Secular Planet

Life is Meaningful Here and Now

2011-12-11T23:55:00.000-05:00

Believers, especially those make their faith the cornerstone of their lives, have a tendency to think that life without God is meaningless. They claim that, in an atheistic world, living would be absurd and that nothing would matter at all. They sometimes even view atheism as an irresistible cause for despair and a reason to commit suicide. The consequence of this opinion is that it can discourage those with serious doubts from pursuing them for fear of where they will lead. But I believe that it’s a terrible mistake to think that belief in God is necessary to find meaning in life and that theism no more helps answer existential questions than it helps answer scientific ones.

If God’s existence can have meaning without other beings, then so can our existence have meaning without other beings. But if other beings are indeed required for meaning, then we have other people and don’t necessarily need God for that purpose. Alternatively, if God assigns our otherwise meaningless lives meaning with his plans, then so can we can with our own plans. People find meaning in their familialroles, in their friendships, in their careers, in art, in science, in politics, in their hobbies, and in many other aspects of their lives, including in their religions. But not only does meaning need not be assigned from on high, it really cannot be, for one has to adopt God’s plans as one’s own for them to be meaningful. Meaning isn’t objective, existing in the abstract, independent of persons. Rather, in order for something to be meaningful, it has to mean something to someone. If my life has meaning, then it’s because it meanssomething to me. The plans of another being, even my alleged creator, are irrelevant unless I make them my own. And whether the plans originate from one’s creator, another person, or from oneself is also irrelevant as long as they ultimately become my own. It is we who give our own lives meaning, though we rarely ever do so consciously. The non-existence of God negates only one potential source of meaning for us, leaving us a great number of other excellent candidates.

But believers often argue that, without God, our existence will eventually come to an end, and that at least from our perspective, it will be like we never even existed, so nothing we do in life matters. But if something cannot simply matter here and now for its own sake, then it cannot matter because of some future here and now or even an unlimited series of future heres and nows because they all in turn would depend on points even further in the future, ad infinitum. If nothing matters, then an eternity of nothing doesn’t help and so belief in God doesn’t help.

Theism doesn’t provide meaning to life. All it does is push the problem back, either to another being or to a future you, neither of whom are any more prepared to answer it than the present you. There is room for a lot of debate about whether life has meaning, but believers should understand that belief in God doesn’t make the difficult questions simply disappear. In fact, believers already address them implicitly, and if they were to discard their faith, they would probably feel the same about the meaningfulness of their lives as when the believed. Atheists aren’t miserable people constantly considering suicide, and for good reason: life is worth living for its own sake, here and now.

Image: Simon Howden | FreeDigitalPhotos.net

I am a secular

2011-11-22T12:00:00.007-05:00

With relatively little formal organization and a strong tendency toward independent thought, the nonreligious use many different labels to describe themselves. Many of us have adopted more than one label, vary our usage according to the situation, and consciously change our preferences over time. I’m certainly no exception to this pattern. Today, I would like to state that I have decided to adopt secular as my preferred personal label and to explain my reasons by comparing it to terms which I have used previously and which still accurately describe me.

atheist
+ general meaning is always understood
– precise meaning is often misunderstood (≠ certainty that gods don’t exist)
– does not communicate whether belief in absence or absence of belief
– says nothing about belief in supernatural in general
– says nothing about whether one is religious or spiritual

naturalist
+ communicates disbelief in all supernatural without emphasis on gods
– meaning is often misunderstood (≠ nudist, ≠ nature lover, ≠ scientist)
– does not communicate whether belief in absence or absence of belief
– says nothing about whether one is religious or spiritual

humanist
+ positive principles are more than rejection of supernaturalism
– positive principles are unremarkable in modern western society
– meaning is often misunderstood (≠ worship humanity, ≠ speciesist)
– often seems like an ideology rather than a simple description
– says nothing about whether one is religious or spiritual

freethinker
+ communicates an approach to claims rather than a particular belief
– used almost exclusively by atheists, so above distinction is lost
– meaning is generally not understood, requiring explanation
– says nothing about whether one is religious or spiritual

secular
+ meaning is usually understood
+ says nothing about belief or disbelief in anything
+ says that one is neither religious nor spiritual
+ greatest potential as umbrella term
– noun form is currently somewhat awkward

First, I acknowledge that whether a particular feature of a label is considered positive or negative is largely subjective, and thus I only claim to present my own opinion.

Second, I acknowledge that extending the meaning of secular from “not religious” to “neither religious nor spiritual” and using it as a noun rather than merely as an adjective are both somewhat novel, but I contend that these are reasonable extensions without obvious substitutes and that neither is unprecedented. In addition, the noun form can be avoided in most circumstances by using the adjective form instead, for example, by saying, “I’m secular,” just like someone might say, “I’m Hindu” or “I’m Buddhist.”

Third, I strongly prefer not to capitalize the term secular since it indicates the absence of an ideology and capitalizing it would suggest otherwise. Typographical conventions dictate that I nevertheless capitalize it the title, but I have chosen to ignore this rule in this instance—precisely because the title is so prominent—in order to avoid any potential confusion regarding my opinion on this matter.

Fourth, I want to distinguish a secular from a secularist: a secular is one who is neither religious nor spiritual whereas a secularist is one who believes the government should be neutral toward religion. This distinction mirrors the Christian/Christianist and Muslim/Islamist distinctions which have become increasingly familiar. In my estimation, almost all seculars are secularists, but most secularists are not seculars. In contrast, it’s almost impossible to imagine a Christianist who isn’t a Christian or a Islamist who isn’t a Muslim. This clearly speaks to the inherent fairness of secularism.

Fifth, I want to emphasize that I’m not rejecting any of the other labels on my list; I simply think calling myself a secular conveys just the right amount of relevant information when the topic of religion arises and provides me with a clear self-identity without committing me to any particular belief, principle, or ideology.

So until further notice, I am a secular first and foremost. It seems quite appropriate that I have finally landed on the same term that I chose when naming this blog over five years ago and largely for the same reasons!

An Old Friend's Divergent Path

2011-11-21T12:00:00.005-05:00

Yesterday I was feeling bored and decided to browse through some old files on my computer from back when I was a devout Catholic and to check out some websites that I used to visit at that time. I had the idea to look up an old online friend of mine, my first online friend in fact, and to see what he’s been up to in the years since we last spoke. It was quite interesting to compare how our paths have diverged.

I first encountered Mr. Mario Derksen of Coral Springs, Florida, on the Prodigy religion message boards sometime around 1994, when my family first got internet access. He was very active in apologetics threads, primarily debating with Protestants, and I soon joined these discussions armed with what I had read in the new catechism. Mario and I became allies on the message boards, and we began to e-mail each other regularly. Mario recommended the first apologetics book I ever read and watching him debate encouraged me to learn more. At some point, Mario set up and operated his own apologetics website where he published and organized his own materials, and I did the same, though on a much smaller scale. We remained in contact for years, but my interest in apologetics ended when my scrupulosity and doubts caused a personal crisis, and we eventually lost touch about ten years ago.

In order to find Mario, I first tried to visit his old website, Catholic Insight, but the domain is no longer registered, and it seems that he has discontinued it rather than simply moved it. I then tried to load an archived copy of the site, but archiving has been disabled. Next, I simply searched for his name. Most of the results are his contributions to various apologetics websites from about a decade ago. For a moment, it seemed that he had just disappeared off the face of the internet. Then I found some information indicating that Mario, who was already an indult Catholic when I knew him, had moved further into religious extremism.

In particular, I read an excerpt of an announcement by Mario from his website that had been posted elsewhere that he had become a sedevacantist, that is, one who denies the validity of the recent popes and claims the papal throne is currently empty. Sedevacantists typically assert that the Catholic Church largely abandoned its infallible claim to exclusivity of salvation during the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, making the alleged popes since then heretics. Conclavists move one step further and take it upon themselves to elect a new pope to fill the vacant seat, often from among a small circle of like-minded family and friends. I was disappointed not to find the full text of his announcement, but I noted with interest that he had published it in August 2004, while I was in the midst of my intense deconversion to atheism.

I continued searching for anything from the last seven years. I found more excerpts of and responses to his arguments for sedevacantism from around that time but little else. Finally, I found his website devoted to a hundred-page letter to a bishop regarding an ordination controversy by a Vietnamese sedevacantist bishop in France in 1981. The site includes audio files from a presentation by Mario on the subject given earlier this year, indicating that he has maintained his basic position since 2004. I had been hoping that he had quietly followed the trail of logic out of the church completely like me rather than around and around into ever smaller reactionary circles on its outskirts. Mario is certainly a very intelligent man—I largely agree with his conclusion that the popes changed their teachings on religious liberty during the twentieth century—and I know he could see through the entire ecclesiastical charade if he simply had sufficient motivation. Scrupulosity was an absolute nightmare for me, but I suspect I would still be a Catholic if it hadn’t prompted me to question absolutely everything and everyone and that I wouldn't be nearly as happy as I am today if I hadn't left. Our views could hardly be more different today, but I wish him all the best and hope he's doing well.

At the beginning of his audio presentation on his website about the ordination controversy, Mario mentions three things he shares in common with Benedict XVI. In this spirit, I’d like to mention three things I share in common with Mario: We’re the same age. We both grew up in Florida. And neither of us today thinks that Benedict XVI speaks with any authority.

Image: jiggoja | FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Positive & Negative Conceptions of God

2011-05-29T00:00:00.007-04:00

Although I’ve always known that most believers sincerely love God or at least have very positive feelings toward him, I’ve recently come to realize how much I’ve failed to appreciate this fact when dealing with others, and I suspect my own feelings about God have clouded my perceptions. That is to say, I think my negative view has prevented me from understanding how precious their beliefs are to them, and I would do well to remind myself that most people don’t share my opinion, no matter how justified I think it is.

While I was certainly a devout believer before my deconversion, I can’t say that I ever really loved God. As a child, I was completely uninterested in religion, and when I became interested as a teenager, it was primarily because I was worried about avoiding hell. I didn’t care nearly as much about serving God for his own sake, bringing him glory, building a relationship with him, or even entering heaven when I died. From the beginning, my view of God was heavily influenced by my fear of eternal damnation, and this fear intensified during my struggle with scrupulosity, eventually transforming into frustration, anger, and even hatred during my last few months as a believer. Most Christians love God for creating them, blessing them, and “saving” them from hell; I, on the other hand, could never bring myself—no matter how hard I tried—to love a being who threatened to burn me in a lake of fire if I didn’t meet his demands, especially his demands that I completely repress my sexuality and suppress my doubts. For this reason, though my deconversion itself was emotionally draining, I emerged from the experience happier than ever. I didn’t feel like I had lost anything except my unfounded fears. It sounds strange for someone who built his entire worldview and identity around religion to say, but my belief in God was simply never important to my happiness; it was instead mainly a source of worry and anxiety. Sure, the prospect of living forever in paradise and the promise of having one’s viewpoint vindicated to all humankind after death were certainly nice consolations, but they never came anywhere close to negating the misery of having hellfire constantly hanging over my head. Once I stopping believing in God, I was happy the divine blackmailer was gone, and I didn’t want to see him ever return.

Now when I deal with believers, I frequently forget how their view of God radically differs from my own. If I present arguments against their religion, they’re generally unreceptive because they want God to exist. They’re not going to consider the possibility that they’re mistaken unless they absolutely have to. Their faith is a source of hope and joy for them rather than a source of fear and sorrow, as it was for me. God is often the most important person in their life, as it were. To those who sincerely love God and especially those who have never even seriously contemplated the possibility that he doesn’t exist, merely expressing my atheistic viewpoint is akin to suggesting that the parents who raised them were actually paid actors who never really loved them, as in The Truman Show. It’s no wonder they react so negatively toward atheists, especially atheists who directly challenge their beliefs and sometimes even insult their beloved heavenly father. Followers of other religions may worship other gods, but none of them really explicitly deny that the Abrahamic god exists and thus deny the validity of their special relationship with him. This is why the highest level of contempt from believers is reserved for atheists. Of course, it doesn't at all excuse their mistreatment of us atheists, but it does help us understand it.

This is not at all a new insight, but it’s especially important for me in particular to bear in mind when thinking about or discussing religion. It’s so easy for me to forget that very few people, even other atheists, have such negative emotional reactions to the mere mention of God. Not only does it bring to mind irrational belief without evidence, it conjures an image of the deity who killed Egyptian babies, who ordered the genocide of the Canaanites, who damns billions of unbelievers to hell, and especially who made my life such misery for so many years. Whereas some nontheists are attracted to deism or pantheism as a way to salvage belief in God when their traditional conception is dismantled, I want nothing to do with the idea at all. Instead of an emotional attachment to it from past positive experiences, I have an aversion due to my past negative experiences. I think it’s noteworthy, however, that this aversion doesn’t extend to every aspect of religion. In fact, I’m sometimes drawn to the idea of a humanistic and potentially naturalistic religion like Unitarian Universalism. I rather like the idea of frequent, regular meetings of a community united in their values, if not beliefs, to discuss ethical, social, and personal issues and enjoy each other’s friendship. I know that if I ever wanted to join such a community, I would need to overcome my distaste for the idea of God, at least as a metaphor, and appreciate that it means so much to so many people because they conceive of it so differently.

Even if I never join such a community, it’s still a good idea for me to attempt to rid myself of such emotional baggage, for my own sake and for the sake of understanding others. I stopped believing in God years ago, and now it’s time for me to stop loathing the idea of God itself, by disassociating it from the idea of hell, which I will always rightly hate. Perhaps I can approximate the mental state of most believers by imagining a universalist god who never even considered creating hell and who will welcome absolutely everyone into heaven. Such a deity would still be vulnerable to criticism from the Problem of Evil, but it's so much easier for me to have less negative feelings about this concept. It's an interesting mental exercise, and I hope it will help me improve my interactions with believers.

Image: Evgeni Dinev | FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Now on Twitter!

2011-04-24T09:00:00.003-04:00

I've been using Twitter for a few months now to gather news from various non-theistic, political, and entertainment sources, but I haven't really used it to post my own material until very recently. Yesterday I decided to associate my account with this blog since my tweets generally concern similar topics, and it only makes sense to have them reinforce each other.

While I'll provide a link to each new post here, most of the content on the Twitter account will be unique to that medium, so even regular readers may be interested in checking it out. Not only will it contain thoughts on irreligion too short to warrant a full blog post, I also intend to discuss ethics and politics with some regularity. Most of my sentiments on these topics can be expressed in strings of 140 characters or less, so Twitter is a more appropriate forum for them. And since tweeting takes much less time than blogging, I can post much more frequently than I do here. I'm hopeful it will even generate new ideas for blog entries. So here's to tweeting!

Image: YaiSirichai | FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The Eroding Wall of Separation

2011-04-22T18:00:00.006-04:00

As a secular American, the Establishment Clause is my favorite part of the United States Constitution. It originally operated to prevent direct federal funding of churches and the formal establishment of any Christian denomination—or even Christianity in general—as the official national religion. With time and further legal developments, courts have come to interpret it to mean that government at all levels should remain neutral toward religion, neither promoting nor discouraging it. While over the past decade the federal judiciary has weakened the substance of this rule and especially the means to enforce it, government neutrality toward religion remains an important and accepted legal principle. But I’m happy that the Establishment Clause has existed since the beginning, for I believe that such a law could not be passed today.

If I understand history correctly, it seems that American Christians at the end of the 18th century were much more sectarian than they are now. That is, they identified rather strongly with their particular denominations and largely rejected ecumenism. They wanted the government to sanction their own denomination and opposed the government sanctioning others. I imagine that most citizens probably didn’t think the Establishment Clause would entail total neutrality, and if the federal government wouldn’t make their own church the official national church, then they were satisfied that at least no other church received this status. And since almost all states had official churches at this time, there was no need for a national church.

American Christians today are rather different. Many of them change denominations, especially within Protestantism but also to and from Catholicism, some identify as “non-denominational,” and they all generally identify much less than with their individual churches than their ancestors did. Far fewer of them have negative opinions of other denominations or even non-Christian religions, with some even having favorable opinions of all other religions, especially when contrasted with atheism. This last sentiment is sometimes expressed as, “I don’t care where you worship, as long as you go somewhere.” While this may be relatively open-minded, it’s especially dangerous for church-state separation. Another problem is that historically disfavored minority denominations such as the Baptists have almost totally forgotten their former commitment to secular government now that the threat of another denomination becoming established has long disappeared and they have become a major group themselves, especially here in the southeast.

If the Establishment Clause, with its long history and secure position—requiring a constitutional amendment to repeal—didn’t already exist, I think a law establishing general Christianity as the official national religion would be a real possibility. At the very least, it seems that most Americans would not oppose a law which allowed government to favor religion in general, as long as it didn’t discriminate between faiths. I believe the existence of faith-based initiatives for over a decade supports this view. The average American thinks religion is good and doesn’t necessarily object to the government actively promoting it as a whole. I find this disturbing.

In the absence of a constitutional amendment, major changes to the law can still come through the Supreme Court. I fear a majority of the justices will eventually agree with the popular sentiment and simply overturn the precedent requiring neutrality toward religion altogether. It’s worrisome, but all I can do is vote for presidential candidates who are less likely to appoint theocrats to the federal bench and to support organizations that promote secular government. I suggest we all do the same in order to hold up the wall of separation between church and state.

Image: vichie81 | FreeDigitalPhotos.net

An Evil Deity Cannot Be Trusted

2011-04-22T12:00:00.005-04:00

While there are many well known objections to Pascal’s Wager, in a recent e-mail discussion with a reader I formulated a simple argument which I don’t remember ever having encountered and which I would like to share here: A deity who causes any of its creatures to suffer eternal torment is necessarily evil, and thus we cannot trust such a deity to honor its promises regarding salvation. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that practicing any religion in order to enter its heaven and avoid its hell will be more successful than not practicing it. It’s better to practice virtue as informed by our reason and not worry about unsubstantiated threats from unknown gods.

Image: Grant Cochrane | FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Herding Cats?

2010-12-31T17:00:00.003-05:00

It's said that organizing atheists is like herding cats. We're implicitly compared to believers, who have acknowledged leaders, authoritative texts, and formal organizations. The reason usually advanced to account for this phenomenon is that we atheists are generally rather individualistic and thus reluctant to follow someone else's lead on such matters. But there's another reason which I've never seen presented in the context of explaining the herding-cats idea: atheism is much too broad a concept under which to seek to organize. The proper comparison is not to individual religious sects but to theists as a whole.

If we randomly put a dozen people who don't believe in any gods in a room, then they're no less likely to reach an agreement on any given issue than if we randomly put a dozen people who do believe in gods in a room. A representative sampling of a dozen of the world's theists would include four Christians (two Catholics, one Orthodox, one Protestant), three Muslims (two Sunnis, one Shiite), two Hindus, a (theistic) Buddhist, a Taoist, and an Animist. I rather doubt they would agree to much at all, since they don't even agree on the basic definition and identity of the gods. In fact, the random group of atheists might even be more likely to reach agreements since many atheists have great respect for science, which provides an objective way to establish underlying facts, since appeals to faith would be roundly rejected, and since atheists have no prejudices against other atheists who don't believe differently than they do. The task of organizing atheists seems significantly different from this perspective.

I'm not expressing an opinion about whether atheists should attempt to organize. Atheists—as distinguished from the much larger group of the non-religious—number very few in many parts of the world, including my own, so there may be wisdom in trying to gather as many people under the umbrella as reasonably possible. My point is only that organization works best when it's structured around a specific set of beliefs and not a general belief or disbelief. Only with that in mind can one make real comparisons between groups.

Image: Vlado | FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Go to Mass or Go to Hell

2010-12-09T16:00:00.001-05:00

The Catholic Church teaches that its members must attend mass on Sundays and all other holy days of obligation under pain of mortal sin. This means that if they purposely miss mass, they commit a mortal sin and, as with all mortal sins, if they then fail to repent of and confess this before they die, God will condemn them to hell for all eternity. If you choose to sleep in, to stay home and read a book, to have a picnic with your family in the park, to do anything but sit, stand, kneel and—most important—hand over your money in church for an hour each week, then you risk frying in a lake of fire for your grievous transgression. While I understand the pragmatic benefits the Catholic Church reaps from people who still take this threat seriously and begrudgingly shuffle off to mass each week when they would otherwise actually enjoy their alleged day of rest to the fullest, it makes little sense from a theological perspective.

Why would God threaten believers with punishment for failure to attend mass? The most plausible justification, at least initially, is that he wants to encourage them to attend, in the same way that a parent punishes a child who skips school. The problem is that God inflicts a punishment identical to the harm to be avoided in the first place! We can presume that God wants believers to attend mass with the ultimate goal of saving their souls from damnation; the danger in not attending mass regularly is that one may stop believing and/or commit acts which are inherently wrong such as murder, theft or adultery and end up in hell. But threatening believers with the potential danger is absurd, as it unnecessarily increases the danger which believers face, giving them an easier and more certain avenue to hell. (Of course, hell itself is already infinitely unjust. Of course, God himself created the original danger. I’m just showing how it’s absurdity upon absurdity.) It would be as though the state executed drivers who failed to use their seat belts. That’ll show them to be more careful next time! Never mind that there’s no next time, either for the executed or the damned, and that they would have been perfectly fine without either punishment.

Of course, if God has purely selfish motives for demanding his believers worship him every week, we might have a different analysis. One might think that God, for every person he tosses into the everlasting flames, loses an infinity of worship from this person, but St. Thomas Aquinas argued the saved in heaven will delight in the suffering of the damned, so perhaps God’s interests are served no matter what. Then why go the whole charade of earthly existence? I would say that perhaps the drama is interesting, but God already knows how it’s going to end anyway. What’s the point of playing it out? It’s impossible to avoid absurd conclusions when one postulates an infinite being, and throwing in infinite rewards and infinite punishments doesn’t help. My intention here was just to point out one additional absurdity peculiar to Catholicism.

Enduring Injustice

2010-11-29T18:00:00.003-05:00

Many religions teach an afterlife in which all wrongs are righted and every sacrifice duly recognized and applauded. The virtuous will be rewarded, and the wicked will be punished. No one will get away with anything, no matter how great or how small, and no one will be unappreciated or forgotten. Everything is made right, and everything lost is restored. Such a vision appeals to anyone who has ever suffered unrectified injustice during life, and that includes everyone of us to varying degrees. But anyone who believes in such an afterlife will never fully appreciate the idea of injustice. They will never know what it means to accept the reality of an unfair and uncaring world because they will always have someone to make everything all right in the end. As believers, they will never experience a major aspect of what it means to be human.

Personally I’ve never suffered any great injustices in life. I’ve never been a victim of crime worse than some relatively minor property crimes. No one has ever taken pains to humiliate me publicly. I’ve never had any family or friends murdered. With that said, I have received my share of slights, rudeness, unfair treatment, economic exploitation, as well as all the vicarious injustices of family, friends, and society at large. It’s fairly easy to dismiss each small injustice, but it’s more difficult to accept that there’s no guarantee that any of the people over the course of a lifetime who hurt you will ever feel bad about it. It’s even more difficult to accept that mass-murderers and large-scale swindlers sometimes avoid receiving their just desserts, that their victims will never be brought back to life or have their life savings returned. I think it takes a certain amount of maturity to come to terms with this reality, and the proper response is not to rely on baseless hopes of future justice but to strip ourselves of an expectation of justice. We have no guarantee justice will ever be done, and it’s precisely for this reason that we must work hard to achieve it as much as we can in the short time we have. This disillusionment about the world is a kind of virtue and as such provides its own bittersweet reward, the ability to remain somewhat more calm and rational in the face of great injustice.

One response to the Problem of Evil is that God allows suffering so that we can develop certain virtues such as compassion, sacrifice, and humility. I find it remarkable that, with an afterlife as described above, he necessarily denies us the opportunity to experience enduring injustice and thus develop the virtue of resignation and detachment. Of course, any afterlife at all denies us the opportunity to accept the reality of a finite existence and grapple with the extinction of our consciousness. Neither of these observations are direct criticisms of this proposed theodicy, but they do indicate that God would have had to choose which virtues to cultivate in us to the exclusion of others. It seems very odd for God to create a universe in which only atheists can develop certain virtues and still condemn them to hell.

Image: vichie81 | FreeDigitalPhotos.net

God is Worse than Kim Jong-il

2010-10-06T09:00:00.001-04:00

In my international human rights course, we've spent a lot of time discussing North Korea, both because it presents the most egregious examples of current human rights violations and because our professor has a special research interest in the topic, his family having fled Korea during the war and he having also taught in South Korea. The professor recently recounted a familiar story about foreign doctors entering the country, curing people of their ailments, and the healed immediately thanking and praising the dear leader before his portrait for helping them and curing them, despite his totalitarian and ruthless regime most likely being the direct cause of their suffering in the first place. Everyone in the class rightly considered the situation ridiculous and sad. My mind, both then and when I first heard the story years ago, immediately made the comparison between how many people in other countries would have turned to their gods in exactly the same way after the medical treatment and how it's equally ridiculous and sad.

I honestly believe that an omnimax deity who fails to help his creatures and who sends any of them to hell would be infinitely more evil than Kim Jong-il. Even leaving aside the eternity of hell which really trumps everything else, God could distribute food and medicine to the populace without any effort whatsoever whereas the North Korean government at least has to arrange to let humanitarian relief organizations enter the country to do the same. Indeed, God could miraculously heal everyone of every lament, but he never does. All the excuses that theists make on God's behalf could be equally well applied to Kim Jong-il—he knows better than we do, it's for the greater good, we have to trust in him despite all appearances. It was depressing to see documentary footage in class of North Koreans escaping into China and constantly talking about how they trusted in God to help them. It's very understandable under the circumstances of extreme hardship, extreme ignorance, and extreme fear, but it's still disheartening to see them exchange a real dictator for an even worse fictional one, one who ultimately let them down when they were captured and returned to North Korea to be imprisoned in death camps.

The only point that God has in his favor is that he doesn't actually exist. This certainly excuses his failure to help people. It also means he cannot inflict any of the suffering which he allegedly threatens; only people's belief in him can, and that level of suffering is relatively minor, especially in nations which don't take religion especially seriously. My experience with scrupulosity, while the most serious suffering of my life, is nothing compared to starvation, imprisonment, and torture. Life—or more accurately existence—in North Korea, however, would in turn be nothing compared to eternal hell, if it were real.

I'm sure that many theists feel revulsion at the comparison of the God to Kim Jong-il, but they've never provided adequate responses to the Problem of Evil or to the Problem of Hell, so I feel entirely justified in making it. This is why I blog: to say things that simply need to be said.

Noble Objectives and Deficient Methods

2010-09-10T18:00:00.001-04:00

In my legal philosophy course this week, the professor asked us what we thought of religion in general. Although I’ve discussed my views on other religious questions in earlier classes, I didn’t respond to this particular query. I did, however, formulate an answer that expresses my simultaneous interest in and rejection of religion, whose precise terms I had never previously used: I think the objectives of believers are mostly noble, but the methods they use are deficient with respect to some of their objectives and additionally cause unintended harm to themselves and to others.

Although the list of reasons people believe in and practice religion is potentially endless, I believe I’ve identified a fair number of noble or at least unobjectionable things people seek in religion:

knowledge of…

where we’ve come from
where we’re going
why we’re here
how we should act
nature of reality

hope for…

existence beyond death
ultimate justice

identity
community
quiet contemplation
emotional experiences
escape from the mundane

Of course, there are also a number of less noble things people seek in religion such as power, respect, money or sex, but this is true of business, politics, sports, acting and music, as well as many other areas of human activity. The only point is that one can have neutral or even good reasons for considering religion.

Just as people’s objectives in religion vary, so do their methods. But here are some very common unreliable methods people use to achieve their objectives:

blind faith
unquestioned trust in authority (text, person, tradition, etc.)
emotion and intuition
dogmatism

These methods are sometimes effective in achieving the last five items on the list but not knowledge or (justified) hope. That is, stirring one’s emotions with song is certainly a useful way to escape the mundane, but it’s not a legitimate tool for establishing the truth of supernatural claims. In the same way, dogmatism can help build orthodoxy and thus a sense of community, but it doesn’t help anyone understand our origins if it limits acceptance of scientific inquiry. Believers may object to my classification of these methods as unreliable on the ground that their faith, trust or emotion corresponds to the voice of a deity, but my point here is not to explain in detail why I think they’re mistaken but merely to state my general view of religion. Let’s just say I don’t think anyone has a justified claim to have access to the mind of any disembodied spirit. Some believers may also respond that they’re open to the voice of science and reason as a source of knowledge. This is true, but to the extent they receive such information, it’s not from their religious leaders or sacred texts; it’s from scientists and philosophers. I certainly don’t object to that. Others may say that they’re not interested in actual knowledge or that they’re satisfied with any hope at all in the face of great injustice and certain death. This may be true of them, but not of me; I prefer the best approximation of the truth available, not simply what is accessible or comforting. I just don’t think any of the listed methods are valid avenues to knowledge, and I’m not willing to sacrifice knowledge in order to achieve any of the other objectives on this list, as offered by many, if not most, religious groups.

My personal view of any given approach to spirituality strongly correlates negatively with its reliance on faith, authority and dogmatism rather than skepticism, reason and progressivism. I hold a very negative opinion of religious fundamentalism, tied to a rigid interpretation of a static text, and a much more positive opinion of liberal religions such as Unitarian Universalism, in which individuals are actively encouraged to question and to think for themselves. I’m still too much of individualist, however, to belong even to a UU congregation, so it seems I’m on my own seeking the bottom part of the list of objectives. At least I have science to help me with the first!

The Importance of Atheism

2010-05-16T15:00:00.008-04:00

Atheism is nothing more than not believing in deities, so I often question why I devote so much time and energy to mere disbelief. The activities are mostly devoid of positive content, consisting mostly of critical thinking applied to this one very controversial topic, and therefore almost entirely reactive toward religion rather than creative. And when I try to be constructive, as when I focus on Humanism rather than just atheism, I still concentrate heavily on the atheistic aspects rather than on the purely secular aspects. I’ve come up with a few possible explanations for this phenomenon.

Atheists, especially explicit atheists, are a rather small minority worldwide, even smaller in the United States, and smaller still in the southeastern part of this country. What’s more, theists make their presence known through churches and a thousand other ways that atheists generally don’t, for vocal atheists are the smallest minority yet. Indeed, many atheists have no interest whatsoever in their atheism and even consider expressing one’s atheism, except perhaps upon direct questioning, to be inappropriate, in bad taste or simply ridiculous. Given this extreme minority status and the constant reminders of it, it’s not surprising that I sometimes feel slightly insecure in my position despite feeling such confidence whenever I actually examine the arguments on both sides. In fact, this dichotomy explains the situation almost on its own.

When I think about how as an atheist I believe the rest of the world is not only mistaken but very badly mistaken, I feel the need to remind myself why I think this and to make sure I’m not the one who’s mistaken. And although I don’t get many opportunities to have sincere, honest and good faith discussions with believers on the topic of religion, that’s why it’s something I really love to do when I can. Whenever there are two sides to a debate, which is essentially always, I don’t feel comfortable dismissing the other side unless I know exactly why they’re mistaken and can present specific errors in their thinking. I want to show them these errors, in exactly the same way I would like others to show me mine rather than simply dismissing me as an idiot. Dismissing others and disengaging from the debate is generally unconducive to the search for truth.

There’s an additional reason stemming from my past not only as a believer but as a scrupulous believer, deathly afraid of hell. Although I haven’t really felt anxious about the possibility of being wrong about Christianity in over five years, the indoctrination certainly left an indelible mark on my psyche that will probably remain until I die. I’ve never for even the briefest moment feared that Islam was true and that Allah would send me to hell, so I know the only reason I’ve ever feared Christianity was true is because it’s part of my past and part of my culture. But whenever I see a new book at bookstores claiming to justify belief in God or Jesus, I immediately feel a little bit of anxiety at the possibility that I’ve somehow overlooked something. I know this reaction isn’t rational, especially since it’s emotional and almost reflexive, and I sometimes calm myself by picking it up, thumbing through it, and seeing that it’s the same arguments theists have been making for centuries. It's notable, however, that I've never felt the urge to do this regarding other religions.

Sometimes I feel like I really should fully dismiss all belief in the supernatural, completely disengage from all discussion about atheism, and focus my energies elsewhere. But atheism is an important hobby for me and sometimes reduces anxiety, though disengaging may be more effective, for all I know. And someone needs to help fly the banner of atheism, as it were, so that religious doubters have somewhere to turn for help. I’m very happy all the people who helped me on my road to deconversion didn’t just decide to focus their attention on something “constructive” after they personally decided religion was false and instead actually took the time to express their atheism and their reasons for disbelief. Without them, I would very likely either still be a very miserable scrupulant with no life or a suicide. Atheism, not Humanism or any other positive philosophy, has been very constructive in my life and made me very happy comparatively, and I want to help offer other people that option if that’s what they need.

Vestigial Prayer

2010-05-13T18:00:00.001-04:00

In religions whose gods are less than perfect, the purpose of petitionary prayer is simple and clear: People ask their gods for something because otherwise they might not grant it to them. If the gods are not omniscient or even forgetful, people need to inform them or remind them of what they need. If the gods are not omnibenevolent, people need to beg the gods repeatedly so they will grant them favors. If the gods are not omnipotent, maybe they can’t do anything unless enough people ask long enough and sincerely enough to grant them power. In this context, asking makes sense.

In religions whose gods are perfect, such as the Abrahamic traditions, however, the purpose of petitionary prayer is totally unclear. An omnimax deity knows exactly what his creatures need, cannot forget it, has the ability to give it to them, and loves them perfectly such that he always wants to give it to them. Furthermore, as infinitely perfect, such a god’s will cannot be changed. In this context, asking makes no sense. Of course, the Abrahamic tradition hasn’t always been monotheistic, much less believed their god was omnimax, so it appears that petitionary prayer may be a vestige from this earlier time since it’s completely incompatible with its theology over the past couple of millennia.

It baffles me to understand how billions of Jews, Christians and Muslims have spent their entire lives engaging in, thinking, preaching and writing about petitionary prayer without realizing its absurdity in light of their beliefs. The logic involved is extraordinarily simple. I suppose at least some have recognized the problem, but it’s a tiny minority, and most of them probably still use the actual form of petitionary prayer with a different purpose in mind. If one believes his gods are perfect, it’s irrational to ask them for anything, ever. It also baffles me to realize that this issue didn’t cause me more trouble than it did before my deconversion. The truth is that I was probably too afraid of being sent to hell for doubting and tried not to question it, even though I could never understand it. At least I now understand why I couldn’t: it just doesn’t make sense.

Afraid of Nothing

2010-05-13T17:30:00.002-04:00

It’s been almost exactly five months since my last post. There’s no special reason for this; I just haven’t had much to say on the topics of religion and irreligion so far this year. I still receive occasional comments on my prior posts, and there’s one particular type of feedback that draws me back in and makes me want to write more. It comes from former or current scrupulants who tell me that my blog has helped them in their suffering and given them hope. As a former scrupulant, I can identify with their struggles from my own experience, and I’m certainly much more aware of their plight than most others. The vast majority of scrupulants avoid anything questioning their faith, at least during most their time in that condition, but the few who do when the time is right, like me, truly benefit from hearing someone address their exact concerns and show them the path to mental freedom. I don’t know how to reach this target audience better, but they’re certainly a major part of my desire to write more and provide them with more resources if and when they find my blog.

Scrupulosity is not a disease. It’s a perfectly rational reaction to the threat of eternal damnation. The solution is to realize the threat is false. There is nothing to fear.

Comforting Others in Pain

2009-12-14T16:00:00.004-05:00

In the face of suffering, believers almost have always something they can say to others: they can say, first, that they're praying for them, and, second, that everything will be alright in the end. Nonbelievers can't honestly say either of these. The closest we can get is that we're thinking about them, which can raise their spirits but not give them hope it'll actually help their problem, and that their suffering will eventually end at death, which really only helps those with terminal conditions and those afraid of hell. There's really not much you can say in the face of harsh reality that doesn't involve asking them to toughen up and accept their plight.

I've been thinking about this recently because I have a classmate who's suffered both a divorce and a diagnosis of cancer within the past half year. (What's worse for him is that his ex-wife is now with another classmate of ours.) He's really nice, honest and hardworking, and I like and respect him. On Facebook, his status updates about his treatment and various difficulties always receive many comments about people praying for him and promising him that it'll be alright in the end. I honestly add that we've missed him and hope to see him again soon, and I do hope all the comments make him feel better, but my inability to say anything more just got me thinking on this topic.

Sometimes I think it'd easier if I again believed that everything will eventually be perfect in the afterlife, but I'd probably again fear the prospect of eternal torment for failure to live a good enough life. If I had a choice between somehow honestly believing that life will never end but that there was even the tiniest chance I would end up in hell, and believing that my life will end forever at death, then I would certainly choose the latter. I'd sacrifice a very, very high probability of eternal pleasure to avoid even a very, very low chance of eternal pain. Of course we can't honestly choose our beliefs, and even seemingly perfectly innocent self-deception can have unpredictable negative consequences, if not for me, then for others. I hope that I can remain as intellectually honest throughout my life as I resolve to be today.

Secularist Fantasy

2009-12-11T17:00:00.003-05:00

During the summer, I participated in an online United States government simulation. Many players choose to use characters with views quite distinct from their own, but my character was essentially a puppet for me. As a member of the House of Representatives, I authored and sponsored the two following pieces of legislation. The first one is about the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge Neutrality Restoration Resolution

Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance contained no reference to any deity before 1954,

Whereas an increasing minority of Americans do not profess belief in any deity and an even larger number claim no association with any religion,

Whereas non-religious citizens are as much an integral part of our nation as are religious citizens,

Whereas the government exists to serve all people of the nation and should favor neither religion nor irreligion,

Whereas the pledge should unite rather than divide,

Whereas the phrase “under God” creates division by referencing a religious belief not shared by all citizens and necessarily excludes non-believers,

Whereas believers can understand how unbelievers feel by imagining the pledge saying “without God” instead of “under God,”

Whereas most American children are encouraged to recite the pledge every day at school regardless of their own beliefs,

Whereas many American adults are encouraged to recite the pledge on occasion regardless of their own beliefs,

Whereas refraining from favoring religion is distinct from favoring irreligion,

Whereas the removal of the phrase “under God” would restore the pledge's neutrality toward religion,

BE IT RESOLVED
The Pledge of Allegiance be restored to its pre-1954 formulation: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

The second one is about the national motto.

Motto Neutrality Restoration Resolution

Whereas E Pluribus Unum has been a de facto motto of the United States since 1776,

Whereas In God We Trust has been the de jure motto of the United States only since 1956,

Whereas E Pluribus Unum contains no reference to any deity and In God We Trust does,

Whereas an increasing minority of Americans do not profess belief in any deity and an even larger number claim no association with any religion,

Whereas non-religious citizens are as much an integral part of our nation as are religious citizens,

Whereas the government exists to serve all people of the nation and should favor neither religion nor irreligion,

Whereas the motto should unite rather than divide,

Whereas the motto In God We Trust creates division by referencing a religious belief not shared by all citizens and necessarily excludes non-believers,

Whereas believers can understand how unbelievers feel by imagining the motto being In God We Disbelieve instead of In God We Trust,

Whereas In God We Trust is a false statement because many Americans neither believe nor trust in supernatural beings,

Whereas refraining from favoring religion is distinct from favoring irreligion,

Whereas the replacement of In God We Trust with E Pluribus Unum would restore the motto's neutrality toward religion,

BE IT RESOLVED
E Pluribus Unum be declared the official motto of the United States, and the use of In God We Trust be discontinued wherever possible, including but not limited to on United States currency and coinage.

Since the simulation is rather realistic, both of the resolutions were easily defeated in committee. But they were fun to write, so I'm sharing them here. I'd love to see something like these submitted to the real House or Senate hopper one day, but I'm not holding my breath.

So Much to Celebrate

2009-11-27T00:00:00.003-05:00

Although I intend to continue celebrating Humanlight, Festivus and the winter solstice itself, I also intend to celebrate a secular Christmas without any qualms whatsoever. It's a very natural time of year for a cheerful and festive holiday, the winter solstice has been celebrated in almost every culture throughout history, it's the dominant holiday in my own culture, it's already mostly non-Christian anyway, and it's fun! Abstaining from the festivities accomplishes nothing unless you get special pleasure from making a symbolic gesture that nobody else cares about. Maybe some do, but I don't. I want to enjoy it! If any Christian objects to an non-Christian celebrating a secular Christmas, then I encourage them to support abolishing it as a federal holiday. If that ever happens, I'll think about it. I won't promise them anything more.

Becoming Human

2009-11-17T12:00:00.002-05:00

I've never posted about science in the media, but I've really enjoyed NOVA's new documentary series on PBS about human evolution entitled Becoming Human, and I want to share it with my readers. It's shown in three parts, with the third part airing tonight. It's also available online.

The most interesting thing I learned from the first part is the theory that the necessity of adapting to rapid climate change in east Africa several millions of years ago initiated the brain growth that eventually lead to our large brains today. From the second part, I learned that bipedalism is more energy efficient than quadripedism but that large brains require a lot more energy than small ones. I was also truly fascinated by the theory that we lost our body hair so we could sweat to stay cool, allowing us to run much longer in the midday sun than most animals, thus enabling us to chase larger, faster, and stronger prey to absolute exhaustion and kill them with only the most primitive technology. (The meat in turn provided the energy for our large brains that plants couldn't.) The filmmakers even showed modern Bushmen employing this strategy to hunt a kudu! They chased it for four hours, the kudu suffered from heat stroke and just stopped moving, and the hunters got close and killed it with spears. I thought it was amazing.

I'm looking forward to part three, but I'll have to watch it online like I did the first two parts. I intend to share my comments here afterward. Check it out!

The Evolution of Marriage

2009-11-06T17:00:00.005-05:00

I'm sick of hearing the argument that same-sex couples shouldn't seek full marriage rights and should be satisfied with civil unions since marriage is a religious concept. It's not. Marriage is a social arrangement which has evolved throughout history, just as societies as a whole have evolved, and we need to recognize that.

Marriage can receive legal sanction, religious sanction, both or neither. Here in the United States, I think most couples receive both, a large number receive only legal, but very few receive neither or only religious. I'm not aware of any mainstream religious group here whose members don't regularly obtain legal marriage licenses in addition to holding their religious ceremonies. Adherents of most faiths are explicitly required to present the license to the officiant in order for the ceremony to proceed! If religious leaders who claim that marriage is a purely religious concept were honest, they would insist their members refuse to obtain marriage licenses from the government. In reality, they recognize the numerous benefits of legal marriage for their members, but they have no difficulty simultaneously seeking to deny those benefits to others. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple.

Of course, same-sex couples have been seeking, and have obtained within some groups, the opportunity to hold a religious wedding ceremony, but that's not what the same-sex marriage debate in this country is about. It's only about the legal sanction which carries with it a large number of legal rights. But since same-sex marriages are indeed being performed by legally recognized religious groups, and if religion can make marriage valid, then to deny the couples married in those groups a legal marriage license would be a violation of religious liberty. I suppose critics would say those other faiths and their weddings are invalid, but this just makes their bigotry clearer.

Sometimes I hear a proposal to legally convert all marriages to civil unions and let people have whatever religious ceremony they want afterward. But that's just playing with words, and it would cause more harm than good. It would be as if the Fourteenth Amendment had made everyone “legal residents” because some people had religious objections to applying the term “citizen” to former slaves. Such a drastic change would also certainly increase the volume of complaints from people that their marriage had been destroyed. We've had civil marriage for a long time, and abandoning it now would not be productive.

When my wife and I got married almost a year ago, it was an very simple ceremony at the courthouse without any mention of the supernatural. Our commitment to love one another was certainly the most important aspect, but the legal recognition was necessary for immigration purposes. I'm thankful that religious conservatives have at least left us opposite-sex atheist couples alone, but I'm willing to fight against them on the behalf of others when I can.

Atheist Blogroll

2009-10-31T12:00:00.000-04:00

After more than three and half years of posting, I've finally joined Mojoey's Atheist Blogroll. You can find it in the sidebar. Please consider checking it out.

Not Meant to Be / All for the Best

2009-10-29T16:30:00.002-04:00

Though it's possible for an atheist to express the sentiment that “it wasn't meant to be,” I think it's mostly something believers say since it implies that someone directs everything that happens to us and thus controls of our lives. If you think about it, it's usually nothing more than an excuse not to analyze your past conduct for mistakes to determine what you need to change to reach your goal next time. The last time I heard this said, I pointed out that the result could indeed have been quite different if the parties had followed a different course of action. This was met with blank stares and a comment equating to sour grapes.

I have similar objections to the sentiment that “it's all for the best.” No, really, it's not. Or at least, we don't know so. Life might indeed be better with fewer tragedies. It's probably not better that your family member or friend died in an accident. It's absolutely true that some good things only happened because some bad things happened before them, but we don't know whether something even better could have happened if they hadn't. Life is too unpredictable for us to know what is ultimately for the best. We just have to make the best choices we can, given our knowledge and abilities, and take responsibility for the consequences.

Truly Good without God

2009-10-29T15:30:00.004-04:00

I understand the recent billboard campaign promoting the idea that people can be “good without God” doesn't target fundamentalists, but I want to mention why I think it won't really have any effect on them whatsoever. No amount of personal virtue or charitable activity could ever convince most of them that you can live an ethical life without their religion. Beyond the issue of belief, which the campaign attempts to address directly, conservative believers have a very specific idea of what it means to be a good person. This includes refraining for all sorts of normal sexual activity, regularly attending and financially supporting a church in the community, and subscribing to and voting according to a conservative political ideology, at least on certain social issues. For some of them, it also means never drinking, smoking or dancing. Unless you act just like them in these matters, you'll never be good in their eyes. At most, you'll be slightly more tolerable.

The problem is that we can't honestly say that we act like strong believers even though we don't believe. We instead have to convince them the way we act isn't immoral because their objections to our lives have nothing to do with actual morality. That's a difficult task but a worthy one.

The Invention of Religion

2009-10-03T12:00:00.008-04:00

Last night my wife and I watched Ricky Gervais' new film, The Invention of Lying. It's set in an alternate universe where humans haven't evolved the ability to lie, and absolutely everyone is not only completely honest but also brutally frank in every situation. Gervais' character, Mark Bellison, is the first person on the planet who can tell an untruth, and he uses it to his advantage since people apparently also lack the ability to doubt anyone's veracity and believe whatever he says immediately and unquestioningly.

Using his unique skill, while trying to do something nice for his mother, Mark inadvertently creates the first religion in this world, focused on the “invisible man in the sky.” Though Mark actively seeks out opportunities to lie to get what he wants in other areas of his life, he's very reluctant to take on the role of prophet and does his best to create a reasonably fair and peaceful religion when he's forced to at the behest of the entire world. This is when the film becomes a true religious satire. Though it wasn't quite as funny as the best in this genre, I appreciated the humor. I don't want to give much away, but there are references to Moses, Jesus and even Joseph Smith. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops rates the film “O” for “morally offensive.” Its official review contains some of the following phrases: “venomous supposed comedy,” “all-out sneering assault,” “despicably belittling,” “pervasive blasphemy,” “fashionable new atheism,” “slithers,” and “calculated cinematic insult.” Those words are like music to my ears, especially considering the source!

I'd give the film a rating of 9 out 10. I enjoyed the novelty of the concept, and any film in which someone exclaims, “@#$* the invisible man in the sky!” and a large crowd cheers in agreement automatically gets an elevated rating in my book. There were, however, a few disappointments. We never really see how perfect honesty would make society radically different from our own except that there's no fiction and they don't have the words true or false. It also seemed that people couldn't even imagine that someone could simply say something mistaken. At the end, I wanted to see more of what happened to his religion, but without the ability to lie, no one else could expand his revelation, so I have no real objection. And, of course, a world without any religion whatsoever would be so different, but I don't think Gervais could have pulled that off without being boring and preachy. This film does a fine job of approaching the concept, and I recommend it to everyone.

Godfree for Five Years

2009-10-03T00:00:00.003-04:00

Today is the fifth anniversary of my apostasy from the Catholic Church. It's hard to believe that it's already been half a decade since I finally stopping worrying about being damned to eternal torment and began to truly live my life. In some ways, it feels like it was only yesterday, for it was the most significant day in the story of my life. It's also hard to believe that it's been almost three and a half years since I started this blog. I know I've averaged less than one post per week, but I'm proud of what I've written. In general, I've come so far and I'm very happy about that.

Today is International Blasphemy Day!

2009-09-30T00:00:00.003-04:00

Today is the fourth anniversary of the publication of Muhammad cartoons in Jyllands-Posten that created an international event, and the Center for Inquiry is commemorating the date as International Blasphemy Day as part of its Campaign for Free Expression. I'm happy to support this anti-holy-day.

According to some Christian theology, it's not possible to commit the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as described in Matthew 12:31-32 while living because it's understood as disbelief until the moment of death. I suppose it gives me something to look forward to! (No, not really.) Of course, it's still possible to commit other kinds of garden-variety blasphemy here and now. Though I'm rather less belligerent than some other bloggers, this anti-theistic blog is itself inherently blasphemous, and plenty of my previous comments would offend a great number of believers despite my never having the specific intention to do so. It's just that I've never hesitated to speak my negative opinion of religion here, fearing that it might offend someone. But of course that's not at all difficult with an anonymous publication and a small number of readers!

I'm sure there will be plenty of blasphemous cartoons, songs, poems and videos posted today, but I don't have anything special to contribute. I'm loath to say something with the sole intention of causing offense, so I'll just say something true the general population doesn't hear often enough: If Yahweh, Jesus, or Allah really existed, as portrayed in their respective scriptures, they would be absolutely evil and worthy of every ounce of contempt and derision we could muster toward them.

Today is the day that we remember that blasphemy is victimless, but that government censorship is not. Let's not forget it.

Farthest from Traditional Religion

2009-09-26T16:00:00.004-04:00

Yesterday I read an article that suggested that Unitarian Universalism is farther from traditional religion than even atheism despite the use of religious language, symbolism and ritual because UUism isn't focused on whether gods really exist whereas atheism is defined solely by its stance (or lack thereof) toward this question. Of course, many, if not most, UUs have an opinion whether any gods exist, and some may even think the answer important, but UUism as an ideology simply doesn't address the issue. I can appreciate the author's point, but I don't think this difference necessarily makes UUism farther from traditional religion; it may just make it equally far in a different dimension. Atheism retains the definition of “god” — even if only to argue that definition is incoherent — but denies that it corresponds to anything in reality whereas UUism, to the extent that UUs indeed use divine terminology, retains the word “god” but frequently changes its meaning to something other than a supernatural entity such as the universe itself or an abstract concept such as altruism. I argue that Humanism is farther from traditional religion than either atheism or UUism because it doesn't use the word “god” at all, and it also encompasses much more than an view on one particular topic.

But it's not a competition, and we have to remember there's significant overlap between the various groups. Over half of UUs consider themselves at least small-H humanists, a third agnostic, and almost a fifth atheist. (The choices weren't exclusive on the survey in question.) All big-H Humanists are by definition atheists, though I have no idea what percentage of explicit atheists consider themselves Humanists.

I know that some people dislike, or at least claim to dislike, personal labels, but I myself find them useful. (I refer to those other people as anti-labelists!) My blog certainly attests to my tendency to change and think about changing labels relatively often. I find that it helps me think more clearly about myself and my relationship to the world.

A Misanthropic, Pessimistic Humanist?

2009-08-21T18:00:00.006-04:00

I've sometimes wondered whether it's truly possible for a misanthrope and a pessimist such as myself to be considered a Humanist, but after some reflection, I've concluded that these mental and emotional tendencies are irrelevant to the question and that it's only my principles, words and actions that are relevant. Here is the International Humanist and Ethical Union's Minimum Statement on Humanism:

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

There is nothing in this statement suggesting I must have any positive feelings toward or confidence in humanity in order to call myself a Humanist.

It doesn't matter that almost everyone angers me from time to time with their irrationality, ignorance, selfishness and outright malice, that many people constantly disappoint me, or that I have a very low opinion of “the average person.” It only matters that I recognize that I, too, have numerous personal flaws, that I believe I'll be happier if I treat them sympathetically rather than disdainfully, and that I at least try to do so.

I don't know whether morality can be said to objectively exist, but I think a secular morality based on human needs and desires rather than a religious morality based on divine revelation is the most conducive to human happiness and can be universally applied.

I don't think humans are free in the sense that we instinctively imagine, but that doesn't mean that our lives have no meaning and that the illusion of free will isn't useful. An appreciation of determinism has greater potential to increase our power than it does to decrease it.

I don't think science can answer every question, but I know it can answer many and that religions can answer none.

I don't think democratic institutions regularly make decisions in the best interest of the governed, but I do think they make them much more often than any alternative, and I don't expect anything better to ever be developed.

I'm not at all confident humanity can solve most of its own problems, but I'm very confident that if any problems are solved, it will be our reason and compassion that save us rather than supernatural beings.

I'm not necessarily optimistic that civilization will avoid destroying itself, whether by global environmental degradation, nuclear holocaust, technological disaster or any other means, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to build sustainable societies and even eventually try to branch out into different worlds.

In my last entry I settled on “atheist” as my preferred label (without at all disclaiming the other candidates), but perhaps I should change once more to “Humanist,” having now determined that it suits me well despite the necessity of making the above qualifications to clarify my exact opinion. I have a tendency to be react belligerently, at least mentally, toward any mention of religion, and this does nothing but make me tense and angry, so a stronger identification with Humanism rather than atheism may serve me well. We'll see how it goes.

What Kind of Atheist Am I?

2009-08-12T17:00:00.002-04:00

After vacillating for quite some time between the terms atheist, naturalist and Humanist as my preferred label, I've settled on “atheist” because it's minimalist, unambiguous, and the most recognizable. Now I'm debating with myself whether in certain contexts I should add an adjective in order to indicate that I take an real interest in atheism and that it's an important part of my identity. I want people to understand it's something I actually care about rather than just another fact about me, like my height or my eye color. I'm going to consider a few adjectives commonly paired with “atheist” and see whether they fit the bill.

Militant atheist — I rather like this one because it suggests that I'm always ready and willing to stand up and defend my viewpoint at any moment and that I'm willing to accept the negative label of my critics in order to weaken it, but unfortunately it's misleading in that I never advocate physical violence as do militant religionists. I don't want to give people the wrong impression; atheists have enough misperceptions to combat already.

Fundamentalist atheist — The term isn't exactly meaningless, but it doesn't correspond to anything in reality. That is, it's technically possible to accept the non-existence of deities as an axiom of one's worldview (or a “properly basic belief,” as Plantinga might call it), but I've never actually encountered anyone who does. Weak atheism isn't even a belief, and strong atheism is always argued for with evidence and logic, never dogmatically asserted as unquestionably true.

Devout atheist — I've occasionally referred to myself as this because it's ironic and it actually describes my strong commitment to the idea, but it's also misleading in that it suggests that atheism is a religion. We have no dogma, no sacred texts, no moral code, no holidays, no priests, no saints, no temples, nor anything else that almost every religion has.

Committed atheist — This is similar to the previous option but with less religious baggage. Unfortunately, I wouldn't really say that I was committed to atheism; I'm not even personally committed to promoting it.

Happy atheist — This could indicate that I'm a happy person and that I'm happy to be an atheist. Unfortunately, it seems to imply that many atheists are unhappy and that I need to distinguish myself from them; this is simply false.

Friendly atheist — This has similar problems as the previous option, and it might be even registered or trademarked by Hemant Mehta, who writes a very popular blog with this title. Even if not, it might lead to confusion if I used it.

Serious atheist — Since many atheists aren't serious about their atheism, this is a distinction that actually makes sense. It could mean, I suppose, that I have no sense of humor, but this isn't really likely since I've never encountered any atheist who was reluctant to laugh about both religion and atheism.

Active atheist — I don't know whether I qualify as one since my activity is currently limited to reading books, listening to podcasts, blogging and discussing atheism on a couple of internet forums. I used to attend some meetings of local atheist group, but as a married law student, I really don't have the time, and I'm also not a member of any non-theist organization. I'm certainly not nearly as involved as a lot of others are. I really want to indicate something other than my activity level with the description, but this is the least misleading of the group.

Of course, there's even less of a need or desire to use an adjective in addition to a label. If any readers have a suggestion which I haven't considered here, please post it as comment.

First Mass in Almost Five Years

2009-08-04T14:00:00.000-04:00

On 1 August, my wife and I served as bridesmaid and groomsman respectively at my younger sister's wedding. It was the first time I had attended a mass in almost five years and, I think, only the second time ever for my wife, whose family is at most nominally Buddhist. Though I remembered all of the responses during the ceremony, of course, I didn't repeat them and I didn't otherwise participate except for standing when everyone else did and for shaking hands and saying, “Peace be with you,” since it would have been very difficult to refuse politely and since the phrase itself is secular anyway. While the wedding itself interested me, the mass was rather unremarkable. It didn't really stir any feelings, either positive or negative, other than the general frustration I feel whenever people express their irrational belief in the supernatural. I don't plan on returning until I have to for another wedding or perhaps a funeral.

This morning my wife commented on her disgust at the cannibalism of communion and at the authoritarianism of the requirement to believe in Jesus or be condemned to hell. She also somewhat mockingly made the sign of the cross at breakfast after having seen it so often this weekend. Not long after we got married, when she saw my family pray before every meal, she wanted to start our own tradition, so we always kiss each other before we eat together. If one of us forgets and starts eating without doing so, the “penalty” is an extra kiss. It's so much better than praying!

Uncertainty about the Afterlife

2009-07-11T18:00:00.002-04:00

In response to the problem of evil, believers typically claim that God must have a perfectly valid reason for allowing great evil in the world even if we cannot discover or understand it and that the proper response is to trust him without questioning. I recently encountered an interesting idea from Robert M. Price which addresses this response in a new way. He rhetorically asks how Christians would react if, upon death, God canceled their ticket to heaven (faith in Jesus, life of good works, state of grace at death, etc.) and sent them to hell without any explanation whatsoever. Applying their argument to this situation, they couldn't complain at all, for God must have a perfectly valid reason for sending them to hell even if they cannot discover or understand it. No Christian could honestly counter that it's an absolute impossibility; this is the same deity who slaughtered multitudes of Egyptian babies in their sleep and who they acknowledge threatens to send billions of souls to hell for mere disbelief. It's a perfectly valid rhetorical question without any clear answer.

Dr. Price's idea reminds me of the major issues I had with scrupulosity and fear of hell before I deconverted. For years, I had regular, persistent doubts about whether my confessions were valid, whether I was forgiven, and whether I would be damned to hell if I died at that moment. Priests regularly told me to trust in God's love and that God wouldn't condemn me if I honestly did my best to obey him, but their assurances never helped me because I also believed this was a deity who didn't hesitate to send souls to hell for all eternity for something as absolutely ridiculous as masturbating or missing mass one Sunday; I had no trouble imagining him on judgment day telling me that I sinned by listening to my confessor instead of my own conscience and casting me into a lake of fire to burn forever. It was mental agony to believe one is constantly being watched by a despicable, malevolent being who demands blind love, blind faith, and blind obedience and who will probably eventually capture and torture you. It's a lot like being Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four, but with infinite consequences. This is why the day I deconverted was the best day of my entire life.

While I'm on the topic of the afterlife, I want to say that sometimes I rather wish there were a way for arrogant religionists who claim certainty in their beliefs to learn they're wrong before they die. If my belief is correct that our consciousness is forever extinguished upon death, it's really a pity they can all pass out of existence without ever being forced to admit the magnitude of their stupidity.

Deconversion: Evolution vs. Revolution

2009-06-30T20:00:00.005-04:00

Deconversion is not a uniform process. Some happen in matter of days, others over the course of decades. Some pass through several phases on their way to atheism, others jump straight from strong belief to strong disbelief. Some can be likened to game of Jenga, in which one belief after another can be removed without affecting others until finally the tower just collapses, others to a game of dominoes, in which the fall of one very basic belief results in the fall of all the others. Of course, most deconversions are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between gradual change, i.e., evolution, and rapid change, i.e, revolution.

My deconversion certainly falls on the revolution end of the spectrum. Once I became a devout believer in junior high school until my apostasy over a decade later, my status as a religious conservative never changed. At no point was I ever a liberal or even moderate Catholic; I never at all openly questioned any dogma the church taught until I doubted and then rejected all of them at once. I think this is because of how I learned from apologetics to defend my belief from Protestant arguments against Catholicism.

According to Karl Keating in his Catholicism & Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians”, which was the very first apologetic book I ever read, Catholics can justify their religion with the following “spiral logic,” which contrasts with invalid circular logic of fundamentalist Protestants who begin with the unquestioned assumption that the bible is inspired: First, one reads the gospels without assuming they're perfect or inspired, merely historically reliable (!), and one concludes that Jesus must have been divine. Next, one reads in the gospels that Jesus established Peter as a permanent, infallible religious authority, and since the pope is the successor of Peter, he is also an infallible religious authority. Finally, the pope says the bible is divinely inspired, so we can believe it. I realize now, of course, this argument is incredibly weak, but I was only about thirteen years old when I encountered it, and I already believed the conclusion for non-rational reasons. This was my first real exposure to any justification for my religion, and I grabbed onto it tightly. I later learned to rely on alleged miracles throughout the history of the church as confirmation to quell my doubts, but I never forgot that without papal authority, I had no reason to believe almost anything else in my religion. For example, I couldn't know whether the whole of the bible was true without an authority telling me so, and I couldn't trust my own interpretation of it, which necessarily conflicted with that of other Christians. Within this paradigm, faith was not belief without or in spite of evidence; it was trust in papal authority, which I believed was established by logic and evidence. It didn't matter whether there was any biblical, historical or scientific evidence for any teaching since the pope's approval itself was sufficient evidence. Belief in papal authority was thus the rock on which I built my justification for my religion. For the record, I want to clear that I'm not saying this is an entirely accurate portrayal of actual Catholic doctrine, just my own understanding of it when I was a believer.

My belief structure was mostly rational, in a sense, even if badly mistaken, and I dismissed every other kind of faith as blind and irrational. This brought my views into conflict with other Catholics, especially liberal Catholics. Liberals accept some church teachings (e.g., heaven exists) while rejecting others (e.g., fornication is sinful), but if they reject anything, they must reject its basis, papal authority, and therefore have no reason to accept anything else except on blind faith. The church itself doesn't really care why one believes the easy doctrines, even if it laments and preaches against disbelief in the difficult doctrines, but as for me, I felt not only little connection with liberal believers but even with conservative believers who just happened to accept all the church's teachings without directly and explicitly connecting it to papal authority and instead citing mystical faith. Returning to the point of the story, it explains why I never passed through moderate or liberal phases on the road to apostasy.

Over the years, the very same doubts which drive evolution-type deconverts to moderate and then liberal positions also arose in my mind, but I responded to them either by invoking papal authority if they related to the church's teaching or by simply suppressing them due to my intense fear of hell if they related to the basis for papal authority, such as the divinity of Jesus or even the very existence of God. When I finally sat down and examined these doubts, everything hinged on the original argument as forwarded by Keating, held together by the glue of belief in Catholic miracles. There was no way I could reject belief in hell, which had caused me so much agony over the previous five years, without rejecting everything else. The arguments against religion had to overcome everything all at once, but after a few months of intense research and reflection, that's exactly what happened. In the end, I still had to make an emotional effort to admit that it was all over and finally discontinue attending church, but I always knew I couldn't simply return as a weak believer once I faced my doubts. I had gone from believing everything the church taught to believing nothing. The revolution had ended, and reason had triumphed over superstition.

I would guess the evolution-type deconversion is more common among Catholics and mainline Protestants because most never structure their faith on one core belief, and that the revolution-type is more common among fundamentalist Protestants who often do. In a sense, I was a fundamentalist Catholic; because of my background, my fundamental belief just happened to be papal authority rather than scriptural inerrancy. I wonder whether I would have become an atheist in my teenage years if I had never been convinced of the centrality of papal authority and nothing more than blind faith was offered as justification, which I would almost certainly have rejected more quickly. I'm just happy I'm an atheist now.

Same-Sex Marriage & the Rule of Law

2009-05-26T18:00:00.014-04:00

Today the Supreme Court of California upheld Proposition 8, and many proponents and opponents of the measure have reacted strongly to the ruling without even bothering to attempt to understand it. I've already seen many bloggers condemn the members of court without even suggesting they've at all considered the actual issue under review. The court cannot simply overturn a free and fair vote without a very clear legal basis. If one reads the majority decision and honestly disagrees with the legal analysis, then I have no objection. If one simply laments the decision and its effects, I sympathize. But it's downright ignorant and irresponsible to condemn the six justices who supported the ruling as bigots without even knowing the rationale for the ruling.

I know I'm only a second-semester law student, but I've really come to appreciate how little the general populace understands the concept of the rule of law. My first instinct upon hearing the ruling was to find a copy of the decision and try to understand the issue and the reasons for the decision. I've gotten lots of experience examining this type of document, and while I don't expect everyone to be able to understand it themselves, they can all at least find basic summaries in news stories. It's not at all difficult to educate oneself in the age of the internet.

Let's be clear: I'm a strong supporter of same-sex marriage – I voted against Amendment 2 here in Florida, which was stronger than Prop 8 because it also constitutionally prohibited civil unions and anything which resembles civil unions – but I'm an equally strong supporter of the rule of law. If the court could overturn this vote, then they could just as easily also overturn a future vote which would legalize same-sex marriage. With current demographic trends, it's only a matter of time until same-sex marriage is legal in California and, eventually, the rest of the country. I hope to live to see the day when it's legal here in the Bible Belt!

The court did its constitutionally appointed job, so there's no shame on them. There is instead shame on the Californians who voted for it out of bigotry and those outside of the state who organized and financed support for it. Your days as a majority are numbered.

Reason & Compassion

2009-05-20T11:00:00.001-04:00

The two keystone virtues of Humanism are reason and compassion. I've recently come to appreciate that on this blog, while I've emphasized the former thoroughly, I've somewhat neglected the latter. Since I believe this life is the only one we have, that we should make the most of it, and that we're happiest when we work with others to improve the world, my goal in writing should be to truly help others rather than simply entertain my readers by discussing the absurdity of religion.

It's easy enough to point out why a belief is false; it's more difficult, and more productive, to identify why it's believed and address a believer's deeper concerns. Let's look at an example. Modern science quickly and easily dismantles the creationist worldview as a matter of fact, but we need to realize the centrality of a creationist's belief that God is in total control of the universe and thus of their lives. We can, and we should, explain why their beliefs don't match reality, and we need not always be gentle in doing so, but we can't forget that creationists are humans just like ourselves who happen to have a mistaken viewpoint. If one is to make any progress in promoting any idea, it does no good to simply dismiss anyone who disagrees as stupid. We need to appreciate that creationists don't cling to a non-scientific view of the universe because they're truly convinced by the evidence that it's correct; they cling to it because they're afraid of what it means if it's wrong. It's important to explain, therefore, how evolution has provided us with an instinctive morality and the ability to reason, and that the sciences have given us a greater understanding and control of our lives than religion ever did. It's important to make them understand that accepting evolution doesn't equate with descent into moral anarchy. Laughing at believers can be fun, but it has only entertainment value and should never be the majority of my religious commentary because it serves only ourselves. Showing believers they don't need to believe in the supernatural in order to be happy, on the other hand, is a work of both reason and compassion.

The non-religious generally understand the practical impossibility of truly hating the sin while also truly loving the sinner, but I have failed to realize that in hating religious belief, I end up hating the religious believer. It's unacceptable, however, to have greater concern for an idea, whether that idea be religious or secular, true or false, than for humankind. Since my innate tendency is to do otherwise, I must focus more on loving the irrational person than hating their irrationality. None of this should at all imply that I should ever back down from communicating or defending my disbelief, simply that I shouldn't let winning every argument and pointing out every logical error forever trump all other concerns. Perhaps the most frustrating experience in life is attempting to have a conversation on a particular topic with a person who has adopted an irrational stance toward it, but that doesn't excuse me for becoming upset when I should anticipate the probable reaction from the beginning. It is irrational, and thus hypocritical, of me to expect others to be rational. I shouldn't even respond in kind to those who antagonize me. There is little virtue in treating people well who return the favor; there is, however, much in rising above pettiness and treating others with the compassion they have not earned.

Being Positive

2009-05-15T14:30:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I finished taking my first set of finals in law school. I studied more for those four exams than I did combined over the course of six years pursuing two undergraduate degrees, when I found studying for tests mostly superfluous. I've also moved into a new apartment with my wife in a different part of the city. I mention all of this to explain my lack of activity on this blog in the past few months. Not only have I had very little time to actually write, but I've been so busy with my education, my marriage and our new dwelling that I haven't given religion much thought except where it happens to intersect with my daily life.

At some point, however, it seems there's really nothing more for me to say about humanity's innate tendency to think and act irrationally. I really tire of being so critical and negative, even when I think the target in question is fully worthy of all the disdain I could ever muster. I don't even know whether there's really something positive to promote in Humanism. Its ideals are so high-level as to be practically useless for daily living, and the non-religious tend to be so individualistic that we have difficulty organizing and building real communities. I intend to concentrate on developing my own personal virtue without reference to any ideology or philosophy.

Worshiping a Monster

2009-04-09T09:00:00.001-04:00

Yesterday there was an entry at Daylight Atheism on the subject of the atrocity of Passover. One of the comments suggested modern Jews recognize the suffering entailed in the divine slaughter of the first-born Egyptians and mourn for the dead. This seems something like moral progress, but the fact remains they still worship a deity who alleged killed thousands upon thousands of innocent children! There's not even the tiniest sliver of justification for it. At Passover, Jews thus thank a mass murderer for sparing them and praise him for his moral perfection. In the same entry, there were other comments about the importance of the symbolism of the story, but even as an allegory, it fails miserably to communicate any worthwhile or respectable message.

Christians hold an even worse moral position. Although they don't celebrate Passover, they revere the same vile story. What's worse is that they believe this monster tortures unrepentant sinners in a lake of fire for all of eternity, making him infinitely more evil and despicable, all the while constantly extolling his love and mercy. It could hardly be any more absurd.

Humanist Communities

2009-03-29T16:30:00.001-04:00

There has been some recent discussion in the media and in the blogosphere about building Humanist communities, and I'd like to indicate my support for the idea and explain some of my thoughts.

The first question commonly asked is why Humanists don't just join a group of Unitarian Universalists. Some certainly do. As for me, though I have a positive opinion of UUs, I really prefer a group of people who generally share my beliefs, not simply a group of people who welcome me regardless of my beliefs. UUs emphasize love, peace and acceptance of all people, but not necessarily the critical thinking and intellectual rigor that I personally value so strongly. They use religious language and rituals in a non-dogmatic manner and they fully welcome atheists, but I much prefer to jettison anything from religion that suggests superstition and retain only the most humanistic elements of religious practice relating to the promotion of virtue and building of communities. These include such things as a recognizable name and symbol, meetings at least once per week, discussions of various topics, social activities, and small group interaction.

Here in Jacksonville, we have the First Coast Freethought Society, but I've only attended a couple of meetings. They only meet once a month on Monday nights, and the group consists almost entirely of senior citizens. I'm less than halfway to being a senior citizen and my wife is less than a third of the way there, so I have a more difficult time making social connections in such a group. There is also an atheist Meet-Up group with plenty of young members, and I've attended a number of their meetings, but the focus is almost exclusively on views of religion. Now I enjoy the criticism of religion more than almost anyone except perhaps some other bloggers, but sometimes I want to move beyond the inherent negativity in criticism and on to something more positive.

Since I've gotten married, my desire for such a community has noticeably weakened. An important part of that desire was to meet a young woman who shares my worldview, and now I have exactly that. I'm also much busier than previously with a wife and law school, so my life is rather full and I'd encounter difficulty in finding time to attend any meetings. I've already had to go on hiatus from improv comedy for several months, and if I find any extra time, it will be spent pursuing that first. If something new arises in the area, however, I hope to lend it whatever support I can manage.

Nothing New Under the Sun

2009-03-29T16:00:00.001-04:00

I've grown weary of discussing the statements and actions of religionists in this blog. A couple of years ago I adopted a policy of monitoring the opinion section of my local newspaper in order to provide a source of regular material to address. Since then, I've written dozens of blog entries about perhaps a hundred letters and editorials. Although I've found a brand-new local violation of church-state separation, I've chosen to ignore it and to officially revoke the policy altogether. Believers have nothing new to say, and I have nothing new to say in response. It's the same idiocy over and over again. The average person in the area can't reason their way out of a wet paper bag, and I'm tired of arguing with a brick wall. This is not at all to say that I won't discuss the stupidity of religion, just that I won't feel obligated to myself to mention every example of stupidity that finds its way into the pages of the local newspaper.

Nothing to Fear

2009-03-18T21:00:00.002-04:00

This opinion column by Terry Dickson was published in the life section under the title, “Righteous ‘fear’ has its place.” I found most of it unremarkable except for a few choice selections.

The slide in religious affiliation [in New England] may be because of a lack of fear.

Perhaps this is correct. Maybe more people are increasingly realizing they have nothing to fear from non-existent deities and their imaginary torture chambers.

I like what the Rev. Tommy Nelson, senior pastor at Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas, sometimes says. He'll be reading along in the Bible and do a little interpretation. “In the original Greek,” he'll say, “the word fear means fear. Be afraid.”

I suppose he didn't get the memo from liberal theologians and apologists that Christianity is supposed to be a religion of love and peace, and he actually read Jesus' intolerant and exclusivist message in the bible!

“I'm prophesying we'll become more religious with this economic downturn,” [Rev. Jay Hanson] said. FDR famously said during the Great Depression, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

How utterly ironic! Dickson laments modern society's lack of fear of God throughout the entire column and then at the end suggests with this quotation that we have nothing to fear and should not be afraid of anything except irrational fear! Be not afraid, indeed!

Foolish Wager

2009-02-18T09:00:00.007-05:00

I love waking up in the morning and being threatened with hell as I eat breakfast. This letter by Joyce Bates was published today under the heading, “Atheism: Price of being wrong.”

I am mystified by the belligerence of atheists. Do they really believe their "sincerity" is more important than truth? I'm not trying to persuade them, I just want them to stop trying to persuade me. Why does my belief bother them so much? If I'm wrong, I lose nothing and gain everything. If they're wrong, they lose everything and gain nothing. Looks like a no-brainer to me.

First, I don't know which alleged belligerence she's referring to. She really needed to be more specific. Second, I've never heard any atheist claim that sincerity is more important than truth. Third, I have no idea how atheists are trying to persuade her. We don't have churches, schools, universities, television channels, or radio stations. There are a few local television and radio shows around the country and some podcasts, but those are almost never about deconverting theists. There are atheist books and bookstores, but nothing compared to the number of Christian books and bookstores. I've heard of atheist street preachers and tracts online, but I've never encountered them in person and I would bet neither has the author. I've never even heard of a door-to-door proselytizer. Fourth, her belief bothers some of us because it's irrational and dangerous. It adversely affects political and social life. Fifth, if she actually thinks Pascal's wager is a valid argument for belief, then “no-brainer” a very apt description of her. She claims not to want to persuade us and then she threatens us with eternal torture. This is why religion is evil.

Evolution as God's Work

2009-02-17T09:30:00.004-05:00

This letter by Julia Delegal was published today under the heading, “Evolution: Respect boundaries of religion.”

During college, I used to chuckle that Jacksonville was still debating whether the public schools should teach evolution. That was 20 years ago. Now our state senator, Steve Wise, wants intelligent design taught as an "alternative" to evolution in my children's schools. I am no longer chuckling. Instead, I want to scream. I'm no atheist; I'm a believer. My understanding of evolutionary principles in no way threatens my faith in God. Rather, I marvel that a series of events as extraordinary as human evolution could have been orchestrated by a Creator who works through all contingencies. The choice about whether to believe in God, in light of evolutionary science or in spite of it, however, is irrelevant to the question of whether intelligent design is a scientific theory. It is not. It is a belief built on faith-based assumptions - not on empirically proven phenomena that are explainable via theory. A George W. Bush-appointed federal judge, who decided the 2005 Kitzmiller case, agrees: intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist and thus religious, antecedents." Our Deist forefathers descended from those who fled religious tyranny. They knew that investing religious groups with governmental power would interfere with the freedom of individuals to pursue their own spiritual quests. Wise received hate mail in reaction to a related bill that failed last year. Those letter writers should ask themselves if they would appreciate their own children being proselytized by someone of a religion different from their own. They should treat others as they wish to be treated. On this issue, the First Amendment to the Constitution demands no less. Denying or denigrating science in the name of religion won't inoculate children from atheism. But insisting, disingenuously, that religion is science risks driving them to a wholesale rejection of faith. Conjuring "alternatives" to evolutionary theory is not God's work; it's political fodder. Winning the hearts and minds of our young people necessitates that we honor their minds, especially if we believe those minds to be God-given. I challenge local religious leaders to demand that Wise withdraw the intelligent design bill, and get on with this year's real work: funding education.

My reaction to liberal religion is always mixed. In this case, I'm happy to see support for the teaching of evolution and sad to see an unwillingness to abandon faith after it's been rendered meaningless. It strikes me as very odd to “marvel that a series of events as extraordinary as human evolution could have been orchestrated by a Creator” when that series of events resulted in the extinction of more than ninety-nine percent of all species and a very imperfect design for our own bodies. And I certainly don't want to “inoculate” children from atheism or discourage a “wholesale rejection of faith”! Nevertheless, if fundamentalist believers adopted this author's viewpoint, science education and society as a whole would no doubt improve.

IDiocy

2009-02-15T14:00:00.008-05:00

This letter by David Ramseur was published today under the heading, “Intelligent Design: Give children the facts.”

This is in response to letters regarding Sen. Steve Wise's proposed bill to require teachers who teach evolution to also be open to discuss intelligent design. It is so easy to see intelligent design in the laws that govern these mysterious forces of our universe. The great scientists of the past built their studies on the fact that intelligent design was evident in their successfully tested experiments and not products left to chance. Even the famous British atheist scientist, Richard Dawkins (as stated in the Expelled movie), believes in the possibility that there is an intelligent designer somewhere. Moreover, the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the classroom is the same as actually teaching the religion of atheism, which violates the First Amendment. Finally, in the 1925 Scopes monkey trial, attorney Clarence Darrow, who represented the teacher, rightly stated that we should teach all ideas about origins and let the children decide for themselves.

First, according to article referenced by this letter, the bill doesn't just allow the discussion of intelligent design, it requires it. Second, science doesn't advance by assuming intelligent design, it advances by assuming the opposite through methodological naturalism. Third, I have no idea what Dawkins said in Expelled, but it's irrelevant. Fourth, atheism is not in any sense a religion and teaching how life changes without any reference to the supernatural is not in any sense atheistic. Fifth, you can teach children any and all ideas at school, but non-scientific ideas should not be taught in science class. We're not denying children any facts because intelligent design has no facts, just a fear of finding its god irrelevant.

UPDATES:

This letter by Richard Bohler was published on February 21st under the heading, “The faith of atheists.”

Atheists who hyperventilate over intelligent design should first consider themselves. It takes great faith to espouse the belief that there is no God, when there is absolutely no evidence to support that contention. Indeed, the idea of the necessity of a first cause must be a real conundrum to them. Intelligent Design simply presents the logical idea that an intelligence must have started the whole ball rolling. Evolution of life forms in no way conflicts with the designs of the Prime Mover; it could simply be part of the plan.

First, only strong atheists believe that no gods exist. Second, it's no less reasonable to believe that gods don't exist than to believe that that leprechauns don't exist. Third, if he thinks atheists are at all troubled by the cosmological argument, he's obviously never talked to an atheist. Fourth, the idea that an eternal, omnipresent, disembodied intelligence is necessary for the genesis and evolution of single-cell organisms over billions of years is not at all logical; it's completely absurd.

This letter by Julia Braza was published on February 23rd under the heading, “Intelligent design: Present the debate.”

I am responding to a recent letter that was critical of Sen. Steve Wise's proposal to introduce the teaching of intelligent design. It is important to remember that intelligent design is not creationism, nor does it contradict evolution. If intelligent design were taught in the classroom, the teacher would not read the book of Genesis aloud and then say "end of discussion." The theory of intelligent design merely states that there is an intelligent force behind certain aspects and patterns of the universe, as opposed to complete randomness. The idea could be presented to students in such a way as to say that many in the scientific community believe that evolution and natural selection are undirected processes, while others in the scientific community believe that there is an intelligent force directing or instigating these processes. Presenting the idea of intelligent design is not teaching religion to students any more than presenting the fundamental tenants [sic] of Islam; it's simply making them aware of different beliefs and outlooks in our world. If we become so afraid of mentioning God (or even an "intelligent force") under the false auspices of not wanting to push our religion on anyone, then we have in effect pushed atheism on everyone. Let's keep the discussion open-ended instead. I think our kids can handle it.

First, intelligent design most certainly is a form of creationism and most certainly does contradict evolution. It claims that an intelligence created life because it's too complex to have evolved, and the only way to teach it is to criticize evolutionary theory. Contrary to the author's assertion, it's not about some mystical force directing events throughout the universe. Second, there's no dispute in the scientific community, so the idea shouldn't be introduced into science class. Third, the example of teaching the basic tenets of Islam is awkward since the author probably wouldn't want them taught in science class, just like I don't want intelligent design taught in science class. Fourth, neutrality toward religion does not equate with promoting atheism. Would the author argue that math class promotes atheism because it doesn't mention gods in the discussion of the processes of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division?

This letter by John Campbell was published on February 23rd under the heading, “Intelligent design: Science as dogma.”

I find it interesting that Sen. Steve Wise is criticized for trying to inject his religion into the science classroom. The real story is that evolution is the chief doctrine of the secular humanists, a religion as defined by the U. S. Supreme Court. They want no competition of ideas in this area and certainly don't want things like irreducible complexity or the evolution of the eye openly discussed in the classroom. And they certainly don't want students to ask the whereabouts of all those billions and billions of transitional species fossils that don't exist. No, the real religious dogma is coming from the secular humanists, not Wise.

First, secular humanism has not been defined as a religion by SCOTUS. It was mentioned in a non-authoritative footnote of Torcaso v. Watkins as the functional equivalent of a non-theistic religion. Second, even if it were a chief doctrine of a religion, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach it; if something is supported by evidence, we should teach it, and evolution is supported by literally mountains of evidence. Third, I suspect the author has never taken a class on evolution because they most certainly do talk about the eye and how it's evolved many separate times, and they show plenty of transitional fossils. Fourth, the competition of ideas should happen in scientific research, not in scientific eduction. No, we don't want the absurdly false propaganda of creationists in science classrooms.

Know Thy Enemy

2009-02-11T11:00:00.003-05:00

Contrary to the claims of some detractors of the “New Atheists,” it's not necessary to understand the intricacies of a religious doctrine in order reject it as absurd or unsubstantiated. It is, however, necessary to understand the basic definition in order to articulate a meaningful critique. In particular, I've seen a number of arguments on blogs and forums against Catholic dogmas which fail simply because the author misconstrues them out of pure ignorance. I'll address two of these errors in the hope that my readers will avoid them and advance a more effective criticism of religion.

The first is the dogma of transubstantiation. This is the belief that during the consecration in mass, the bread and wine become Jesus' body and blood without changing their physical nature whatsoever. It's said that the invisible, spiritual, immaterial “substance” changes without the visible, physical, material “form” or “accidents” changing. This means that what still looks exactly like bread and wine are believed to be literally Jesus' flesh and blood distributed as communion. There is considerable confusion about this idea even among Catholics, partly because it makes a nonsensical distinction and partly because the wrong word is often used to define it. I've seen even moderately sophisticated authors define transubstantiate with transform even though transubstantiation was coined precisely to distinguish it from transformation. With that said, if one wishes to attack the dogma, then it's an error to simply point out that it still looks like bread and wine given that such is happily acknowledged. Challenges to examine it under a microscope or after a communicant has received it fall into the category of error, for it's not claimed that the form changes at any point in space or time. It's supposedly an absolutely undetectable miracle, making it from a skeptic's perspective an absolutely worthless miracle claim with respect to possible evidence for the supernatural. Proper criticism of the doctrine would focus on the absurdity of the distinction between matter and spirit, the importance of falsifiability, the moral repugnancy of cannibalizing one's deity, or any other topic consistent with its true definition.

The second is the dogma of papal infallibility. This is the belief that the pope cannot err when speaking authoritatively for the entire church – ex cathedra or “from the chair” – on matters of faith and morals. The scope is extraordinarily narrow, and while there is some disagreement among scholars about precisely which statements qualify, the vast majority of papal statements which one finds in the news are certainly not considered ex cathedra. It's an error, therefore, if your goal is to argue against infallibility, to point out that the pope apparently contradicted something he himself or one of his predecessors said unless both were said under very special circumstances. In addition, the doctrine clearly doesn't concern papal actions and shouldn't be confused with impeccability, the inability to sin. Pointing out the sins of the current or past popes is irrelevant with respect to infallibility, especially given that recent popes have very publicly acknowledged some of the papacy's historical wrongs. Proper criticism would focus on contradictions between recognized ex cathedra statements and the inherent fallibility in determining whether another person is infallible.

The mixing up of two more dogmas is more easily resolved and doesn't itself cause bad argumentation, but I would like to clarify them anyway. The “Immaculate Conception” refers to the conception of Mary by her parents without imputing her with original sin, not the conception of Jesus by Mary without a sexual act, which is known as the “Incarnation.” Both dogmas are vulnerable to criticism, but the first step is use the correct terminology.

I've been attacked for indicating that an atheist was arguing against a straw man and accused of “towing [sic] the [church's] party line,” but such criticism is severely misdirected. I consider religious dogma my enemy and the best way to fight is “to know thy enemy.” Telling your comrades that they're firing blanks is a service to your cause, not to the other side. Advancing the anti-theistic equivalents of the creationist claim that evolution is false because there are still monkeys is quite ineffective.

Unwise Proposal

2009-02-11T09:00:00.010-05:00

My local State Senator Stephen Wise recently introduced a bill which would require science teachers who teach evolution to also discuss intelligent design in their classes. I learned of it through a couple atheist and scientific blogs, but today I saw some local reaction in the newspaper.

This letter by Jon Dehner was published today under the heading, “Evolution: Why stop there?”
This letter by Robert M. Nied was published today under the heading, “Evolution: A burden on schools.”

I'd like to see Wise kicked out of office by the voters next election cycle, but I don't think that will happen. Wise represents a predominantly credulous and overwhelmingly Republican district and there's no good chance of someone even marginally more progressive being elected in the foreseeable future.

UPDATES:

This letter by Patrick Nolan was published on February 16th under the heading, “Evolution: Going backward.”
This letter by Deborah Courtney was published on February 18th under the heading, “Intelligent Design: Waste of time.”
This letter by Bob Awtrey was published on February 20th under the heading, “Evolution: Not a religious matter.”
This letter by Paul Cottle was published on February 23rd under the heading, “Intelligent design: Proposed bill misses mark.”

Buckle Up With Jesus

2009-02-08T16:00:00.002-05:00

Yesterday I saw a decorative license plate on the front of a truck which read, “Buckle Up with Jesus.” While I support a reminder to take safety precautions before driving, the addition of religion into the picture struck me as very odd. I suppose the idea is that you're supposed to trust Jesus to keep you safe, but if he could do that, why would you need a seat belt? If one truly has an omnimax deity with him at all times, then one has absolutely nothing to fear in any situation. Promoting the rational use of seat belts is thus tacit acknowledgment that their best friend is imaginary, but pretending they have a magical sky daddy watching out over them must make them feel better. If they kept their delusions to themselves, we could just chuckle at their irrationality and not worry about anything more serious, but of course we all know that doesn't always happen.

I have recently noticed a number of the new alternate Florida license plates which replace the state's nickname, “Sunshine State,” with the state's official motto, “In God We Trust.” (That's right, Florida doesn't have a unique motto different from the national one!) I think they're available upon request for no additional charge, unlike the more than a hundred specialty tags which require a special fee. The legislators who approved the new design must have no worries that it could be found unconstitutional given that it's insulated by two layers of tradition. I don't care so much that it's an alternative. I'm just afraid that it will eventually replace the standard design, forcing me to switch to a specialty tag, assuming those aren't also infected by theocracy. I would probably consider the Imagine tag and scribble on “no religion” with a marker. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but you never know.

It's time for some deity replacement therapy: Buckle up with Apollo!

Why I Would Never Be Elected to Public Office

2009-02-06T12:00:00.005-05:00

Although I have no intention of ever running for public office, the thought occasionally crosses my mind that I would have no chance as someone who has publicly acknowledged his atheism. The problem would be compounded if my otherwise anonymous blog were connected with my name and the media presented some particularly damning quotes as sound bites. As an intellectual curiosity, I have gathered a selection of the most anti-theistic quotes from Secular Planet and present them here in reverse chronological order.

Today is Blasphemy Day International!

If Yahweh, Jesus, or Allah really existed, as portrayed in their respective scriptures, they would be absolutely evil and worthy of every ounce of contempt and derision we could muster toward them.

Foolish Wager

This is why religion is evil.

Know Thy Enemy

I consider religious dogma my enemy...

Buckle Up With Jesus

[T]heir best friend is imaginary, but pretending they have a magical sky daddy watching over them must make them feel better.

Atheism as Medicine

Religion is indeed a mental disease...

Why Religious Belief Matters

Religion gives bigots moral cover...

Reverse Stupidity

All of this suggests the devil is highly incompetent and poses no threat to anyone with half a brain, but I suppose that's not the church's target audience.

The Importance of Religious Literalism

[T]he message of the bible is essentially tyrannical and barbaric...

Perpetual Adoration

As is typical with religion, it's just absurdity upon absurdity.

Hell: The Evilest Doctrine

Whenever I hear Jesus referred to as loving or merciful, I wince. While the gospels do contain some benevolent teachings, these are completely overshadowed by Jesus' recurrent threat of unending torture for anyone who fails to accept his message. One cannot expect praise for preaching love while simultaneously executing divine blackmail.

No Sacred Cows

Most people think the message [of the gospel] is love and forgiveness whereas it's actually, “Believe or fry!”

The Necessity of Doubt

I simply cannot respect anyone who claims to have never doubted their beliefs.

Religious Justification for Bigotry

[A]s is often the case, it's primarily religion that's hindering social progress. Whether religion actually creates bigotry or simply provides hypocritical justification for it, irrational belief is the enemy of human advancement.

Not Following Jesus

The key to understanding this divergence is to realize that Jesus' ministry as portrayed in the Gospels was essentially an apocalyptic cult.

Scrupulosity, OCD and the Doctrine of Hell

The Christian God was a monster in my eyes whom I grew to fear and despise more and more over the years.

Religion and My Life

[R]eligion is the principal virus of irrationality in our world, affecting the majority of people around the globe and in my own country. This irrationality often leads to poor decisions, injustice and misery...

Why I'm No Longer A Catholic

The Bible is full of stories of violent injustice of all types committed by God, commanded by God, rewarded by God, or looked favorably upon by God: wars of conquest, slaughter of innocent men, women, and children, divine plagues, looting, slavery, death penalty for minor infractions, and a worldwide flood.

The Bible is full of material which suggests it is the work of humans and not of God: contradictions, failed prophecies, scientific errors, religious intolerance, misogyny, racism, sexual perversion, and blatant absurdities.

Eventually, however, I mustered the courage to say to myself, “If there exists a deity who will punish me forever for rejecting something as absurd, implausible, and disgusting as Christianity, then so be it.”

Experiences of an Apostate

God was never my friend and I didn't mourn his passing.

Reflections on Two Years Without God

Nevertheless, I celebrate my atheism for liberating me from the chains of religion and granting me the freedom to truly live in the light of reason.

The Muslim Immunity to Irony

I have since learned that Islamic scriptures are no less violent, intolerant, and hypocritical, simply more tedious and disorganized.

Rental Capsules vs. Neutral Spaces

Religion is the disease and secularism is the cure.

Three Church Signs

I believe every religion is false...

Of course, there are several other reasons why I wouldn't run or have any chance of being elected, but it was still interesting compiling this list. I know most atheist blogs have more virulent criticism than mine, but I consciously avoid being inflammatory for its own sake and I still end up disqualifying myself as a political candidate many times over simply be discussing what I believe in a relatively measured manner. Such is life in the United States.

Deity Replacement Therapy

2009-01-03T16:00:00.015-05:00

I don't remember where I first encountered the idea of replacing God and Jesus in your mind with other names whenever you encounter them spoken or written by believers in order to remove any associated emotional baggage and to remind yourself how absurd religion sounds from the outside, but I would like to present my own list of common expressions having done exactly that. I have selected Zeus and Apollo as the father and son deities to replace God and Jesus, not because their mythology most closely matches Christian mythology – Osiris and Horus are probably the best fit – but because Zeus is the probably the best known pagan god and the name Apollo sounds better to my ears and can't be confused with the homophonic name Horace.

God » Zeus

Zeus bless you.
Zeus bless America.
Zeus is love.
Zeus works in mysterious ways.
Zeus doesn't believe in atheists.
With Zeus, all things are possible.
In Zeus we trust.

Jesus » Apollo

Apollo loves you.
Apollo saves.
Apollo is lord.
Apollo is the answer.
Real men love Apollo.
You've got a friend in Apollo.
No Apollo, no peace. Know Apollo, know peace.
What would Apollo do?

I find it remarkable that a similar yet distinct effect results if you simply use the somewhat more proper but less familiar names Yahweh and Yeshua. The former brings a very abstract concept back to its origins as a historically provincial deity and the latter reminds you that Jesus was not the sanitized, westernized version many people imagine as their best friend.

If you think of any common expressions containing references to either God or Jesus, please leave me a comment and I'll consider adding them to the list. Thank you!

Theocracy vs. Liberty

2008-12-30T14:00:00.002-05:00

This letter by Marcia Holliday was published on December 16th under the heading, “Nativity: No respect.”

I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I turned on a program and saw a piece about Willie Nelson mocking the Nativity with a song about bringing "pot" to the baby Jesus. And what was sadder is to see that people thought it was funny to mock our Lord's birth. Why do we forget that our country was founded on a belief in God and His divine protection? Forgive us, Lord. We need you more now than ever.

Ms. Holliday has the right to express her disapproval of the broadcast, but no more than Willie Nelson has the right to sing any song he pleases or anyone else to listen to any song they please. This nation certainly wasn't founded on theism; it was founded on individual liberty! I find her prayer within the letter rather presumptuous.

Goals & Accomplishments

2008-12-30T13:30:00.002-05:00

Throughout most of this decade, I've approached the new year with a certain amount of dread. It seemed I had made another trip around the sun without doing anything important, without taking any steps to making my dreams come true. This year is quite different as I've chosen a new, promising career path and found the love of my life, so it seems especially appropriate to reflect on what has happened and what is yet to happen.

Here are my major accomplishments of 2008 (in chronological order):

got accepted to law school
got married
moved out of old apartment

Here are my goals for 2009 (in chronological order):

begin law school and study hard
help wife obtain green card
find new apartment

Happy New Year 2009!

Newspaper Problems

2008-12-28T14:30:00.004-05:00

Two years ago, I started checking the opinion section of the local newspaper, The Florida Times-Union, daily for editorials and letters about religion and irreligion and responding to each of them here. It's been many months since my last entry of this type, and it appears it may be even more until my next. I don't subscribe to or otherwise purchase the paper version of the publication, so I'm dependent upon the online version, but the opinion section of the website hasn't been updated since December 4th. I've sent the newspaper multiple e-mails and received multiple responses, but it's still not updating. I know The Florida Times-Union, like all newspapers, has been struggling in recent years – they've resorted to the dangerous practice of having people stand in the medians of busy intersections selling copies to commuters stopped at red lights – and has been forced to cut back their staff, and I suspect this may be the issue. I know there have been numerous interesting pieces over the past month due to the annual discussion about Christmas, and I intend to write about them when they finally become available.

UPDATE: The issue has been resolved. It seems that the newspaper re-designed their website without re-directing the old addresses, so my bookmark was taking me to the old section which is no longer updated.

Happy Festivus!

2008-12-23T14:00:00.003-05:00

I would like to wish all of my readers a Happy Festivus! For the rest of us! A donation has been made in your name to the Human Fund (“Money for People”). Please note that I display a Festivus pole year-round on this blog between the menu and the main text. If you want to air your grievances against the author, please leave a comment!

Ask the Author

2008-12-18T17:00:00.003-05:00

This is your chance to pose a direct question to the author of Secular Planet outside of the framework of the regular blog entries and reasonably expect a direct response! I'd like especially to encourage questions on philosophical, theological or political topics, but I intend to answer all questions provided they're not too personal, revealing or absurd. If I decline to respond to a query, I'll explain why and at least acknowledge its receipt. In some cases, I may even choose to respond in a new blog entry devoted to your question. Anonymous questions are welcome!

My Mother Thinks I'm Going to Hell

2008-12-14T15:00:00.001-05:00

Since my deconversion over four years ago, my Catholic family has never given me any trouble about my atheism. Outside of one occasion a long time ago during which my mother asked me a few simple, polite questions about what I believe now, they never even raise the topic of religion with me. They do talk about church activities around me, but it has nothing to do with my presence. They also pray before meals, but they've done that forever and I've never considered objecting, especially since it's quick and they're giving me free food! They never give me any flack whatsoever and never treat me any differently than they ever have, so the following episode surprised and hurt me.

A few weeks ago, my mother told me a story about my niece. My older sister regularly babysits two children of her neighbors who happen to be Buddhist. One day one of the neighbor kids heard something about Jesus and asked, "Who's Jesus?" My four-year-old niece told her, "You'd better know who Jesus is or you're not going to heaven!" My mother told me this story somehow thinking I would be amused, but I didn't laugh at all. I struggled to tell her I found it disturbing a little child has been taught to divide the world up into us versus them and tell people they're going to hell. She didn't seem to understand my viewpoint as she just thought it was funny a child would say something so adult-like. We talked and my mother expressed the (heretical from a Catholic perspective) opinion that it doesn't matter what religion you believed since they all lead to God. I asked her about the rest of the people and reminded her about me. She didn't say anything at first and said my beliefs are my own business.

So in the end, my mother who loves me very much and would do absolutely anything for me thinks I'll be damned to hell by her god who is supposedly all-loving for simply disbelieving in extraordinary claims without any evidence. In her view, it apparently doesn't matter what religious belief you have or why you believe it, you're still better than someone who looks at religion critically and decides it's simply not true. The dissonance between her belief and actions is remarkable. I thought about writing her a letter to express my thoughts, but I haven't done so. I see no need to risk adversely affecting our relationship over this evil belief which she doesn't talk about or act upon. It just bothers me that my family could possibly think I truly deserve to be roasted alive for all eternity. It makes me even more grateful for my new godfree wife whose love for me isn't obscured by systematic irrationality.

Home for Solstice

2008-12-13T17:00:00.002-05:00

With the winter solstice approaching, I have a few choices of holidays to celebrate this year. Living in the United States and having a Catholic family, I will of course celebrate Christmas by visiting and exchanging gifts with my relatives on December 25th. While my family is rather religious, they have never asked me to accompany them to church since my deconversion and my own celebration will be entirely secular with the exception of listening to some carols which explicitly refer to Jesus. The rest of the traditions I observe have either secular or pagan origins, and I never bother decorate my home with a tree, wreath or lights because it's simply not worth the trouble to me.

Last year I wrote about my personal celebration of Humanlight, the relatively new Humanist winter holiday honoring reason, compassion and hope, but this year I don't feel as interested. I don't have any newfound objections to artificial holidays or to adding more around the winter solstice – I say the more, the merrier – but I've come appreciate that they can't be properly celebrated in isolation; they require some sort of community. As I'm not currently involved with any Humanist or freethought groups and I don't have any friends who've even heard about Humanlight, I'm going to forget about it this time around the sun and see what happens next year. My new wife shares my Humanist values, but we've never talked about Humanism explicitly, and this is her first year celebrating even a secular Christmas, so there's no need to overwhelm her with anything else simply to accommodate me.

I've also considered celebrating the winter solstice itself as it's the purely natural event which prompts or anchors all the other celebrations, but I realize that I'm already essentially observing it through them and I don't need to add any new practices. Let's all celebrate this time of year, whether we call Christmas, Yule, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, Humanlight or Festivus!

Influx of Readers

2008-12-13T16:00:00.003-05:00

This blog has enjoyed an usually high number of readers over the past week and I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why. I haven't done anything to promote it in a rather long time and I don't suppose any of my previous efforts have just now shown such remarkable results. If you don't mind, please consider leaving me a comment telling me how you came here. Thank you!

UPDATE: Since multiple readers have commented they have found me through StumbleUpon, I have added a button for it and other bookmarking services to the end of each post to encourage more ratings and reviews.

Who is a Christian?

2008-12-07T17:00:00.001-05:00

As my criticism of Christianity often focuses on the belief in a place of eternal punishment for nonbelievers and other sinners, sometimes I receive the response that not all Christians believe in hell. Since they cannot deny that in the gospels Jesus frequently spoke of hell and threatened his listeners with damnation for failure to follow him, they offer various explanations of these texts: he never said anyone will actually be damned, he was speaking metaphorically, he just meant you have to be a good person, he just meant you have to believe in something, he didn't really say this, he never really existed or even God doesn't exist! (Most often, however, they offer no explanation whatsoever and simply ignore the question completely, giving it no thought at all.) We find each of these views held by self-identified Christians, but how can one label apply to people with such disparate opinions and still retain any useful meaning? I'm well aware of the danger of falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy, but it seems we need to draw the line somewhere. There are perhaps as many different Christianities as there Christians in the world, but as for me, whenever I present criticism of the religion in this blog, I implicitly refer to the basic theology shared by Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism unless otherwise stated. I'm arguing against a specific collection and system of beliefs, not the label “Christian,” which can be and has been applied indiscriminately to almost anything. If I criticize a belief which you yourself don't hold, then you can ignore it and move on.

Levels of Control: Christianity vs. Atheism

2008-12-06T14:00:00.002-05:00

I recently removed the Obama bumper sticker from the back of my car since the election is over and I decided that I don't want to give people controlling very heavy equipment at very high speeds an extra reason to feel any antagonism toward me on top of their general disdain for humanity. Despite this, earlier today I was pondering what the theoretical reaction might be to a sticker which read, “Smile! There is no hell!” I think the response would be less negative than to most anti-theistic messages, but I'm sure some people would think it's an evil lie intended to deceive people and lead them into hell although its actual purpose is quite the opposite: to help people free themselves from the control of manipulative institutions teaching an evil untruth! This led me to ponder the stark contrast between religion and irreligion with respect to control, and I've complied a short list of differences between Christianity and atheism on this matter:

Christianity

We demand ten percent of your money.
We demand at least one hour per week of your time.
We demand total allegiance.
Don't think for yourself.
Obey all of our rules, even if they're absurd or evil.
Only vote for candidates of whom we approve.
If you disagree with us, you will be roasted in the flames of hell for all eternity.
People on the other side are either knowing or unknowing agents of the devil.

Atheism

We don't want your money.
We don't want your time.
We don't want your allegiance.
Think for yourself.
Live as you see fit.
Vote for whomever you want.
If you disagree with us, nothing bad will happen to you.
Most people on the other side are good people who are simply mistaken.

I used Christianity as an example since I know it better than any other religion, but most of the points could apply to the majority of religions with little to no adaptation. Atheism offers us freedom from religious tyranny, but it's our responsibility to use it wisely.

Atheism as Medicine

2008-12-06T14:00:00.001-05:00

Although I have strong reservations about the Freedom from Religion Foundation's choice of venues for posting that “religion is but myth and superstition which hardens the heart and enslaves the mind,” I certainly can't disagree with the message itself. Religion is indeed a mental disease, and one which in my case was literally almost fatal. Critics of atheism often argue that it doesn't offer anything inherently positive or constructive and that it only tears down religion. They're correct, of course, but they're entirely missing the point. If religion is a disease, atheism is the medicine. It doesn't offer anything beyond canceling out superstition in exactly the same way that most medicine doesn't offer anything beyond canceling out sickness. We don't dismiss chemotherapy for just treating cancer but not offering any benefit to those who are already healthy! It may even be argued that I'm missing the point because atheism doesn't need to offer us anything whatsoever in order to be true.

The Day My Life Changes Forever

2008-11-21T08:00:00.001-05:00

Today is my wedding day. My atheist bride and I are having a very simple ceremony at the courthouse this afternoon with only my parents and her grandparents in attendance and a modest wedding reception on Sunday afternoon to celebrate with the rest of our family and friends. Then we're ready to spend the rest of our lives together! For the longest time, I thought this day might never come, but my soon-to-be wife came into my life almost seven months ago and has since surprised me with her affection, devotion and love. I hope to prove myself worthy of her and make her happy each and every day that I'm fortunate enough to find myself with her. This is, of course, a very happy time for me, but I still have time to reflect on the influence of religion on marriage.

My younger sister is also engaged to be married and she and her fiancé are currently doing the pre-marriage counseling with a priest at her parish. When she mentioned to him earlier this week that I was getting married rather quickly, he asked whether anyone had talked to me about my decision. If someone who knew me well had suggested this, I would be open to listening to them. If someone who doesn't know me well but who has plenty of marital experience suggested it, I would be slightly annoyed but not upset. But for someone who doesn't really know me and who has voluntarily vowed never to have any romantic relationship to presume give me unsolicited advice about marriage is absurd. This is a man who believes that he can never have sex, masturbate nor even entertain sexual thoughts without incurring the wrath of his supposedly all-loving god and he thinks he's qualified to advise me about the woman I love simply because he's studied ancient mythology and received an official title. I'm a proud apostate and I resent the church's attempted interference in my life.

Since my bride doesn't yet have permanent residency in the United States, right now the primary advantage of getting married is that she can apply for a green card fairly easily once our marriage is official. At this time, I think of people who don't enjoy this right: same-sex couples. When opponents of gay marriage make the argument that homosexuals don't really need legal recognition of their relationships, I will always think of this clear example that shows them how mistaken they are. Same-sex couples in our situation more often end up separated by oceans because they have no way to ensure they can be in the same country. This is just another instance of religion causing needless suffering.

I'm looking forward to sharing all of my future joys and sorrows with my godfree wife. It will be easier to nurture our marriage working strictly within the parameters of reality, without any concern for fairy tales and sky spirits.

Why Religious Belief Matters

2008-11-12T14:00:00.000-05:00

Whenever someone criticizes religious belief, almost invariably they're confronted with the question of why they care what other people believe. The best response to this is that beliefs often translate into actions. Sometimes religious belief motivates benevolence such as charitable activities – and even that is frequently tainted by proselytism – but it can equally well motivate malevolence such as holy wars, inquisitions and terrorism. While these evils are almost completely absent from modern Christianity, a week ago in the United States we witnessed the very real power that religion still wields to inflict suffering on society with the passage of more laws against same-sex marriage across the country, most notably Proposition 8 in California but also Amendment 2 in Florida, which won by a twenty-four percent margin in a swing state carried by the supposedly most liberal Democratic presidential candidate in history.

I have clear political opinions on many different topics, but my strongest views generally relate to those issues in which religion is a major component to one side's arguments: same-sex marriage, sex education and church-state separation. Note that I don't necessarily think these are the most important issues, just the easiest to decide which side to support. Other issues I care strongly about, such as universal healthcare, are complicated matters about which people can disagree for purely secular reasons. But the above issues only exist because of religion.

The nonreligious community, for example, overwhelming supports same-sex marriage, for there are no good secular arguments against extending full rights to every person to marry whomever they wish. Undoubtedly, there are some bigots who would voice opposition to same-sex marriage even in a world without religion but not enough to matter politically. Religion gives bigots moral cover and even pressures otherwise liberal-minded people to align with them. When I was devoutly religious, I fell into the latter category. I had nothing against homosexuals in general – even if I felt somewhat uncomfortable around the most open of them – but from what the Catholic Church teaches, I believed God demanded I oppose it or risk eternal damnation! Upon my deconversion, I immediately changed to support civil unions and very soon after to full same-sex marriage. I believe that most opposition to same-sex marriage would dissolve immediately if religion were to magically disappear, especially since churches are behind almost all the organized opposition.

That will never happen, of course, but if we can convince people to stop believing altogether, to adopt more liberal religious beliefs or simply to take their beliefs less seriously, then the result would probably be a freer, more equitable and most just society. I don't recommend that you begin criticizing religion unless you want to, but if you enjoy it like I do, then don't let anyone convince you that you're wrong to do so.

Sex, Race, Religion and Ideology

2008-11-10T12:00:00.001-05:00

I don't know whether the same or similar patterns hold true in other countries, but I've noticed three facts about American political and religious demography which, when considered in conjunction, puzzle me:

(1) White males are statistically more conservative than the general population.
(2) Atheists are statistically more liberal than the general population.
(3) A disproportionate number of atheists are white males.

I don't have even a conjecture to explain these seemingly incongruous statements. I'm really just wondering out loud. If you have any ideas, please leave a comment.

Election Reflections

2008-11-05T23:00:00.003-05:00

I'm very pleased the country and Florida went blue. Part of northeast Florida even turned purple while the rest ended up a slightly lighter shade of red. Duval County was essentially even, with McCain winning by only a single point after Bush carried it by sixteen points twice. I'm greatly relieved we avoided the national disaster waiting to happen with Sarah Palin anywhere near the White House.

I'm equally disappointed the “marriage protection” constitutional amendment, which bans same-sex marriages and civil unions even though it's already outlawed by four statutes, passed 62 percent to 38 percent, breaking the sixty-point threshold necessary for adoption. I'm not surprised it received a majority, but I was hoping it would fall a few points short. There are still too many bigots in this state and the rest of the country. This is the biggest reason I hate religion.

Congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama!

Yesbama

2008-10-20T14:00:00.004-04:00

Today is the first day of early voting in Florida, so this morning I went to the tax collector's office, stood in line for twenty minutes, chatted with some elderly folks behind me and cast my ballot. I've voted early in the past, but I don't think I went on the first day and I certainly don't remember standing in line. I was primarily excited to vote against McCain/Palin and against the “Florida Marriage Protection Act,” but I voted in every partisan race and on every ballot measure. I didn't vote on the retention of any judges because I know absolutely nothing about any of them. Everything went perfectly smoothly, but I was disappointed I still have never gotten a chance to answer an exit poll. As I left, I attached the “I Voted Early” sticker on the Obama sticker on my car. Now I have fifteen more days to wait for the final results.

Blasphemy Will Have to Wait for DVD

2008-10-06T19:00:00.004-04:00

Today I was disappointed to learn that no cinema within at least fifty miles of Jacksonville, Florida, is showing Bill Maher's new anti-religion film Religulous. I had been planning on watching it for months and I thought it was notable that its release coincided with the fourth anniversary of my apostasy from the Catholic Church. I suppose that the local cinemas may have simply concluded they wouldn't make enough money from it, but perhaps they feared generating a backlash from religious groups. This seems especially plausible given that most cinemas today have eighteen to twenty-four screens and benefit from showing as many different films as possible. Now I will have to wait until it's released on DVD.

Ever since the film was announced, I've wondered why it's not spelled Religiulous. I can't think of a single word or even name has a soft G without an E or I following it. I thought it was pronounced with a hard G until I watched the preview!

Godfree for Four Years

2008-10-03T09:00:00.003-04:00

Today is the fourth anniversary of my apostasy from the Catholic Church. Recently I've noticed it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to remember what it was like to really believe everything I now consider nonsense. My status as a former devout Catholic seems less important to my identity as time passes. Indeed, my status as an atheist seems less important than it did just a few months ago. Sometimes I consider discontinuing posting here, visiting forums, reading blogs, listening to podcasts and buying books because it often feels pointless to spend so much energy on the non-existent. But religion was my primary hobby, as it were, for more than a decade and irreligion has taken on that role for the past four years. There's no topic that interests me so intensely. Religion simultaneously attracts and repulses me, and I always want to discuss it even if there's nothing new under the sun. So until further notice, the pursuit of my fascination continues.

This year the date of my apostasy has additional personal significance: it's the birthday of my girlfriend of two months, who also happens to be an atheist. Since she was raised without religion in a socialist country, her experiences are very different from my own; religion doesn't really interest her at all!

Prayer at the Obama Rally

2008-09-21T11:00:00.001-04:00

Yesterday I attended the Obama rally at Metro Park here in Jacksonville, Florida. It was the first campaign rally I've ever attended, so I didn't know exactly what to expect, but I was greatly disappointed by how it began: the very first speaker was a Christian minister who delivered a public prayer! What's more, it was explicitly Christian and partisan because he prayed “in Christ's name” and asked for blessings specifically for Obama and not the other candidates. I immediately wanted to boo to express my objection to this religious invocation at a supposedly secular political event, but I was afraid of the consequences of such vocal opposition, so I just kept my head raised, crossed my arms, frowned and looked around for others who shared my disapproval. I found some who didn't seem to be participating, and later a friend of mine told me she also had problems with the prayer. I know we weren't alone in our discomfort with it. Perhaps I will contact the Obama campaign today to register a complaint.

For me, the prayer put a damper on the entire event, though not enough to ruin the full experience. I got see and hear Obama in person as well as Senator Bill Nelson and few other political figures. The rally was certainly a success in terms of turnout: there were approximately twelve thousand people in attendance and another eight thousand who were turned away because there was no more room in the park! I just wish the Democratic Party would stick to the issues rather than pandering to the religious and sacrificing their commitment to secularism.

Reverse Stupidity

2008-09-04T13:00:00.003-04:00

Yesterday I was driving down the road when I saw a red billboard with the outline of a horned head, a clawed hand and a pointed tail sticking beyond the basic rectangular shape. As I got closer, I realized it was an advertisement for a fundamentalist Christian church, one which combines reverse psychology and ancient scare tactics into a lethally idiotic mixture. It read, “Boycott New Life Fellowship” with “-Satan” in the lower right and the church's website address in the lower left. (I don't have a photograph and the image I found online is presumably a variant.) Beyond the absurd theology, the entire set-up raises several questions: If the devil wants you to know his feelings about the church, then why is he hiding behind the sign? Why doesn't he know how to use proper capitalization and punctuation? Why did he let the church deface his sign with their website address? Why did he hack their website but fail to remove their content and simply add graffiti? If on the other hand he doesn't want you to know his feelings, then why did he put his message on a billboard in the first place? All of this suggests the devil is highly incompetent and poses no threat to anyone with half a brain, but I suppose that's not the church's target audience.

Florida Supreme Court to the Rescue

2008-09-04T12:00:00.007-04:00

In my last entry, I discussed a pair of destructive amendments to the state constitution on the November ballot here in Florida. This morning I heard some good news: the Florida Supreme Court has removed three education-related amendments to the state constitution, including one that I mentioned! Amendments 5, 7 and 9 have been removed because the texts on the ballot weren't clear enough for the voters to properly understand. Amendment 5 concerned property taxes and school funding, amendment 7 would have allowed the state to distribute money to religious institutions – including schools – and amendment 9 would have directly reversed a legal precedent against vouchers. It's good to see these issues off the table for now. I only wish they could remove amendment 2, which would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, on the same grounds, but the language of its text is unfortunately crystal-clear.

The Florida Supreme Court is an admirable group of judges. Remember that if their decision hadn't been overturned by the federal Supreme Court, the recount in 2000 would have continued, Gore would have become president and the world would have been spared eight years of Bush!

Religion on the Ballot

2008-08-26T12:00:00.004-04:00

My home state of Florida has earned a very negative reputation, some of it completely warranted, for electoral ineptitude. Most of the country is only aware of the issues in presidential elections, but there's a more serious problem with the general electorate and the amendments to the state constitution we vote on as ballot initiatives. Florida has passed the highest percentage of ballot initiatives of any state in the union. It seems the residents of the state are even less skeptical than even the average American and will approve almost any measure that doesn't immediately appear like a bad idea. The majority of initiatives concern taxation issues because the state legislature doesn't want to risk passing an unpopular measure which will hurt their constituents' wallets, and they have learned that Floridians foolishly tend to vote yes by default when they don't understand a proposal rather than demanding a clear explanation before they change the state's supreme law. The problem has become so bad that in 2006 we passed an amendment that requires a sixty-percent majority for all future amendments, ironically with only a 57.8% majority. I'm afraid that even this new threshold won't prevent two very destructive amendments on this year's ballot from passing.

Amendment 2 would explicitly ban same-sex marriage and civil unions:

Inasmuch as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

Florida already has a statute against same-sex marriage, but proponents apparently want to make it even more difficult for homosexuals to be granted equal rights. Although there are indeed secular arguments against same-sex marriage, this is undoubtedly a religious issue. The secular arguments hold almost no sway among the nonreligious, primarily only among those who want rationalize their opposition based on either faith or simple bigotry. Every poll I've seen shows that the nonreligious support same-sex marriage by overwhelming margins.

Amendment 7 would repeal the constitutional prohibition on granting money to religious institutions:

An individual or entity may not be barred from participating in any public program because of religion and to delete the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

I don't really know what the first clause entails, but it must sound good to most voters, so it may only be there to distract them from the main issue: school vouchers. This amendment was created after an earlier voucher program was thwarted in state court precisely on account of this law. Perhaps proponents even have in mind a state “faith-based initiative” program like the federal program. Whatever the case, it's very clear this is a step in the wrong direction.

With taxation amendments, the problem is that voters don't understand the meaning of the text and vote for them anyway. With these two amendments, citizens will have little difficulty understanding. It's their failure to appreciate the importance of church-state separation that will be the problem. I predict that both will pass in November, but I hope I'm proven wrong. Wherever you live, take the time to vote and make your voice heard!

Atheism and the Internet

2008-08-25T18:00:00.004-04:00

For those of us who became adults after the advent of the internet, it's sometimes difficult to imagine how anyone found any information without this very powerful tool. Almost every day I look up something online that I would have been unable to find otherwise and it makes finding everything else much faster and easier. This is especially true with respect to atheism. Indeed, the internet makes it easier to become and to live as an atheist.

When I began investigating my doubts four years, I bought a few books critical of religion, but most of skeptical materials that I read were only available on the internet. Since my deconversion, the internet has facilitated almost all of my interaction with other atheists. The vast majority has happened directly online through forums and blogs. All the groups that I've met or visited in person I first learned about online. I listen to atheist podcasts online. I find most of my atheist books online. Other atheist products I can find only online. If it weren't for the internet, I would be almost totally isolated from other atheists and would feel very alone. I sympathize with all the millions of atheists throughout history who had to struggle without any help whatsoever from fellow nonbelievers simply because they didn't know any and didn't know how to find them. It's still not easy to be an atheist in religious society, but the internet has certainly helped.

No Gods, No Children

2008-07-25T16:00:00.001-04:00

Since my deconversion almost four years ago, I've only dated women who were at most only nominally religious, and it seems increasingly unlikely that I'll end up with even a moderate believer. Ideally, I would prefer to marry another atheist. It's very difficult for me to fully respect anyone who professes belief in the supernatural and almost impossible to respect anyone who claims to have no doubts. It's not really a problem if she has an unbiblical view of God as love or a hopeful belief in some vague almost universalism in which only murderers and rapists are sent to hell and everyone else is admitted to heaven. But if she believes that the world was created in six days, that her god magically takes the form of bread and wine during a sacred ritual, or that anyone outside of her religious group will be roasted for all eternity merely for thinking differently, then it's an absolute deal-breaker. If I'm to share my life with someone, it would be best that we at least share a similar relationship with reality. Unfortunately, I'm usually not really compatible with most female atheists. I can form friendships with them perfectly well, but the harmony of personalities necessary for romantic relationships seems to be lacking. Perhaps this is because atheism isn't fully socially acceptable in American culture, so atheists, and female atheists in particular, are often intellectually and emotionally stronger than average, but I tend to be attracted to weaker, more passive and more traditionally feminine women. The only explicitly nonreligious women I've dated were from socialist countries where irreligion is promoted as the societal standard. The difficulty I experience in finding someone with the same worldview is the way that religion most directly affects my life.

A much larger issue for me is that I don't ever want to have children. I've always felt this way, for as long as I can remember, though during the height of my religious devotion, I believed my future wife and I would be morally obliged to have as many children as were conceived without contraception, so I tried to convince myself that it was God's will. I thought it was the only way I could have sex without risking eternal damnation! I'm very happy I didn't find a woman during that time willing to marry me! Today I can say without any guilt that I don't want children. In fact, I feel it's more responsible because I won't be contributing to the problem of overpopulation. While I understand the biological basis of the desire to reproduce, I find myself unable to relate to people who sincerely want children because I never have at all. Finding a suitable match is difficult enough without having desires contrary to the evolutionary urges and socialization of the vast majority of one's potential mates, but I doubt I could make myself want children and I refuse to have them unless I'm absolutely certain I want them.

There's a significant overlap between the membership of the godfree and the childfree, but so far this statistic hasn't done anything to help me find the right woman and I don't expect that it will. I would really love to find someone special with whom to share my life, but I've accepted that, because of my unpopular beliefs and desires and because of me personally, I may spend the rest of my life alone. I haven't given up; I've just become more realistic about my chances.

Divine Comedy

2008-07-19T23:00:00.001-04:00

Yesterday evening I spent an hour and a half in a Christian bookstore. My visit, however, had nothing to do with religion. I'm a member of an improv comedy troupe and we were invited at the last minute to perform at an open mic there, which I guess usually consists of musical performances. It was a disappointing event, though not because of the nature of the establishment. There was nothing remotely resembling a stage or seating area – I don't understand how they've hosted such an event without these basic elements – and we ended up performing in an area near the front counter in front of some children's books with only a handful of onlooking shoppers stopping to watch for a few minutes from time to time. I wondered how we came to such an unusual venue until I spotted several copies of a newly published book by one of our members about living with diabetes on a table near the entrance. At least I now know how we learned of their open mic!

We've just started looking for a new location after the coffee shop where we used to perform was closed. I don't know whether our director intends to have us return, especially given the lackluster facilities, but I think I'll decline to participate if she does. Although our performance last night wasn't affected by the venue, I'd rather not be at all associated with purveyors of irrational nonsense. I love to perform any chance I get, but I must draw the line at places where Jack Chick tracts are sold!

The Importance of Religious Literalism

2008-06-27T23:00:00.005-04:00

Although I discarded all my religious beliefs several years ago when I deconverted, I have retained one metabelief throughout my life: it really matters whether the claims of religion are true. If there exists an omnimax deity who created the universe, who loves me, and who has instructed me how to be happy, then I want to listen to him and follow his plan. If heaven exists, then I want to live there forever. If hell exists, then I want, more than anything else, to avoid being condemned to suffer there for all eternity. Indeed, I simply can't imagine anything which would more justly merit my concern. If, on the other hand, there are no deities, there is no heaven and there is no hell, then I see no reason to maintain any religious tradition merely for the sake of tradition. And if religion is nothing more than a metaphor, then I don't care any more about biblical stories than I do about Aesop's fables. In fact, the message of the bible is essentially tyrannical and barbaric and, even though it contains some benevolence, I don't want to give the impression that I respect the more pervasive malevolence or give special credence to any of it as divine. If any religion is true, then I want to accept it as truth, but if it's false or just symbolic, then it's simply not of any interest to me.

The rejection of literalism and scriptural inerrancy is the mark of liberal religion. It seems in particular that one can't be a liberal believer without rejecting the doctrine of hell, or at least the belief that nonbelievers are condemned there simply for not believing. But without the threat of hell, there is no reason to take religion seriously except societal pressure, personal preference or the belief that religious devotion is rewarded in this life and there is certainly no reason to obsess about it. Over the past several centuries, even the Catholic Church has liberalized its teaching on the salvation of those outside the church. (Of course, church leaders refuse to acknowledge the change and refer to it doctrinal development.) The traditional teaching was that only baptized Catholics in good standing could hope to be saved. The possibility was later extended to those who lived before Jesus or who otherwise never heard the gospel. Next unbaptized infants or aborted fetuses were included. Then it was non-Catholic Christians who could be part of an “invisible” church. Now some theologians argue that all non-Christians and even atheists might achieve salvation. I know not all of this has become official dogma, but the overall trend toward universalism is unmistakeable. If the church officially renounced the doctrine of hell, however, and apologized for the enormous amount of suffering it has caused through the ages, I would be no closer to returning the fold as there would be even less incentive to return since I would be admitted to heaven no matter what. I attended mass every single Sunday for twenty-five years, with only a small number of exceptions which I later confessed, until the day I decided to apostatize. Not once since then have I ever even considered the idea of returning for the community or the nostalgia. Attending mass was at most a tolerable experience from which the only pleasure I ever really derived was my belief that I had fulfilled my obligation for yet another week. Attempting to follow all the moral rules was at best an annoyance and at worst pure torment. I want to leave all vestiges of my former faith in the past where they belong. Perhaps the only significant difference between liberal believers and nonbelievers is that the former like religion and want to preserve it, even if they have to mangle it in the process, and the latter generally don't like it and are content to live without it.

Ironically, I share this metabelief that religion matters with conservative believers, who are usually opponents on political and social issues, but not with liberal believers, who are usually allies on these same issues. Since individuals rightly have their own unique opinions, it's usually not possible (or necessary) to find others who share the exact same thought processes, only similar conclusions. We can use all the allies we can get for political battles.

Happy World Humanist Day!

2008-06-21T15:00:00.003-04:00

Today is World Humanist Day, a day to celebrate and raise awareness of Humanism as a life stance. Unfortunately, this holiday holds even less significance for me than Humanlight since I know of no local events in which I can participate and it has no popular holiday to create a festive atmosphere from which it can indirectly benefit. Nevertheless, I would like to wish all of my visitors a Happy World Humanist Day! Perhaps next year I will have someone with whom to celebrate this special day.

Pain and Suffering

2008-06-07T21:00:00.002-04:00

Yesterday I went to the beach for the first time in years, excluding visits during which I simply walked along the sand or the pier, and I paid the price for spending so much time in the midday, summer, Florida sun. I completely forgot to apply sunblock to my feet and failed to sufficiently cover the backs of my lower legs, resulting in severe sunburn, primarily on the tops of my feet. In addition, I had to walk back to the vehicle barefoot over sand which was absolutely scorching, the hottest I have felt during my entire life. My feet are still in constant pain more than twenty-four hours later despite my use of multiple cooling, soothing and healing agents. I'm sure that I will recover soon enough, but all of this pain reminded me of the change in my approach to suffering from when I was religious.

As a believer, none of this pain would have seemed pointless because I could have offered it to God. I believed this would reduce the amount of time I would spend in purgatory after my death and perhaps even gain me some merit in the eyes of God. It didn't matter that the causes of suffering didn't always seem just; the offering itself gave it meaning and perhaps made it easier for me to accept. This response to suffering has most likely played a major role in allowing religion to largely sidestep the problem of evil, which even believers acknowledge as the strongest argument against their faith, and is just one way in which religion makes life easier for believers by making unsupported promises.

As an atheist, now I have to accept any and all pain as essentially meaningless. It's true that it will teach me to more carefully apply sunblock before spending hours in the merciless sun, but this is a lesson which I could have learned without pain and which has no real moral value. The same is true of much greater suffering such as major illness, accidents or even death. We have to face cold hard reality without any promise that everything will be all right in the end and that everything will balance out. It's not easy, but it still seems better than comforting fantasy.

Individualism and Infallibility

2008-05-26T19:30:00.002-04:00

In my previous entry, I discussed the tendency of modern Catholics to adopt Protestant attitudes toward theology and proclaim the autonomy of the individual in determining religious truth. During my deconversion, however, I realized that even the most conservative Catholic must also necessarily implicitly hold this position because of the inescapable fact that it's always an individual who chooses to follow a religion and thus always an individual who act as the final authority. Catholics attempt to avoid this issue by claiming to recognize an infallible pope as the final authority, but the individual still must be the ultimate arbiter between who is fallible and who is infallible! All Catholic dogma does is reduce the number of personal judgments to one, but this judgment still must be made by each fallible person. It would be circular and thus invalid to argue that the pope is infallible because he claims to be, so in the end, each Catholic really only says, “I think the pope cannot possibly be wrong.” So much for building the church upon a rock.

Protestant Catholics

2008-05-26T19:30:00.000-04:00

Although there are far more atheists than professed Catholics in this country, I felt more alone intellectually when I was believer because only a small percentage really thought like I did beyond their basic belief in the divinity of Jesus. I thought that miracles and logical arguments proved the authority of the Catholic Church and I accepted absolutely everything that the church taught for that reason. The majority of self-identified Catholics, however, even those who attend mass regularly, don't truly recognize that authority (if they dissent from even one teaching) and are essentially Protestants in that they consider themselves the ultimate arbiter between true and false, right and wrong, good and bad. I felt especially alone because all these people who supposedly shared my religion really didn't; at most, they shared some superficial beliefs, but they lacked the core principle that I considered so important to my identity. As an atheist, this is not the case. I fully accept the primacy of the individual conscience, and my reasons for disbelieving generally align with those of others: lack of evidence and the meaninglessness of religious language. The general populace might look at me with suspicion when I say I'm an atheist, but at least I know that I'm not alone in my thinking.

Perpetual Adoration

2008-05-25T12:00:00.002-04:00

Catholics believe that the bread and wine consecrated during the mass “transubstantiate” into the body and blood of Jesus, that is, truly become God without changing their outward appearance. As such, they become proper objects of worship within the mass and, sometimes, outside of the mass. In some parishes, there is a practice known as perpetual adoration in which a consecrated wafer is placed in a monstrance and displayed in a chapel twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty-five days a year with volunteers scheduled such that at least one person is always present in the chapel offering adoration.

Volumes have been written criticizing the belief in transubstantiation and the reception of communion, but my intention here is only to indicate the absurdity of asking people to keep God company around the clock, even within the context of church teaching. The practice is supposedly voluntary, but it's rather more complicated than it seems because of the goal of continually uninterrupted worship. First, in order to set up and then maintain the practice, the organizers need people for every time slot throughout the week, so parishioners could feel guilted into participating. Second, if someone cannot come during their regular time slot, because of a vacation, a new work or school schedule, sickness, accident, etc., a replacement must be found, even if it's for two o'clock in the morning. And if the person following someone doesn't show up, they're not supposed to leave until someone else can replace them. I fully realize that it's supposed to be a sacrifice, but I object to asking people to make sacrifices which put the elderly and the sleep-deprived on the road in the middle of the night, all to visit a deity who is supposedly present in every corner of the universe. As is typical with religion, it's just absurdity upon absurdity.

The Day I Almost Deconverted

2008-05-16T22:30:00.004-04:00

Although my actual deconversion several years ago was a rather thoughtful and deliberate process, there was a memorable day approximately eleven years ago when I seriously considered becoming an atheist in the matter of a single day. It was the summer after I graduated from high school and I was working at a supermarket as a bagger. I remember that I had recently had conversations with a couple of friends who were atheists in which they had refuted the apologetic arguments that I had presented to them, even though I didn't really recognize the validity of their responses at the time. As I carried the groceries out of the store to the customers' cars and brought back the shopping carts, I imagined how it would feel to be an atheist. I can't seem to recall the particular issues that I was pondering, but I do recall the surge of emotion that I felt, a mixture of excitement and fear. At home at the end of the day, I decided that I couldn't ignore the arguments from miracles and the peacefulness of the religious, though it was certainly the fear of hell which provided the greatest motivation to remain a believer. It seems truly strange that I almost rejected a lifetime of belief with hardly any thought and I wonder what could have happened if I had deconverted that day. If it had stuck, I might have saved myself from a lot of grief that I was to experience in later years, but if it hadn't, then I might have ended up worse than I actually did.

One of those friends correctly predicted that I would eventually become an atheist because, in his opinion, I was too smart to remain a believer. I haven't seen him since high school and I have occasionally wondered whether he would even remember his remark and whether he would be pleased to learn that he was right. If I ever talk to him, I will be sure to ask and probably report on it here.

Sounds of Peace

2008-04-26T22:00:00.001-04:00

Whenever writing a blog entry, I listen to quiet music to soothe my mind and I've found that my most frequent selection is my collection of Gregorian chant on my computer. It's rather ironic that I compose my thoughts against religion to the sounds of the sacred liturgy, but it's simply the best choice for the purpose. Chant is both very beautiful and completely calm. It's also performed in Latin, a language which I've studied but which I can tune out without any effort. If I automatically understood what the performers were singing like I would if they sang in English, I think that I would be annoyed by the words themselves and most especially by what they signify and that I would be unable to concentrate. As it is, however, I can enjoy chant for what its actual sound conveys to me: peace and meditation.

Hell: The Evilest Doctrine

2008-04-07T22:00:00.010-04:00

The single most influential idea on my religious outlook is undoubtedly the doctrine of hell. It was hell that sparked my initial interest in religion during my teenage years, it was hell that kindled the scrupulosity which tormented me for years, it was hell that ignited my investigation and subsequent deconversion and it is hell that continues to fuel my antipathy toward Christianity. It's difficult to envision how my life would have been if I had never believed in hell, but it certainly would have followed a markedly different course.

Every person values and seeks happiness. It's the ultimate motivation for all our thoughts and actions, whether we pursue it directly or indirectly (by making others and then thus ourselves happy) and even paradoxically when we find it in feelings of sadness. Hell is the antithesis of happiness and is by definition the worst possible concept imaginable. It's a place (or “state”) of eternal pain and suffering and has been symbolized as an unquenchable lake of fire. And it is, despite its simplicity, without a doubt the vilest concept ever conceived of by humanity.

No person could ever deserve to be consigned to hell, for the pain endured therein would be infinitely more than any pain inflicted by a finite being. Even the most brutal dictators caused only a limited amount of suffering and would be unjustly punished in hell, even by the most vindictive standards of justice. And I find it both laughable and depressing to hear believers argue that an omnimax deity cannot prevent people from being roasted for eternity. This claim can only result from complete ignorance or from a complete lack of imagination.

Whenever I hear Jesus referred to as loving or merciful, I wince. While the gospels do contain some benevolent teachings, these are completely overshadowed by Jesus' recurrent threat of unending torture for anyone who fails to accept his message. One cannot expect praise for preaching love while simultaneously executing divine blackmail. An objector might arguing that hell is only a metaphor and that Jesus' threats weren't meant literally. To this, I respond that this isn't the Jesus of Christianity but instead a sanitized caricature of Jesus that has been altered in response to moral progress of the past twenty centuries. To claim that the vast majority of Jesus' followers throughout history have totally misunderstood him and that the true message of Jesus perfectly corresponds with modern western humanistic values is to engage in completely unsupportable historical revisionism.

I simply cannot imagine that the billions of people who profess to believe in hell truly do so, or at least not that they believe they themselves might actually go there. If there is truly even the slightest possibility that one could be tortured forever and ever, then no response is too radical to prevent this possibility from being realized. For many, however, hell is just a place for murderers; everyone else will be admitted to heaven upon death. With this thoroughly unbiblical perspective and because most of us aren't emotionally close to any murderers, hell is relatively easy to ignore. I would like to stress that this is a very good thing; billions of people obsessing about it would result in worldwide chaos. It was, after all, belief in hell which fanned the flames of the crusades and inquisitions. We would all do well to toss the concept of eternal punishment into the trash bin of history.

I would like to comfort my readers by reminding them of a truly glorious truth which finally ended my personal religious struggles and which I hereby resolve to reflect upon each day: Smile! There is no hell!

No Sacred Cows

2008-04-01T23:00:00.007-04:00

Atheism, unlike religion, has no sacred cows. There is nothing that someone can do which can cause especial offense to atheists beyond the mere desire to offend. There are no gods to blaspheme, no prophets to mock, no dogmas to ridicule, no scriptures to desecrate, no temples to profane, no sacred objects to defile and no rituals to parody. This is certainly not to say that you cannot offend atheists, only that we don't set ourselves up for offense by treating something or someone as inviolable. You never see an angry atheist mob form in response to a cartoon caricature, an obscene sculpture, an incisive documentary, or the publication of a controversial book. We might well feel upset over any of these but only because they misrepresent our position and not simply because someone had the audacity to portray it differently from ourselves. Even then, our response is far more measured than that of most believers.

Muslims in particular are known for the extreme amount of offense they claim and for their verbally and physically violent reactions thereto, but Christians aren't immune to emotional reactions to alleged blasphemy. Although they very thankfully almost never threaten real violence, we have all probably heard believers threaten and even wish others hellfire for even questioning their faith. It's difficult to appreciate just how violent this response is unless you realize that these people actually believe that hell exists and that they want you to suffer unspeakable torment there for all eternity! Perhaps even more remarkable is that the majority of Christians only condemn the desire to see others in hell and not the threat itself, which is an integral part of the gospel message. (Most people think the message is love and forgiveness whereas it's actually, “Believe or fry!”) Even if an atheist dismisses all believers as fools, that doesn't even begin to compare with what the average believer thinks about atheists. And atheists certainly don't express the same level of emotion when someone insults their beliefs.

It's not surprising there is no reaction when you believe that blasphemy is a victimless crime.

False Tolerance

2008-03-31T22:00:00.001-04:00

Freedom of expression is today informally limited by a false sense of tolerance widespread in our culture. Many people are reluctant to express their thoughts critical of religion out of fear of offending someone. Self-censorship thus silences many who would otherwise contribute to the public discussion of religion and its place in our society that is so badly needed. In light of this lamentable situation, I would like to encourage my readers to assert your right to express your opinion and disregard any attempt to invoke an imaginary right not to be offended in order to prevent you from speaking your mind.

As for me, I refuse to recognize anyone's claim to a right to be automatically respected. If you don't want anyone to criticize your religion, then you should defend it rationally and show why the detractors are wrong. If you can't do this, you should abandon your beliefs as indefensible or humbly accept the criticism. Demanding that someone else respect your faith and refrain from criticizing it, however, is not an acceptable response. You have the right to promote your opinions and I have the right to promote mine. You have the right to criticize my opinions and I have the right to criticize yours. Any respect in the marketplace of ideas must be earned and not arbitrarily granted. If one's beliefs don't hold up under scrutiny, then they simply they aren't worthy of respect. Religion doesn't receive any immunity from criticism merely because of its importance in some people's lives, especially since its effects are far from uniformly benign. It's in fact far more disrespectful to insulate others from your ideas, assuming their justifications for the beliefs or their feelings are so fragile that you must protect them from the hard truth like little children.

I want to be clear that the above applies only to public society and not to private society. The latter has a totally different set of standards regarding politeness and access. If you fail to respect the beliefs of the company you keep by attacking or mocking them, then you cannot expect that company to continue welcoming you. They have the right to exclude you from their homes for whatever reason they deem appropriate, just as you have the right to exclude them from yours. In the world of public discourse, however, no one should be excluded. Anyone should be able to express their opinions by making speeches, writing books, publishing websites, distributing pamphlets, organizing rallies, singing songs, creating paintings or sculptures, producing films or television programs, and no one should attempt to silence them by labeling them intolerant, fundamentalist or militant for simply expressing criticism of the ideas of others. Attacking an intolerant ideology is a service to, not against, tolerance.

I'm very thankful that I myself was able to find books and websites critical of my former religion when I undertook my investigation several years ago. If those authors had chosen to censor themselves, I wouldn't have found the necessary resources to escape the mental prison of irrational faith. Think of how many more people could bask in the light of reason if only they had more opportunities to join the conversation and think for themselves.

The Necessity of Doubt

2008-03-26T18:00:00.002-04:00

I simply cannot respect anyone who claims to have never doubted their beliefs. This statement tells me they have never really examined their opinions, no matter how much time they have spent thinking, reading or discussing them. Whatever your beliefs regarding religion, the vast majority of the world disagrees with you. I find it incredible that a person can go through life, aware that billions of people hold opposing viewpoints, without once thinking, “Perhaps I'm wrong.” While it's possible to understand this failure to doubt in the culturally homogeneous societies of the past where literally everyone you knew belonged to the same religion, it's nothing short of inexcusable in modern, cosmopolitan America. Despite this absurdity, I still occasionally read interviews of religious leaders in the local newspaper in which they state they have not once doubted their faith. And very few of those who do acknowledge their doubts then say they have pursued and investigated them logically, instead preferring to rely on prayer and scripture to resolve their uncertainties. Of course, if they approached the question of religion from a rational perspective, it's extremely unlikely they would have become religious leaders in the first place.

Why I Joined the Green Party

2008-03-20T14:30:00.007-04:00

UPDATE: I re-registered as a Democrat on 15 May. I decided to accept the reality of the two-party system and make my liberal voice heard within the big tent of a major party. In addition, Florida has closed primaries and I want to vote as often as possible.

My trek across the political spectrum has been as radical as that across the religious spectrum, and for much the same reasons. Within a few weeks of turning eighteen years old, I registered to vote for the first time. Since I was religious and conservative, I chose to affiliate with the Republican Party. Several years later I became so frustrated with the Republicans for not being conservative enough that I almost registered with the reactionary Constitution Party. I acquired a new voter registration form, filled it out, but then decided not to mail it in for whatever reason. After my deconversion during my mid-twenties, without the influence of religion, my politics quickly changed. I had been taught my entire life to listen to ecclesiastical authority instead of thinking for myself and now, having thought for myself by investigating my doubts about the faith, I had very explicitly rejected that authority. So I carefully examined my political positions, which had mostly been based on dogma and ignorance, not on reason and wisdom. As a result, many of them changed radically; some remained the same. In the end, however, I came to identify myself as a liberal. I wasn't in a hurry to change my party affiliation, but I did switch to the Democratic Party before the next major election. That's where I remained until yesterday, when I mailed off a new registration form in order to switch to the Green Party.

My departure from the Democratic Party is primarily the result of the party's failure to represent my voice. The single largest issue is the Iraq war. The newly elected Democratic majority in Congress has failed to bring any troops home and there's still a real possibility that the superdelegates will award the party's nomination to someone who voted to authorize the war in the first place and who has shown utter contempt for the democratic process throughout her campaign. If Obama wins the nomination, I still intend to vote for him in the general election. If Hillary wins, I absolutely refuse to vote for her and will most likely cast my ballot for the Green Party nominee. Other issues are the party's connections to corporate interests, its pandering to the religious, and its lack of support for democratic reform of our electoral system. I acknowledge that my joining the Green Party is mostly a symbolic gesture of protest against the Democrats and in support of the Greens, but it feels good and I'm glad I've done it.

When I examined the Green Party's 2004 platform, I found a number of my own views in it which the Democratic Party's 2004 platform lacked:

unequivocal opposition to the Iraq war
reduction of military spending
repeal of the Patriot Act
establishment of single-payer universal healthcare
abolition of the death penalty
full support for gay marriage
support for proportional representation, preferential voting, and neutral redistricting
abolition of the electoral college
support for statehood for the District of Columbia
support for stringent environmental standards (naturally)

There was even one section entitled “Religious Freedom and Secular Equality” which I would like to present in full:

The United States Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion. We affirm the right of each individual to the exercise of conscience and religion, while maintaining the constitutionally mandated separation of government and religion. We believe that federal, state, and local governments must remain neutral regarding religion. We call for:

a. Ending discriminatory federal, state, and local laws against particular religious beliefs, and nonbelief. The U.S. Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office. This requirement should apply to oaths (or affirmations) for holding public office at any level, employment at all government levels, oaths for witnesses in courts, oaths for jury membership, and the oath for citizenship.

b. Prosecution of hate crimes based on religious affiliation or practice.

c. Elimination of displays of religious symbols, monuments, or statements on government buildings, property, websites, money, or documents.

d. Restoration of the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-1954 version, eliminating the politically motivated addition of “under God.”

e. Ending faith-based initiatives and charitable choice programs, whereby public funds are used to support religious organizations that do not adhere to specified guidelines and standards, including anti-discrimination laws.

f. Ending school vouchers whereby public money pays for students in religious schools.

g. Ending governmental use of the doctrines of specific religions to define the nature of family, marriage, and the type and character of personal relationships between consenting adults.

h. Ending religiously-based curricula in government-funded public schools.

i. Ending the use of religion as a justification to deny children necessary medical care or subject them to physical and emotional abuse.

j. Ending the use of religion by government to define the role and rights of women in our society.

k. Revocation of the Congressional charter of the Boy Scouts of America. Any private organization that practices bigotry against certain religious beliefs and classes of people should not have a Congressional endorsement or access to public property and funds.

Of course, I can't say that I agree with everything in the platform, but it certainly reflects my views much more closely than that of any other party. I'm glad to be a Green. I don't know whether my political journey has ended, but it has certainly been a wild ride so far. I might be the only person in the country to have voted for both Alan Keyes and Barack Obama in presidential primaries. I can only claim mental illness in the first case.

Happy Earth Day!

2008-03-20T12:00:00.007-04:00

The March equinox is one of the two different days recognized as Earth Day by the United Nations. I want to wish my visitors a pleasant spring or fall, depending on which hemisphere you call home. Let's all work together to protect the planet from ourselves.

Atheists Have Values, Too

2008-03-08T17:00:00.004-05:00

It troubles me that people tend to interpret atheism as the repudiation of everything that religion happens to represent in their minds rather than simply the principled rejection of the core of religion, belief in the supernatural. While it's true that someone could be diametrically opposed to absolutely anything even remotely associated with religion, it's wrong to assume that atheists necessarily are; I certainly have never encountered one who was. As for me, I embrace a number of values which religions commonly profess to promote such as peace, justice, empathy, compassion, honesty, loyalty, responsibility, temperance, introspection and reflection.

I also, however, strongly embrace skepticism, which has led me to disbelieve the supernatural claims of upon which believers (wrongly) claim to derive their moral values, and freethought, which allows me to evaluate the worth of moral values with my own individual judgement rather than deferring to an unquestionable authority such as scripture or a religious leader. These twin values foster others which most religions don't inherently support and which some even explicitly oppose such as liberty, equality and secularism. They have also led me to reject irrationality, superstition, fear, hatred and ignorance, which most religions support or have supported to varying degrees throughout their histories. It is my skepticism and freethinking which distinguish me from believers, not a lack of virtue.

In truth, I yearn for a community in which I can foster my personal growth through contemplation of, discussion about and action based on my values without any compromise to supernaturalism. My several visits to a Unitarian Universalist congregation and my casual online investigation of Buddhism were part of an as-of-yet unsuccessful quest for such a community and identity. Humanism presents the greatest promise for fidelity to my beliefs, but it lacks the type of formal structure that I desire, perhaps for fear of being too similar to religion, and it's not distinct enough from increasingly humanistic western culture to provide a unique focus and identity. All I can say is that I'm a naturalist in search of a place to call home.

Happy Groundhog Day!

2008-02-02T11:00:00.001-05:00

“It's Groundhog Day...again.” – Phil Connors

According to tradition, the groundhog awakes from hibernation and emerges from his hole today, in the exact middle of winter, in order to check on the weather. If it's sunny, he will see his shadow, get scared and return underground, giving us six more weeks of winter. If it's cloudy, he won't see his shadow and will remain aboveground, giving us an early spring.

Groundhog Day is my favorite holiday of the entire year. I love it because it has the perfect balance between popularity and obscurity, it's a uniquely North American observance, it has some history behind it, it requires no shopping or decoration, and it's just silly and fun. The 1993 Bill Murray film that shares the same name as the holiday is my favorite movie of all time. I have watched it more often than any other film and I can recite large portions of the script. I have already watched it twice this year and I might watch it again later today. It's of course rather ironic that I've watched that particular movie so many times!

In case you're wondering, the most famous groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil, saw his shadow this morning. Don't put away your jackets just yet.

Obama for President

2008-02-01T21:00:00.003-05:00

In my initial entry almost two years ago I stated an intention to discuss a variety of topics in addition to religion and irreligion, but until now I had never done so. Today I would like to talk politics and announce my endorsement of Barack Obama for president of the United States. I already cast my vote for Obama in the Florida primary earlier this week and I would like to publicly discuss my support.

My favorite candidate entering the primaries was in fact Dennis Kucinich because of his thoroughly progressive stances on the issues, but he never had a chance to win the nomination and he had even withdrawn his name before election day in Florida. I liked John Edwards about the same as I like Obama, but the latter's viability made it an easy choice to support him. I don't like Hillary Clinton because she voted to initiate the Iraq war, because she seems to be little more than a political opportunist, and because the Republicans would be able to easily incite their voter base into a frenzy against her. Obama, on the other hand, can excite the Democratic base and bring people to the polls who had never voted previously. I think he has a much better chance of winning a general election, especially by electrifying the black vote in the otherwise deep red south.

Obama is the most progressive of the remaining candidates and in particular I believe that he is the best choice to preserve the separation of church and state in this country. When I read his book The Audacity of Hope, I noted that whenever he discussed the issue of religious freedom, he always explicitly mentioned the rights of nonbelievers along with everyone else. He is a committed Christian and his faith has certainly influenced his life, but he appears to appreciate the importance of secular government and the necessity of justifying government policy without any reference to religion. Perhaps his diverse familial and personal religious background helps him understand the necessity of building coalitions based on principles which appeal to citizens of various beliefs. In the United States, we need someone to bring us together and I think Barack Obama is the best choice for our nation and the world.

More Lies About Evolution

2008-01-24T12:00:00.001-05:00

The local debate over evolution and creationism will never end. This letter by Harold J. Adams was published today under the heading “Evolution: Theories are not understood.”

Apparently, we do need more instruction in the theories of evolution in our schools and elsewhere. Recent letters reveal the fact that many of those who attempt to defend organic evolution do not really understand it themselves. One writer stated that the fossil record supports evolution. It does not! All creatures, living or extinct, enter and exit the fossil record fully formed. The glaring absence of fossil evidence of any true transitional steps between any two different kinds of creatures is admitted by all knowledgeable scientists, regardless of their stand on evolution. Charles Darwin based his theory upon finding millions of such transitions sometime in the future. None exists. Another writer used examples of the variation that occurs within a given kind of creature to try to prove evolution. Variation occurs, but that is not evolution from one kind of creature to another kind. The flu virus, for example, that mutates is still a virus, and it will never become anything else. That's because mutation and natural selection are conservation agents. They conserve and re-sort information already existing in DNA, but they are incapable of adding anything new. Thus, they will never change a reptile into a bird, for example. If we do force more evolution on our children, hopefully, the evolutionists, themselves, will occupy the front-row seats.

Just like yesterday, the numerous untruths contained in this letter are addressed in great detail on many websites; I won't repeat the corrections here. I'm really starting to tire of posting these letters even for the sake of completeness. It seems that the series won't be complete until the creationists realize that the fossil record is sufficiently complete and that every “missing link” discovered creates two more in their mind.

Lies About Evolution

2008-01-23T23:45:00.001-05:00

The local debate over evolution and creation simply will not die. This letter by Frederick J. West was published today under the heading, “Evolution: Theories cannot be proved.”

This is in response to recent letters concerning the theory of evolution. When the theory sticks to natural selection and genetics, it can be tested and proved correct. For example, new generations of moths changing colors to match the color of the tree bark they hide in, cockroaches becoming immune to certain pesticides and the flu virus mutating so that it renders vaccines ineffective. But it should be emphasized that over time moths do not become robins, cockroaches do not become puppies and the flu virus does not become the polio virus. When the evolutionists take the giant leap to the theory that millions or billions of years ago slimy creatures climbed onto the beach and some became turtles, some became giraffes and others humans, then they are entering the arena of fantasy, not science. The changing from one species to another cannot be tested or proved. If these changes occurred over billions of years, the fossil record should contain millions of crossover species. However, not one crossover fossil exists. Not too long ago, modern scientists were hoodwinked by a Chinese peasant who attached the bones of a bird to the bones of a dinosaur. This find was plastered on the front page of Natural Geographic. When the hoax was discovered, the disclaimer was printed in small type on a back page of the same magazine. Evolutionists cannot test or prove the monkeys-to-men theory or the dinosaurs-to-birds theory, and they should not be taught to highly impressionable youngsters.

The numerous untruths contained in this letter are addressed in great detail on many websites; I won't repeat the corrections here. I will only say that if the author objects to the teaching the theory of evolution by natural selection on the grounds that it's “fantasy,” then he must also object to the teaching of creationism by the same account and recommend that science classes completely ignore the most fundamental question of biology. I suspect, however, the author is not so logically consistent as this.

Evidence Supports Evolution

2008-01-21T10:30:00.001-05:00

The local debate over evolution and creationism continues some more. This letter by J. Carlson was published today under the heading, “Evolution: A valid scientific theory.

A recent letter titled "Teach students the truth" is a great example of intellectual dishonesty. People are trying to have creationism taught in schools. Only when their efforts are unsuccessful do they start to backpedal and try to undermine the credibility of evolution once again. They first need to learn the term "theory" as used in science classrooms. That word holds more scientific credibility than the word "fact." Scientific theories are ideas that have been put through rigorous testing before that title is applied. If scientific theories were just random ideas, there would be millions of them instead of a select few. The letter writer leaves out pivotal parts of the theory of evolution, which are natural selection and genetics. Those two components of the theory have been and are being tested, recreated and observed constantly. If evolution is such an absurd theory, why is it every time a new fossil or new species is found, it seems to fit? Microbiology proves evolution almost singlehandedly. What about the flu? Every year the virus mutates into a form that the body doesn't recognize. That's why the flu shot is an annual deal. It is not because that's the shelf life of the vaccine, but because we need to be re-immunized against the same, but mutated, virus. There is a reason evolution is taught in schools. It is a valid and highly regarded scientific theory that is responsible for some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in history. Without it, we would still be dying from the flu instead of getting vaccinated from it. Let's be intellectually honest. Keep evolution where it belongs: in the biology class. Keep creationism where it belongs: in the theology class.

This letter in support of teaching only evolution in public schools is fairly standard like the previous two. I'm publishing it for the sake of completeness and I have no additional comments.

Evolution is No Myth

2008-01-20T19:00:00.001-05:00

The local debate over evolution and creationism yet continues. This letter by Marcia Greer was published today under the heading, “Science: No place for creationism.”

I was dumbfounded by the poor reasoning and arguments in a recent letter titled "Teach students the truth." The letter writer asked for intellectual honesty, and for our students to excel in science, yet wants stories of creation taught. That's exactly what they are: stories. Yes, evolution is a theory. A theory is a framework that guides scientific research. It is not a guess; it is not based on written stories by men who had their own agendas thousands of years ago. The fossil record does show evolution. For example, evolution of vertebrate legs is well documented in the fossil record. The evolution of some dinosaurs into birds also has documentation; the most famous fossil is the Archeopteryx, showing a creature with traits of both dinosaur and bird. If, as the letter writer said, we need to include creation stories, how about all the other myths including Aztec, Hindu, Norse, etc. I think it is only fair to give those myths the same focus another unproven story deserves - the Bible. What makes our creation myth so much more believable than anybody else's? Nothing. While we're teaching all these stories, we'll crowd out the real science that our kids aren't learning. Evolution, while much is unexplained, can be documented, tested and researched. That is science. Keep religion in religion class or mythology. This nation is already lagging in science.

This letter in support of teaching only evolution in public schools is fairly standard like the previous one. I'm publishing it for the sake of completeness and I have no additional comments.

Theories & Ways of Knowing

2008-01-14T17:30:00.001-05:00

The local debate over evolution and creationism still continues. This letter by Ed Brunson was published today under the headline, “Science: Evolution is a theory.”

The fact that the scientific theory of evolution is being debated in the same breath with the religious theory of creationism and intelligent design is appalling. In the 1920s, Tennessee was the scene of the famous Scopes monkey trial that debated the legitimacy of teaching evolution. Since that time, scientific evidence has continued to come in supporting the theories involved in natural selection and evolution. Recently, the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine published their updated edition of Science, Evolution & Creationism. In it, they state, quite succinctly, "The evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future." Evolution is a scientific theory, testable, but not 100 percent provable. Isaac Newton's theories, including that of gravity, are theories. Not provable. But you don't need to prove gravity, because, when you try to deny it, you fall. Creationism, and intelligent design are not scientific theories; they are religious explanations for unknown happenings. The story of creationism is allegorical, nothing more, nothing less. The infusion of religious theory into scientific teaching is folly; it should have ended in the 1920s along with the Scopes monkey trial.

This letter in support of teaching only evolution in public schools is fairly standard and I would just like to comment on the texts written by other parties.

First, I find the heading printed by the newspaper misleading. Many detractors of evolution argue that it's “only a theory,” implying a lack of supporting evidence, but the author of this letter emphasized that a scientific theory is not something to be proved. Perhaps they could have written something like, “Evolution: Gravity is also only a theory.”

Second, I have objections to the statement by the National Academy of Sciences. Evolution can be compatible with religious faith, but that depends entirely on what that religion teaches. It's not compatible with the belief that humans were miraculously created by God six thousand years ago. It's not compatible with the belief that humans have existed on earth for all eternity. It's not compatible with the belief that humans were brought here by space aliens. No one is placing science and religion in any more opposition than they actually are; some people just aren't willing to pretend that there's no contradiction when there actually is, radically change their religious beliefs, and sweep the issue under the rug. I don't object to changing one's religious beliefs and acknowledging that this change was made in the light of new evidence, but it's simply dishonest to strip a belief of its original meaning in order to save face, especially if while still claiming infallible certitude for this and other completely unsupported assertions. Science and religion aren't two different ways to understand the world because religion just isn't a way to understand the world. One might as well say that a magic eight-ball is yet a third way to understand the world since it's no less reliable than religion in ascertaining the truth. Of the various ways to gain knowledge, only science offers consistent results and we shouldn't give religious dogma receive any more respect than any other variety of quackery.

Quackery in the Classroom

2008-01-11T11:00:00.001-05:00

The local debate over evolution and creationism continues. This letter by Marjorie Ramseur was published today under the heading, “Science: Teach students the truth.”

The recent letter titled "Prohibit myths" in relation to science standards missed the point. People are not trying to have creation or intelligent design taught in the science classrooms of public schools. Good science is what is needed, and it must be taught objectively and truthfully. The theory of evolution is unproved. Its validity is being questioned by hundreds of scientists around the world. The fossil record does not show evolution. Microbiology does not show evolution. Embryology does not show evolution. Comparative anatomy does not show evolution, only similarities. Students must be able to distinguish the data of the Theory of Evolution; analyze and recognize its strengths and weaknesses, its assumptions and presumptions, along with its frauds and gaps. The scientific method used by experimental sciences stresses the testability and repeatability of a theory. The theory of evolution falls short since it has not been observed, cannot be tested and cannot be repeated. Evolutionary scientists may claim that evolution is the basic principle of biology, but the processes involved and the mechanisms needed are still the subject of much diligent research, discussion and, I might add, skepticism among the scientists themselves. As brought out in the 1925 Scopes trial, ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow stated that it is the "height of bigotry to have only one theory of origins taught in our schools." This was when creation was the main view taught in public schools. Let us be intellectually honest and teach students the truth. After all, what we want is for our students to excel in their knowledge of science.

Despite what the author claims, people are trying to have creationism taught in schools. She even indicates her desire for this by presenting a quote from Darrow which condemns teaching only one view! The rest of her claims are equally untrue; the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution and only a tiny portion of scientists even have questions about its validity. It's inappropriate to teach both views when the second view is held only by a fringe group with a clear political agenda using claims that simply aren't supported by the evidence. I doubt that Ms. Ramseur would support teaching the views in the history books that the moon landings were faked, that extraterrestrials actually crashed in Roswell, or that President Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks. I also doubt that she would support adding astrology, alchemy, or homeopathy to the science curriculum. Schools shouldn't make exceptions to teach anyone's favorite pseudoscience or conspiracy theory. Actually do research to support the objections and have them accepted by the scientific community before demanding that children learn them in school.

Thought Control

2008-01-09T15:30:00.001-05:00

Although I have previously written about my past experiences with a condition known as scrupulosity when I was a devout Catholic, I would like to go into more detail regarding a particularly torturous element thereof which I endured for a few years, in order to illustrate the absurdity of certain religious prohibitions. As I have discussed in a separate earlier entry, the Catholic Church teaches an especially strict sexual morality which condemns every sexual act except that between a husband and wife without contraception and, per clear scriptural authority, condemns even willful indulgence of sexual thoughts. While the prohibition against actions is severe, it's not impossible to obey it if one is truly careful to avoid opportunities to succumb to temptation. The prohibition against thoughts, however, proves practically impossible to obey if one takes both it and the threat of eternal damnation seriously. I struggled mightily for years to control my thoughts and, despite my most strenuous efforts, I failed to achieve anything except an unhealthy suppression of my natural desires and the development of violent compulsions against myself.

The most relevant fact about the condemnation of consenting to impure thoughts is that it's simply impossible to control one's mental activity, most especially with respect to such a basic animal instinct as sex. It's almost always on our minds, subconsciously if not consciously. Most people realize this, especially psychologists and advertisers. Healthy adults automatically respond to the sight, sound or smell of attractive individuals by becoming sexually aroused. Now while the church teaches that mere instinctive thoughts aren't willful and thus aren't at all sinful, it does teach that to consciously entertain and indulge these thoughts constitutes such a serious offense that you could burn in hell forever if you commit it and die without repenting and confessing it to a priest. That idea in itself is absurdly evil, but notice that there's nothing even resembling a clear boundary between an event that happens automatically and an action that can condemn one to eternal damnation. That's just an open invitation for obsession.

Let's say that a sexual thought enters one's mind as it does innumerable times each day. If one dwells on it for even a moment, then one risks sinning by “entertaining” or “consenting” to it. If one attempts to banish it from one's mind, the thought only becomes stronger and more persistent. I found it impossible to simply “let it pass” as I was repeatedly advised by confessors because I was afraid that I had not done enough to avoid sin and had thereby sinned already. My response to this fear was to work harder and harder to banish any sexual thought as soon as it entered my mind. I shouldn't reveal much detail, but I will say that my attempts to immediately distract my mind from unwanted images became more and more manic over time and that it was simply impossible for me to function properly until my deconversion.

If I saw an attractive woman who aroused any sexual feelings in me, I forced myself to avert my eyes and drive out with a physical response against myself any sexual thoughts that the sight of her generated in my mind. I then thought about whether I was thinking about it and then about whether I had sinned by thinking something lustful about her, often subtly appearing like I suffered from a mental condition, which in retrospect was not entirely inaccurate. This rumination could last from a few seconds to several minutes to the rest of the day and all I had actually done was happen to a see a woman in completely normal and acceptable attire. My mind even seemed to revolt at the suppression of its thoughts. The more I struggled not to think something, the stronger the urge I felt to think it out of frustration and anger. This tendency, by the way, extended to violent and blasphemous thoughts as well, though these caused much less trouble due to far weaker instincts to think them. It's notable that I came to believe that the vast majority of women dressed immodestly and that I noticed every single inch of cleavage on every woman, perhaps similar to how a Saudi man might feel in a western society.

Contrast that to how simple life has become with respect to sexual thoughts since my belief in God and hell disintegrated. Now when I see an attractive woman, the exact same sexual thoughts arise, but they present no trouble whatsoever. If I want to and have the time, I can indulge in a sexual fantasy for a short time and move on. If I'm busy or focused on something else, I can let it pass because there's absolutely no fear that I have done anything which might result in neverending torment. Either way it lasts for a few moments at most and I can concentrate on actually living my life, all without any guilt or fear. There's no obsession; it's natural and normal. And I'm sure there's just as much cleavage and as many pairs of tight pants as there were a few years ago, but I hardly notice except in the most exceptional cases, when such a sight most likely presents far more potential pleasure than anguish. It feels so good to be normal again.

Intelligent Design is Myth-information

2008-01-08T16:00:00.001-05:00

Outside of the prayer in public venues fiasco in October, it has been many months since I have commented on an editorial piece or letter to the editor appearing in the Florida Times-Union. It's time to start the new year with a fresh letter on an old debate. This letter by Tom Brady was published today under the heading, “Science standards: Prohibit myths.”

I was somewhat dismayed to see in a recent story that people were challenging Florida's current attempt to bring our education standards concerning science out of the realm of theology and into that of rational thought. Trying to equate "creationism" or "intelligent design" with the scientific approach to the evolution of the species is tantamount to comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. The first two are manifestations of a belief system; the third is a demonstration of the scientific method. If we are going to teach creation myths in our schools, then we should not limit those teachings to Judeo/Christian myths only. The Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Animists and even many American Indians have their own creation stories. If the school systems choose one myth over the others, they are making a choice to advance one religion over another, which violates the Constitution. For those who claim that the theory of evolution is not proved and is "just a theory," they obviously don't understand the definition of the scientific term. Since none of us knows, or can know, from whence the universe ultimately came, a discussion involving the possibility of an intelligent designer is perfectly appropriate. But this should be in a philosophy or theology class, not in a science classroom.

Since I don't read the entire paper, the article referenced in the letter had escaped my notice until today when I did a search. The original story was about a public hearing about a new public school curriculum which explicitly teaches evolution and the debate which took place over whether also to include material on intelligent design. I agree with everything that the author of the letter wrote, but there really isn't much new to say about this debate. Intelligent design simply isn't science and shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.

What I find remarkable is that the most valuable player of the National Football League has time to write letters to the editor in Jacksonville when one would expect him to be preparing to play the Jaguars this Saturday evening in Foxboro!

Santa Claus: A Web of White Lies

2007-12-19T12:00:00.002-05:00

Although with respect to religion I've gone from devout believer to devout skeptic, I've always opposed encouraging children to believe in Santa Claus. It has always struck me as very strange that parents spend so much money on gifts for their children and then lie to them by saying that a magical elf snuck into their house in the middle of the night to drop them off, thus giving him all the credit for their work. I don't like the idea of lying to children in general, but this seems like a rather odd lie. I understand that some parents truly enjoy playing along with the idea of Santa Claus and sometimes use him as an unassailable authority when kids whine for a toy late in the year, but it seems that children would enjoy the holiday just as much if they knew their parents were responsible for all their gifts; older children and adults certainly like receiving presents despite knowing where they came from. As a Christian, I wanted to avoid lying as much as possible and I was concerned that children who learned that Santa Claus is imaginary would then start to think that God is imaginary as well. As an atheist, I also feel uneasy about lying unless truly necessary, though I certainly don't lament any nascent skepticism created in children about what their parents tell them about invisible beings. Still it strikes me as a bad idea to build and maintain this web of white lies for children.

Despite what some readers may suppose, I myself didn't have a negative experience with belief in Santa Claus. As is common, I believed in him as a young child and stopped believing in him sometime in elementary school. I don't remember being at all upset when I learned the truth. I didn't feel disappointed, deceived or disillusioned. I've heard stories, however, about children who do experience some amount of grief and who do sincerely struggle to accept the truth for some time. No, it's not a tragedy, but it is completely avoidable simply by not perpetuating absurd stories about an ageless magical elf who lives where there is no land, who can make deer fly, and who can deliver free toys to hundreds of millions of households in a single night though still unable to give nice presents to poor children.

I don't want anyone to get the impression, however, that I have some sort of weird vendetta against Santa Claus. It's not something I spend much time thinking about and it hardly even qualifies as a minor issue. Since I don't intend to have children, the question of what to say will probably never arise, but I decided long ago that I wouldn't lie to any children that I might end up raising one day. I certainly don't interfere with anyone else's parenting choices by telling children the truth about Santa Claus. When children talk to me about him, I listen attentively, but I don't ever say anything to suggest that he's real or that I myself believe in him. It's actually completely identical to my personal policy regarding children when they talk to me about God.

Bah Humbug!

2007-12-18T16:00:00.002-05:00

I don't really like Christmas, but my reasons are mostly unrelated to religion or consumerism. Maybe I'm just a scrooge, but I dislike how Christmas dominates the month of December such that one can hardly think of the month without thinking of the holiday. I'm just tired of Christmas decorations, Christmas trees, Christmas lights, Christmas sweaters, Christmas cookies, Christmas candy, Christmas drinks, Christmas songs, Christmas poems, Christmas TV specials, Christmas movies, Christmas parties, Christmas travel and the incessant chatter about Christmas. I don't inherently dislike any of those things; it's just that it's too much for too long. We have other holidays, of course, but Christmas is unquestionably the holiday of the year. I would prefer to have several smaller holidays throughout the year during each of the four seasons rather than focusing so much energy on one particular winter day. One of the primary reasons that New Year's Day is one of my favorite holidays is that it's the unofficial end of the Christmas season and that our lives can return to normal after a little more relaxation. I'm already looking forward to it.

Religious Justification for Bigotry

2007-12-11T13:00:00.001-05:00

I've only recently begun to fully realize the oddity of the obsession that certain religions have with homosexuality. Since I was raised as an observant Catholic and grew up in a relatively traditional society, I used to unreflectively consider homosexuality abnormal and homosexual acts morally wrong. As a heterosexual, I didn't really give the topic much thought during my religious years, but I assented to the teaching that to engage in homosexual behavior was gravely sinful and I opposed efforts to grant all persons the legal right to marry whomever they choose. To be fair, I in fact believed that every sexual act except that within a sacramental marriage and without contraception was gravely immoral, so homosexuality wasn't particularly singled out and was never an issue of much personal concern, but I still certainly thought it was immoral. All of that changed when I rejected the authority of religious leaders to dictate to me what was and wasn't acceptable. This change of opinion regarding homosexuality upon deconversion seems to be almost universal; I can't recall ever encountering any unbeliever who objected to homosexuality or to granting everyone the same legal rights with regard to marriage. And it's not that secular arguments against homosexuality are fallacious; I haven't even ever seen one. The only objections to homosexuality are religious and authoritarian and they exemplify the problems caused directly by religion.

It seems that the primary reason that many believers still consider homosexuality so morally abhorrent is that they personally find it disgusting, unlike other sins that also once received strong public disapproval. Fornication, i.e., sex between two unmarried persons, is equally condemned in the scriptures, has traditionally been regarded as taboo, and is still considered gravely sinful by the Catholic Church and certain other Christian sects, but there are no political efforts to prevent unmarried heterosexual couples from living together or to deny them certain legal benefits, at least after a certain number of years. What was once forbidden has become perfectly normal. Today it's not at all uncommon for even church-going Christians to live with their boyfriends or girlfriends while dating. Society has shed some of its former moral restrictions and most people today seem happy with the change as it grants them more personal freedom to indulge their natural sexual desires. The change happened quietly without becoming a political issue. Unlike with the situation with homosexuality, the majority of the population is composed of heterosexuals who by definition find straight sex appealing, so there was no issue of disgust or otherness to impede this repeal of the former moral code.

Where exactly does this feeling of disgust originate? It seems to me that the initial negative feelings were the result of simple xenophobia, i.e., antipathy toward anyone who is different from oneself or one's group, and that these feelings have been sustained by culture, especially by religious dogma. For my own part, I can't remember what I thought the first time I saw a homosexual couple together, but I definitely can't remember a time when I was aware of homosexuality when I wasn't also aware that it was considered strange and objectionable by most people. I know that I learned it from others, some of whom must have given an explicitly religious justification for their intolerance toward people who are different from themselves, for there are no other reasons to object to what sex of person mature adults choose to associate with. Since the time I cast off the heavy chains of religious devotion, however, my reason and my compassion for fellow humans have overridden any prior feelings of uneasiness about homosexuality. It seems high time that American society as a whole discard its religious obsessions, overcome any involuntary distaste it still experiences, and fully acknowledge the rights of all people. We do seem to be moving in that direction, but as is often the case, it's primarily religion that's hindering social progress. Whether religion actually creates bigotry or simply provides hypocritical justification for it, irrational belief is the enemy of human advancement.