whether the Church wanted the Earth to be the center of the universe or not, it doesn't really change the facts. Maybe Galileo wouldn't have been so quick with a comeback if he had been given the "comfy chair" torture:



As is often the case, history repeats itself, and we have reached a point (at least in America) where a segment of the country feels their belief system crumbling and lashes out at those things that call it into question. Whether it is fighting the teaching of evolution in our classrooms(by putting creationism on equal footing, like in Tennessee) or the denial of climate change, some (and you know who you are) are exerting an all-out assault on science and reason.

Evolution and climate change may not be convenient to your idealogy, but it doesn't lessen their validity. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson once said,

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

It's not a fair fight. Scientific progress, by its very nature, works on the assumption that all involved parties that are in disagreement are still respectful and are desirous of using reason to resolve that disagreement. Deniers, however, do not. Innuendo, out of context cherry picking of data and ad hominem attacks are all tools that they will use. Scientists will not and cannot use these same tools. It's like carrying a knife to a gun fight, as it were. Climatologist Michael Mann, on a recent NPR Science Friday broadcast (March 2, 2012) explores this issue.

Wunelle shared a great video from this last weekend's Reason Rally. In the video Adam Savage (of MythBusters) gives a short, straightforward account of what reason means in our daily lives. To simply drive a car, fly on a plane, use a computer ... you are relying on hundreds of years of theory, research and experimentation by scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It's not magic. The very people that rail against scientists, that stunt our children by fighting against real science and promoting religion and pseudo-science -- these people have no problem taking advantage of those technologies that are utterly dependent on science.

I propose that all that have a problem with the teaching of science and with the use of reason stop using the fruits of those things. The way I see it, unless you are living in some Quaker or Amana colony driving around in a horse-drawn carriage and spurning the use of technology, you are a fucking hypocrite.

Earlier I said that "some" were against science. That "some" is obviously largely conservatives and most notably the the religious among them. Why this group, that I believe is more vocal than actually large, gets such a prominent place in public discourse - I will never know. But, it is our responsibility as thinking beings to challenge the superstitious and ignorant. As Lawrence Krauss recently said,

" ... Choosing to censor or distort knowledge rather than risk the possibility that such knowledge, or the technologies that result from it, might challenge faith or confront preexisting ideological biases is a something that should better characterize the Taliban or al Qaeda rather than the Republican Party.

As we head into the home stretch of a too-long presidential primary season, it is not too late for the public to turn their back on candidates that turn their back on empirical reality and scientific progress."

When seeing a speech by Rick Santorum, one feels that some elaborate joke is being played on us. This is all just a modern day Monty Python sketch. But it's not and the gravity of the situation takes some of the fun out of it. If we don't fight against this revisited Inquisition, then we will have no one to blame but ourselves for what will become of our society.

Podcast(s) of the Week

This week, I'm highligting two podcasts, one from This Week in Science and the second from Philosophy Bites:

This Week in Science, Feb 02, 2012:

An interview with Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America is the highlight of this podcast. In contrast with a similar recent book by Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science, Otto's book gets into how politicians, in general, seems unwilling to debate issues of science openly. When it is less controversial to hold a public debate on religion than one on science, you know something is fucked up with society.

I have not read either of Otto's or Mooney's books, but they're on my want list. It seems to me that Otto's would be the better for a general audience.

During the interview, Otto also mentioned The Debunking Handbook. This is a 7 page PDF file that you can download here. The Handbook is a good read and is a nice tool when you are debating with purveyors of pseudo-science (Creationists, climate change deniers, etc.).

Beyond Otto's interview, the podcasts has some interesting discussions on the psychology of Facebook posts and the nature of contagious yawns. The podcast runs about an hour.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Philosophy Bites, Ronald Dworkin, American philosopher and constitutional law scholar, on the "Unity of Value -- Is liberty compatible with equality?"

This is a very good discussion on the practical applicability of philosophical concepts like liberty and equality. Dworkin contends there is a "right answer" to societal problems. Despite what politicians lead you to believe, liberty and social equality are not mutually exclusive.

He says that you can't look in the dictionary for a philosophical definition. You have to be able to apply your concept to the people that are affected by it. We have to "justify what we do in their name" and there can't be a disconnect between theory and action.

The discussion is about 19 minutes.

Focus on the hypocrites

As if we need any kind of confirmation that network television is a bottomless abyss bereft of either morality or courage, tonight in the 2nd quarter of the New England Patriots - Denver Broncos, CBS aired a Focus on the Family "pro-life" commercial where a series of small children recited John 3:16:



It was not too big of a surprise that Focus on the Family chose this game to run the ad considering that the 2nd coming of Christ was present, Tim Tebow. That a mainstream network would actually run such drivel by a hate group IS.

Would CBS have allowed advertisements by Planned Parenthood or an atheist/humanist group? How about a Muslim group? Every time I hear a Christian complain about how much they are persecuted or how they are not allowed to express themselves, I get sick. They are the forever favored majority with the Napoleon complex.

And don't even get me started about using small children to make this advertisement. Richard Dawkins has often made the point that religious indoctrination is tantamount to child abuse. Children are not born religious.

Final score: 45-10 Patriots over the Broncos. Apparently even God is sick of hearing about Tim Tebow and Focus on the Family.