The Miner's Canary

Latest Casualties: On George Tiller's Murder, and other things

2009-06-03T12:03:00.002-04:00

We've all heard by now about the murder of George Tiller (known to the Christian Right as "Tiller the Baby Killer").

I thought about writing a post when this happened, as so many others did, but I felt like I had to think about it. Then I read PZ Myers' response to Frank Schaeffer's apology for creating an atmosphere of hatred surrounding the public controversy over abortion.

Schaeffer (and his father), authors and shapers of the modern Christian Right, is one of those intellectuals that a lot of my friends and allies like to dismiss as a "para-intellectual" or a tool. He is an example of someone who is clearly very intelligent despite being the victim of a twisted worldview that sees Christianity as deserving a role in government far in excess of the ideal of neutrality that supposedly governs relationships between the state and religious establishments in the U.S. Obviously I don't agree with him politically or theologically, but that doesn't mean that I think he's stupid. I think he believes some ridiculous things, but the extent to which he has gone to influence others to further his agenda and the agenda of his allies demonstrates his intelligence and his understanding of the theory of mind. Simply put, this guy knows how to make friends and influence people. It's a talent the secular/non-theist movement desperately (and I DO mean desperately) needs to get a handle on.

C.S. Lewis is another brilliant mind. Galileo. Francis Bacon. Albert Einstein (marginally). Martin Luther King. The list goes on and on. All these people believed in God, whether they were "theists" or "deists" or "pantheists."

PZ can complain, but I think Schaeffer's apology was not only genuine but probably the best we'll ever get from the Christian Right. Yes, this does show that religion is not a valid moral compass (I wouldn't say it corrupts morality though, I just think religion and morality have almost nothing to do with each other causally). And Schaeffer's criticism of the anti-Obama anti-Christ communist non-American bullshit rhetoric coming out of the Republican Party... well you have to appreciate a good propagandists calling out bad propagandists on a shitty job. Seriously. Schaeffer in that video admits the very thing that has made people call ME crazy for talking about it: the effort by the leaders of the Christian Right to foster an atmosphere of hate and intolerance, and its spectacular failure (in propandist speak, "mistake.") See, guys like Schaeffer and me are on the same wavelength. I just think he's a frakking coward and a liar, as he clearly KNEW what he was doing. Remember, I do believe that apology was genuine.

I don't think it makes up for a murder of a public figure, and I don't consider the violent wing of the Pro-Life/Anti-Choice movement to be a different movement from the mainstream, non-violent faction. Frak forbid, if one of my allies in the secular/non-theist movement did anything close to murder, I hope to FUCK that any public figure in our movement would do the same.

Look... I'm a frakking insider. I KNOW that there are people who, in the name of atheism, are fostering an atmosphere of intolerance. Granted it's not to the same degree as the Christian Right, but that shouldn't matter. NOW... if you are reading this and you recognize this behavior in yourself- as I do- I hope you think about it and take it to heart.

Seriously, I used to have this naive hope that the idea of the Culture War could be buried, and I still want that to happen one day, but now I realize that the culture war is fought over that very concept: pluralism vs. singularism. I'm on the side of the pluralists in that I am willing to take the chance that I might rationally and peacefully disagree with other pluralists and that these disagreements will be worked out as equitably as possible. I'm willing to compromise. I'm willing to be amenable.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Preview: AS I HAVE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY ON THIS BLOG, MANY OF THE THINGS WRITTEN IN THEODORE KACZYNSKI's "UNABOMBER MANIFESTO" ONCE RAN TRUE TO ME...

The Evil Atheist Conspiracy discusses unresolved questions in evolution

2009-05-29T20:16:00.007-04:00

...Not what you'd expect, actually. Real unresolved issues. Kinda nice when we get the meat instead of the bread from scientists-turned-public intellectuals.

EDIT: I think PZ has a better understanding of epiphenomenon than Dawkins, who I think is hindered a little by a very firmly entrenched tendency toward adaptationism over pluralism.

This is a great series of videos. I'll just link to Part I and let you follow along. This is the thing that I wish the media would focus on more. Unfortunately the idea of two biologists sitting down and calmly discussing, among other points of interest, unresolved questions and new developments in evolutionary science.

I wish this was the face the rest of the world saw of our movement.

EDIT: Sorry, I hadn't watched all of them and spoke too soon. There are a few things that piss me off here, namely the notion that most people can actually be swayed by evidence to dispense of religion, which I really must argue is demonstrably false. I disagree with some of their language and turns of phrase starting around Part 3. Just saying. I think their sense of humor could be a roadblock, and granted it's a sense of humor I largely share. One of the many reasons for the shift in tone on this blog.

I realize I've been harsh on these two lately, but they've done a lot of good. They've raised awareness and provoked controversy. I don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm a Dawkins-hater or a PZ-hater. It's just that this cult of celebrity that inevitably forms around people with charisma can really work against us, and we should really be more self-conscious about it. Otherwise atheism becomes just another religion or even worse- a destructive cult. And we don't want that, do we?

The Sotomayor Decision: What it could mean for Church State Separation

2009-05-29T17:33:00.007-04:00

I don't really have much to say about this that hasn't been said elsewhere.

Church-State separation: fuzzy. I accept the Supreme Court's ruling from several years ago regarding the Ten Commandments displays: it's important to understand the difference between a threat and the "mere shadow of a threat," and because I'm definitely not in favor of ripping old monuments out of their sites, I can respect the role of historical context in the Supreme Court's decision then. However, Justice Sotomayor's views on the many contested questions about the implications of a wall of separation are largely unknown with only a few tantalizing clues. Most of this is quite positive, but the 1993 case involving religious displays in public parks worries me. I can understand a temporary display for a holiday, and I would have no problem if a protester in a public park brought a sign with a religious message or symbol for the day. However the establishment of permanent monuments in public parks- monuments that presumably would require maintenance at the expense of tax payers- does seem to run counter to the Glassroth v. Moore decision of 2003. However the First Amendment Center's brief on Sotomayor doesn't go into enough detail, so if one is unfamiliar with Judaism it's easy to get the wrong idea: it's likely that this only would have been a temporary display, not a permanent monument, as the Menorrah is a seasonal symbol of the Jewish holiday of Hannukah. Her decision to strike down an ordinance against religious displays in public parks on the basis that the parks should be areas of free and open exchange of ideas does not show a preference for government endorsement of belief over non-belief.

The brief from the First Amendment Center wisely advises not to draw any hasty conclusions from the decisions it lists, but that brief really only details a particular kind of case involving church-state separation. Church-State separation is much broader than religious displays, broader than the first amendment, even. While reproductive rights are not a first amednment issue per se, when the government endorses a pro-life moral dictate on a population that includes pro-life and pro-choice individuals or defines domestic partnership differently for gay and straight couples rather than allowing for a pluralistic framework, and said moral dictate is religious, that is contrary to the spirit of the law. It is here that we may have reason to worry.

She's the 6th Catholic on the court, which I know some might considering a reason to be worried. To be fair, no religious test is supposed to be required for public office in this country, in practice this does happen and in several states it is still in the lawbooks that no citizen can hold public office who does not affirm the existence of God. Six Catholics on the Supreme Court is a bit extreme, and the loss of Justice Souter combined with the public's lack of knowledge on her opinions regarding abortion rights and gay marriage- is disturbing, prompting some to question if, in his push to please the moderates, Obama is neglecting his own pluralism by making the Supreme Court even more conservative.

Just what we needed, right? This after the news from California. I'm getting pessimistic.

On the New Atheism (perceptions, assumptions, mistakes, and other facts of life)

2009-05-29T11:18:00.008-04:00

Because so few people actually listen past their own loud assumptions...

Every once in a while I need to restate my principles. I do this because my principles change as I mature and learn and interact with the world. I think this is a very good way to live, and I don't think it's uncalled for to suggest that if more people were more fluid about the things they believe and took criticism less personally, we would have fewer unnecessary conflicts and divisions, and thus people would be less stressed. I really don't know about you but this sounds like an improvement.

I think religion is responsible for a lot of closed-mindedness, but it is not alone. Anytime people invest emotionally in anything, the potential for conflict between closed minds or between closed-minded and open-minded people increases, and communication and conflict resolution become more difficult.

I hate the phrase "The New Atheism" not because I disagree fundamentally with people like Dawkins and Harris, but because of the tendency of the media to reinforce popular perceptions of "intellectual" atheism as a boy's club or as some kind of monolithic school of thought that presumes to have all the important answers. I also think that some (though not all) proponents of "The New Atheism" neglect important distinctions between things like tolerance and respect, as well as between the respect I have for people and the respect some people expect me to have for their ideas. By this I mean that as a naturalist and a critical thinker, I have no reason to respect faith, but this doesn't mean I am intolerant of it. I just don't want extraordinary claims in the absence of good supporting evidence to govern any aspect of my life, which is why I advocate for the strongest possible separation of civil governance from faith-based institutions and ideologies. I sometimes jokingly call this the separation of Guru and State, because as I see it, it's not just organized religion we need to protect the integrity of civil government and pluralism from. These things are also threatened by a lack of critical thinking in general that may or may not be directly related to organized religion. For the same reason we shouldn't be teaching Creationism in public school science classes, we should not be teaching- for example- New Word Order conspiracy theories in Western Civilization or Civics classes. I realize that's an extreme example that probably doesn't occur to often, but I cite it for the purpose of illustrating the double standard that religion enjoys as a separate class of ideas somehow immune from rational criticism. Our society seems to be far more tolerant of the former behavior than the latter, probably because the numbers of Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents in the country are greater than the number of people in America who are NWO conspiracy theorists. Basically, I think that empirical claims about the natural world can be tested precisely because they are falsifiable, and that the government and other public institutions must never promote a particular belief over other beliefs or belief over non-belief. I am perfectly willing to tolerate the fact that many people have ridiculous beliefs as long as those beliefs don't affect the secular and pluralistic stance of neutrality promised by the U.S. Constitution.

As someone with a public persona, I must give Dawkins the benefit of the doubt that in his private life he is far less abrasive than he is publically, as I would be in his position: respectful of my friends if not necessarily those beliefs of theirs I find ridiculous, but willing to stick to my guns in more public discourses. Some atheists have a tendency to sneer at words like "dialog," whereas I reserve these sneers only for those who make dialog impossible. Fortunately for all of us, those who make dialog impossible are usually in the minority. Unfortunately for all of us, they tend to be extremely vocal minorities. The Bush II Regime was an example of this: between Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Clinton, the political machinery of the Republican Party was taken over by the political interests of evangelicals and conservatives interested in making American government less pluralistic and more in line with their own theo-politics.

When I first found out who Richard Dawkins was, I watched every youtube video I could find on him and found myself agreeing with much (but hardly all) of what he said. Several things eventually became clear to me:

Dawkins is good at stirring up controversy and getting people to think, but this doesn't mean they think critically. Some do, others respond to Dawkins in a reactionary way.

He's a British scientist, and because Americans tend to associate British accents with higher intelligence in popular culture, he makes people who agree with him feel smart at the same time that he makes it easy for his critics to characterize him (and by extension all atheists, or all organized atheists) as arrogant and "elitist."

Though some scientists are or were decent, even excellent philosophers (Gould, Sagan, Pinker, Bacon and Galileo come to mind), Dawkins is not one of them. Though his stance that scientific knowledge is generally corrosive to supernatural claims is something I find myself in agreement with, I find his arguments crude.

With some exceptions, most people do not drop deeply ingrained beliefs on the basis of evidence alone. People don't become atheists because there is no mention of the value of Pi in the Bible. They don't become atheists because the digestive mechanisms inside the stomachs of whales and large fish would do irreparable harm to a human being over a period of three days. There are many reasons why people decide that they don't believe supernatural invention, and they are too numerous to list here, but because these are decisions they evolve emotions. All decisions, even those that appear arbitrary like whether to quench your thirst with water, orange juice or gatorade, or which shade of blue your prefer to paint your bedroom, involve emotions. Although the physiology behind emotions can be studied scientifically, an emotional experience will always be a subjective experience unless some kind of technological remedy is found that allows us to store and transfer emotional experience between brains like we can store and transfer files on USB keys. Granted, I think such a technological breakthrough is very, very unlikely.

Back to Dawkins, I am not sold on his use of the phrase "child abuse" to refer to religious upbringings. I think he is throwing around a very loaded word without concern as to what child abuse actually is and what the consequences are of lumping things together to create boogie men. Dawkins however is not using the word in a legal context. He is using the phrase to make a point. I just think it's naive of him to think that his critics are going to pick up on that. More than that, though, I think it's insensitive to victims of child abuse, much as I think the 9/11 Truth Out movement is insensitive to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center. If we are to label a certain kind of upbringing as abusive (again, not in a legal context but to make a point about the vulnerability of children to exploitation by adults) then I would insist we label as abusive any upbringing that leaves a person unable to tolerate differences between themselves and other people. While examples of religion being used to instill this kind of mentality in children are widespread, they are not the only ones. Hatred is hatred, no matter where it is coming from, and I have no interest in the reverse pissing contests that so frequently crop up on the internet between supporters and critics of religion, which basically consist of throwing numbers of fatalities at each other. Religion DOES NOT have a monopoly on irrationality, and I have never claimed that it does. It's just that irrationality is a major ingredient of religion, but irrationality exists elsewhere and to label all irrational beliefs as "religious" is disingenuous and hypocritical. If we want to be critical of religion it is my contention that we should be critical of religion as we would be critical of any idea, because we don't just accept ideas for the sake of ideas. We evaluate their merit. This is why I frequently say that whether we are believers or non-believers, it's a mistake to treat religious ideas as a fundamentally different category of ideas. I realize that an intelligent response to this is how, then, we can advocate for something like separation of church and state, but my answer is probably predictable: we need to keep society pluralistic, and secularism, non-establishment, and the neutrality of the state with regard to religion is the best way of protecting the liberties of as many people as possible. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, I really don't care if my neighbor believes in no gods, one god, or a thousand gods. I will gladly engage my neighbor in civil debate. The second it gets uncivil, though, I don't feel any obligation to put up with my neighbor's crap, because my neighbor then has made dialog impossible. When I advocate for secularism I often find myself on the same side as many religious believers, and I am grateful for their support and their tolerance, as I hope they are grateful for my tolerance. But I will always make the distinction between tolerance and respect, and I will never confuse respect (or disrespect) for a person with respect (or disrespect) for their beliefs unless they so egregiously make a fool out of themselves that any intelligent response on my part is futile. In that case, yes, I believe mockery is an effective means of criticism. We can learn as much from parody as we can from the subject of parody. This is why I get so frustrated when people- believers and nonbelievers- direct me to the South Park episode "Go, God, Go" (a great episode, by the way) in what I find to be an underhanded way of saying, "See, even South Park says there's no reason to organize around atheism. OMG STOP BITCHING AND GET A LIFE!" Though I try not to take things personally, I sometimes wonder if this isn't a disguised attempt to insult my intelligence. These same people tend not to respond to me when I point out that most organized atheists are actually organized around things like humanism, or skepticism, or secularism, or freethought, which are NOT synonymous with atheism. Come to think of it, specific people I am thinking of fail to respond when I address the points they make in an intelligent and reasonable manner. It's the kind of thing that ruins my day, because I like to think most people are capable of being more than nay-sayers and butthurt trolls. I don't appreciate the passive aggressiveness or the selective responsiveness (which is just cowardly), and I don't appreciate the drama this crap generates.

Do I find Dawkins grating sometimes? Yes. Do I want to silence him? No. I just wish his critics would stop conflating him with all of us. Often these critics have not actually been to local meetings of non-theist groups, and don't respond to open invitations to come and maybe even have their presumptions dispelled so they might question where their particular perspective came from and see that other perspectives exist. They don't bother to show up because their opinions have already been formed by popular culture and the way that the media latches onto Dawkins as though he were some kind of authority on what atheism is, where it is going, and why we organize.

Dawkins is not the whole of the New Atheism. Nor is the New Atheism (I really, really, REALLY hate that phrase) is not the whole of the larger movement of non-believers who, seeing a rapid and promising increase in their own numbers, have decided to be more vocal about their criticism of religion and other irrational beliefs.

Dawkins is a smart guy who's not the best debater on the planet. After all, he is a biologist and not a philosopher or a lawyer. Sometimes he flubs. Sometimes he puts his foot in his mouth. Maybe he should apologize for being human? Or maybe his critics should stop holding people to unrealistic standards. I am not Dawkins' biggest fan. I'm not exactly a vociferous critic of his, I just don't like when these circle jerks of like mindedness pop up and lend credence to many of the generalizations that people make about atheists as a group. It's counterproductive and I don't think it's unfair to say that we can do better. At the same time, comparing Dawkins and his less critical fans- those who largely parrot his opinions and refuse to even consider other points of view- to cult leaders and their followers like Ayn Rand and her "Collective" of Objectivists is a false comparison. There's a difference between a cult of personality and a destructive cult (Ayn Rand's ironically named Collective and the Church of Scientology being examples of the latter).

I'm also a bit upset right now because I had to cut someone out of my life today who I thought was a friend but who I now realize has no interest in dialog, in the free and open exchange of ideas, but only in bringing up points of contention and then refusing to respond when others try to make the noble disagreement a civil one as opposed to a bullshit fest of drama and passive aggressive attempts to provoke emotional responses. I'm talking about a selective listeners who are just a step above professional quote miners. I just don't have time for people like that in my life, and I'm sorry that it had to be this way. There are very few things I am intolerant of: these include the existence of poverty despite overwhelming material abundance, and intolerance itself.

By the way, I am taking the "intolerance of intolerance" line from Chris Hedges, the very same Chris Hedges who after writing an expose of Christian Dominionism proceeded to write a book which I regretfully have not yet read, but I am given to understand was extremely critical of the rhetoric of the New Atheism. While I don't agree with all of his points, I'm not about to write him off as some a yokel just because he criticizes some people I admire (like Christopher Hitchens and Samuel Harris).

Most of all, though, I frakking hate it when people take complex realities and simplify them to the point where all they generate are intellectual masturbations, ideological circle jerks and petty bickering that goes nowhere. It's not groups that are characterized by being "open minded" or "closed minded," or "rational" or "irrational." At the end of the day, it's masses of individuals whose behaviors affect the perception of groups, and if someone can't appreciate that, if someone can't tolerate on ongoing disagreement without resorting to a combination of passive aggressiveness, cowardice, and generally uncivil behavior. I have no interest in people who only seem to know how to complain and nitpick, and who then give me the silent treatment when their expectations are smashed like fossil skulls on limestone instead of doing the appropriate thing and apologizing for making assumptions and seek resolution to the conflict.

I'm going to finish this rant with a little story: once, I wrote a short document describing a particular political agenda. I sent it to a friend of mine and asked for his opinion, and he replied with a very harsh criticism. Guess what I did?

I didn't take it personally. Instead, I went back and tried to match his criticisms to specific faults with the piece. I am grateful for his insights because they challenged me to do better than I had. I think this is a good way of approaching criticism. Exchanges like that give me hope that people are more intelligent than pure cynics assume.

Now please excuse me while I indulge in several uninterrupted hours of high quality science fiction (IE the pure bliss that is Farscape).

::storms off and slams door with enough force that the glass vase falls off the windowsill ad shatters on the floor, then pops back through the door and blames the architect::

P.S. I realize that I leave myself open to the criticism that discussing certain IRL conflicts on this post is in itself hypocritical, as it could be seen as passive aggressive. However, I will always be interested in resolving any conflicts I have with other people civilly and reasonably. I have not used personal names here, or provided any clues to individual identities that would be picked up by people who aren't already aware of the conflict. Many of my posts are aimed at a specific audience, that audience being politically and socially active atheists. This is one such example of a post aimed at a particular audience for the purpose of sharing my experience as a godless activist with other godless activists who may be dealing with similar conflicts. I'm just sorry that such a conflict had to ruin what I thought was a good friendship, but as I said, I have no patience for people who make dialog impossible.

Out of respect for both PZ Myers and Ray Kurzweil...

2009-05-28T22:39:00.007-04:00

Ray Kurzweil is a genius, but he is no prophet. He also believes some pretty whacky things like the practical inevitability of human immortality and a technological singularity by the middle of this century in which machines will outpace human beings in a revolution of artificial cognition, leading to a merged human-machine civilization. No, really.

Like Ray, I am a futurist. I also ascribe loosely to a philosophy called transhumanism, Transhumanism, at its most basic, is a holistic approach to speculation about cultural, biological and technological evolution. Transhumanism comes in many flavors. The one I ascribe to is a kind of cautious optimism about technology improving the quality of human lives, but there are utopian transhumanists who interpret the philosophy in a fundamentally different way that mimics religion with prophecy and apocalyptic, world-changing events wrapped up in science fiction like a candy coating. I think Kurzweil's critics are probably right that while the man is clearly an authority on technology, his understanding of biology and biological evolution- specifically what is and is not a theoretically possible outcome of the process of evolution- leaves something to be desired.

So if you haven't been following the drama at Pharyngula...
A recent Newsweek article about Kurzweil sparked some controversy on Dr. PZ Myers' well-known blog Pharyngula. I want to say of PZ Myers that he is a tireless educator and activist who has done far more good for the secular movement than bad, but that I cannot be intellectually honest without calling attention to the schoolyard atmosphere that's developed on his blog, which at times takes on the trappings of a personality cult. To be fair, this is a risk that anyone who enters the public eye takes. I want to be clear that I am not saying PZ Myers is a cult leader, but rather that a number of his commenters give the impression of a cult of personality. However, as Dr. Myers has chosen be part of a movement that is not organized around atheism per se but rather the importance of critical thinking, philosophical naturalism and secular ethics, I must criticize Pharyngula for turning from one of the most promising blogs on the net into something that has, more than once recently, made me cringe.

However, just when I was about to write Pharyngula for good, I was won over by the perservering rationality of some people in the face of online peer pressure from the "rock stars" of our community. Dr. Myers linked to a letter by Kurzweil in response to the Newsweek's negative press in a post called "Ray Kurzweil is in a snit," which prompted several of his own readers to respond that while Kurzweil might believe in some very unscientific ideas, the letter itself was calm and reasonable. Kurzweil takes some liberties with hindsight in an attempt to defend the validity of some of his claims, but at no point in this letter is Kurzweil having the tantrum that Dr. Myers implies.

PZ, if you're reading this, I hope you realize that all I'm doing is providing some constructive criticism. Too much like-mindedness is never, ever good for a movement based on criticial thought. Though I respect and value the contributions that people like PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, and other proponents of "the New Atheism" (as much as I hate that phrase), at the end of the day no one is beyond criticism. We're all accountable to ourselves and the standards we set, and we would do well not to entrap ourselves in a positive feedback loop of preaching to a choir that preaches back. While "the new atheism" (I really frakking hate that phrase) is a valid position, it is not the only position and its proponents should be able to listen to constructive criticism. I'm glad that they're out there stirring up controversy, but I'd appreciate it if certain people with (admittedly deserved) influence in and beyond the blogosphere would step up to responsibility they have as voices of reason to be tolerant of pluralism and be mindful of the difference between radicalism and extremism. We really can never have enough radicalism. As for extremism, though, we can never have too little of it.

By all means, offend. By all means, provoke. By all means, piss off the right people. But don't let your celebrity get ahead of you.

Finesse

2009-05-28T21:11:00.003-04:00

I'm a big believer in the value of diplomacy. Which is why when my investment in diplomacy pays off, I like to enjoy the feeling that I've done the right thing.

I am reproducing the following exchange to illustrate the value of a little diplomacy and restraint without acting on unfounded assumptions when looking into a situation. The names of persons, places, institutions and organizations involved have been changed to protect the innocent.

Heh, always wanted to say that.

Dear "Dr. Mallory,"

I was in my Human Anatomy and Physiology lecture today and a young woman asked a question about how it is that during mitosis the organelles inside the cell are distributed so that the daughter cells will each have the organelles they need to function. I realize that my teacher was trying to get through a lesson and might not have wanted to go onto something which could become a tangent, but I was concerned that in response to the student's question, the teacher replied that "it's a miracle."

I am going to give this teacher the benefit of the doubt and assume she meant that colloquially (as opposed to using the word "miracle" in a sectarian context), but I hope you can see why this is a very confusing thing for a teacher to say in a physiology class. The student asked a good question and she deserved a better answer than "it's a miracle," even if that answer is "I don't personally know offhand" or "scientists are still working on that."

I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble, or to be a gadfly. This is why I have not included the name of the teacher in this email. I just was alarmed by this, and I think with good reason. I am emailing you in the hope that you will understand the source of my concern and perhaps that you will remind the professionals working under you of appropriate classroom behavior, if necessary.

Thank you and best wishes,

"Boris Garrity"

--
"Boris Garrity"

Board of Directors, Freethought Society of Greater Libertyville (FSGL) | Committee Member, Libertyville Coalition of Reason (LCOR) Secular Service Club | Co-Founder, Libertyville University Atheists and Critical Thinkers (ACT)

"Love is like war: easy to begin, and very hard to stop."
H. L. Mencken

I was pleased to find this in my inbox the next day:

"Hello Boris,"

Thank you for your email. Your point is well taken. In fact, exactly how the organelles are distributed is not well worked out yet. The model is still "blurry".

The most critical thing is that each of the new daughter cells receive a "critical mass" of organelles. They then each have enough to synthesize the full complement of necessary organelles. This is one of the events that is taking place during the cycle. I am sure that the instructor was using a figure of speech to reference the fact that everything about the cellular processes attendant to cytokinesis is still unknown. Be assured that I will look into the matter.

Take care,

"Dr. Mallory"

Civil engagement without nasty and baseless assumptions really does go a long way.

And for those who want to know where "Boris Garrity" came from, it just sounded like a name that would never be in a Hollywood movie.

Crazy V. Crazy (2009)

2009-05-26T17:52:00.004-04:00

THE REAL PROBLEM WITH SCIENTOLOGY IS NOT THAT IT'S A CULT AND AN INTERNATIONAL CRIME SYNDICATE: SCIENTOLOGY IS A SATANIC CULT INSPIRED BY ALEISTER CROWLEY (THIS, ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS. No, really. Then again they say the same thing about secular humanists, so why should anyone be surprised?).

I have no words. No words.

This is like listening to an argument between the Holy Orders of the Tooth Fairyists and the Santa Clausians (I'm just waiting for Hannukah Harry to pwn them both).

"No, my delusion is right!"
"No, mine is!"
"No, mine! MINE MINE MINE!"
"Satan's slave!"
"Hypocrite!"
"Sorcerer!"
"Psychologist!"
"Cultist!"
"Death-worshipper!"

Prop 8

2009-05-26T17:06:00.004-04:00

If you haven't heard the news already, Prop 8 stands.

Excuse me while I vomit.

The Supreme Court of California has decided to uphold the long American tradition of blurring the boundaries between Church and State by defining domestic partnerships differently for straight and gay couples. To anyone with a little knowledge of anthropology beyond monotheist-dominated western civilization, there is no case than can possibly be made that such a ruling does not reflect the prejudices of a particular (and in this case a religious) majority of prudes who want everyone to think like they do. Throughout the history and pre-history of humanity, marriage has taken many forms. Sometimes it has been between men and women, other times between same sex individuals. Just how MANY individuals are involved in the marriage arrangement varies culturally about as much as the form in which people express their insecurities with supernatural fairy tales. The idea- codified in law- that marriage is between "One man and one woman" is the terrifying specter of a historical prejudice that has more to do with religion than any other factor.

By no means are the Abrahamic religions alone in their homophobia. Scientology, also big in California, is also a homophobic religion (or cult/scam/international crime syndicate/whatever the hell they are). Just saying. We shouldn't put all the blame on Christian fundamentalists. UFO cult fundies with a bad habit of pursuing political influence through underhanded tactics might have had something to do with this too. I wouldn't be surprised. After all, we're talking about the people who pulled off the largest infiltration of the Federal Government in US History.

So much for the Left Coast, huh?

Frustration

2009-05-26T14:09:00.005-04:00

So at a party yesterday, I had one of those conversations with another guy in his mid-twenties who goes to the kind of parties I go to. Let me say first that this guy (let's call him "Ted") is a good man, and I don't want anyone reading this to think I am trying to humiliate or denigrate him. I am writing on this subject for the purpose of illustrating a certain frustration, the kind that sometimes ALMOST (but doesn't) make me want to throw in the towel and just say, "Frak it, there's no point in trying to get people to think critically."

I'm not going to go through the whole conversation. It involved a lot of back-and-forth on just what science is, what limits it has and what limits it doesn't have as a methodology, the fact that Truth (capital T) is not the same as truth (small t), you know... all the philosophical ground that most readers of this blog are already familiar with. Finally I managed to show why the position I took as a naturalist is an intellectually honest position, an open-minded one that admits uncertainty where uncertainty exists and supported a worldview that changes and adapts to new information. I also pointed out that to equate the commonality of religious experiences to the probability of their being "real" was a fallacy, as correlation (say it with me, people) does not imply cause. There were many, many distinctions between colloquial and technical or scientific uses of words that had to be made, but finally we got to the heart of the matter. Ted told me about some experiences he had had, of being "teleported" through a car so that he survived a crash, and then of hearing other people's thoughts. I said the only reasonable thing about that, that I wasn't trying to insult him but what he was saying sounded crazy. Throughout the conversation Ted kept telling me that he once thought as I did (presumably in a natural world where causes and effects, such as those behind an improbable but not impossible coincidence, can be investigated and documented for everyone to see and experience). He then admitted that he had been mentally disturbed at one point in his life, and that the only way he managed to regain his sanity was by seeing the world in such a way to allow for certain things to be more than coincidences. Though he did not use the word, he was talking about miracles.

I want to point out (because of certain assumptions that get made in the atheist blogosphere) that Ted is not an adherent of any specific religion. He's just your general "spiritual but non-religious, sort of pantheist, sort of deist" type. The conversation ended with him having to leave the party (it was getting late and people were going home), but before he left he said to me that when I experienced the things he had experienced, or some similar improbable coincidence, I would be singing a different tune. Many adherents of specific faiths have used similar discussion-enders with me ("It's just a matter of faith"; "well, Jesus Christ is my lord and savior and that's all there is to it," etc...) to the point where I consider it a sign that I have won the argument. The thing is, I'm really not all that competitive, but I appreciate resolution. And I know when my intellectual opponents have been backed into a dead end. I hesitate to label this tactic ("You'll just have to wait until you experience it yourself") a thought-terminating cliche, but it comes close.

The reason for my considering this a victory on my part is that we're both human beings and we both live in a world where improbable coincidences sometimes do happen. If indeed such things as teleporting through cars or reading other people's thoughts indeed do happen, as a scientific thinker, with a worldview that is flexible and adapts to new information, I want to know under what conditions teleportation and telepathy can occur. I want to know why some people experience this and others never do. And unfortunately for my friend, we already have an answer: the human brain is perfectly capable of convincing us of things that aren't true. There are many reasons for this, but to sum them up (broadly), the brain was not designed as some optimally analyticial machine. The brain evolved so that we could get by with shortcuts and self-delusions. We already know from the field of neuroscience that there is no such thing as an immortal soul. Science has directly answered this question. Psychology, cognitive science and related fields have also provided an answer to my questions about teleportation and telepathy: the answer is mental illness. I don't think the person of whom I speak is dangerously ill. He is a functional and seemingly happy person. However, the fact that after he admitted to me that he was mentally ill, this being after we had engaged in a very detailed discussion of all the ways people can be wrong about their own experiences, he still expected me to believe, one day, on the basis of my own subjective experience. The fact is, I don't trust my own subjective experiences any more than I trust someone else's subjective experiences. I have no reason to, as I am well aware of the ways in which our brains can trick us, through things like falsely reconstructed memories and cognitive biases. I thought I had made this clear. Which is why, if I ever thought I had the experience of teleporting through a car or reading another person's thoughts, I doubt my first instinct would be to assume that everything I thought I knew about physics or neuroscience is wrong on the basis of that subjective experience. If human teleportation or telepathy could be consistently demonstrated under laboratory conditions, than I would be ready to admit that much of what we thought we knew was wrong, but if it's only a subjective experience, I'm going to assume until I have evidence to the contrary that my brain was responsible for the experience, because in all probability it was. Now, the possibility exists that some supernatural entity or force was responsible, however the possibility is so improbable as to be practically (though not technically) impossible. What this means is that, sure, as a scientific thinker I'm not going to rule out anything absolutely, but that our current, collective base of scientific knowledge is good enough to narrow the possible avenues of investigation to that which is most probable. As I said before, we do live in a world where coincidences happen. Coincidences happen every day. It may be that you will sit down at a table with a friend of yours and discuss an orange yo-yo (the person I refer to in this post used this hypothetical example, among several others of varying degrees of likelihood). You may notice an orange yo-yo sitting on the table that you did not notice before, that you were SURE, CERTAIN, POSITIVE was not on the table when you first sat down to talk about orange yo-yos. However, just how positive you are, and how positive your friend is means absolutely nothing. It is fallacious if your first assumption is that the yo-yo appeared out of thin air. It is far more likely that neither you nor your friend noticed the orange yo-yo, and the fact that you were discussing orange yo-yos at the table is a mere coincidence. In fact, this coincidence is much more probable than a number of real-life examples I can think of. Getting back to the other person's actual claim, that if I or someone like me were to experience a series of extremely improbable events then it would be impossible to discount these events as mere coincidences, I just want to say this: the other person I refer to does not have total knowledge of all my experiences, and probably would be surprised to learn that I have experienced uncanny coincidences. Most of us, if we think about it, have. We've all been in those situations where we thought we'd never get out, or there was only one way out and it wasn't the one we wanted to take. Sometimes we got burned, other times we were fortunate enough that we could learn a lesson. We've all been afraid and we've all been relieved when the thing that scared us ceases to be frightening. We've all had improbable experiences, because we live in a world where improbable things sometimes happen.

What I don't understand is how I can be expected to take a claim of telepathy or teleportation seriously when, even disregarding naturalism, the scientific method, and what I know about how the world works and doesn't work when the person making the claim says to me that he was mentally insane at one point in his life. If anything, I don't understand why he doesn't question his experiences when he knows perfectly well what the human brain is capable of, having experienced that himself.

It's sort of like the other day: I was talking online to a certain other person (we'll call him "James") who, after I criticized his belief in esoteric, apocalyptic, and revelatory End Times notions, proceeded to tell me that the End Times were of course, propaganda put out by the world banking conspiracy/New World Order. In other words: "Kids, there is no Santa Claus... people just made him up as a smokescreen for the tooth fairy." Or, "UFOs aren't from other planets, they come from Hell on the orders of the Devil himself! By the way, it's the devil that writes all those books on alien abduction, too. He's a busy, busy force for evil."

I realize that many honest, hard-working and decent people in the world are impressed by the kind of conversations that flow from questions like, "Is this apple/orange yo-yo/David Icke book really in front of me or is it just an illusion. Could it be that the apple/yo-yo/piece of crap written by a nutball is just like the puppets of shadow and flame in Plato's Cave Allegory?" Sure, I had plenty of those conversations in my high school cafeteria. But, alas, the more I learned about the world, the more pointless such conversations became to me because I realized these were the wrong questions, at least if we wanted to take the actual investigation of reality as far as we can: a more important question- and a far more useful one- is something like, "How would I test its existence? And if all this is an illusion that is indistinguishable from reality, why does it matter anyway? What's the practical difference between reality and the illusion of reality?" And the answers are probably (note, there's the humility of uncertainty again) going to be found in this wonderful thing called the scientific method.

Science is organic. It grows and adapts to new things. It is a self-correcting method of investigating the natural world. When science finds answers it also finds more questions. In this way it is quite unlike when we throw up our hands and say, "Science simply cannot address this." It may be that our current level of technology is not yet at the point where a particular experiment is viable. We are limited only temporarily by technology though, because at the end of the day we don't know what breakthroughs could be made tomorrow, or next year, or long after we die. Isn't it enough though, that we have a way of finding the answers and more importantly generating new questions, new fields of inquiry? It's a human endeavor, science, not some individual quest for spiritual or personal gratification. Just because science hasn't given you the answer you want, or an answer in your lifetime, doesn't mean it can't, and to assume otherwise seems to me to be a form of unwarranted self importance.

Now, if all of this- your life, my life, everything- isn't real, but an illusion, based on the sum of our knowledge and how far it has come from the ignorance and superstition of just a few hundred years ago when we believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that evil spirits caused diseases rather than germs, I still think the scientific method is the best way of penetrating that illusion and revealing whatever mechanism or entity lies behind it, if such a mechanism or entity exists.

In other words, yes, all claims about the nature of reality are theoretically falsifiable. To say otherwise, if you know better, is just intellectual cowardice.

I used this conversation as an example because people like Ted are not fundies or politicians exploiting ancient superstitions for political gain. They are not Scientologists exploiting people's insecurities and desires for financial gain. There is no dark room somewhere where the Teds of the world sit around and plot to undermine the scientific establishment with pseudo-intellectual disinformation. Removed from harmful real world consequences, this is a case study in the unwillingness of human beings to critically examine those beliefs in which they have invested considerable emotional capital. That, I think, is really what stands in our way. Whether we are talking about religions or cultic programs or new age guru-isms or conspiracy theories or monsters under the bed, we are dealing with beliefs in which people are emotionally invested.

This, by far, is the greatest obstacle for the practiced skeptic. While we may be attached to certain notions, we try not to let those attachments get in the way of ascertaining truth (with a small t). And I think we're better for it. Even if we frustrate and are frustrated, at least we do this with intellectual honesty. And that is something to be proud of.

Thoughts on Evolution and Story-Telling in Science

2009-05-25T08:16:00.010-04:00

I'm back.

In what I hope to establish as a new trend, this post is going to be more reflective and analytical, and less opinionated.

Communicating technical or scientific knowledge accurately to laypersons is hard without relying on shortcuts like analogies, hence the risk of misrepresenting the concept. Even without this, however, the way we tell stories sometimes has an effect on the accuracy of information we are presenting. To teach about a scientific subject like evolution requires some story-telling. So here's an example from my youth:

When I was in 6th grade, I had Mollies. These are small, freshwater-living fish that can live in a ten-gallon tank. They are live bearers, which means they store their eggs internally, so that when the newly hatched fish emerge from their mother it resembles (superficially) mammalian live births. As I was fascinated with subjects like evolution, I was fascinated one day when one of my mollies, after having babies, proceeded to pursue and eat them. I was familiar with this behavior from books and TV: in an ideal situation- a body of water in excess of ten gallons- her most fit offspring would survive, and the mother's reproductive fitness was (EDIT: WOULD BE) improved. Now, it is a mistake to say that the mother chases and kills her weaker offspring because it is better in her environment to have small numbers of healthy, fast offspring who can outswim their mother shortly after birth than to have large numbers of low-quality offspring who are easy prey and will be picked off one by one by predators and conspecifics. The mother fish probably wasn't thinking too deeply about this. The behavior was largely instinctual. However, even teachers with the best of intentions can make this mistake when summarizing the scientific theory of evolution as a kind of narrative.

This is important for two reasons, because as I have said before on this blog, I think there are two different culture wars that frequently get confused. One of these wars is not fought between leftists and rightists, but rather is a conflict over the very nature of reality. In the course of this second culture war, words like "objectivity," "reason" and "rationality" have taken on negative connotations. Science and scientific concepts are frequently cast in a dichotomous opposition to the humanities, religion and art. In the postmodern cultural paradigm science is anti-human, uncreative, regimented, and in collaboration with the agents of hegemony. I think this is a gross mis-characterization that contributes, more intellectually dangerous than the oft-cited claim that science is just another cultural narrative, like the rich mythologies of any culture. I could not disagree more with that claim (EDIT: and I fear that such mis-characterizations of a noble human endeavor, like science, contribute to our culture's embrace of anti-intellectualism, at least anti-science, as much or possibly more than religious fundamentalism alone).

Speaking of religious fundamentalism... The second reason is that the language used in this educative story-telling reinforces some of the philosophical underpinnings of "Intelligent Design." ID proponents often take advantage of the difference between the knowledge that laypersons have about science and what scientists and philosophers of science know. Some of these areas of intellectual sneakiness are more subtle than others. A particularly unsubtle tactic is to obfuscate the difference between colloquial and scientific definitions of the word "theory." Many apologists similarly will make arguments from etymology regarding the intellectual validity of terms like "religion" or "spirituality." I heard one doing this on the recent bonus episode of Reasonable Doubts (where the Doubtcasters were guests on the Faith and Reason podcast). Much has been written about these tactics elsewhere. My point is that even without the problem of religion, the language that we use to talk about science has flaws: for most laypeople, "natural selection" implies a "selector." Forget the "natural" part. Owing so much of our intellectual baggage to the Greeks, laypersons will often insist on a first cause. Now, most laypeople who are familiar with the concept of evolution will associate natural selection with it more readily than other, less familiar processes of evolution like genetic drift. Of course, the intrepid science-advocate and anti-ID crusader may have to explain certain basics, like the fact that natural selection acts on mutations but does not produce them, as well as (reasonably so) the Weismannian Barrier. Simple models like Punnet Squares are also good teaching tools. Try to avoid the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium though, it will usually just confuse people. If I have a point, I suppose it's that we activists have to think more like educators.

A mistake is to make an appeal to authority, because this is frequently what Creationists and other anti-evolutionists do. Just as in their religious lives they appeal to scriptural authority, they seem to view science itself- at least their version of science, which is a parellel and inferior institution to the mainstream scientific establishment- as a kind of authority to which they can appeal and say, "See, Creationism (or ID, or whatever new name they give it next) is actually more rational than Darwinism." So rather than cite the fossil record and the body of evidence, we really should go about this as educators. Good teachers don't just show students the facts and assume the students will get it. They help the student to process the facts, and how those facts are connected by the theories we derive from them, and how that system of knowledge changes and adapts to new knowledge inputs.

I Have A Confession To Make...

2009-04-30T13:12:00.010-04:00

...I love worms.

Not like that.

Yes, they're disgusting. Yes, they creep me out and sometimes give me that shiver down my spine. No, I don't like touching them. But those are the tiny ones. The parasites and the bait.

In the land of fiction, there is no beast I love more than a giant frakking worm. Not even Mad Max, wandering the Australian desert, could stand up to a Graboid. I mean, come on, it took Fred Ward and Kevin Bacon to beat those things. I just don't think Mel Gibson's got it in him.

Dune, Tremors, SeaQuest, Beetlejuice... if it's got giant worms, I'll watch it. I even was responsible for a bit of BSG fanon regarding giant worms- specifically, it was giant underground worms that were responsible for the absence of other faunal life on New Caprica. My tomfoolery on BSG Wiki may have indirectly led to the existence of the BSG Wiki's evil twin, by the way. But THIS is not fiction. It's reality. And reality's name is Barry.

Barry is 4 feet of reality. Barry is 4 feet of reality covered with huge poisonous bristles that could cause permanent numbness if they come in contact with human skin.

Holy frak, dudes. It's a fig giant bucking worm.

Yeah, it's got legs sort of like a millipede. That's because it's a polychaete, NOT an oligochaete (like your standard earthworm, Lumbricus terrestris). Close, though. Much closer than flatworms or roundworms. Also a great example of something that's almost, but not quite, a living transitional form. At least, it's good for explaining the concept of transitional forms, along with the controversial taxon Lobopodia.

This picture courtesy of the Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive.

So... yeah. Tremors, Dune, Beetlejuice... granted those were sandworms that moved underground. And which violate certain biophysical constraints. But who knows? Science is an expanding body of knowledge, and a method of consistent expansion. Maybe one day, we'll get to name a species of worm or worm-life animal after Shai Hulud. But until then, we have Barry the Giant Worm!

UPDATE: THIS is not nearly as scary as Barry the Giant Worm, but it's close enough to the ideal of a giant underground legless bastard to still be cool.

Arlen Specter Switches Sides

2009-04-28T15:31:00.004-04:00

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a long time "moderate"/"centrist" Republican, has announced that he will run in 2010 on the Democratic Party ticket.

Specter said that over time he found himself "at odds with the Republican philosophy."
Arlen Specter's legislative record is mostly consistent with the Democratic platform: he is pro-choice, pro-consumer protection, and for civil unions. He's for affirmative action and he favors policies that make citizenship more widely attainable by immigrants.

I don't even agree with all of these polices! I'd consider voting for him now, though.
It's always nice when a prominent RINO comes out of the closet. It's especially nice when this happens in a swing state. Even nicer is when this happens in MY state! Muahahahahaha!

As much as it is a victory for women, the LGBTQ crowd and other minorities, it is also a victory for left-leaning Technocrats and proponents of Church-State separation.

Reason seems to be prevailing a lot these days. It's nice.

Updates from a Parallel Universe

2009-04-20T20:47:00.004-04:00

Thy shall behold idiocy: The Christian Right has decided to follow the Day of Science with a Day of "Truth." Because Christian Truth is just that loud.

There's that capital "T" again.

Haven't they ever listened to Queen's "One Vision" as covered by Industrial pseudo-fascists?

In other news...

BEHOLD.

THE POWER.

OF THE INTERNET.

Blast from the Past

2009-04-15T09:54:00.004-04:00

The Regressives are at it again.

Taking a page from American history, a bunch of whiny idiots who've probably internalized way
too much Ayn Rand are staging Tea Parties to protest the raising of taxes.

Look, in a time like this, we need a big government to pull us out of this depression. Now, I know politicans don't want to say the word depression. They prefer innocuous euphemisms like "crisis." Wake up people, this is a depression, and no invisible hand of private enterprise or the human spirit is going to lift us up. Cooperation, and maybe even some degree of centralization and long-term planning- as it seems the rest of the world realizes at this point- are what will help us climb above this.

This is why I just don't have enough faith to be a Libertarian. Or an anarchist. Or a paleo-conservative. I trust people so far as they are under decent governance. People under governance- in open, democratic societies- have a framework to work out their differences. This is called civil society. The more people exist on the planet, the larger governments must become to meet their needs. Civil society must become more sophisticated, more interconnected, and more globalized in order to keep up with the sheer increases in human population density. This is why I call myself a progressive. No one in their right mind would call themselves "Regressives." They call themselves, Libertarians, Anarchists, Primitivists, Luddites, Republicans, Paleoconservatives, and arguably some Scientologists.

We are past the point where small-scale societies are an option. If, by some cosmic accident or catastrophe, we were knocked back down to a few thousand breeding pairs, then I would suggest that a government of sticks and stones just might be appropriate. But until that day, I am a Technocrat and a Progressive, because I believe in the reality and values of modernity and progress over all known alternatives. And a prerequisite of progress is that we fund the efforts of our leaders to pull us out of this depression, rather than relying on a misplaced faith in unregulated markets and downsized government.

Kollege Kampus Kops prove own ignorance, stupidity

2009-04-15T08:43:00.003-04:00

Apparently Boston college campus cops (or the Kollege Kampus Kops, as I will be referring to them from now on) have decided that the use of command prompts by students is enough to seize property based on probable cause.

To put this in perspective:

Maybe we need a policy that police can seize the property of any Bob Marley fan on the grounds that he may be using illegal drugs. Maybe we should bar all failed artists from running for the legislature, on the grounds that they may be fascists. Or maybe we should judge all Christians by this video.

Yay! Stereotyping and totalistic campus policies without a basis in reality! Frak yes! Bring on the Thought Police! Cut a few pages from the Newspeak dictionary! And remember...

Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Eurasia is the ally of Oceania. Eurasia has always been the ally of Oceania.

Answers in Genesis GOES EVEN CRAZIER

2009-04-15T08:13:00.004-04:00

So, Answers In Genesis put THIS out...

It reminds me of the Christian youth movement BattleCry with their fascist aesthetic and calls religious violence. Take 30 seconds out of your life and watch the video in that link, and then ask yourself, whether it's just Islam that structurally encourages violence, or whether anything with an apocalyptic, world-ending message is just as capable of breeding terrorists with the raw materials of ideology and human bodies.

I don't call this tolerance, though I'm sure the moderates would criticize those of us who think it's right to point out how sick and twisted the message in this "Christian" ad is. I call this a threat.

EDIT:

More like Violent Threats in Genesis, huh? When a person believes that strongly- in anything- he or she is capable of anything. It's like drugs, or alcohol: religion impairs judgment. I would expect a Christian to defend his or her right to believe, to his death, if necessary, but this video is not about defending one's own faith and right to believe whatever fairy tales float your boat. This video is about dehumanizing the non-believer. In just a few seconds, 2000 years of bullshit is revealed: it's led up to this, a rejection of any dialog whatsoever.

And yet, did I flag the video for being offensive? NO, most definitely not, and I recommend that no atheist who sees this takes that option. It's something a Fundie would do, hide behind political correctness, but it does not suit us.

So yeah. They can have their flag and burn it too.

Tabash v. Ruse (2009)

2009-04-13T01:52:00.005-04:00

Seeing as how the atheist blogosphere erupted a few days ago over the subject matter of a particular panel at a particular conference- and the fact that I happened to be there- I thought I should put in my two cents. I was one of several people who were able to pose a question during the Q&A. I'll get to that. For those readers who haven't been following, the controversy came about because of Michael Ruse's notion that if we, as scientific atheists, believe that religion and science are wholly incompatible, then to teach school students that Creationism is wrong (IE, to teach students the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory and its Darwinian beginnings) is a violation of the government's religious neutrality. I think this is BS, for the same reason that most of us think it is BS: Mythologies like Creationism make empirical claims about the world. We can test these claims. This is not in dispute.

I am going to give Michael Ruse the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he was posing a thought experiment. "If we accept the Conflict Hypothesis..." Okay. Go on.

Here's where it falls apart:

1. As I said, we can test these claims.

2. As much as I would love it if the word "Democracy" were synonymous with "Atheocracy," it is not. A "secular" country is not an "atheist" country any more than it is a "Christian," "Hindu," or "Jewish" country.

3. My question. Now we'll get to my question. I asked if there was a legal basis for considering non-sectarian pseudoscience/mysticism and historical revisionism (for example, psychic powers, astrology, or holocaust denial) as being categorically the same as religious dogma. It turns out there is no reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment that protects students from being lied to in their public school classes due to a teacher's ideological bias. Thinking back on the events of the last few years, I probably shouldn't have been so surprised. Hypothetically speaking, if I am a history teacher and I teach my students that the Holocaust never happened, that all evidence of the Holocaust was manufactured by the Jews in order to gain sympathy from the gentiles and create a Jewish state- Israel- then it's possible I could get fired, but it's not a given. It depends on the ideological leanings of the students, their parents, and the administrators. In other words, "it's all frakking relative, kids!" Legally, a biology teacher pushing Creationism/Intelligent Design "theory" or are in violation of the Constitution, but a psychology teacher (assuming psychology is offered, as it is in some high schools, as an elective) pushing telekinesis and telepathy (a non-sectarian set of pseudoscientific beliefs) isn't violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Now, I realize that the Creationist science teacher probably wouldn't get fired in certain localities (again, if we follow Ruse's argument to its logical conclusion, then in the final analysis it's all about cultural relativism, political correctness, and an arbitrary demand for respect of certain classes of ideas an not others), but the existence of crime does not negate the existence of law.

I think it's time we amended the Constitution again. I think we need an amendment protecting the rights of students in public schools not to be mislead by people in positions of authority. A Student's Bill of Rights, so to speak, which would once and for all unconstitutional illegal the misuse of an educator's authority to further a particular ideological agenda that is in direct opposition to the accepted academic consensus on a given subject. The First Amendment was written at a time when there was no Church of Scientology, no Kennedy Assassination, and no Waldorf schools. It was a time when anti-semitism had yet to be combined with belief in space aliens, the illuminati, or a worldwide communist conspiracy. It was a different time. While this may seem like an argument for (gasp!) relativity, look at it closely: I am arguing for temporal relativity, which is progressive. Those who argue for cultural (essentially geographic or spatial) relativity offer no forward direction. At least those of us who accept the concept of progress have some idea in mind where we should be headed as a society.

I understand that there is a legal distinction between sectarian and non-sectarian belief systems. I believe the existence of such a distinction is a legal loophole, and here's the beautiful thing about legal loopholes in the US Constitution: being an organic document, the Constitution is subject to change and re-interpretation. There is no limit to the number of amendments we could theoretically add or repeal. In this way, it's somewhat like the body of scientific knowledge: we haven't figured everything out, and there's always room for improvement. It seems clear to me that one of the reasons we have a dynamic legal code is so that legal code can keep up with new developments over time.

Dobson and Phelps

2009-04-06T10:28:00.004-04:00

I was speaking with my brother-in-arms, Mindcore, this morning and we were talking about how every movement has its extreme fringes, even the Christian Right. James Dobson, for example, would probably be embarrassed to be seen on the same stage as Fred Phelps, because the former is pro-military and considers the Christian religion to be synonymous with patriotism, whereas the latter has protested military funerals and basically wants to see America burn with the rest of the world when the world-ending apocalypse begins on the plains of Meggido. The only difference between them is that Dobson weds patriotism and Christianity, and a few theological differences about the order of the events in the Book of Revelation.

Hypothetical Situations and Academic Revolutions

2009-04-06T09:58:00.005-04:00

I'm wondering what would happen if, all of a sudden, every non-sectarian college and university, including prestigious private schools, stopped accepting applications from home-schooled and religiously-schooled students with sub-standard educations. Maybe they would use a litmus test, for example asking if condom use

a) is sinful
b) prevents HIV transmission
c) is incompatible with religious faith

Obviously the correct answer is B.

I think academia has certain responsibilities. These responsibilities include upholding a high standard of learning. When the academies recognize their role as an integral subset of a larger economy in crisis and start framing their interests in a political context they will be using corporate personhood for good purposes. I hate corporate personhood, but as long as it's around we might as well use it to "fight the good fight." As secular humanists we must claim our relevant social territory, the institutions of higher learning and the public schools, and never let them go. The other side can have the Churches, but give us the public schools. Give us the libraries. Give us the museums. Give us the the intellectual world, and I'd consider that a fair arrangement.

Learning is not a faith-based enterprise. I urge nothing less than an academic revolution against the religious privilege in our society.

No, it doesn't surprise me at all...

2009-04-05T10:19:00.003-04:00

...that in the 21st century, there are still places on Earth where women are forbidden by law to refuse their husbands sex. It doesn't surprise me that such laws were signed into effect by democratically elected presidents of former theocracies, in order to curry favor with certain predominant sects. It doesn't surprise me at all that the rest of the world is rendered too impotent by some bullshit notion of political correctness and the placation rather than the confrontation of religious extremism. No, not one bit...

Doesn't mean it doesn't make me mad.

This is why theocracies- and governments that practice theocracy through a thin guise of democracy- need to be forcibly dismantled and replaced with governments that don't placate religion by reinforcing religious decrees to dominate and subjugate women through secular law.

Anything less... is just fucking hypocritical.

It's been a weird, weird week in the land of the Godfearing

2009-04-03T07:31:00.004-04:00

1. I saw this a few days ago, and the Teapot Atheist beat me to getting around to doing a write-up, but if you haven't seen this yet, brace yourself:

A woman who starved her son to death as part of her religious observance in an obscure Christian sect described as a cult pleaded guilty to "first-degree felony count of child abuse resulting in death." However, in order to get her to plea guilty, a "Resurrection clause" was included.

What does this mean? Well, if Ria Ramkissoon's son is resurrected from the dead, all charges against her will be dropped.

I hope that Ria Ramkissoon can get the help she needs to live a functional life without endangering other people based on her religious convictions. I may think her beliefs are ridiculous, but at the end of the day it's practice I'm more concerned with.

Religious freedom is a perplexing issue because very obviously there are these things, you know, called crimes, which you can't always cover with an appeal to religiosity.

Don't believe me? Here's a little experiment. Dress up like the Pontifex Maximus of Rome and try convincing your neighbor that their six year old daughter is urgently needed for the Temple of the Vestal Virgins, and see how that goes over.

For the record, the Supreme Court of the United States holds that states have the authority to accomodate illegal activities as part of religious practice, but are not required to do so.

2. A few days ago, it seems someone went to the trouble of flagging the content on JREF's (The James Randi Education Foundation's) youtube channel to the point that youtube- without giving it much thought, apparently- suspended the account. This is not the first time this has happened. A common practice of attacking free speech on the internet is for Creationists- pissed off at videos made by atheists debunking their cherished beliefs on the basis of evidence- to repeatedly flag videos until Youtube suspends the user's account in question.

Well, thanks to Elle's coverage, we can realize. The JREF account is back up.

I have never flagged a Youtube video because I don't agree with the message in the video. It's not only petty but sneaky, cowardly, underhanded and- in the case of the Creationists who are so often behind this- hypocritical. After all, wouldn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek? So often these Christians and other believers insist that it is we who violate their freedoms, and yet it is they who take advantage of Youtube's rather undiscriminating policy of shutting down any user whose content gets repeatedly flagged (usually by butthurt kooks).

3. And Now, A Moment of Zen.

Tommy Davis Part II: It's Religious Freedom, Not Religious Protectionism

2009-04-02T20:59:00.004-04:00

See here for source material*.

*I started writing this a few weeks ago. Now I feel I can finish it without being too lengthy or verbose.

Tommy Davis has an interesting definition of religious freedom. Tommy seems to think that religious freedom is violated when believers are asked to explain their faith. This is not the definition of religious freedom, certainly not in the United States (it may be going that way in Europe, though).

What Tommy doesn't understand is that religious freedom is limited or rendered null when religious privilege exists. After all, the ultimate expression of religious freedom is irreligion.

Tommy doesn't understand that religious freedom includes the freedom to question religion.

People like Tommy Davis need to be made to understand that freedom means not getting in the way of other people's freedoms.

People like Tommy need to be made to understand because they just don't get it. They don't get that the world is far bigger than they are. They don't understand that when you go up against Reality, Reality wins every time. You see, I can believe all I want that I have telekinetic powers of levitation, but the second I step out that second-story window, well... let's just say it's a bad idea to go up against the laws of physics. You will lose every time.

Similarly, it's a bad idea for Tommy Davis to bet on the concept that religious freedom somehow equals a policy of religious protectionism as opposed to the neutrality promised by the First Amendment.

A Promise and Note

2009-04-02T12:43:00.006-04:00

First, I promise I will get back to making more or less regular posts within the next few weeks. My schedule for the time being is somewhat difficult to manage.

Second, a note to the Waldorf quacks:

I absolutely LOVE having the uninformed, illiterate, or just possibly insane people post here. I'm glad to know you're offended by my calling your cherished method of alternative education a pseudoscientific and irresponsible measure. I'm glad you know that I pity your children for this occultist education to which you have subjected them. I'm also pleased to know that the ways in which Waldorf frames its critics have absolutely no substance other than character attacks playing on the stereotype of "angry atheists." In fact, I'm overjoyed that the attacks of Waldorf supporters on Waldorf critics bear a striking resemblence to the smear tactics of the Church of Scientology (the exception being that CoS has better web designers and more money, and thus is more likely to sue its opponents).

But, please, before you post here, first read my note on my comments policy below and then consider that if you want an intelligent response you should write intelligently, keeping in mind just who your audience is. It might not be smart to let me know that- like Sune - you run a website all about anthroposophy, reincarnation and eurythmy, which happens also to be part of a webring that includes such temples to idiocy as Keith Ferreira's "University of the Neoliberal Arts." See, this is what is called in cognitive science a "heuristic." It's a shortcut. Such as, "Oh, you believe in all this crap that has been conclusively disproved by legitimate scientific endeavors? Good to know, because in that case I'm really not about to listen to your opinions of non-sectarian education." See? That's a heuristic.

I understand that new age beliefs do not constitute a "sect" in the sense of Protestantism or Catholicism, but Anthroposophy does constitute a sect, and even if it didn't I could make a very good argument for why all supernatural beliefs should be classed together with sectarian supernatual beliefs when it comes to interpretations of the First Amendment. I'm going to keep it simple and just say that there's a reason schools that receive government funding aren't supposed to teach astrology, Tarot card reading, reincarnation, or psychic powers as facts, and it's the same reason schools are forbidden from teaching Creationism or Transubstantiation as FACTS. You might not like the FACT that some of the things you might believe in deeply are from a scientific point of view complete and utter rubbish, but that doesn't change the FACTS. Get it through your thick skulls or stop pretending your method of education is anything other than indoctrination into a systematic rejection of sound science. Do not try to answer my challenges by appeal to a higher power or any other supernatural belief you might hold, because plenty of people have already debunked this crap and I feel no need to do it online. I am obligated in that case only to point out to my other readers how full of bullshit you may be and/or how much you come off sounding like a blabbering idiot when you try to explain the intricacies of Anthroposophy to someone who actually understands that your claims are, in fact, testable and already have been debunked by investigators with an interest in the truth of a given situation (IE the facts involved, not some ridiculous notion of a transcendent "Truth" with a Capital T).

By the way, after having looked at so many websites run by idiots who insist on their faiuth in scientifically invalidated concepts like astrology, psychic powers, quantum mysticism and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, super-Zombie, I have notice inverse correlations between credulity on the one hand and the ability to make a decent looking website on the other hand. Either the credulous have no talent for aesthetics, they have no talent for web design, or some combination of both.

Happy World Religions Day!

2009-04-01T13:34:00.001-04:00

Um... I mean... April Fool's Day.

Admiral Adama sticks it to the UN

2009-03-28T09:16:00.005-04:00

So the UN held a "Battlestar Galactica" retrospective. Very cool.

Yes, I'm still pissed about the Religious Defamation resolution, but the fact that the UN held a retrospective on a show that not only explored the depth of morality, politics, fanaticism, resistance and authority but also gave positive press to atheism is pretty cool.

Here's something even cooler. Admiral Adama stuck it to the UN. Er, Edward James Olmos, well known actor and activist, stuck it to the UN:

"Moderated by Whoopi Goldberg (pictured, left), who prompted the conversation like a good bartender/stand-up veteran ("The UN is more than a building with fantastic curtains..."), the panel -- featuring Edward James Olmos (pictured, right), Mary McDonnell (pictured, center), and executive producers Ronald D. Moore and David Eick -- discussed topics ranging from torture to women's rights to the pitfalls of technology. The only questions from the crowd of 300 or so were taken from a whip-smart batch of high school students. And it was never less than interesting, very often fascinating, and once, powerfully moving."

"When one of the UN's representatives talked about how part of their mandate was to safeguard the human rights of everyone, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, and station, Olmos got a little heated. "You never should've invited me here," he said, before blasting the UN for continuing to use race as a term of separation, of division among peoples. His voice rose, steadily, as if years of social activism was coming to a head on this night. Then, directing his attention to the high schoolers: "Adults will never be able to stop using the word 'race' as a cultural determinant....There is only one race: the human race. SO SAY WE ALL!""

"I swear to you, everyone in that chamber shouted it right back at him. Because the Admiral asked us to."

Early in the show, EJO also insisted that the character of Commander (later Admiral) Bill Adama was an atheist. This was later incorporated into the dramatic arc.

Ergo, Edward James Olmos rocks. Somehow I feel like he might have also been talking about religion.

Don't they teach you PR people how to lie?

2009-03-16T18:22:00.003-04:00

Tommy Davis is a very high ranking Scientologist. You might remember him from the BBC as "that guy in a suit who stalked John Sweeney." Anyway, in this interview Tommy was asked a question that many have asked. Why is it that at Gold Base, one of Scientology's major headquarters, spikes on the surrounding fence face inward (as they might be, for example, if the intent was to keep people inside rather than keep people from getting in)? It's a fairly logical question, but Tommy provides a fairly illogical answer.

From the INTERVIEW with Nathan Baca:

NB: The spikes facing inward. Why are the spikes facing inward?

TD: that's just how they were installed.

As in...

"Sorry, officer, I didn't see the approaching car through the wooden boards over my windshield."
"Wooden boards? Why do you have wooden boards over your windshield?"
"That's just how my car was built."

"You might want to handle that thing the other way around, I don't want you to shoot yourself."
"Oh, that's just the way the barrel on this gun points."

"Sir, could you explain the foot in your mouth?"
"Sure. That's just how I came home from the hospital."

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy... don't they teach you people how to lie?

One of these days...

2009-03-15T20:30:00.004-04:00

All you nonsense-believers will be thanking the non-believers. And this crap is why.

A list of tips:

1. If you are going to go ahead and make your website about Jesus Christ, lord and savior, a veritable freak show of secular and religious conspiracy theories and apocalyptic bullshit, TRY NOT TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A STAR TREK FAN SITE FROM 1994. Not that I'll treat it any less like science fiction, but at least it will lend a veneer of respectability to the steaming pile of crap your hyperlinks deposit on my browser. Jesus frakking Christ, even Ray Comfort's blog is a better looking site.

2. If you are going to make your website about unfalsifiable and thus scientifically unviable but trendy postmodern dogma, have the good sense not to add "-ism" to every other word, make sweeping buzznut claims like "Zerotropy is God," and consider that maybe, just maybe, realize that you didn't coin the term neoliberal, nor are you using it correctly. The author of this site- Keith Ferreira- also is irresponsible enough to claim the following: "Academically nonproficient geniuses, if you were to study and master my whole website, you will be able to whip the asses of all the professors in the world, intellectually speaking. Believe it or not!"

3. If your name is Ray Butthurt- sorry, that's Ray Comfort- and you're known for mixing your analogies and then claiming that your banana bit was "satire" and "taken out of context," go back to whatever it is you normally do and stop pretending to be a scientist. Also, Amazon.com is not run by an "atheist conspiracy." Trust me, Ray, atheists can't conspire for shit. If we could... I'm not going down that train of thought today, no matter how viciously pleasant it is.

By the way... on bullying, the Waldorf Schools, and clairvoyant alumni

2009-03-15T18:28:00.004-04:00

John T. McQuiston, “‘Psychic’ Ex-Student’s Influence Shakes Waldorf School,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, Feb. 18, 1979.

Now that I have procured the citation, anyone with access to a library or library database should be able to view this article. I intend to do it ASAP. My reasoning is this:

1. I was bullied as a kid.

2. In the Waldorf schools, though this philosophy is not articulated in the curriculum, many teachers do not treat bullying as a serious issue in the classroom because they take a karmic view of bullying. Much as these occultists, like Scientologists, believe that illness (mental or physical) is a spiritual condition and not a medical condition (these schools even recommend Anthroposophist pediatricians to the parents), they also see bullying as stemming from the metaphysical complexities inherent to reincarnation. Various accounts of Waldorf schooling confirm a non-interventionist attitude on the part of the teachers toward bullying in the classroom. Some of these accounts either suggest or outright state that the teachers- to some degree- reinforced the social pecking orders via their treatment of the students as individuals. In some cases, but not all cases, this reinforcement of juvenile pecking orders may have had a racial basis, related to Rudolf Steiner's pseudoscientific views on human evolution, morality, and the relationship of this quack interpretation of moral development to childhood delevopment.

3. As the article from 1979 describes, the occultist beliefs were widespread enough in at least one school that an ex-student was able to literally take over the frakking school by claiming to have clairvoyant powers. Note the similarity to the infamous Twilight Zone episode, "It's a Good Life," in which the monster that terrorizes his town is an adorable little boy with mental powers. I cite this episode as illustrative of the danger of groupthink melding with occult beliefs. Obviously, the ex-student of the Waldorf school in Garden City did not have actual psychic powers, but the fact is that the people responsible for the welfare of the students believed that he did and acted in accordance with his wishes.

4. I shudder to think what the least popular students at that particular school went through during that period. This is why I want to get my hands on that article ASAP. After I have read it in full I will comment again, here. In the meantime, think about why teachers should never reinforce the social pecking order of the classroom, much less cede their considerable authority to a deranged young man who claims to be clairvoyant.

Things I can't say on Ray Comfort's blog...

2009-03-15T17:48:00.006-04:00

...because according to his rules of propriety (which include capitalization, for frak's sake), they would be deleted. Also, I'm not going to bother seeing if he censors made-up curse words from "Battlestar Galactica." I'm just not that bored.

Here be proof positive that some people yet opt to wear their kick-me signs on their chests. Rumor has it that some people even wake up early to put theirs on in such a way as it will not disturb their neckties (translation for the wit-deficient: the following is taken from Ray Comfort's blog and is used here to illustrate a point):

1. An atheist is someone who believes nothing created everything. If he denies that and believes that “something” created everything, he’s not an atheist.

That's not what an atheist is, but I don't expect Ray Comfort to know that. I expect him to talk out of his ass. Which he does...

2. Man can't create a grain of sand from nothing. How intellectually dishonest is it then to say that there was no Intelligent Designer?

For the umpteen-millionth frakking time, the theory of evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Stop thinking like a Creationist when you are trying to answer challenges to Creationism. Brains or GTFO.

3. Where did females come from (in every species)?

Your mom (I've always wanted to say that).

4. Which came first? The blood, the heart or the blood vessels?

As another commenter pointed out, many insects have a fluid that is involved in open (rather than closed) circulation systems. Come to think of it, I recall learning about different circulatory systems in the 7th grade.

5. There are variations within species, but no species to species transitional forms in the fossil record.

Don't get me started on Croco-duck. Ray's understanding of the fossil record and the reasonable inferences that can be made from it is virtually non-existent. To save myself work, I'm going to link HERE to a big frakking list of transitional vertebrate fossils.

6. God made Archaeopteryx with teeth and a tail. It’s a bird, not a dinosaur. He made many weird animals. There's a huge mouse with a pocket in its front that hops all over Australia, horses with stripes, weird desert animals with humps on their backs . . . and He made some birds with teeth.

That "huge mouse" is called a kangaroo. It's a marsupial mammal. It's not a mouse, which is a placental mammal. Zebras, while genetically much closer to horses than any marsupial would be to a placental, are not "horses with stripes." As for "weird desert animals with humps on their backs," these species are only further evidence for the theory of evolution. Ray Comfort must be real "Ray Butthurt" after his failed debate with the Rational Response Squad to scratch this close to the bottom of the barrel.

7. Paleontologists have a huge incentive to twist the truth, just a little. If they can find a bone with a lump on it, theorize that it was a limb or a feather, give it an impressive name, say it is 73 million years old, and suddenly he has his picture on the cover of National Geographic magazine, has a book deal and lectures for life... We have men who call themselves scientists, when they should have instead got a job with Disney as imagineers.

Then why is it that you people (Ray, other Creationist IDiots) built the Creation Museum with more animatronics and fewer actual pieces of evidence than can be found in any legitimate scientific institution? Academia runs on the principle of "publish or perish," and National Geographic is hardly the most renowned of paleontological journals. It's the National Geographic, Ray. It's meant for popular consumption. It's not a scholarly journal like Nature, Science, or the publications of academic societies like the AAA, APA, or AAPA, the likes of which I doubt Ray Butthurt has ever bothered to read.

So what is my point? I regret the hours of time I've wasted reading Ray Butthurt's babblings in the name of open-minded fairness.

Responding to a Waldorf Supporter

2009-03-15T16:31:00.008-04:00

Please see the responses to my last post for the context of this one.

I feel it is necessary to restate a few things for my readers. Perhaps it is not necessary to make such a restatement, but considering Sune's attempt to mellow me out with regard to occultist pedagogy, I need to make something clear.

I am concerned about the Waldorf schools for the same reason I am concerned about home-schooling. You can't teach your child fantasy and call it history, and claim that your child is educated. It is a disservice not only to society but also to children.

The Waldorf Schools and their supporters are clearly afraid of the work of Dan Dugan, the mastermind of PLANS (People for Legal and Non-sectarian Schools). Dan Dugan and Debra Snell does a wonderful job informing people about Rudolf Steiner's superstitions and how occultism and pseudoscience are the basis for Waldorf pedagogy. I'm glad there are people like Dugan and Snell, who set themselves up for attack as they perform the necessary duty of playing watchdog. I admire them. They're the bread and butter of the skeptic movement.

Sune linked me to this site, run by supporters of the Waldorf Schools in the US: http://americans4waldorf.org/MrDugan.html

The following is taken from the text on the pro-Waldorf website:

The scathing Internet assault campaign currently raging against the Waldorf movement is largely attributable to the zealous efforts of Dan Dugan, a self-described skeptic crusader who first declared war against Waldorf some fifteen years ago.

I like this guy already.

Besides his deep interest in sound technologies, Dugan has been, and remains today, a fervent (and at times somewhat strident) supporter and activist for many pet “skeptic” and secular humanist causes.

Is this actually supposed to make me more open-minded toward the Waldorf schools?

At this point I considered that Sune had not read the tagline of my blog. Sune does not seem to understand that as a skeptic and a secular humanist myself, I might have the same problem with a curriculum based on mythology, pseudoscience and supernaturalism as Dugan, Snell and others. In fact, I do. I think it is a mistake to use a pedagogy whose very methods are deeply rooted in a belief in Atlantis, clairvoyance, and an outdated, pseudoscientific conception of human moral evolution that clashes with the best contemporary, scientifically derived theories of child development.

As a child who experienced bullying at the hands of my peers, I was horrified to learn that the paranormal beliefs of many Waldorf teachers are directly linked to a classroom atmosphere in which bullying, as stated in several accounts by former Waldorf teachers, students, and parents (available on PLANS' website), is considered a karmic phenomenon.

So, my question to Sune is, did you actually think that the slight-of-hand tactic favored by cultists, fundies, new age gurus, and other idiots (IE the "our critics have a vested interest in pushing their own skeptical, secular humanist worldview" crap) would actually work on someone who runs a blog explicitly about where science and skepticism beat the philosophical meat out of sophistry and paranormal belief? This isn't some dogma I follow, and it's not feel-good nonsense (sophistry) either.

I'm also deeply insulted if Sune thinks that pointing out that Jennifer Aniston had a Waldorf education means anything to me. I'm not a member of the celebrity-obsessesed majority of the American populace. I don't buy tabloids or fuss over the details of some actor's personal life. This isn't even an argument from authority, it's worse: it's an argument from celebrity!

Have I made my position crystal-clear by now? Telling me that Dan Dugan and Debra Snell are trying to wage a war on uncritical thinking in favor of a skeptical and secular humanist outlook, and that this is why they supposedly lie and distort the truth, is only going to plant my feet more firmly on the side of the evil atheist conspiracy.

Want to argue about the (lack of) evidence behind reincarnation and clairvoyance? Want to argue about Rudolf Steiner's quack science? Maybe we should have a conversation about Rudolf Steiner's views on human evolution and child development? By all means, be my guest, but don't try to cover up or ignore the Twilight Zone-ish incident that has already led the Waldorf schools down Scandal Boulevard. Like the heroes Debra Snell and Dan Dugan, I have no appreciation for pseudoscience and little patience for mysticism.

Please, dear reader, check out both PLANS' website as well as the website of the Pro-Waldorf critics of PLANS. Then decide- using the very rationality that occultists like Steiner reject- which is more credible. I myself have looked at both and found that Americans For Waldorf grossly mischaracterizes Waldorf Critics, despite claiming that they are the ones being mischaracterized by the Critics. Typical, typical cult mentality. This kind of projection- in which one party projects their own values, beliefs and motivations onto another party- is astonishingly similar to the illiteracy and ignorance seen on Ray Comfort's blog (who certainly wins the "Wearing Your Kick-Me Sign on Your Chest" award... but that's a different post).

Look, I'm not saying that all alternative education is crap, but what good is alternative education if the educators are more concerned with the spiritual than the academic well-being of the kids? I don't call that education.

NOTE TO ALL PARENTS: Please, support the public schools. If you are looking to enroll your child in alternative education, make sure you first research these alternative institutions. It's important to see what their critics have to say. Your children will thank you later for having exposed them to science instead of sheltering them in a make-believe world of mysticism, superstition and pseudoscience.

The Waldorf Schools scare me

2009-03-13T10:27:00.005-04:00

Here's something about me: I'm a hard-ass in some ways. For example, I think sectarian schools should either be illegal or seriously regulated. Until that day, however, sectarian schools must still be honest about their sectarianism. After all, public or private, school authority figures are responsible for their charges under the doctrine of en loco parentis.

Here's the thing: have you ever heard of Anthroposophy? Anthroposophy is to the Waldorf Schools what Scientology is to Narconon. The parents who are tempted by the promise of a progressive, alternative education might share certain new-age fascinations with the teachers, but the majority of them are probably not aware that the schools have a hidden sectarian mission that has earned them the label of a cult by many critics, who have probed beneath the sunny surface of the Waldorf system to discover that tge basis of Waldorf thinking in a heretical, esoterical Christian sect started by a spiritualist named Rudolf Steiner.

The Waldorf Schools claim that Anthroposophy is not part of the curriculum, and that the schools have no sectarian purpose. To many former Waldorf parents and students, however, the schools' false advertising led to horrific consequences. Their testimonials can be found here, at the website of PLANS (People for Legal and Non-sectarian Schools). Note that while the proponents of the Waldorf system claim that the schools are both non-sectarian and non-denominational, the statements of former Waldorf parents and students describe a much different reality: left-handedness in young children is to "corrected," bullying is ignored (the teachers give it a karmic explanation, and in many cases reinforce the pecking order), superstition is taught as science (the elements are Earth, Air, Fire and Water, learned one class of sixth-graders), reading is not taught until the age of seven or eight, classroom lessons consist of simply copying notes from a blackboard, without any discussion or room for critical thinking. Astrology, biodynamics and eurhythmics are taught as science, and mythology is taught as history.

Waldorf teachers are required to conform to Steiner's teachings, and their training is said to be seminarian, following the occult beliefs of Steiner to the letter. That their religious biases govern the treatment of the students in classroom situations is a point of conflict with many parents. A quick look at Anthroposophy puts much of this in context, and it becomes clear that the Waldorf system is anthroposophy, only the teachers never call it that. It's not commonly known that the schools' hidden mission is to mediate the process of reincarnation toward the rebirth of the human race (a philosophy that ties in with many of Steiner's notions of a historically necessary racial apocalypse). And by the way... they don't believe in giving the kids immunizations, it seems the teachers at the schools actively discourage vaccination. And if that's not enough, then there's the chance that your life might take a turn toward a fair resemblance to the Twilight Zone. In the words of Roger Rawlings, a former Waldorf student:

On one dramatic occasion, the mysticism at my Waldorf school was suddenly exposed. Several years after I graduated — and long before I’d fully grasped what had been done to me at the school — THE NEW YORK TIMES ran an article about my alma mater: “‘Psychic' Ex-Student's Influence Shakes Waldorf School.” Coming upon the article in a library, I was galvanized. The TIMES revealed that a former Waldorf student had started claiming that he had paranormal powers: He could converse with beings in the spirit world. Shockingly, several teachers — including the headmaster, the former headmaster, and the high school principal — accepted his story and began making use of him as a clairvoyant sage. The result was that they ceded control of the school to the young man and his spiritual contacts, turning to them for supernatural decisions in matters large and small, ranging from the curriculum to the music played at school dances. When word of this remarkable administrative arrangement inevitably leaked, the occult beliefs of the school’s leaders emerged, fleetingly, into plain view.

The scandal nearly ripped Waldorf apart. Scores of parents, appalled to learn what had been going on, yanked their kids out. The school seemed doomed. Nevertheless, after considerable tumult leading to the firings and/or resignations of those who were most deeply implicated in the scandal, Waldorf survived. It is still in business today, graduating class after class. And rather than renouncing Rudolf Steiner or disavowing an interest in the spiritual realm, it today operates under the following mission statement: “To nurture toward compassion, to balance toward wholeness, to challenge toward excellence and achievement — these are the goals to which the Waldorf School of Garden City aspires. Based on the insights of Rudolf Steiner, and enriched by the diversity of our community, our methods of teaching reflect an understanding of the growing child and acknowledge the spiritual origins of humanity.”

Look, that image of the Jack-in-the-Box in the cornfield always creeped me out, okay? Damn that snotnosed little superpowered brat.

So how is it that some of these schools get public funding in the state of California? My dream of stamping down on private education hasn't come to fruition yet.

Even David Gilmour- yes, Pink Floyd's David Gilmour- is disgusted by the Waldorf method and its lack of transparency: "We don't need no (Steiner) education."

Of course, the Skeptical Inquirer has had something to say about it too.

Parents should really watch out for this kind of dishonesty. After all, they're dealing with religion, the oldest lie around.

A common story: Any Questions?

2009-03-10T11:29:00.003-04:00

::sits Random Q. Hipster in front of giant TV screen in darkened room::

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER: "What's this about? You said there'd be kool-aid."

ZARATHUSTRA: "Shhhh. Just watch. You can have your kool-aid after this."

::adjusts restraints on seat::

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER: "Is this another one of those Clockwork Orange things?"

ZARATHUSTRA: "No, this isn't the Ludivico treatment. Just watch the screen, okay? I promise you'll find it... enlightening."

::turns on TV, pushes "play" on VCR::

ZARATHUSTRA: "This. Is how people. Get into cults. Any questions?"

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER: "Can I have the kool-aid now?"

::glares::

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER: "There isn't any kool-aid, is there?"

::shakes head::

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER: "Oh."

Poor Ray Comfort...

2009-03-09T22:17:00.004-04:00

So it's nothing new that Christians are playing the victim card. I'm not exactly surprised to discover that Ray Comfort has a blog, and I'm not surprised to find that his blog is the equivalent of one of those giant targets you wear on your chest when you want people to shoot at you. Yes, the blog intended for evangelizing (and slandering) atheists. In other words, Ray is just asking for e-abuse.

Anyway, Ray Comfort (and presumably his lackey, whathisface from that show I don't remember) seems to think that atheists want him to go to Hell.

Ever notice how fundies are a lot more stringent about what they allow in other people's comments than atheists? Look at this:

"Cuss words (mild or abbrev.), blasphemy, URL’s, incivility, or failure to give the name ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’ capitals, will be deleted."

Poor Ray. He seems to think he can enforce capitalization and good etiquette on the internet. It's cute but it's also so damned pathetic. Damn you Ray. Just be glad I am not a troll, or I'd never leave your blog.

Random Q. Hipster joins the blog as Zarathustra's comedic sidekick/intellectual footstool

2009-03-09T11:30:00.006-04:00

Oh, the sladky zvook of Burgessian nadsat! Tis been long, too long, my droogs! Your humble blogger Zarathustra has been having many new messels to share. But enough with my own govoreeting, I've had myself a horrorshow idea: Though terribly decadent, I believe that I shall violate a cardinal rule of dialectical etiquette and create for myself a strawman.

A straw-Christian, you ask?
No, a straw-hopeful. RANDOM Q. HIPSTER is either smart or just rebellious enough to reject religion. If he/she demonstrates any ability to critically think beyond the simple reject of tradition, he/she may be a good target for "indoctrination into the evil atheist conspiracy."

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER

Age: 18-23
Sex: Either/Or (but for simplicity's sake, male)
Education: 4-year Liberal Arts Degree
Employer: probably Starbuck's or Greenpeace
Politics: vary from anarcho-syndicalist to Libertarian
Status: Acquarian strawman, Seeker of Meaning

Self-Introduction:

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER: "Hi there! I'm Random Q. Hipster. Zarathustra sculpted me out of clay and breathed life into me because he needed some interaction with what he calls "gullible, credulous idiots" on his site. Anyway, I'm sort of Zarathustra's alter ego, and a shadow of what Zarathustra might have been, if he still believed in all the bullshit he's come to disbelieve on the basis of evidence. Of course, I don't see what evidence should have anything to do with it. It's obvious that the days of capitalism are numbered, right? I think that's what all this 2012 stuff is about. It's going to bring a change in the political conscience of the world. The Mayans knew this because unlike western civilizations, rationalism hadn't closed off their minds to the secret realms of existence..."

ZARATHUSTRA: "I think that's enough for now, Random Q. Hipster."

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER: "But I didn't get to my theory about the military-industrial complex and the drug companies yet... what they're doing is downright fascistic! I don't believe in mental illness, I think some people's brains just work on a whole different level, and that scares people, you know? The Man just wants to label some people as deviants to silence them. That's the way it's always been. History is written by the victor, am I right?"

ZARATHUSTRA: "You realize it's dangerous to suggest to someone who needs help that nothing's the matter, right?"

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER: "Just who gets to decide who's really crazy?"

ZARATHUSTRA: "People who've earned a valid license to practice things like medicine, psychiatry, and therapeutic counseling. I'm not saying there aren't flaws in the system, but you probably want to throw the whole thing away, don't you?"

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER: "The system sucks. No matter what you do, who you are, where you go, you can't help but be a part of it. This stuff makes me so angry. Like, with Bush, the only way for your opinion to count was if you were white, male and Christian. Of course, they gave a few token minorities rights, but did they listen to the all the people who were against the war?"

ZARATHUSTRA: "Of course not. See, we agree on some things..."

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER: "Yeah, you were at those rallies, telling them not to get us stuck in a quagmire."

ZARATHUSTRA: "I sure was."

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER: "What happened to you, Zarathustra? You used to be just like us. You knew what the real problem was, the military industrial complex and how it's the epitomy of western civilization. You understood, man. What happened? Now you're always telling other people that they're wrong, unless it confirms what you already believe, in which case you accept what other people tell you. You're just like the rest of the slaves to the Man."

ZARATHUSTRA: "Think about this logically, Random. If I mindlessly accepted everything that confirmed what I already believed, why would you be complaining about my believing differently than you when I once believed a lot of the same things?"

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER: "Wait, what?"

ZARATHUSTRA: "What you said makes no sense."

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER: "I guess you're just too far gone. You've sold out and let yourself be dominated by western intellectual hegemony. You just need to chill out and relax."

ZARATHUSTRA: "I'll relax when my work is done."

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER: "Who really cares about your atheist group, seriously? What do atheists need to organize around?"

ZARATHUSTRA: "As a secular humanist and a skeptic I organize around critical thinking. I believe in a free, open and honest discourse. Unfortunately for people like you, it doesn't leave room for things like diplomacy or polite dishonesty. I mean, you can't have national policy set according to myths and magic, can you?"

RANDOM Q. HIPSTER: "But isn't science just a set of myths and magical explanations made to sound all official and... scientific? I mean, I don't believe in Biblical Creationism, but how can evolution explain everything? You weren't there, so how can you say what truly happened?"

ZARATHUSTRA: *sigh* "I can see we have a lot of work to do. All I'm saying is, I'd rather the President read the Wall Street Journal without being "under the influence" of tea leaves or planetary alighnment. That's about it for the war on idiocy today. By the way, the new password to be used only members of the evil atheist conspiracy is..."

***BZZZZZZZZZ***

Anything Doesn't Go: An Essay on "Commoner" Sense

2009-03-09T10:19:00.008-04:00

Because "common sense" clearly isn't enough...

First, thank you ER for drawing my attention to a certain news story which, among other alarming trends in the international community, disturbs me to no end.

Second, sorry for the length of this post. I’m trying to pack a lot in here, seeing as how I literally lost the content of my last two would-be posts.

In a recent post, I exposed (a mere fraction of) the problem with spiritualistic sophistry, and sophistry in general. To paraphrase, because they do not adhere to a strict dogma, the eclectic believer, the spiritualist, pagan, astrologer, Hippie-Christian, etc.- can just as easily define the problem of God, the paranormal and the supernatural out of existence (it’s not like the nonsense is ever consistent; often they don’t even get simple circular logic). When arguing with uncritical thinkers who nevertheless are not part of any organized, dogmatic religion, I find that it is more difficult by far because their arguments are based on direct (subjective) experience, much like Charismatic Christians who use time-honored trance-inducing methods to reach an ecstatic state. Further complicating the difficulty of arguing with non-traditional believers is that, even if they identify with a tradition or multiple traditions like Paganism or Buddhism, they so frequently make up their own dogma, even as they argue to defend it. It’s not that they’re lying. On some level, they truly believe in these spiritual experiences- just as the ardent conspiracy theorist or UFO abduction Junkie truly believes in the dogma of their faith- but at the same time, like the liberal and moderate Christians- they cherry-pick from their resources. I think the comparison is apt because a critical analysis of the alien abduction mythos shows that belief in such a mythos is often just a surrogate religion. However, to keep things relatively simple, I’m not going to talk much about the UFO and alien abduction mythos in this post

Although many non-traditional believers in supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and other unsubstantiated claims will try to validate their beliefs by a recourse to calling themselves “pantheists,” they do not actually fit the definition of pantheists. I call this the “Pantheist’s Dilemma.” If God is synonymous with nature, existence, consciousness… basically life, the universe and everything… then why call these things God? If God is “nature,” then isn’t supposing something greater than or outside of nature or even just unproven or unprovable to be true a mark of hypocrisy? More basic then that, isn’t it just unnecessary?Their problem is that they still can’t offer a reason for anyone else to believe these things other than “it just sounds good.” So at the end of the day, it’s still sophistry.

Now, usually it’s not these people who are committing crimes against humanity. However, by condoning an “anything goes” attitude with regard to human reasoning and belief, they are enabling- indeed, legitimizing- the spread of destructive cults and dangerous, self-destructive practices. These cults and the charlatans behind them very often prey on young people and others who pride themselves as being tolerant and open minded. We all know that it’s good to be open minded, but we should never be so open-minded as to leave our brains vulnerable to charlatans like Uri Geller and culture-vultures of fear, paranoia and naivety like Alex Jones, David Icke, Lyndon LaRouche, David Miscavidge, the late L. Ron Hubbard, James Dobson, and other ideologues and demagogues. What really makes me mad these days is that there are so many of these charlatans, theocrats, ideologues and demagogues out there, and so many uneducated and/or just credulous and naïve people willing to believe so much bullshit, that the minority of us intellectuals and skeptics have to look out for the rest of the world like frakking babysitters. And of course, we end up being resented for it. Now I’m sorry if that sounds condescending or arrogant, but sometimes those attitudes are deserved. Very often, the condescension works both ways. Usually it comes from the believer first, rather than the skeptic. Skepticism is actually very humbling, but certainty- the kind of certainty that marks the aforementioned ideologues, demagogues, Charlatans, and other threats to a rational and open society- that kind of certainty, which is the domain of all manners of fundamentalism including postmodernism (for the postmodernist can say with certainty that we can say nothing with certainty) breeds arrogance. Arrogance and condescension, in turn, only breed more arrogance and more condescension, because when people refuse to allow evidence to change their minds, they effectively shut down open communication. This is why, even if 99.9% of Americans were fundamentalist and/or evangelical Christians, it would still be wrong for America to practice theocracy or theo-democracy. It would still go against the Constitution and the wishes of the founding fathers. Such a hypothetical country could hardly be called the United States of America, and surely would not deserve the name. Fortunately, a large minority of Americans do not believe in Christian mythology. Unfortunately, enough of this large minority, many atheists included, are apathetic enough that they don’t see a reason to speak out against the sheer volume of bullshit that we’re exposed to every day, without the appropriate critical analysis. This silent block, much like the postmodernists, the extremist multiculturalists, the uncritical leftists, and the liberal and moderate adherents of mainstream, organized religions, are enablers of a national addiction to the hard drug of blind faith, whether in Jesus, reincarnation, magic crystals, psychic powers, or a Heavenly Big Brother. Look, it’s cool to be open-minded, but it’s stupid to think credulity is a virtue.

“Why can’t you just let people believe what they want to believe? Why do you have to tell them they are wrong?” ask the clue-less moderate and the appeaser. For the same reason I’m not going to let a five-year old play with a power sander, even if the five-year old has read the instructions. The moderate and liberal theists don’t do us any favors here, buying as they do into the ubiquity of wishy-washy, spineless postmodernism which says, effectively, that there is no such thing as a real, objective world out there, and that the conclusions yielded by observation and experimentation are no more “real” (they sure love scarequotes, these postmodernists and extreme multiculturalists) than the origin stories of the Hopi, the Navajo, or the Christians. In other words, if you buy this particular and popular brand of sophistry, then a scientific theory- for example evolution- is no more an explanation than the first several chapters of the Bible. “They’re all just a bunch of cultural meta-narratives.” Uh-huh. And a sword is just a really big toothpick. Ask the postmodernists and the multiculturalists for proof, and you’ll get this: “Why should one culture have to justify its beliefs by the standards of another culture? Proof is just a criteria for validity in your ‘narrow,’ ‘western,’ ‘rational’ worldview.” Blah, blah, blah. By the way, we need another Sokal Affair real soon. It’s been long enough since the first scandal.

See, I reserve the right to criticize and even insult and humiliate those who do not respond to reasoned, rational arguments for the same reason I reserve the right to call the sky blue and the grass green.

People believing stupid things is only part of the problem. It would be ill-advised, and I think wrong, to make a law against believing things that aren’t true. However, it is perfectly right and necessary to make laws against people acting on untrue beliefs when their actions harm others who may or may not share those beliefs. The second your right to believe in ghosts, or body thetans, or cosmic Jewish zombies impacts my right to criticize your beliefs, then we have a problem. Governments and international entities legitimizing people’s beliefs in stupid things, and delegitimizing criticism of stupid beliefs and practices which have been proven again and again to be harmful, are the other part of the problem.

Has anyone ever seriously thought about the limits of religious freedom in the United States? Granted, we’ve just come out of eight years of near-theocracy, but think about all the crap that we don’t tolerate here: witch burnings, child prostitution, kidnapping, slavery… it seems there’s a lot we’re unwilling to put up with. Of course, if you cover it up and slap the label “religion” on it, then you’ve got it made. Come on, if you really wanna make money, start a religion.

In my view- the view of common frakking sense- there’s a difference between the freedom to believe and worship freely and the extent to which one is able to justify specific behaviors and practices. This limit is implicitly part of the Constitution of the United States, as well as the legal systems of many other countries. It is also an implicit part of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Though I would certainly prefer that people subject their cherished beliefs to critical analysis based on evidence and reason, I don’t care what they believe at the end of the day. Rather, it’s what they do with those beliefs that I may or may not have a problem with. So, teaching your personal beliefs about science or history or any subject in public school rather than the academic consensus? That’s a problem. Actively Christianizing the Federal Government? That’s a problem. Infiltrating the Federal Government? That’s a problem and a crime too. Seeking protection from the government for your crank activities, which include practicing medicine without a license, holding people against their will, slander, libel, and legal harassment, and death threats? That’s a whole frakking host of crimes, and organizations that do those things are criminal organizations. If such crimes are committed for the purpose of coercively silencing critics, then it’s not just crime. It’s terrorism. And that is the so-called “Church” of Scientology. Under the command of paramilitant David Miscavidge, this organization seeks to destroy every freedom you and I have to question it. And now they’re one nation closer to their goal of silencing the planet. This, after the already-mentioned (and lamented) UN Resolution, is the kind of thing that makes me wonder whether the world hasn’t declared an all-out war on the logical extent of rationality.

In my defense- because these days, the rational and critical thinkers are more often than not on the defense- I want to point out the obvious difference between everything I’ve just said, and the stereotypes that so frequently appear in the media and in the blogosphere about atheists. I have not defined these philosophical conflict as a matter of “us versus them,” as is so frequently done by others (for example, those who insist that atheism or secular humanism fall into the "liberal" camp in the "liberal vs. conservative" “culture war”). I have gone out of my way to show the complexity of these conflicts. My disdain for the use of the term “culture war” is its ambiguity. There’s bullshit on both sides, as I have tried to explain here by pointing out those elements of the Left who reject rationality and critical thinking to the same extent as conservative Christians. I always try to distinguish between, for example, evangelical and fundamentalist Christians because, while the two groups often overlap, there are specific differences (and I hate the word “fundagelical” because it describes something so ugly but sounds like the name a candy bar). I think my readers are smart enough to follow that I argue on the basis of the complexity of most issues. It’s just that, while others say “it’s complicated” and then do nothing, I refuse to throw up my hands in resignation at complexity. I still think something can- and must- be done.

March 6, 2009

2009-03-06T17:47:00.003-05:00

Dear Reader,

I apologize for not posting today. I was writing a rather lengthy post about post-modernism, when my own ignorance screwed things up and I lost all but two paragraphs. I will try and reconstruct the post in question ASAP and get back to more or less daily posts. In the mean time, I apologize for the inconvenience.

Thank you,

Zarathustra

What is humanity coming to?

2009-03-04T09:20:00.003-05:00

A woman in Florda called 911 three times yesterday because the local McDonald's restaurant was out of chicken nuggets. Okay, it was because of McDonald's "all sales are final" policy, but what it was really about, what upset this woman to the point of her calling the police, was chicken nuggets.

You heard that right.

And you can hear the first call here.

And the second call.

And the third.

At what point does the average intelligence of the average American become indistinguishable from mild mental retardation? I would say calling 911 over a fast food joint because of an "all sales are final" policy is a good metric.

The woman who made this call was 27 years old. Though clearly not the brightest crayon in the box, she definitely isn't senile. This is the kind of thing I might expect from an agitated senior citizen, but from a 27-year old woman?

As Americans get dumber and dumber, we get less mature. We already appear to the rest of the world like squabbling, ungrateful children. Not even electing Barack Obama can save our vanishing prestige.

One... two... three... "Grow up, Americans!"

And maybe get a salad next time. McDonald's will never be out of salad.

For the record, maybe she did deserve a refund, but that's something to take up with management or corporate headquarters. It is NOT an "emergency," as Goodman repeatedly claimed.

Top Three Subtle Assumptions that Theists and Spiritualists make about atheists

2009-03-03T07:47:00.005-05:00

These are several subtle assumptions and implications of those assumptions that people often make about atheists:

1. The Double Standard Void

This is infuriating: Christians, Jews, pagans, no matter who I talk to, they all have this recourse of "there's something missing in your life." I'm sick of it. There are plenty of things missing in my life. I've never seen a Caribbean sunset. I've never ridden a horse. I've never been sky-diving. There's a difference between these things and God or spirituality though... a sunset, a horse ride, sky-diving... these are all things of substance that exist in the world. I can book a flight to the Caribbean, I can take horse-riding lessons, I can go sky-diving, and I know I will be getting my money's and time's worth. What I really hate about this baseless assumption- other than its baselessness- is that it's an attempt, as I noted in a different post, to de-legitimize our claims to happiness. It is a particularly underhanded tactic coated in sugary condescension.

2. The Always Are Assumption

This is when an opponent in a debate assumes that the atheist was always an atheist. Most atheists used to identify with a religious background, usually that of their parents. This is especially frustrating because even really intelligent, skilled debaters will articulate this assumption, sometimes implicitly. This is often used to support another assumption:

3. The Direct Experience Assumption

That the atheist has never directly experienced God. As though the human mind isn't capable of tricking us! As though 50 years of cognitive science has proved nothing! As though brain chemistry is a foreign concern! This assumption that given a spiritual experience, one is left changed forever goes hand in hand with the assumption that if one does not admit the transcendence of such an experience, than clearly he is "not ready" is just a circular argument.

Here's #2 and #3 taken together:

A: Of course you're an atheist, you've never had a spiritual experience.
B: You don't know that.
A: Of course I do. Because you are an atheist.
B: How do you know I didn't speak in tongues as a kid? How do you know I didn't have a euphoric reaction to cannibalism before I was an atheist? How do you know I didn't undergo past-life regression therapy when I was 18? How do you know I didn't believe that I was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ? ETC... ETC... ETC...

So many assumptions, and these spiritualists so often claim to be open-minded? If they asked more questions instead of making utterances of sophistry, perhaps they would actually have to think about whether their gurus know actually what they're talking about.

Please stop adding "ism" to Darwin... it's just annoying.

2009-03-02T22:46:00.005-05:00

I do not call myself a "Darwinist" or an "Evolutionist." I'm a student of anthropology. A non-religious person. A critical thinker and a naturalist. Common descent with gradual modification is just a part of my everyday world. I understand the theory and I'm not the one denying it, but- strange as this sounds- I understand why people who can't define evolution want to deny evolution.

Most people never get a good explanation of how it works. Instead they get told a story- and it's a good story, but still- about a naughty English schoolboy named Charles Darwin who became the Galileo of his generation, to this day still a name many Americans are ambivalent or even hostile toward, at the same time as they now praise Galileo's. When an evolution-denier uses the terms "Evolutionist" or "Darwinist" it is an attempt to frame evolutionary science as a rival faith, an ideology, as opposed to a scientific theory. The term "Darwinist" is complicated by the fact that many others have contributed to the theory, and Darwin was incorrect about many things he could not have understood given his almost complete ignorance of microbiology (just google "genules"). Darwin was, however, right about natural selection and sexual selection and many of the basic processes of descent with modification. He knew, however, nothing of Mendel's work with pea-plants. He, of course, knew nothing of the discoveries of Watson and Crick that were to come. Since Darwin, we have learned many things that- as happen in the sciences- tend to complicate, rather than simplify, our understanding of just how things work. For example, we are now aware that many traits are affected both by inherited genes and by the interaction of the organism with the environment. Useful concepts like the Weismannian Barrier are still good for illustrating certain principles, but given that the environment inside an unfertilized egg is much like the environment in any cell with plenty of random molecular motion, and that our genes, which don't even exist in chromosomal form most of the time and never in some sort of hypothetical causal vacuum- such a strict division between the somatic and sperm lines no longer makes sense at closer inspection. Epigenetics and neuroscience probably qualify for the most surprising areas of study, and further demonstrate the plasticity of the phenotype.

Look, as much as we all- yes, us- want evolution to be simple... however simple it may be for some of us... evolution is more complex than any one of us could probably communicate alone. This story we tell about Darwin and the finches, it's just a story. On some level, it's no different than the stories in the Bible. It's not the substance of evolution.

The substance of evolution is that it is the underlying theory of all modern biology, including medicine. Germ theory would make no sense except in the context of evolution. If there is ever a cure for AIDs, it will be because we have not turned our backs on a scientific understanding of our bodies and our world. This, the public must come to understand.

Sophistry is Easy... Countering Incoherence Coherently is Hard

2009-03-02T19:58:00.009-05:00

This is for everyone who has ever tried arguing with a spiritualistic, pantheistic, postmodernistic breed of willing fool and gotten nowhere in a circle, fast:

If you don't know what sophistry is, it's sort of like when someone stumbles upon poetry and pronounces it philosophy. Sophistry is to sound philosophy what pop psychobabble is to actual psychology. A sophist is to a philosopher or a scientist what Oprah Winfrey is to Stephen Jay Gould or Daniel Dennet. For example, I could say something like:

"Purpose is that which gives us meaning; meaning is that which demands purpose."

This is a circular statement that sounds deep but means absolutely nothing. It is also what I have found to be at the root of so much "spirituality," "mysticism," and other forms of supernaturalistic idiocy other than organized religion.

Sophistry is easy, listen to this:

"Faults are just strengths we don't yet know how to use."

Nice line of thought. The problem is, it's bullshit. Sometimes a person has a problem, and the problem needs to be addressed. Claiming that nothing's really wrong except a bit of spiritual hunger is not only irresponsible, it can be dangerous. This is what has gotten the Church of Scientology into such hot water over the years, beyond all their other abuses: pretending to be a mental health authority.

See, for those of us who give a damn about knowledge, it's hard for us to sit and listen to someone who talks on and on but with absolutely no substance in their words. A lot of spiritual notions are simply meaningless to me because I grasp the falseness of the dichotomies they are built on (like mind and matter or mind and body). It's frustrating having to listen to babble and out of sheer politeness (if the situation demands politeness) to pretend to even have anything of substance to argue against, when in fact the opposition has nothing.

A real conversation (sans any personal details) between a naturalist (me) and a spiritualist (someone else, not me), annotated to point out mistakes, tricks, and fallacies:

spiritualist: Without feeling lost, we do not search for That for which we have been born to
discovernaturalist: That's teleological. I think we have some very basic disagreements as to whether such higher purposes even exist.
naturalist: See, Aristotle was wrong about final cause.
spiritualist:I do not do theological. I speak from my own direct experience.
aturalist: your subjective experience you mean?
spiritualist: no.
naturalist:I said teleological not theological
spiritualist: what is teleological?*
naturalist: Teleos- teleology- as in having to do with a predestined end**
naturalist: for example, in an explanation
spiritualist: having an overall purpose does not necessarily imply predestination naturalist: Show me the overall purpose. Burden of proof is on your hands.
naturalist: you seem to be splitting hairs
spiritualist: actually it is in your hands.
naturalist: teleology means purpose- or goal-oriented*

*I'm not going to hold this against him, it's an easy mistake given the text-based medium.

**Even the best of us have our flubs. I did not define teleology particularly well the first time when I said, somewhat inaccurately "pre-destination":

Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists. (Thanks, Wikipedia)

For my case though, the notion that there is an "inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists" is essentially an argument for pre-destination.

You say direct, I say subjective. You say tomato, I say tomahto...

spiritualist: not at all.
naturalist: in the sense of proceeding toward a goal in an undirected process but you are saying it is directed?

spiritualist:all these answers depend on your point of view and oddly are somewhat off the mark.

naturalist: I don't think reality changes based on one's point of view

spiritualist: The world is as you see it.

naturalist: no it is no

naturalist: not

spiritualist: so if that is the way you see it, then that is the way it will happen for you :-)

naturalist:see, sensation is not the same thing as perception

naturalist: that is sophistry

spiritualist: All of this is only at the level of the mind. You have to seek further than that, you have to move beyond the prison of concept.

naturalist: All you are citing are supersitions and quantum mystic mumbo jumbo and postmodern buzzwords

naturalist: It's not as simple as "seeing is believing" or "the world isn't as we see it" because these matters are not as simple as sophistry

spiritualist:You have to turn within and enter inside. It is only by going inside that you will understand. All of your intellect aside, it has not granted you lasting happiness or lasting love or deep abiding peace or the experience of God

naturalist: I think I am a very introspective person without the need for God

naturalist: I grew beyond that

naturalist: I don't feel like going backwards

naturalist: And I feel your attitude is condescending

spiritualist:very good.

naturalist: you understand, I have no need for gurus or charlatains, or supernatural, spiritual or religious beliefs.

spiritualist: and yet there is something missing still...

naturalist: That's what I feel is condescending

naturalist: the assumption that I am missing something

naturalist: I feel quite whole and content

naturalist: I have a good life. And I don't need to justify myself by spiritualists' standards

naturalist: You are in a sense de-legitimizing my claim to happiness*

naturalist: by framing me as "missing" something

spiritualist: We can try this again another day.

naturalist: We can try and be friends but my rule is no preaching

spiritualist: I have very many things to do, honestly.

naturalist: okay

naturalist: do them

naturalist:don't take this personally

naturalist: just always be critical

naturalist: even of your oqwn claims

naturalist: test them against the basis of evidence

naturalist: and don't be afraid to admit that you are wrong

naturalist: that's what I do

spiritualist: in two minutes, I could change your life forever.

spiritualist: but that day is not today.

naturalist: I have heard that claim from many preachers

naturalist: It has never materialized

spiritualist: and they cannot back it up.

naturalist: right

spiritualist: you think just because all "preachers" are fake that I must be a fake to?

spiritualist: And why not? What do you know of me? I am some blip on a screen.

spiritualist: but I can give you a direct experiece of what I speak about.

*Note: I sometimes find that when arguing with people who do not "get" logic, it is useful to argue from an emotional standpoint which theists, mystics, and supernaturalists may be more likely to understand. The notion that without some form of transcendent belief, we cannot be complete is just a retread of the argument many Christians make for why non-Christians need to find Jesus. I find it insulting exactly because it is a de-legitimization of my happiness, my sense of well-being and completeness, as well as my sense of (self-made) purpose.

See what the spiritualist does? Any way that the naturalist argues, the spiritualist thinks of an excuse as to why direct proof of the transcendental cannot be offered up so readily as... well, as the transcendental really should, if you think about it logically. It's like when (Protestant) Christians believe that all you need to do is read the "good book" and you'll know the truth. Then comes the question, "Which edition? Will a Catholic Bible do? What about a Hebrew Bible? What about a Presbyterian... no? Ecumenical... no? Okay, which edition? Oh, the edition your Church endorses. Great. So anyone who reads that book will draw the same conclusion about God? Hmmm... Okay, I just tested your theory and found it wrong. What do you mean my results may vary? That's not what you said when you gave me the book. Oh, I need to have faith. Which means more Church. More tithes. More money, more time... this is just a big pyramid scheme, isn't it? I thought so."

Dear Mr. Spiritualist: if the internet stands in the way of mysticism, how do you expect to compete with Churches that claim to offer the experience of God through their websites? You would think that if the higher power/cosmic energies work through/guide evolution, he/she/it/they should have no problem with the internet. This guy claims he could make me a believer in two minutes if the internet weren't standing between us. But should the transcendent and the supernatural really be limited by the internet of all things? In the words of James T. Kirk, "What does God need with a starship?"

I then proceeded to question him as to how exactly I might go about duplicating the results of his experience. I didn't get very far, however, because- typical me- when confronted with this sort of stupidity I feel I have to explain basic things about why science is markedly NOT the same as religion and/or spiritualism.

spiritualist: in two minutes.

naturalist: I think it is highly likely that you are quite impressionable and eager to believe

naturalist: Can your ability be tested in a lab?

spiritualist: yes

spiritualist: and it has been.

naturalist: show me in which legitimate scientific journal I will find conclusive results

naturalist: in science we have this thing called transparency

naturalist: of the method, the equipment used, the people involved

spiritualist: I am aware of science and transparency.

naturalist: Are you aware of Finkle's 3rd Principle?*

spiritualist: I have been quite the scholar in my time and also quite the non-believer**

spiritualist: If you did not believe in fire, all you need to do confirm that it iwll burn you is stick your hand in.

naturalist: that is simple and antiquated logic***

spiritualist: Similarly, you may not believe in high states of Consciousness, but I can show you the fire and stick your hand in.

naturalist: you are talking about heat

naturalist: what does that have to do with higher states of consciousness?

naturalist: it's just an incomplete metaphor

naturalist: I thought you had better things to do

spiritualist: I do.

spiritualist: There is much you have yet to discover. The Truth is always knocking, always calling. I wish you the greatest tluck in your Life.

spiritualist: all I can tell you, is that reguardless of what a person believes or does not believe, these experiences, which are far past anything the mind could ever imagine and there, are there in each person, just waiting to be uncovered.

spiritualist: are there, not and there

naturalist:You understand that means nothing to me

spiritualist: right, because you have not experienced it directly.

naturalist:I have experienced it directly. Can't you accept that I've come to a different conclusion than you about it?

naturalist:Like, I've seen UFOs. I don't believe in little grey men from Zeta Reticula

naturalist: All I know is I don't know what I saw

spiritualist: it doesn't have anything to do with the conclusion.

spiritualist: that is a play of words.

naturalist:how is it a play on words?

spiritualist: what I am speaking of is far past any conclusion, any understanding. Anything that could really be said about it is dust.

spiritualist: that is why I am saying "It is a play of words" The real deal is way beyond that.

spiritualist: It is one thing to talk about Love and another all together to experience Love.

naturalist:so in other words you are claiming language meaningless with regard to your reality

naturalist: that's a pussy way of escaping any argument all together

naturalist: you just can't deal with having your faith criticized

spiritualist: not at all.

spiritualist: to both statements.

naturalist: that's pretty much what you said

naturalist: that it's beyond conclusions

naturalist: so to me it is meaningless

spiritualist: correct

naturalist: you see?

spiritualist: meaningless until you have a direct experience.

naturalist: We have evidence. We have tests. We have conclusions. That is how we find things out about our world.

naturalist: WHo's to say I haven't had a direct experience?

naturalist: I just think it was a hallucination

naturalist: I've convinced myself- when I was a teenage pagan- that I saw the ----ing underworld

spiritualist: That is fine.

naturalist: I'm well aware of the tricks we can play on ourselves because we want so strongly to believe

spiritualist: true. This is strong than that.

spiritualist: stronger

spiritualist: in any event, I really must go

naturalist: You haven't given me any rason to believe that

spiritualist: like 30 minutes ago

spiritualist: fine

naturalist: alright man

spiritualist: very good.

naturalist: have a good day

spiritualist: you to.

naturalist: Think about our conversation

spiritualist: ditto

naturalist: Believe me I will

spiritualist: ::grin::

naturalist: I evaluate claims all the time

By taking the element of organized religion out of the equation, the spiritualist thinks he has achieved something higher than either the poor Christian who is trapped within his worldview and the poor nonbeliever who is "just not ready" for esoteric knowledge. This esoteric knowledge requires a "direct" experience (subjective experience, though the spiritualist denies its subjectivity without offering an argument against that particular claim of mine).

*Strangely, the spiritualist takes no notice of "Finkle's Third Principle"- which in truth I just made up to see if I was arguing with something who could spot baloney himself. The spiritualist could not. Okay, okay, so that wasn't fair, but it is a variation on the quite useful "Dihydrogen Monoxide" test of scientific literacy ("Pardon me, sir, are you worried about dihydrogren monoxide in your water? It has no taste. You can't smell it or detect it at all, but it's there in your water. That's right, dihydrogen monoxide. Highly toxic. It's reported to make up 20% of the content of your tapwater. Oh, the chemical formula? Yeah... H2O. Get it? H2O?"). Also I could have come up with something far more legit-sounding than "Finkle." How about Rosencrantz's Fifth Postulate? The Diamondback Hypothesis? The point is, if he had taken the bait, I could have easily used my own sophistry against his sophistry, albeit mine would be disguised as what might appear to an unscientific mind as "science..." or at least pseudoscience.

**Note that this use of the "I used to be the biggest atheist until..." line is a frequent tactic of preachers and online Jesus spammers.

The important thing to remember is that it is much easier to make up sophistry on the spot than to deliver a valid arguement based on evidence on the spot. That says nothing about whose position the evidence will- almost invariably- support.

I'm sure this person- who I have never met IRL- is quite a nice person. He does not strike me as particularly intelligent, in that he is likely uncritical of the kind of sophistry he has absorbed over the years. I do not think he is a liar, I am sure his beliefs are quite sincere, but in the end that is all they are: beliefs.

I have joked that Pantheism is essentially a thesaurus where every other word is synonymous to God. I think this is a form of intellectual cheating. Literally, the pantheist is defining God out of testability. The thing is, Yahweh, Zeus, and Thor have a set of criteria attached to them. We can test that criteria. If you want to be a consistent and scientific pantheist, then by defining God as "nature," "consciousness," "existence," "life," "the universe," and "everything," you must then abandon any belief in the supernatural (such as the primacy of the consciousness, the soul, etc.), because these things are by definition supernatural. If God is nature, and there can be nothing higher than God... you see my point?

***Unfortunately the only logic allowed by such spiritualistic sophistry is analytical logic: If A=C and B=C, then A=B. This logic is useful at times but hardly flawless and certainly not scientific by modern standards. For example:

For example:

1) All turtles are reptiles.
2) All lizards are reptiles.
3) Statements 1 and 2 being true, then all turtles are lizards.

Obviously this is false. This is an obvious example, but there are plenty of non-obvious abuses of analytical logic that generally well-intentioned people fall for on a daily basis. This is the basis for my calling his logic "antiquated" and "simple."

Yes, I could have been meaner. Yes, I could have not wasted my time and told this person to STFU if he doesn't know what he is talking about. But does that really help? I think it is better to frustrate them before they frustrate you. I have made these large chunks of a conversation (as noted, with references to personal information removed) so that others might learn from this. I think we need to arguing with these guys as much as we argue with the religious right. Many have compared religions to "viruses of the mind," however I think drug use is a more apt analogy. If we compare faith to drug abuse, then this is the guy smoking the harmless pot. The money he uses to buy that pot, however, goes to supporting some Resurrection Junkie's crack addiction. Yes, I am comparing organized religion to street drugs. Along with the moderates and liberals, it's these spiritualists, supernaturalists, pantheists and mystics who are the "enablers" of the pandemic addiction to theism.

When this person finds me some proof that his "direct experience" was anything but a chemical reaction inside his brain, than I will reconsider my position. Until then I am still a naturalist, a materialist, an atheist and a skeptic. Skepticism is my standard, my measuring rod, my method. It has never led me astray because I am comfortable in changing my mind. Being a skeptic requires me to change my mind a lot. It also requires me to call "bullshit" on people who make claims that are unsubstantiated by evidence, and may in fact be in direct contradiction to evidence derived from observable and testable real-world phenomena. I don't care if they are lying or if they truly believe it: bullshit is bullshit.

This is your brain (Egg). This is your brain on uncritical thinking (Scrambled). Any questions?

Can Facebook bridge the 19th and 21st centuries?

2009-03-02T11:17:00.003-05:00

Imagine if Facebook had existed in the 19th Century with groups like "100,000 strong against Dred Scott V. Sanford!!!" "I'll walk 3,000 miles to raise $$$ for the transcontinental railroad!" "University of Pennsylvania College Whig Party."

Hell, as long as I can still play Oregon Trail.

I felt like I stepped into the 19th century when some friends on facebook directed me to this as a cause:

PDF file: HJR1009

If the bill is successful, then perhaps Arkansas might join the majority of states in the 21st century. Of course, Arkansas is not the only state with laws on the books denying equal rights for believers and non-believers.

Christianity: The Movie

2009-03-02T10:12:00.007-05:00

So this blood-drinking space alien with no vowels in his name used to get his jollies by frakking with a bunch of primitives. He'd put on some light shows and maybe throw an earthquake or two. Then he demanded that the primitives sacrifice the blood of animals to keep him happy and as a reminder that if they didn't behave themselves they could all be in serious trouble. However, not even blood sacrifice and laser light shows with earthquakes could keep these dumb-ass primitives from killing each other and practicing lots of incest. To add to this trouble, some other space aliens pissed off the main alien by having lots of babies with those easy Earth girls. So the main alien guy decided to flood the planet and kill everyone except an absurdly small gene pool of each favored species, including a shepherd-turned-sailor named Noah, and his family. Some time later, the hillbillies that resulted from this union started enslaving each other, and the space alien- who doesn't have a problem with slavery so much as he has a problem with the enslavement of certain chosen people- decided to uproot the economy of one of the greatest civilizations at the time and- probably just to show that he can do more than drink blood and pull off light shows- split a frakking sea in half (okay, so it was probably a marshy wetland, and that whale in all the pictures was probably just a really big frog). Then he invited one dude out of thousands- Moses- up onto a moutain where they brewed some killer ayahuasca, saw some crazy freaky sounds and wrote these ten rules to live by, only they were so stoned they forgot to write any rules against incest, child abuse and slavery. The Chosen People felt really good about themselves, being chosen by the blood-drinking space alien and given these special rules to live by, but they were without a home, so the space alien sent them on a spree of conquering, raping and pillaging. When they returned to the homeland and drove out the damned squatters, it wasn't long before a bunch of mooks with swords came along and kidnapped the Chosen Peoples' elite priestly caste. Then another bunch of faceless mooks with swords (take that, Iran) came along and kicked the Babylonians' asses. Then some other dudes with funny helmets and togas came along and kicked the Persians' asses, and the chosen people were subjugated over and over again. Eventually they returned to kicking some ass of their own. Against this epic backdrop of occupation by and resistance to a superior force, this puritanical space alien got so fed up with humanity's bullshit that he zapped an Earth virgin with his laser of immaculate conception and was born from the virgin- I shit you not- as his own son on a suicide mission to cripple the collective morale of the Roman Empire. The reincarnated son-of-himself-dude was a heroic, charming rebel who told people to love one another and never give into oppression, but he was betrayed by conservatives and given to the Romans for punishment. The Romans nailed the poor sucker to a cross at a place called Golgotha- the Place of the Skull. The dude died, and he was sealed in a cave, but three days later his grave was found empty, and the people figure he must have been saved by that blood-drinking space alien who all of a sudden claims to be a vegetarian.

Does this story seem... familiar?
Look, on some level all mythology is science fiction. At least this was better than "Battlefield Earth."

The Emperor's New Clothes

2009-03-02T09:46:00.006-05:00

Want to hear a story?

So, once upon a time, the Emperor wanted a new suit of clothes to impress his subjects. And so, he commissioned two tailors- said to be the best in the land. These tailors told him of a cloth that was invisible to anyone who was unworthy or too stupid to respect the position of emperor. The Emperor was then presented with the invisible set of clothes, and though he could not see it, he pretended that he could, so as not to appear stupid or unworthy of his position. The tailors set to work, miming the creation of the suit out of the invisible fabric, and dressing the Emperor, who insists on going out before his people in a procession. The Emperor is walking at the front of the procession down the main street of the City, to the adoration of thousands who would rather pretend to see an invisible cloth than appear stupid and unworthy of their emperor, when a child cries out, "He's got nothing on at all!"

Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce you to the impetuous child: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/02/rogue-archivist.html

That's right. Carl Malamud of http://public.resource.org is campaigning to become the head of the Government Printing Office. Now here's the catch: whether or not this campaign pays off, Malamud will still be the nation's public printer. It's just a matter of whether the government chooses to recognize this or not. Does the Emperor run back to the palace to dress himself, or continue to hold his head high, proceeding down the street, ignoring the impetuous child's shouts of "He's got nothing on at all?"

Blasphemy is a Human Right

2009-03-02T09:19:00.004-05:00

When will the UN stop handling Islam with kiddie gloves? I blame the HRC. Never mind that HRC supposedly stands for "Human Rights Council." It should really be called "Coalition for the Overzealous Protection of Islam."

Backers of this measure claim that its goal is to prevent religiously-inspired violence, however it has the effect of providing domestic anti-blasphemy laws with international cover. Aggressive religious minorities like fundamentalist Christians or- worse- Scientologists could take advantage of this resolution, aimed at preventing Muslims from feeling insulted by Salman Rushdie and Danish newspaper cartoonists. Of course, this resolution is unlikely to be enforced in America, but for smaller, less powerful nations that rely a great deal more on the United Nations and the international community than the United States, I fear the worst.

Chief among the problems with the measure is just how one defines "defamation" with regard to religion. Different nations have different laws, but in general, the legal systems of most western democracies define defamation as something that is not only offensive but untrue. So if a group wanted to place ads on the local television stations claiming that Jews were in fact reptillian invaders from Sirius B, that wouldn't fly because it's not only a lie but could easily provoke violence against a segment of the population. However, if that same station wants to run an educational program on religion and vaccination, over the course of which the narrator is likely to point out that religiously-based objections to vaccinations have no basis in evidence, that may be offensive to certain theists but it hardly provokes violence or makes any untrue statements. The problem with defamation and religion is that since every believer thinks his or her religion to be true and all others to be false- but none of these believers can prove what they believe- there is no basis by which to evaluate whether a statement "defames" a religion.

Most Americans polled about this have been unsupportive of the UN's anti-blasphemy resolution, and as stated, UN resolutions have never been particularly binding on anyone. The United States' voting record in the UN, for better or worse, is proof of this. Back in November, the measure- Combating Defamation of Religions- passed 85-50 with 42 abstentions (that's 42 yellow-bellied slugs who wouldn't stand up if their child was being raped, as long as it was in the name of God).

Join me, droogies, in a moment of sublime blasphemy...

2009-03-01T12:26:00.002-05:00

This incredible video is for anyone who thinks it's crazy to love anything called "Battlestar Galactica." Even if you've never seen the show, just watch this scene.

The Westboro Baptist Church to once again insult humanity

2009-02-18T19:51:00.006-05:00

The Westboro Baptist Cult is coming to Buffalo... yes, Buffalo, NY, the site of a recent tragedy that the superstitious surely attribute to Friday the 13th being bad luck. At least their trivialization of tragedy is minimal compared to WBC. These same people who think that God is punishing American for her permissive attitude of homosexuals are coming to to Buffalo, NY on 2/22 to celebrate the death of activist Alison Des Forges in a protest titled "God Hates Silly Women."

St Joseph's Catholic Church - God Hates Silly Women! 3275 Main Street "Dr. Alison Des Forges was a human rights activist and historian who tried to call the world's attention to the looming genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and later wrote what is considered the definitive account of the eventual slaughter of more than 500,000 Rwandans. She was 66 and lived in Buffalo." Oh yeah? Well, what about the attempted slaughter of the saints of God here in good ole u.s. of a? Not one time did I hear any words of comfort or help from this old, dead witch! I'm just saying that this is God's perspective on this matter of this old woman's never-dying, everlasting soul. Read it for yourself if you do not believe me: Matthew 25:31-46 - 31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. A-friggin'-MEN!

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Wish I could be there to stare down Shirley Phelps again, but I wish Buffalo's voices of reason well in the inevitable confrontation with the cold-hearted cult of hatred and death-worship.

Eggs, sperm, and souls: some questions for pro-lifers

2009-02-15T22:37:00.005-05:00

I do not believe in a soul.

That being said, supposing such a soul did indeed exist at conception, here's a little problem:

What exactly are the mechanisms of "soul-conception?" Assuming, for example, that this "soul" must be at least partially present in each sex cell (this is an argument concerning theists who at least- and hypocritically- accept basic biology, if not evolutionary theory), we are confronted by the problem of anisogamy. You see, for anyone with at least a basic knowledge of human reproductive mechanisms, there are between 150,000-300,000 primary oocytes (egg cells) present in each of a human female's ovaries at the time she is born. Over 2,000,000 will degenerate in that female's life time, and fewer than 500 will ever even enter into Meiosis II. Egg cells are large and high in quality but very low in quantity. The male's sperm is just the opposite: high-quantity, low-quality. In a single milliliter of semen, there are over 20,000,000 sperm, frequently on average 60,000,000. Again, that's per milliliter. Most of these will die before having the chance to be involved in conception. So we're not just destroying future life when we masturbate. Even when we have sex we are killing proto-souls. Some intelligent designer, huh?

Here are my questions for pro-lifers. Please, if any pro-lifers (anti-choicers) are reading this, do respond. I love to argue.

Is the percentage of the soul of an unborn individual contained in each gamete is proportionally distributed, such that x number of sperm contains the equivalent of the half-soul to be found in y number of egg cells? In other words, is there an anisogamy of the soul?

My answer: There is no soul.

If not, then do men just contain more half-souls than women because of their higher gamete count?

My answer: There is no soul.

Why did the supposedly intelligent designer decide that in order for us to produce children, we necessarily deprive so many of the "unborn" of a chance at life? Why, in order to create life, must we destroy other potential lives as a course of nature?

My answer: There is no intelligent designer, and anisogamy reflects evolutionary tradeoffs incurred via intersexual selection, which is a case of natural selection, which is one of the driving mechanisms of evolution. If you tell me your God has a plan, and he works through nature, but he's omnipotent... an omnipotent God could have done better. Nature, however, involves tradeoffs.

See? For those of you wondering why you just wasted time reading this post, I have one and only one point: Science and theology don't mix. No matter how well-educated some apologists might be.

Hell, even Arlen Specter made my week...

2009-02-15T22:21:00.006-05:00

Normally I would not single out a Republican for props. But at least this one had the balls to vote in the favor of the Stimulus Package. So here goes: "Thanks, Arlen."

Now, if only you could have actually answered my question about the war all those years ago when you visited my high school. No, I'm not forgetting about that anytime soon. Sorry, Arlen. You did good on Tuesday, though.

For what it's worth I think your fellow Borg... er, GOP members turning on you with these attack ads is pretty shitty, but hardly unexpected.

If I may make a suggestion, Arlen... SWITCH PARTIES.

Barack Obama made my week...

2009-02-15T20:08:00.004-05:00

Okay, so it's a little late. Still recovering from my computer crisis, but here it is... the first time in my memory that a US President has spoken admirably of Charles Darwin. Enjoy the video:

Barack Obama on Chucky D., and the place of Science in Politics and Culture!

Reason Magazine made my week...

2009-02-15T08:40:00.004-05:00

Every once in a while, you just gotta give props to Reason Magazine.

For those who haven't seen it, THIS is "What Michael Phelps Should Have Said" to all the hypocrites and liars.

Scientology: Al Qaeda for the Age of Aquarius

2009-02-07T19:08:00.004-05:00

I am still not recovered from the crash of my hard drive. That being said, I have been meaning to make this post for quite some time. Although I have my detractors (whom I appreciate just as much as I appreciate my supporters), I doubt my detractors will disagree with the documented evidence behind this post.

ANYTHING, literally, anything, in the following post, can be verified by a visit to one of these websites, or to one of the links in the main body of this post.

I have written on dominionism- the Christian Nationalism movement- that threatens our civil rights. I think that the Christian Right, at this point (post-Obama election) is at least impotent enough for the next four years that some serious attention should be given by the atheist/agnostic/skeptic/humanist community should be given to Scientology.

In 1950, the pulp writer (he did not only write science fiction) L. Ron Hubbard created dianetics. Several years later, Hubbard sought tax exempt status for his "technology," all of a sudden, a "religion."

Scientology's appeal is obvious. As most people before the internet didn't know about the now-infamous Xenu story, the inductee is at first told that Scientology is compatible with all other religions, but this is not true, as testified by the above sources. Short of L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology has no God. It does, however, have Xenu, revealed when an inductee reaches O.T. III (Operating Thetan III). It is my opinion that Scientology, a kind of new-age religion with a focus (at first glance) on a mind/matter dichtomy reincarnation, is designed to ensnare people who are dissatisfied with traditional religion and looking for a spiritual alternative. Much of Scientology's success in recruitment (at least until the widespread use of the internet threatened the Church's hegemonic control of information) makes sense in that context.

But Scientology is really an elaborate UFO Cult. The following is a summary of "Incident 2," described in O.T. III:

75 million years ago, the Galactic Confederation elected a power-hungry tyrant named Xenu. Xenu had a problem with overpopulation, so with the help of psychiatrists he brought people in for "income tax inspection." Instead they were paralyzed by a mixture of alcohol and glycol. They were then transported in spacecraft that looked exactly like DC-8s, only with rockets instead of propellers to Earth, which was then called Teegeeack. Hundreds of billions of paralyzed aliens were then stacked around the bases of volcanoes. Xenu ordered them to be killed by hydrogen bombs. He then used "sticky" electronic beams to catch their disembodied souls and took them to movie theatres where they were implanted with lies about how life should be, including all the "false" religions. These souls were then released from the movie theatres, but they stuck together in groups and clustered around the bodies of our ancestors.

After all this, the Loyal Officers overthrew Xenu and imprisoned him in stasis inside a mountain on Teegeeack/Earth. High-level Scientologists believe that science fiction and space opera like Star Wars are collective memories of the intergalactic past. The design of the DC-8 is noted to be a subliminal expression of Xenu's space cruisers.

Originally Dianetics ended with a state of "Clear." A Clear was supposed to have perfect IQ and perfect memory. According to Tory Christman and others, the first "Clear" was so brainwashed she couldn't even remember the color of Hubbard's tie after he turned away and asked her. So OT I, OT II, OT II, and later OT's were tacked on in an effort to keep people paying for Scientology coursework.

Scientology claims to be a humanitarian religion, running programs with Narconon and Crimonon to rehabilitate drug addicts and prisoners. However, the success rates of these programs are highly disputed, the material is almost identical to the mind-control methods of Scientology coursework, and while Narconon is the flagship of Scientology's "drug free" policy, they're not talking only about street drugs. As evidenced by comments made by leading public Scientologists such as Tom Cruise, Scientology stigmatizes psychiatric medication, and Scientologists believe that there is no such thing as a mental disorder, only spiritual disorders caused by body thetans. Scientologists who show up to the sites of tragedies as a show of goodwill report back to their superiors only to be bombarded by questions about media exposure. And it convinces people like Tom Cruise that they are qualified to dispense medical advice (in reality pseudoscientific quackery).

Not only has Scientology caused loss of life for its so-called alternative medical practices, but the Guardian's Office (the predecessors of their Office of Special Affairs) is actually responsible for the single largest infiltration of the Federal Government in US History. Mary Sue Hubbard, then-wife of L. Ron Hubbard, was used as a patsy and went to jail for "Operation Snow White," along with ten other high executives in the Church. Their practice of isolating deviant members on "babywatch" led to the death of Lisa McPherson and others by abuse and neglect. "Babywatch," isolation of misbehaving Scientologists, isn't the end of their abuses. Members of the Sea Org, the Church's paramilitary, are sent to RPF (Rehabilitation Project Force) for infractions. For anyone with a less-than-decent grasp of semantics, that's a Scientologist Slave Labor Camp. Most public scientologists of course do not know about RPF, just as they do not know about Xenu. In RPF, prisoners are made to work degrading jobs without pay for months or even years, almost 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (the Sea Org itself barely pays, except in Scientology Coursework, meaning that members of Sea Org work for their own brainwashing). Reports on the conditions of RPF camps are frighteningly reminescent of the concentration camps established by the Nazi Party during the Third Reich.

L. Ron Hubbard died in 1986, and the Church was subsequently taken over by his assistant, David Miscavige, who is often said by former insiders to be habitually strike others, and who uses the OSA and Sea Org as his personal goon squad.

A break-off group called the Free Zone, by the way, continues to practice Scientology without the abuses of the organization itself. The Church of Scientology considers them to be heretics, or "squirrels" in Hubbard-speak. This is proof, however, that people can believe anything the hell they want... so long as these beliefs don't extend into violent and malevolent practices against human life.

I look forward to the day when the Church of Scientology is shut down and David Miscavige is on trial for crimes against humanity. I don't think I could call the CoS a religious organization. It's a corporate entity, a pyramid mind control scheme, and I would go so far as to say it is an international terrorist network that masquerades as a religion, controls a number of front groups, and according to their own scripture seeks nothing less than world domination ("clearing the planet"). They have tried to wage war against free speech on the internet by suppressing critics and copyrighting scripture. I can't think of any other religion whose scripture is so secretly and zealously guarded than Scientology's. Many critics and ex-scientologists note parallels to Nazism and the Mafia in their structure and behavior.

Now let's hear from their side. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Al Qaeda for the Age of Aquarius: http://www.scientology.org/.

The Problem With Populism

2009-02-03T19:11:00.005-05:00

I am an elitist. I believe, as many other respectable people do, that comptetence and popular appeal are not the same thing. Politicians can combine these traits, but rarely do. There are few things most Americans agree on, and these points of agreement should not be the limits of government. The things Americans do not agree on are, in the long run, far more important to our future than those issues we have settled. These are the so-called hot button values issues: homosexuality and gay marriage, decent education, and reproductive rights.

Imagine a populist America: this America defines marriage differently for different groups of people. Heterosexuals can enjoy the benefits of marriage, and it is up to the states to decide whether same-sex couples can have the same dignity and rights. The states also decide whether women should have the benefit of modern reproductive medicine, whether one must believe in God to serve in public office (as it stands, in the real America, it is illegal for atheists to serve in public office in multiple states). In this America, intelligent design is touted as the underlying theory of biology, in contrast to the rest of the modern world. This America is an America of cultural appeasement. The message taught to children in this America is, "Don't rock the boat." It is a triumph of the moderates, this imagined America, at best. At worst, it is a neocon's playground.

Is this the America you want?

I didn't think so. This is not a Blue Dog Democrat blog. This is not a Constitutionalist blog. WTF is up with Constitutionalism anyway? The thing was written to be changed.

Pluralism is what we need, not populism. It's the difference between freedom of inquiry and slavery to the lowest common denominator.

I subscribe to an elitist theory of history because I do think individuals are capable of casting great ripples of change. Behind any successful movement are charismatic individuals, and the populist history, underwritten by Marxist ideology, makes the same mistake as right-wing revisionism in its retroactive imposition of contemporary morality on historical narratives. I think the way to get around this problem is to leave morality and ideology out of the study of history, and focus on what we know, and what we can doubt, and foster critical thinking rather than shove on or another ideology down students' throats. Why shouldn't students learn about dead white men? For better or worse, we are not living in a parallel universe. History has largely been the product of dead white men. There's no need to apologize for this, or to villainize these men: we can discuss their flaws and their strengths, and acknowledge their importance. In the elite theory of theory, society rests on the back of the innovators. It is not fair or balanced. It is not egalitarian. It's filled with war, conquest, and murder, all of which students should learn about, but leave the ideological underpinnings of so much contemporary pedagogy out of the classroom, please!

The populist history promulgated by Howard Zinn and others underwrites foreign societies because of the lack of knowledge concerning late Pre-Columbian individuals. The Taino are rendered as narrative devices in a historical alien invasion epic. This re-telling is essentially the product of white Christians people working out their own guilt, aided by leftist scholars. While some might argue that it is well-intentioned, it is no less a revision than the history of "Christian America" offered by the religious right. Like a fictional narrative, the roles are clearly defined and even predictable: workers=good, employers=bad, four legs=good, two legs=bad nonsense with few exceptions. Welcome to Neo-Marxism 101.

I do not believe that the majority is always right. I believe that sometimes an educated minority or an individual must stand up to non-educated majority. I do not believe the lone voices of intellectual discourse should be swalled by the dull roar of the ocean of populism...

(out of breath).

Later.

A Defense of Vigilantism: freedom from mental slavery

2009-02-01T12:07:00.002-05:00

I have written before about my admiration for certain vigilante activities. I am also considering a career in cult intervention. Now, I find myself in a dilemma, because my ethics in the matter run counter to much of what is legally acceptable in my country. Translation: I think involuntary procedures are justified by the act of extracting a victim from the environment of a destructive cult. I think any means short of personal harm is justified, including kidnapping victims from compounds. I think that involuntary intervention should be a legal enterprise. I believe these things because I think the most humane, most moral thing that can be done for a victim of exploitative mind-control is the attempt to undo the psychological trauma caused to that person by destructive cults like the Church of Scientology, provided that deprogramming includes the specific restoration of a victim's personal autonomy. In short, I think deprogramming should be a vigilante activity. US law doesn't offer blanket protection of religion. US law protects religious freedom. There's a difference. The Church of Scientology, for example, claims to act in defense of religious freedom, but anyone with direct experience of scientology's hierarchy knows that there is no freedom in scientology, only slavery. Slavery is illegal (though sadly, to this day, human trafficking continues). I see a parallel between human slavery and membership in destructive cults, and I wonder if the same laws, or close equivalents, shouldn't apply to both enterprises. We also have the RICO Act, intended to be used against organizations like the Mafia, and the Church of Scientology. Unfortunately, the CoS cloaks itself behind the law, forcing the hands of its opposition. Involuntary deprogramming is the answer to the legal protections that destructive cults enjoy.

Update on Low Activity

2009-01-29T16:19:00.001-05:00

Dear Reader,

The Miner's Canary will be resuming operations in the near future. Zarathustra apologizes for ten days of no activity. Mr. Z's computer is unfortunately down for repairs.

Watch this space.

When the heart of this operation (the CPU; Zarathustra has no heart, of course) is up and running again, we will return to our semi-regular publication schedule.

Thank you,

Your humble blogger,
Zarathustra

God is Anti-Human

2009-01-19T14:57:00.006-05:00

I mentioned in a previous post on the WBC that I had a list of reasons for concluding that Christian theology in its extreme forms is an anti-human religion. It is essentially human self-hatred made into a religion. By choosing to love a God who set humans up to fail by having created a serpent-possibly Satan- who tempted woman, who then tempted man, by believing in the degenerative fall from the trapdoor of paradise (placed there by a loving God), Christianity damns all humanity and simultaneously offers a faux-elitist concept of salvation through piety (in other words, swearing allegiance to an interstellar dictator).

Now, salvation comes at the end of the world. This is a good thing, because, when God destroys the world (arguably acting through Satan at least part of the time), he will appear on Earth as his own son Jesus Christ (say it with me: "Cosmic Jewish Zombie") as a warrior who will destroy Satan and create a new world of universal totalitarianism.

Wow.

So, God is (1) genocidal, (2) dictatorial, (3) said to be all good and in no way evil, (4) supposedly infallible.

Humanity: (1) genocidal, (2) we tend to value personal freedom, (3) guess what the Bible has to say about mankind, and (4) flawed because we used the intelligence given to us by a supposedly infallible God.

God is said to have made us in his image, but at the same time, God is not always anthropomorphized. This is believed to be due to the documentary nature of the Bible, combining the myths of different Israelite tribes, as well as assimilated material from their neighbors and predecessors. So this is commonly taken to mean that God gave us free will. Excusing for a moment the entirely different question of whether free will can be said to exist, God gave us free will and when we tried to learn by eating from the tree of knowledge, this sin of intellectualism and rebellion damned us to a life of suffering.

Christianity is all about suffering. Name me another religion whose symbol is the ancient Roman equivalent of a guillotine.

If God is perfect, than humans should be perfect. But they are not. The very existence of God in the Old Testament, not to mention the New Testament, seems to cause more death than if God had simply been left out of the Bible. God favors the Israelites at first. He's a tribal God, a God who first sends them out as warriors against their neighbors and then become the pariahs of the ancient (and until very recently, the modern) world. These are the same people he later allowed to go through the frakking Holocaust, because, well, he has a plan (yeah, right, so did the Cylons). He has his reasons. And they are mysterious. They are not for humans to know, until the end of times (Revelation or Apocalypse means "un-veiling," though it is frequently confused with the destruction of the world by Jesus, Warrior Prince).

This is why Christian theology renders God antithetical to human existence. It's a good thing that a scientific outlook eliminates the need for such a contradictory secret of the universe.

God, my droogies, is anti-human.

Like war, God is not good for children and other living things.

New Look

2009-01-18T19:32:00.004-05:00

I'll get back to making regular posts in about a week. In the week coming up, my schedule is crazier than most of the religious bullshit I complain about as per the course here.

Sometimes, a person gives you really good advice. The best advice I got recently was to change the text color of these posts, considering that when they show up in yellow against a white background on google reader, they're headache-inducing. Done. Let this be a lesson: never pass up on good advice.

I'm experimenting with a new look right now. It may not be permanent, but I'll eventually get it right.

-Zarathustra

Lori Lipman Brown steps down

2009-01-16T17:22:00.003-05:00

I wasn't planning on making another post today, but then I discovered this in my mailbox. It's not every day that we say goodbye to a great leader, a woman who, as a lobbyist in Washington, DC on behalf of secular Americans, embodied our values and our hopes.

January 15, 2008

Dear Zarathustra,

In 2005, I had the honor of leading the effort to lobby Congress on behalf of nontheistic Americans. While my love for policy and the work of the Secular Coalition for America has grown, so has the organization. In fact, what was expected to remain a lobbying organization with a staff consisting solely of one lobbyist (me), has also grown. This growth is exciting and it is growth that I have pushed for. The Secular Coalition for America now has a staff of six individuals, is involved in many larger coalition efforts, takes the lead on issues of special interest, and is recognized by members of Congress and consulted by the media and legislative personnel regularly.

In short, the Secular Coalition for America has grown to be a powerful and complex organization in fewer than four years. With that growth come new needs. The Secular Coalition for America now needs an executive director, an individual whose expertise is running a major national organization. While I am extremely proud of having birthed this baby, it is time for both me and the Secular Coalition for America to continue to grow. For the organization, this means finding an exceptional leader whose passion is continuing to grow the nontheist movement. For me personally, that growth includes reconnecting to my skill sets in the legal and policy realms, and stepping down as director of this wonderful national organization.

As I embark on a search for my next exciting venture, my wish is that the many wonderful individuals who have supported the Secular Coalition for America will not only continue that support, but increase it as the movement grows. I am forever grateful to this organization for the tremendous experiences it has allowed me to enjoy. I continue to support the Secular Coalition for America and the nontheist movement in the broader sense.

I have thoroughly enjoyed working for the Secular Coalition for America. And I look forward to the future - for me outside the organization, and for the continued success of the organization I helped develop.

Best wishes,

Lori Lipman Brown

Director, Secular Coalition for America

Lori is a truly exceptional person. She fought hard for us, and she won many battles, all while the Secular Coalition for America continued to grow beyond even her expectations. I hope that the Coalition continues to grow, and that Lori's successor will due justice to her name, and the Coalition's.

Lori Lipman Brown has challenged all of us to continue this struggle, and I intend to do her honor by taking that challenge and trying to be half as productive for our moment as Lori was. Lori, your name will not be forgotten. For your actions, your sleepless nights, your headaches and your ceaseless vigilance, I believe this country is better off. Now, you are moving on, and I cannot think of a better send-off than recognition by an admirer.

This blog is not widely read, but if you, dear reader, have your own e-soapbox, I hope that you please take this opportunity to thank Lori Lipman Brown for her service, her efforts, and her successes in protecting the secular character of American civil law.

How to Invent a Religion: Addendum: The Joy of Sect

2009-01-16T16:48:00.005-05:00

Addendum: The Joy of Sect

For use in dividing already existent religions by creating new sects:

1. Start with a concept or an idea so basic that people take it for granted, with the added appeal that it turns a familiar faith on its head:
"Well, who wants to be ignorant when you can have knowledge? Clearly, ignorance is the greater evil."

2. Find the most outlandish way to justify said statement:
"The snake in the garden of Eden had humans' best interests in mind when it tempted Adam and Eve."

3. Play six (or more) degrees of obfuscation:
"Only by studying the Revised Serpentine Bible (available HERE for ONLY $19.99)can one begin to understand the mysteries of Creation. After that, you should move on to the major texts on herpetology. By the way, if you read St. Augustine backwards in a mirror while listening to the Beatles' "I am the Walrus," you'll find secret messages from the Snake Goddess of the Underworld, who is the only true deity. You and only you can decipher these messages."

4. Perpetuate condition #1 in the hope of eternal salvation instead of focusing on this life and this world, and the progress we owe it:
"After you have deciphered St. Augustine's secret messages of the Snake Goddess, you will be ready to fight against Christian ignorance. You must convince the world that it is not knowledge that tempts souls, but ignorance that keeps people from true enlightenment."

Leaping lizards, Batman! This is fun!

How to Invent a Religion

2009-01-16T16:01:00.007-05:00

In case you're interested in starting your own religion, here's a quick step-by-step guide, with examples.

1. Start with a concept or an idea so basic that people take it for granted (example: Life would be so much better without pain and suffering, or Saudi Arabia would be a much better place without rampant hedonism).

2. Find the most outlandish way to justify said statement (example: Pain and suffering are caused by the disembodied souls of billions of persecuted aliens; alternatively, pain and suffering are caused by Satan, whom God, the source of all that is good, allowed to exist/created/still gets to ass-whup in accordance with the best laid plans of angels and other celestial big brother/thought police-types).

3. Play six (or more) degrees of obfuscation (example: Scientology coursework, Biblical apologetics).

NOTE: Steps 2 and 3 are ridiculously easy if one is skilled in the fabrication of sophistry and tautologies. Also, it helps to know your way around your own circular reasoning.

4. Perpetuate condition #1 in the hope of eternal salvation (example: Religion being a cause of pain and suffering, or Saudi Arabia still being a place where men can marry multiple underage girls in the name of God) instead of focusing on this life and this world, and the progress we owe it (because that's how Satan distracts his followers). This is also a great way of gaining converts.

5. Steps 1-4: Hypocrisy. All the way.

This sounds fun. I'm going to try it:

1. Life isn't fair.

2. Life isn't fair because Lawyers twist the law to suit the purposes of their clients, thus perpetuating a hierarchy of the meritocracy by serving only the rich and the influential. They and their legal precedents- a scripture only understood by lawyers and their allies, and used against the people to cheat them- are the reason human beings don't have enough faith in themselves and each other to live without laws. If not for lawyers, we wouldn't need law. The founders of this country didn't create the Constitution as a host to the parasites of legal precedents.

3. The study of law is actually a conspiracy created by so-called professionals who fail to realize just how good humanity can be- better, even- without lawyers twisting the customs of society to keep us all in a state of legal slavery. The dastardly lawyers have even managed to place one of their own in the office of the President of the United States. Clearly, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are tools of the Conspiracy of Law. Law being an illusion created by lawyers, it is antithetical to a free society. However, by subverting the law, we subvert their conspiracy at every turn. We'll always be one step ahead. And one day, when the law and its industry of oppression are abolished, we will live peaceably as man once lived in the ancient, hidden civilization of Anarchia.

4. Every time we subvert the law, we deal a terrible blow to the Conspiracy of Lawyers. However, we are too few to destroy the legal institutions that enslave us once and for all, but with your help... we could be living in a New Anarchia, a Heaven on Earth. (By the way, my anti-Lawyer religion is called Anarchianism. It is copywritten, and I will sue you, dear reader, for distributing my top-secret scriptures to unbelievers).

5. Steps 1-4. Hypocrisy. All the way. (Note that by sueing you, I use the law against itself, thereby furthering my objectives).

The Gospel of Bill Adama

2009-01-16T15:11:00.006-05:00

Admiral Bill Adama, like Jesus Christ, is a fictional character whose actual existence apart from any work of fiction cannot be proven. Bill Adama is also a badass. And he's human. He's flawed. The difference between most people and Bill Adama is that he can admit he's flawed. Only, it's lonely at the top.

If I believed in God, I would believe that Bill Adama is God. Some people believe in Harvey Dent. I believe in Bill Adama.

But just who is Bill Adama?

A Tauranian who overcame Caprican prejudice to become the savior of humanity. A foxhole atheist. A man who understands the danger of religious fundamentalism, and who doesn't give into dogma. God? Maybe.

If the sayings of Bill Adama were collected into verse and published with an ecumenical stamp, it would be better than the Quran. I've gotten some of the best advice in my life from the gospel of Bill Adama. He's helped me with romance, leadership and ethical dilemnas. Like that time I became a de facto dictator...

Admiral William Adama: "There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. "

Here's a man who understands how easily authority can be abused in a time of crisis.

Or, like that time I decided that actually intelligent soldiers weren't good enough, and artificially intelligent supersoldiers were better.

Admiral William Adama: "The Cylon War is long over, yet we must not forget the reasons why so many sacrificed so much in the cause of freedom. The cost of wearing the uniform can be high, but... [very long pause] Sometimes it's too high. You know, when we fought the Cylons, we did it to save ourselves from extinction. But we never answered the question "Why?" Why are we as a people worth saving? We still commit murder because of greed and spite, jealousy, and we still visit all of our sins upon our children. We refuse to accept the responsibility for anything that we've done, like we did with the Cylons. We decided to play God, create life. And when that life turned against us, we comforted ourselves in the knowledge that it really wasn't our fault, not really. You cannot play God then wash your hands of the things that you've created. Sooner or later, the day comes when you can't hide from the things that you've done anymore."

Spoken like a regular philosopher for the everyman, Bill.

Bill Adama dispels the notion that evolution makes atheism a moral black hole:

Admiral William Adama: "Its not enough to survive... One has to be worthy of survival."

Bravo.

Bill Adama also makes me laugh in the toughest situations.

Colonel Saul Tigh: The last batch of passengers kicked up some trouble. Yeh - you get these people to the other side and they think there's a diner and a chef waiting to take their order.
Admiral William Adama: When are they gonna learn? They gotta process the thing first, for frak's sake.
Colonel Saul Tigh: Try telling that to a bunch of empty stomachs.
Admiral William Adama: I hear they're still eating paper. Is that true?
Colonel Saul Tigh: No. Paper shortage.
[Both begin laughing hysterically]
Admiral William Adama: Not a good sign.

And...

Admiral William Adama: I'm not a religious person Mr. Gaeta, as you both know. So if this is the work of a higher power, then they have one hell of a sense of humor.

A man with a sense of humor. Who can appreciate a God with a sense of humor.

Finally, Bill Adama knows a thing or two about being a decent human in an imperfect, sometimes unpredictable world.

Lt. Sharon "Boomer" Valerii: How do you know? I mean, how do you really know that you can trust me?
Admiral William Adama: I don't. That's what trust is.

Possibly the greatest advice your humble blogger ever received. Further demonstrates that Adama, our foxhole atheist god-thing, knows the difference between "faith" as in "trust" and "blind faith" as in religion.

So much better than the Ten Commandments, huh?

Ergo, Bill Adama is God. All infidels will be airlocked by executive order of President and Chief Acolyte Laura Roslin. And in the words of the Archangel Ronald D. Moore, "NO WHINING."

Fuck Godwin's Law

2009-01-16T12:43:00.004-05:00

A friend of mine was recently compared to a "Nazi" because of his pro-choice stance.

Now, you all know exactly how little I think of political correctness. I think political correctness is the equivalent of whining that "life isn't fair!" in the corner like a petulant 13-year old.

I have referred to Dominionism as a fascist ideology on this site, and I don't take it back. The difference between me and a Dominionist is that I don't consider everyone who disagrees with me to be pure evil.

I also referred to the Church of Scientology as a terrorist organization. Keep in mind, I was using a legal definition of terrorism as defined by the United States.

Here is a definition of "Nazi" taken from Wikipedia: Nazism, officially called National Socialism, refers primarily to the ideology and practices of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolf Hitler; and the policies adopted by the government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.

I've heard the abortion=genocide argument, I don't buy it. Abortion is neither systematic nor targeted. No one's preventing pro-lifers from having as many kids as they want (though some days, I wish...), and there's nothing to link the medical practice of abortion to genocide.

A time honored concept, Godwin's Law essentially means that in a debate, the person who first compares their opponent to any historically oppressive or violent movement is considered to have lost that debate. So, the pro-lifer lost to my friend. Of course, the pro-lifer lost not over facts but over etiquette.

Fuck etiquette. What really matters is whether a debater is factually correct in their comparison. I think most pro-choice types would agree there is nothing fascistic about the pro-choice position. Many level-headed pro-lifers would agree to this as well, though they might find abortion morally reprehensible. Those on the militant fringe of the pro-life movement, I would not expect to make even that amount of sense (between the EAT YOUR BABIES and AMERICA IS DOOMED). I maintain that the pro-lifer who called my friend a Nazi was wrong, but I also maintain that I am right to say the things I say here about Dominionism and Scientology.

Actually, I was wrong about Scientology. As the enterprise of Scientology is not a singular organization but rather a mess of legally separate organizations, it is not a terrorist group, but rather a terrorist network. I sincerely apologize for my prior factual error. Take. That.

One more time, altogether: Fuck. Godwin's. Law.

minor edits for clarity

Principle and Theory of Academic Sovereignty

2009-01-16T08:12:00.004-05:00

Education is really important, right?

Glad we all agree.

But here's something you might have not considered: what needs to be done to ensure that academia progresses without being tied back by ideological and business interests? How do we divorce academia from nationalistic, religious and corporate interests?

I have these fantasies of a world wide strike by the intelligentsia, which would hold back our monopoly on intellectual labor, forcing negotiations with the United Nations. One day, this fantasy just might come true. In which case, "You heard it here first."

The Principle of Academic Political Sovereignty

In order to protect our academic freedoms and integrity and to maintain our intellectual honesty, the academies must free themselves from the interests of nations and corporations and operate, for all intents and purposes, as a sovereign political entity in an advisory position to the United Nations and any and all willing and cooperative countries.

The Theory of Academic Political Sovereignty

The participating academies- as many as possible- recognize the following:

1) Though virtually unquantifiable, intellectual labor and capital are overlooked factors of economics that nonetheless contribute invaluably to the global economy, and to the economies of all countries;

2) That intellectual honesty, academic freedom, and scientific integrity are under assault by social conservatives everywhere, as well as by extreme leftists under the banners of multi-culturalism and post-modernism;

3) That this anti-intellectualism is a rampant phenomenon and an impediment to social progress;

4) That the meritocratic nature of academia is unnecessarily in conflict with the equally worthy ideals of populism and egalitarianism that inform the cultural ethics of liberal democracies.

The above being true, the following is proposed:

1) That a strike be called on the part of the world’s intellectual labor force, thus withholding the contribution of intellectual labor and capital to the global economy, calling to attention the necessity of Academic Political Sovereignty;

2) The UN and all participating countries must agree to respect the sovereign political rights of the global academic establishment;

3) That the global academic establishment shall form a geographically dispersed corporate republic, with each university or college functioning as its own corporation, with all employees thereof being shareholders in the academic enterprise, thus enabling the academies to exercise de facto political power through the free market;

4) That a specific list of demands be prepared for negotiation between the intellectual labor force of the global academic enterprise, the United Nations, and all willing and cooperative countries;

And recognize the following:

1) That, though we intend the intellectual labor strike to proceed according to the principle of nonviolent noncooperation, if necessary the global academic establishment will act to protect its interests by any morally justified means, including self defense, if necessary;

2) That, by withholding intellectual labor and capital, we are seeking to change society for the better by allowing the academies to pursue academic freedom, intellectual honesty, the integrity of research, and the unhindered promotion of critical thinking as a human virtue;

3) That, by acting in concert, we commit ourselves to changing the world within our lifetime;

4) That we are in no way Utopians, rather we are the latest generation of pragmatists. The useful idiom, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it,” does not apply when something is truly broken;

5) That such is the state of academia in the hands of national populist and corporate interests that seek to subvert academic freedom and integrity in the name of populism and social conservatism;

6) That the academies, having a monopoly on intellectual labor and capital, are already in a position to declare such a strike and withhold intellectual labor and capital in order to demand our rights according to the theory and principles of Academic Political Sovereignty.

Alien Meth Addicts

2009-01-16T07:48:00.003-05:00

The red text does not represent me being pissed off, this time. It's red because for once, Mars is interesting again.

The last time Mars was this interesting was in the mid-90's. Which can only mean one thing:

Martians.

A report in the journal Science suggests that, as much of the methane on planet Earth was produced by organisms, Martian organisms may be responsible for its abundance on Mars. The existence of methane-producing microbes under the surface of Mars is suggested by the observation of huge methane plumes. While the existence of methane plumes does not necessarily mean microbes are responsible, a microbial hypothesis seems to fit the observed facts better than a purely geological explanation, such as active volcanoes.

Note that the title of this post is intentionally inaccurate. The microbes- if indeed they exist- expel methane, they don't consume it.

The Zarathustra Manifesto: From Middle School Outcast to Activist

2009-01-11T22:06:00.008-05:00

In a perfect world, I would be a Libertarian.

But we do not live in a perfect world. So I am a Technocrat.

In a perfect world, I would be a pacifist.

But we do not live in a perfect world. So I am a vehement believer in the right to self defense.

In a perfect world, I would be a deontologist. I would believe that morality is judged retroactively, by actions.

But we do not live in a perfect world. So I am a consequentialist. I believe that morality should be judged retroactively by results.

In a perfect... enough already. We don't live in one. And in all probability, we never will.

I remember when I was 13 years old, and I struck on a certain realization. I watched "The Matrix," and I was enthralled by the comparison made by a certain "Agent Smith" between human beings and viruses. The realization at the time was that Earth would be so much better off without human beings. But we do not live in a perfect world, and we could not live in a perfect world, for exactly this reason. In that sense, the Lower Merion School District was right to have been concerned when I ran through the halls of my middle school singing, "Humanityyyyyyyyyy is a horrible diseeeeeeeeeeeease and we all deserve to diiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee!"

Thus, I have delved into the darkest reaches of my youth... before I was Zarathustra.

And now... Zarathustra speaks.

A great hero of mine is H. L. Mencken, whose creed was this:

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind- that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overshadowed by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.

I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.

I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty...

I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.

I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech.

I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.

I believe in the reality of progress.

I- but the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than to be ignorant.

Except for the bit about government, I fully agree.

I was kicked out of two high schools. I was, until the age of seventeen, an outcast even from the outcasts. I was... but the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I was a fucked up kid. Long before that, I repeated kindergarten. Not because of academic difficulties, but because I was socially immature.

Even after the age of seventeen, I managed to get kicked out of one of the most elite colleges in the United States. Why? I wish I could say it was because I staged a massive protest. I wish I could say it was because of politics, but no. It was because I had some serious issues. Specifically, I was a very sensitive person, and an insecure person too. That's behind me, but it is not excised. It remains a part of me, even to this day.

Today, I am a successful student activist in the non-theist and secular humanist movements. Today, I can say that there is someone in my life whom I love and whom I would do anything for. Today, I can say that I am on my way to becoming a responsible and productive citizen.

You, dear reader, may never have any idea how far I've come.

I was born as the first child of three in a financially comfortable, middle class Jewish family on Pennsylvania's Main Line, a fact I used to be embarrassed about before I discovered that class conflict was utter bullshit, and my being middle class in no way impacted on my ability to make judgments about the state of this world.

When I was sixteen years old, I was introduced to two things that changed my life forever: marijuana and punk rock. A whole new social door opened up, but in my insecurity I overcompensated: I did some things in the pursuit of getting stoned and impressing my new friends that, to this day, still embarrass me. And that's not even touching on my early college years.

I will not name the institution which first accepted me into college, and did so again after I was asked to leave a first time. Needless to say, I was asked to leave a second time. At that point, I went back to live with my parents. I was 20 years old. Some of my friends were getting their first jobs, their first real apartments. And I was back at home with my parents. How fucking embarrassing, right?

My dad and I had some conflict during this time, but one day, he said something to me that I will never forget (and considering my dad reads this blog, I don't want this to go unmentioned). My dad (who I consider one of my favorite human beings alive) said this to me, which I am paraphrasing: "You impress me. All those times that all the other kids made fun of you, all those times you came home from school in tears, and you still went back, even though you knew what would happen, because you cared about something more than being popular. You wanted to learn. You wanted to be successful."

That was the gist of it. I used to wish I was one of those quiet kids, sitting in back of the class with my emotions guarded so deep inside that I was ice... but I wasn't. I couldn't even be loser-cool. I was just a loser.

I was always in doubt about God. I don't think I ever really believed 100%, but I tried. I was a Jew, a deist, a pagan, and an agnostic before I realized that I was really an atheist. But it was not until very recently that I discovered something called Secular Humanism.

Simply put, Secular Humanism is a worldview or life-stance in which one justifies ethics and morality by appeal to reason, independently of religion. This definition does not do the philosophy justice, but as I came to understand more about it, I realized that I had always been a humanist. I grew up on "Star Trek: The Next Generation," essentially a humanist TV show. I had always believed in the separation of Church and State, even on those days when I had believed in God. I had a lot of admirable but wrongheaded ideas when I was younger, and I am sure that 5 years from now I will regret many of the ideas I currently hold. However, I sincerely doubt that I will ever regret being a Secular Humanist.

As a 22-year old angry young atheist, I joined the Rational Response Squad, a webforum maintained by a group based in my home city of Philadelphia. On their forums, I met a man whom I now consider to be the older brother I never had: !!Mindcore!! AKA Rodrigo. Rodrigo told me about an organization called the Center for Inquiry. After looking into the organization I quickly affiliated my student group with it and several months later, I had the honor of being one of only about two hundred students to attend the Summer Leadership Conference at the CFI's transnational center in Amherst, NY. This summer was something of a formative experience for me. I turned 23, met someone very special to me, and came back with a sense of how I and others can help make this world not perfect, but better. I stopped believing in the need for a perfect world, as I came to realize that the imperfections are what makes life interesting, or what I sometimes call "textured." Since then, I have been working tirelessly to advance the goals of secular humanism, including the promotion of free and critical inquiry in all aspects of life.

Being short on cash, I have been helping CFI for the last several months on a volunteer basis. However, if you are reading this blog, and there is someone like me in your life, or perhaps you are someone like me, I urge you to become a friend of the center by donating to CFI. Normally I do not promote specific organizations on this blog, but for CFI I make an exception. CFI has made a difference not only in my life, but in the lives of all human beings by ceaselessly advocating for human rights and dignity, and promoting an outlook based on science, reason, and compassion without recourse to a totalitarian Sky-Daddy. As a student, my yearly contribution as a friend of the Center is only $20, and a family membership is $80. In economic hard times such as these, we need all the moral support we can get, and the Center for Inquiry is a great source of moral support not just for individuals, or even countries, but for the world. If you are reading this post, I urge you to become a Friend of the Center by making a tax-deductible donation to CFI. As with other organizations vital to contemporary civilization, the Center for Inquiry is threatened by the current economic crisis. With your help, the Center can continue to function as the Think Tank that it has been since its founding in 1991.

Plug over. I am sure there is plenty I haven't said, but I think what I have said is what is of the utmost relevance. If you value the things that I value, or that the great H. L. Mencken valued, I trust that your donation will find its way to the Center for Inquiry. After all, in a perfect world, a Think Tank with the mission of the Center for Inquiry would not have to fear financial crisis, but we do not live in a perfect world. However, as long as CFI is running, our world will be better than it would be without it.

An Upcoming Post

2009-01-11T21:32:00.005-05:00

Very soon (as promised here), I will be detailing my program for Academic Political Sovereignty.

Warning for the weak of heart: shades of "Atlas Shrugged."

Never say I don't keep my word.

Stay tuned, kids.

A Statement of Principles: The Conflict Hypothesis

2009-01-09T14:27:00.007-05:00

Nope, not the Conflict Hypothesis you're probably thinking of.

Let it not be said that I am against religious freedom, as religious freedom protects my right not to be religious and to speak out against the harm that religion does, as well as it protects the rights of the religious to be religious and to speak out against people like me. Many of my early posts on this blog centered around Dominionism and associated ideologies like Christian Nationalism, Christian Reconstructionism, Christian Zionism, and Christian Triumphalism. I am not alone in identifying these ideologies as fascistic in nature. However, I have not called Dominionists "terrorists" for a good reason: they don't fit the definition. For as loud as they are, fascists can still be countered in the public sphere. They may not listen to reason, but if reason can have the last word, then fascism (including religious fascism) can be fought without recourse to illegal means. There's nothing illegal about advocating fascism in a pluralistic society. What is illegal is the destruction of said pluralism.

A US President once said: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

I add a corollary: "Those who make freedom from religion impossible will make religious domination inevitable."

As evidenced by my previous posts, I feel differently about the Church of Scientology and its front groups. Rather than grouping them with the likes of Dominionist fascism, I have called the Church of Scientology a terrorist organization.

Religious freedom is a civil right and a human right, but it is not the only civil right. It is not the only human right. Sometimes, religion is in conflict with other rights. It is at these times that I draw a distinction between religious freedoms and other civil freedoms.

A civil society is a secular society. A secular society means that religious freedom is tolerated, as well as the freedom of the non-religious from religion. This is why I will often use the terms "civil" and "secular" in this context. Secularism does not mean outlawing religion, but a civil society requires that the non-religious be protected from the religious as much as the religious are protected from each other.

Atheism is not a religion. Humanism is a religion to some people. I respect these people, because they understand that though I am a Humanist, Humanism is not my religion. It is my worldview or life stance. I belong to no religion.

When a religious sect endangers the civil rights of its own members, and/or the civil and/or human rights of non-members, that sect has crossed the line, and must be called to answer for its crimes. Neither religious freedom or its corollary, freedom from religion, protects criminal activity.

Within my lifetime, I do believe a legal precedent must be set with regard to reasonable restrictions on religiously-inspired activities. All freedoms come with limits. Freedom does not negate responsibility. It does not negate culpability. And religious freedom isn't the only kind of freedom there is. It's not the only freedom that deserves protection. This is my philosophy of Church-State separation. I call it the Conflict Hypothesis.

This has been a statement of principles.

Definition of Terrorism

2009-01-09T13:10:00.004-05:00

The following is taken from the Wikipedia article for the Definition of Terrorism. There is no internationally agreed-upon definition of terrorism, however this is the definition used in the United States. Any questions?

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism. In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"

Update

2009-01-09T11:28:00.003-05:00

Dear Reader,

I have removed all references on this website to my actual identity. The reasons for this decision should be obvious.

-You Humble Blogger

Big Brother in Clearwater, Florida

2009-01-09T10:59:00.005-05:00

Still don't believe that the Church of Scientology and its front groups are a criminal, terrorist organization?

This twenty minute piece about the Clearwater, Florida police department should change your mind. Separation of Church and State? Not in Clearwater.

Warning: very disturbing.

Great Anti-Scientology Film

2009-01-09T09:40:00.007-05:00

In addition to being a total sci-fi geek, I also have a love for independent films that try new things, so imagine my surprise when I discovered this dramatic critique of Scientology, made available for free on-line distribution.

It is a fact-based dramatization of life inside the Church of Scientology called "The Bridge," made in 2006. I urge everyone to watch this 1 hour, 9 minute long film. It's low budget, and some of the acting isn't up to par, but it's innovative in the way that it confronts Scientology head-on. I watched it last night and was not only entertained but educated. This film (yes, I'm pretentious enough to use the word film near-exclusively when applied to indie projects) is to Scientology what Jesus Camp is to conservative Christianity. And it's just as creepy. Kudos to the filmmaker!

I want to reiterate that I am not without sympathy for the people who have been duped by the CoS. This is why I appreciate how the film takes a very human approach to its protagonist, Diane, an insecure young woman who begins to doubt her faith when she realizes the Church isn't sharing the whole truth with her. Diane's story is utterly believable, disturbingly so. Please, watch this movie.

EDIT: Please also note that several weeks after this film began circulating, the Church of Scientology hired investigators to dig up dirt on the director and scare him into silence. Apparently it worked. At this time, there is no mention of this film on the Director's website, bretthanover.com.

Battlestar Galactica and the Atheist Science Fiction Mythos

2009-01-08T18:37:00.012-05:00

If "Star Trek" promoted secular humanism and sometimes took it for granted, then "Battlestar Galactica" puts it to the test.

Don't worry, I won't quote any Nazis.

I have been meaning to write this post for some time, long before Tom Flynn gave his interview on Point of Inquiry on this topic. After I heard Tom Flynn's interview by DJ Grothe, I decided it was time I started figuring out exactly what form this post would take. Then, about 5 hours ago, I promised someone I would make a blog post today, but that I had to be drunk to do it. Having come back from the Tattooed Mom, I now submit this post to the online community of atheists, agnostics, skeptics, humanists and heretics of all stripes.

A bit of background, first: this summer I was honored to attend a student leadership conference in Amherst, NY, sponsored by an excellent organization, the Center for Inquiry. I arrived at the Center's transnational headquarters at about 9:30 AM. Actually, I was the first student guest to arrive that morning. I had no idea most everyone else would be business-casual, and was somewhat ashamed of my army punk digs ("first, and best dressed" is a good way for an atheist to go, just ask modern SF guru J. Michael Straczynski of Babylon 5 fame).

As I was introduced to the student interns at the Center, and to the other guests as they came, I noticed something interesting: short of sci-fi conventions, I don't think I've ever met so many sci-fi fans. One of the highlights of the conference was a lecture by Bob Price, a biblical scholar who is also an avid fan of popular culture, and especially of the sci-fi, fantasy, and horror genres. Bob's interest in biblical scholarship and his interest in science fiction go hand in hand. After a serious and interesting lecture, we had the opportunity to question Bob in front of the audience. One student asked, semi-seriously, "What happens to the Sci-Fi atheist mythos now that Enterprise (the somewhat unfavorable [or non-existent, according to some fans] Star Trek prequel series) has been canceled?" (I am, of course, paraphrasing, but that was the gist of the question.) Bob's answer will forever live in my memory as one of the most interesting moments of my life: "Who needs Star Trek when you've got Battlestar Galactica?"

Let me explain: for those readers not familiar with the show, Battlestar Galactica is a 2000's re-imagining of a campy (and ironically Mormon) TV show from the 1970's, but that doesn't do it justice. Battlestar Galactica is possibly the best show on television. Even a mediocre episode of BSG (and these are few and far between) is about 500 times better than most of the crap on TV. It is a gritty epic about the last human survivors of a robot holocaust (the 12 Colonies/Tribes) being pursued by their enemies across in space, as the refugees search for Earth, the home of the lost 13th Tribe. It's got a half a season left in its life, and a few TV movie projects, so I won't spoil the rest.

A catchphrase from the show, sort of the Colonial version of "Amen, Brother" or "That's what's up" is "So say we all." And this was the yelled response of many of us to Bob's answer. We yelled it loudly and self-consciously, happy to be in a place where being a Sci-Fi geek was actually a good thing.

One of the interesting aspects of Battlestar are the heavily religious themes in the show. The Colonials- a parallel civilization of humans- celebrate a somewhat tamer version of Greco-Roman polytheism (down to their own versions of fundamentalists, evangelicals, moderates and Mithra Cults, as well as atheist characters who do not share these beliefs, and are not portrayed as nihilistic "hollywood atheists"). The character of Bill Adama (he and Saul Tigh are certainly my favorites) is an atheist military leader in a religious culture. The Cylons- rebelious robots originally built by humans as soldiers and laborers- are militant monotheists on a mission from their "God" to destroy humanity and take man's place. Over 3.5 years, the universe of Battlestar Galactica has been gradually revealed as a universe in which some higher power seems to be controlling events, but to what end? Good thing we've got half a season and a few TV movie projects left, because this is a show where you really do need to watch every episode in order to get what's going on 98% of the time.

Battlestar Galactica enjoys support beyond the atheist community, but as one of the last true space operas still on air, and helmed nonetheless by Ronald D. Moore of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine fame, Battlestar is heir to a science fiction tradition that started in the 1960's when a Secular Humanist named Gene Roddenberry first conceived of a show called "Star Trek." The fact that Star Trek is almost universally known today, even to many people who have never seen a single movie or series episode in the long-running franchise, is a testament to Roddenberry's genius. Roddenberry was a visionary who imagined humanity would one day conquer its darker impulses of war and greed, and create a better world for itself. What does a unified, peaceful civilization do after creating that better world? As Gene Roddenberry originally pitched the show, Star Trek was a "Wagontrain" to the stars. Interestingly, as long as Roddenberry was alive, religion was not envisioned as part of humanity's future. Roddenberry believed that religion would disappear along with war, greed and poverty. Eventually, Roddenberry's health declined, and in the early 1990's, the "Great Bird of the Galaxy" died. Almost 20 years after his death, he is still considered one of the great visionaries of science fiction.

A little more explaining: Star Trek was my first love. Before Battlestar, before Pizza, before girls, I married into the science fiction family. Star Trek was my bride. Star Trek comforted me after bad days at school. Star Trek provided me with a vocabulary that scared other seven-year olds. I grew up on "The Next Generation," and absorbed a lot of my values from Captain Picard, who was often a voicebox for Gene Roddenberry's views. In the Roddenberry days, any time an alien religion showed up, it was shown to be false by the intrepid humans. Granted, there are speciest implications (humans are too smart to be fooled by god-like aliens or computers, but the rest of the galaxy is pretty backward) to this philosophy, but as we have not yet encountered intelligent extra-terrestrials, I'm not worried about those implications yet.

My experience with other atheists, particularly those inclined toward science and philosophy, is that many of us likewise grew up on science fiction. Obviously, not everyone who loves science fiction is an atheist, but many of the theists who watched the same shows and read the same books that we did must have absorbed some of the same values. In the case of Star Trek, at least up until the time of Roddenberry's death, these were overtly humanistic values. I've heard science fiction called the agit-prop arm of secular humanism. Again, obviously, not everyone who writes science fiction is an atheist, but in the golden age of science fiction, most of the greats were: Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke...

The end of an era came sometime around the 1960's. The 1970's and 1980's saw an increasing trend of pessimism in what had once been a genre distinguished by its optimism. Scientists were no longer popular heroes, they were either misguided fools playing God, or they were villains. Science fiction became more about action-adventure than philosophy or even science. However, with Battlestar Galactica, this has come full-circle. As noted, the character of Bill Adama is a rare, positive atheist role model on a modern show. Whether the higher power influencing events in Battlestar is the Cylon God, the Colonial Gods, both, or something else altogether is not yet known, but Adama maintains his integrity as a skeptic by coming to conclusions based on experience and observation, rather than faith in the various prophecies that play a major role in the show's mytharc. In this vein, Adama is the Captain Picard of the 2000's. It doesn't hurt that he is- quite literally- the proverbial atheist in a foxhole. Unlike the bright, optimistic future of Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica has a dirty, desparate, modern and post-apocalyptic tone. Billions of people die in the miniseries, leaving less than 50,000 humans alive. These people escape in crowded ships that weren't designed for long voyages, and by the later seasons are just plain falling apart. Every episode features a (usually) dwindling survival count, and you can be sure if that the show raises your hopes in one scene, those same hopes will utterly demolished, beaten, and shot to death by the end. People get raped and tortured and lose control in jarring emotional outbusts. Things don't get resolved at the end of every episode, anyone can die, and it is in this desperate setting that the humanist values of Star Trek are given the test of survival.

At the heart of my love for this show is the fact Battlestar Galactica seems to be making my "devil's advocate" argument against "hard" atheism, an argument which is simultaneously a case against religion. Early in the show's run, a Cylon character who mixes truth (apparently genuine prophecy) with lies tells his human interrogator that their faiths are more similar than they are different, the only difference being that while he (the Cylon) prays to one god, she (the human) prays to many. On another occassion, a Cylon acknowledges the historicity but not the divinity of Athena and the other "Lords of Kobol" worshipped by the humans. On yet another occassion, Gaius Baltar is told by the Cylon woman he sees in his head, and who may be connected to the higher power influencing the events of the show, that the so-called "Cylon" God doesn't belong to the Cylons exclusively. A human oracle tells a Cylon that she is in contact with the Cylons' God as well as the humans' gods. The point here? With the possible exception of Gaius Batlar's cult in the later seasons, no one's gotten it right. Not the Cylons, not the humans, and not the atheists.

I have stated before that I am an "agnostic" atheist and a skeptic. This means that I am 99.9% sure that there is no god or gods. I do not discount the possibility of a higher power, though I think that such a possibility is so highly unlikely as to be almost impossible. However, gods of human invention- Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Oden, Mithra- are certainly made up. Should a higher power be proven to exist, this would not validate Christianity anymore than it would validate Roman religion, Hinduism, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Even in the case that this is true, that there is a higher power, separation of Church and State would still be essential, and secular, and non-religious values and ethics would still be necessary.

I have remarked previously on this blog that the pantheist concept of God is the only god that does not violate fundamental laws of nature, because it is not a "creator" but rather a process of the universe's own evolution. Part of the mythos of Battlestar Galactica is the Cycle of Time, or eternal recurrence. Basically, everything that happens on the show is said to have happened before, only with slight differences: in one cycle, maybe it was the humans who struck first. Maybe in another cycle, the Cylons created the humans instead of the other way around. In another cycle, everyone spoke Greek, wore togas and futuristic clothing and fought with laser swords, whereas in the current cycle- the setting of the show- humans and Cylons speak English, wear western-style clothing, and wage their war with semi-automatics, assault rifles and nuclear weapons. And maybe, just maybe, these cycles of time are the evolution of God itself. Or maybe not. I'll let Ronald D. Moore figure that out, and eagerly wait for the rest of the show's last season next week.

And now a brief plug. Even if you're not into science fiction generally, give Battlestar a chance. That is all.

-Your Humble Blogger

Learning from History All Over Again

2009-01-05T21:00:00.017-05:00

Warning to the faint of heart- I quote some Nazis in this post. No, I'm not a Nazi. No, I don't support Nazis. But- don't shoot me- I think we have as much to learn from the Nazis as we do from the founding fathers. For all their bigotry, blood-lust and genocide, the Nazis came about because of existing ideologies and social conditions. They didn't arrive out of nowhere. I don't think any history should be ignored, even a history as heinous as theirs. Indeed, such history can be quite educational. At least it's good for a personal rant.

SCHLAGETER: Good old Fritz! (Laughing.) No paradise will entice you out of your barbed wire entanglement!
THIEMANN: That's for damned sure! Barbed wire is barbed wire! I know what I'm up against.... No rose without a thorn!... And the last thing I'll stand for is ideas to get the better of me! I know that rubbish from '18..., fraternity, equality, ..., freedom..., beauty and dignity! You gotta use the right bait to hook 'em. And then, you're right in the middle of a parley and they say: Hands up! You're disarmed..., you republican voting swine! — No, let 'em keep their good distance with their whole ideological kettle of fish.... I shoot with live ammunition! When I hear the word culture..., I release the safety on my Browning!"
SCHLAGETER: What a thing to say!
THIEMANN: It hits the mark! You can be sure of that.
SCHLAGETER: You've got a hair trigger.

---Hanns Johst, Nazi Playwright

This sums up the nature of fascism with the above exchange. A memetic mutation of a line from this exchange, frequently attributed to Hermann Goering, is this: "When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun."

When I was seventeen, I recoiled in horror with a bunch of greasy punks in our corner of the high school cafeteria because we wall knew what was coming: years of ceaseless war and death. A Vietnam in the Middle East.

I was a very different person, then. I believed in very different things. I was a "spiritual atheist," a postmodernist (shiver) "seeker." I thought, wrongly, that war is always wrong, and that human beings could one day absolve ourselves of war. Given how my understanding of human nature has changed, I am very skeptical of any future without war. I think humans can learn to minimize conflict, but sometimes war is necessary. I'm not talking about specific wars, just the general concept of people killing other people in an organized conflict.

The War in Iraq was a mistake. What good came out of it (the capture and execution of Saddam Hussein, and the end to his dictatorship) cannot be compared to the bad: the total failure of any attempt to establish peace in that region of the world.

I have spoken before on this blog about my support for Barack Obama. That support does not come without doubt. I doubt that anyone, any leader, could possibly repair the damage that we have done. I doubt that the masses could repair that damage. I subscribe to an elitist view of history. I think history is made by charismatic men and women who have, at their disposal, a working knowledge of how to manipulate other people into working for them. Simply put, America will live with the consequences of George W. Bush's pre-emptive invasion and subsequent failure to withdraw for a long, long time.

The projected timetable involves more or less complete withdrawal from Iraq by 2011. What happens then? What will the people decide?

I'm afraid to know. I don't trust the masses. There, I said it. I do not trust the masses. I am the furthest thing from a populist on Earth. In the spirit of Sam Harris, I take elitism as a complement. Gaza's election of Hamas and the subsequent eruption of violence between Israel and Gaza has soured my feelings for the Palestinians, who I still believe have been mistreated by the Israeli authorities. I remember how I- when I was 17- reacted to the historical facts of Palestinians shooting Jewish refugees in the streets like a Holocaust denier. The Jews HAD to be wrong. They were white. They were western. Western civilization was the scourge of the Earth. Without western civilization, we'd all be living happy lives as hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists, right?

My real name, by the frakking way, is ______________. Perfect name for a Jewish atheist. An intellectual name, a name with dorky prowess of academic backing. A geek-punk-genetic monstrosity with asthma. A sci-fi fanboy with a love of hardcore. That was me. I was every American Jewish kid at every anti-war protest between 2003 and 2006. In 2003, 2004, 2005... we were all __________. A nation of ___________.

Recently I found a tome of old papers, papers that I wrote... funny thinking back on this, "papers I wrote before I could legally drink." One of them is quite long. 32 pages of an essay, followed by 5 pages of citations. I made the argument that the only thing we had to look forward to was the utter destruction of civilization, and the return, by a few surviving people, to a more primitive way of life. In those days, Technocracy was a blasphemous word to people like me... we were free-spirited, young, angry... utterly full of credulity. Willing to lap up all the crap from the floor just because it tasted different than the crap we knew.

I'm afraid to know what happens when those troops come home. I'm afraid to know how the arch of the Middle East will collapse when we remove the keystone out of popular sentiment. The people once demanded an end to this war, but that would not be justice. Justice is George W. Bush and his cronies at the Nuremberg Trials. Justice is George W. Bush receiving a lethal injection. Maybe they could hang him, just like they hanged Saddam. I'm not ready to say that we've survived George W. Bush yet. This country will be living with the consequences of his actions long after Barack Obama is dead. Probably long after I am dead.

When I was 17, this is what I thought of America:

America was, I thought, like a spoiled child. America was a brat. America was throwing a tantrum. It's comfortable to think of simple analogies, simple metaphors. Simplicity is always comforting. I have managed, within the last few years of my life, to build a kind of reaction to simplicity. It's helped me through difficult times, through many personal crises. Now, I wonder if my inbuilt reactions aren't preventing me from seeing something else: a different America.

I came to appreciate complexity. I embraced complexity. And I rejected simplicity. Have I become jaded? The complexities of the human brain- specifically how human beings can convince themselves to "want" what rationally no one should "want"- astounds me. I realize that as intelligent and self-conscious as I might be, I will never overcome my own humanity. My only hope that, to paraphrase Nietzsche, humanity may overcome itself by these means:

Youth and Intellect- maybe a better breed of fool?
Technology- you've all heard my soapbox on progress.
Long-term planning- you've heard this soapbox, too.

If we don't dramatically restructure the relations of power in our society very soon, we could be extinct. We poison ourselves with our permissiveness. We value style over substance. These discordancies are what led me as a teenager to believe in the need for a new primitivism, a chance to start over. But my studies of real life primitives have revealed their societies to be anything but ideal. Given the choice, I'd rather keep society running. We'll keep the lights on for as long as we can. When I was 17, I was at war with rationality. Call me a turncoat. Call me a traitor. Call me a hypocrite. Call me anything. Green eggs and frakking ham. To paraphrase a virtually unknown poet: "I've invented myself so well I can't escape."

What does this have to do with Iraq? Read that list again: Long Term Planning. Centralized Planning. Such an endeavor necessitates a ready and willing intellectual elite- a new American Intelligentsia- the intellectual as a social force. All I'm saying is... don't be surprised if 2011 seems like a long time ago in a few years. Just like 2003 seems to me right now.

Whoever said "inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" missed the point. Emerson, or Thoreau. One of those fools. A lesser breed of fool, given much needed hindsight.

I talk this big deal about society, when the truth is, I and all the __________s have been so alienated from society that we can never imagine returning. So we hold on to our studded leather jackets, our head bandannas and our steel toed boots. We hang on to these last vestiges of childhood because we've been conditioned since birth to think of society in a way that society cannot be if we want it to continue. I cannot even begin to list, in this short space, the challenges that the world will throw at us, forcing us to adapt or die.

When I started this blog, it was with the express intention of assassinating sacred cows. Yours, mine... I won't stop. The target of my gun has not yet fallen on democracy, on justice, on freedom... but some day it might. As a good skeptic I cannot discount the possibility that I, the radical of yesterday, may be the conservative of tomorrow. One of these days, I could reach for the safety catch of my Browning... and whereever that gun points, well, that will be an interesting day.

A Brief Guide To Dealing With The Religious- Addendum

2009-01-05T17:04:00.005-05:00

I'm a bad blogger. I forgot something very, very important.

Mormonism:

MOTTO: "Which of my wives forgot to pick up my magic underwear from the laundromat?"

Very similar to Christianity in both flavors ("Sugar" and "Darth"), with a twist... imagine Scientology without the Space Opera, and you have Mormonism. These guys actually wanted their own semi-theocratic state in the Union. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for Utah. I could never pledge allegiance to a flag with a star representing the State of Deseret. Recently, the Mormon Church has earned well-deserved scorn from those of us who live in the 21st Century, due to their support of Proposition 8 and similar legislative measures designed to prevent homosexuals from marrying. The origin of the Mormon Church might have been as a tax shelter (like the money-making scheme of Scientology). Mormons have something of an alternate history approach to... well, to actual history. Specifically they think Native Americans are descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel. Much of Mormon theology is an attempt to account for the conspicuous absence of the North American continent in the Bible, while maintaining the myth of that book's innerrancy.

And, oh yeah... POLYGAMY! To quote a great philosopher, "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

At least Mormonism gave us "Battlestar Galactica." Er, I mean, "Mormons IN SPACE!"

A Brief Guide To Dealing With The Religious

2009-01-05T14:09:00.018-05:00

The following is to be taken with a grain of salt, and served with laughter. It is a brief encyclopedia of several major religions an atheist in America could reasonably expect to encounter. It is not a run-down of major world religions. However, there is a serious point to this: I think it is a mistake for "politicized" or outspoken atheists to treat religious belief as a monolithic thing. A Christian is not the same as a Muslim, a Muslim is not the same as a Hindu, and a Hindu... don't get me started on Scientology.

Also, if you are offended by politically incorrect humor, you might not want to read this post.

Atheism:

MOTTO: "First, and best dressed." (Formerly, "To boldly go where no one has gone before.")

This is a lack of belief in a God or Gods. It is not a belief system, nor is it a religion. The modern philosophy most closely associated with atheism is Secular Humanism, a "world view" or "life stance" which focuses on using reason as a basis for living ethically, and rejects supernaturalism in favor of a more scientific worldview. But if you ask the Christians, we're baby-eating Devil worshippers. Who eat babies. And worship the Devil. And eat babies. Did I mention we eat babies?

Agnosticism: Refers to not necessarily believing in a god/gods, but not discounting the possibility either. There is much overlap with atheism. Some atheists- particularly the more philosophical and/or scientific types- describe themselves as "agnostic atheists." What this means, essentially, is that "God(s) may or may not exist... but YHWH, Brahma, Elohim, and Zeus are probably made up. Alternatively, there might not be a God." To not be sure is to be agnostic, and most atheists who identify as "skeptics" are at least technically agnostic, too. Agnosticism is not to be confused with apatheism, or simply not caring whether or not these things exist.

Buddhism:

MOTTO: "There is a method to the madness."

An export from the Indian subcontinent that rose to prominence in Asia much as Christianity did: through war and proselytizing. Then the Beats brought it to America. In its undiluted eastern forms, actually a somewhat materialistic philosophy centered on personal fulfillment in this life and this world. Unfortunately, in the hands of trendy young westerners, it has adapted to fit within the New Age category of bullshit. Note that the trendy, westernized version of Buddhism is usually portrayed as a religion of peace, whereas West Asian history contains several major wars fought over the patronage of Buddhist cave temples and other holy sites.

Christianity:

SUGAR MOTTO: "Jesus loves X."

DARTH MOTTO: "God hates X."

We all know the story, God loved the world so damn much that he used a talking snake to set us up to fail, and our only chance for redemption lies in a Cosmic Jewish Zombie. Oh, and by the way, symbolic cannibalism is cool, but God hates birth control, abortionists, evolutionists, homosexuals and feminists. There are many types of Christian, from Catholics to the various Protestant factions, but usually (and especially among the Protestants) they boil down to two distinct flavors, both dangerous in their own way:

"Sugar" Christians: Seemingly happy and well adjusted, they just want to spread the gospel. They can be annoying and foolish, but the only real harm they pose is in their ceaseless attempts to convert others into anti-scientific boobs. May or may not be white. Expect to meet God when they die. When interacting with atheists, they come off as condescending and patronizing. Named for the syrupy tone of their condescencion.
"Darth" Christians: The militant, angry, hateful "God hates fags" crowd of Christians who pray for God to wreak genocide on the Earth and to punish humanity for trying to be smarter than snakes (no offense to snakes, I have nothing against them). These are like the loud, drunken frat boys of Christianity. When interacting with anyone who does not share their closed minded view of the world, they come off like... well... fascists, actually. They are almost always white. Named for Darth Vader.

Deism:

MOTTO: "To infinity... and beyond!"

An admirable evolutionary outgrowth of Enlightenment Christianity that dispensed with 99% of the bullshit in the Bible. Deists believe in the "Watchmaker" God, who set physical laws in order basically so the universe would know what to do with itself. The Deist God does not interfere in human affairs or work miracles. Not really a religion so much as it is a single theological position. Deism is similar to, and frequently confused with, Pantheism.

Hinduism:

MOTTO: "How many gods am I holding up?"

There are a LOT of gods. I mean, a big whopping load of gods. Hinduism has more gods than "Lost" has characters. The fundies are similar to Christians in their xenophobia and prejudices against Muslims and Buddhists and other outsiders, but Hinduism has been given the historical shaft by Christianity. If indeed M-Theory proves true, and this is only one of an infinite number of possible worlds in the multiverse, expect a planet ruled by narrow-minded Hindu fundies somewhere that basically looks like a Christian Theocracy... except with a LOT more gods. It's not that hard to imagine. India has a fair deal of religious violence, and it's not just the Muslims and the Christians who are behind it. Not widely practiced in America. While most American Buddhists are converts, most American Hindus were born to Hindu parents.

Islam:

MOTTO: "Allahu Akbar!"

Started as a kind of religious "reform movement" in opposition to the perceived hedonism of the Arabian peninsula at the time... and currently the biggest threat to global safety short of weather and earthquakes. No kidding. Well, it doesn't help that Muhammad, likely an epileptic whom Muslims believe was a prophet of God (Allah), took over a city with his army after a couple of years of exile. Not to be confused with the Nation of Islam. May very well resemble the future of Christianity, if things get really, really bad for America. My feeling is that Islam is in its last stretch. Coupled with abhorrent living conditions, this stresses some people out enough to the point where they are willing to blow themselves and their children up, just to kill a few infidels. When a religion reaches this point, it's pretty transparent and desperate.

Judaism:

MOTTO: "Hear, oh, Israel..."

Mostly harmless. God hates shellfish for some odd reason (probably ancient Hebrew rivalry with the ocean-going Phoenicians), and there's a great academic tradition of scholarly debate. However, the fundamentalist Jews, especially the Hasidim, are as sexist and ignorant as the most scientifically illiterate Christians. Before atheists, Jews were the people most frequently accused by Christians of eating babies. Also, they are said to control Hollywood. This is an exaggeration. The Jews do not control Hollywood. The Jews only invented American comedy and musical theatre.

Nation of Islam:

MOTTO: "Whoever did it second, the black man did it first."

A 20th century supremacist liberation theology eerily similar to what Scientology might have looked like if L. Ron Hubbard had been a Black Panther (no offense to the Black Panthers, I have nothing against them either).

Neo-Paganism:

MOTTO: "Blessed be."

Like the milder forms of Judaism, mostly harmless. They don't launch attacks on science or the mental health profession (usually), and they don't really bother anyone except Sugar Christians and Darth Christians, who may believe them to be Satanists and are unwilling to consider otherwise. There is much overlap between Neo-Pagans and New Age, especially when particularly credulous individuals are concerned. Neo-Pagans are likely to describe themselves as "spiritual" as opposed to "religious." If under 18, have hope: it might be just a phase on their way to non-belief. The younger the Neo-Pagan is, the more likely their Neo-Paganism is a form of healthy rebellion against their parents, and possibly against their religion of birth/childhood. Unlike most religions, Neo-Paganism is quite comfortable with women in positions of authority.

New Age:

MOTTO: "Ooh... Energy!"

A number of very... creative... people buy into crystals, shakrahs, astrology and re-incarnation. Not so much a religion as an eclectic constellation of rituals, practices and beliefs, including blatant and sophist misconceptions of science that have earned the (rightly) scornful name of "Quantum Mystic Mumbo Jumbo" (such as false claims about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or the "10% of the Brain" Myth). May overlap with Neo-Paganism. Runs counter to much of what we know about the natural world. It's far less harmful than the major religions, but the fact that so many Americans believe in crap like astral projection and mind-over-matter probably doesn't help us compete academically with other countries like India, England and Israel, just to name a few of the many, many countries that graduate far more scientists than the States. Just saying, it's not only the Jesus-Freaks dumbing down American culture. The falsehoods associated with New Age are very powerful memes, and they may be here to stay for a while. Note that most people within this category or overlapping with it would probably consider themselves open minded free-thinkers. If you ask us, it's been said that they forget to keep their minds only open enough so their brains don't leak out.

Pantheism:

MOTTO: "We're all God."

Similar to Deism, with a crucial difference. Pantheism posits that the Universe, indeed everything in the Universe, is God. In other words, whereas Deism claims "Creation" or at least "Intelligent Design," Pantheism claims neither, and most pantheists would think of God in anthropo-cosmic terms of the universe becoming self-aware (we come to know God spiritually as we come to more fully understand our lives and our existence scientifically). While certainly a theological position, it is hard to call Pantheism a "religion" like the major Abrahamic monotheisms. Along with Deism, Satanism and Atheism/Agnosticism, Pantheism is one of a rare few theological positions that aren't inherently anti-scientific or anti-naturalistic.

Satanism:

MOTTO: "Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!"

Not actually Satan-worship, but more like a self-acknowledging, tongue-in-cheek parody of religion. Sort of like Libertarian Unitarian Universalists with a twisted and refreshing sense of humor. Many are also atheists or agnostics. Like Secular Humanism and Buddhism, it's not so much a religion as a philosophy. However, unlike the other two, it takes on a macabre tone as something of a loose parody of Christianity. Satanism tends to be pretty utilitarian. Some would call it hedonistic, but that is a misconception. While some Satanists are hedonists, not all Satanists are hedonists and not all hedonists are Satanists (in fact, some of the biggest hedonists around are Darth Christians).

Scientology:

MOTTO: "Oh, that whole Xenu thing was made up by the writers of South Park."

Little vitriol can be saved describing this dangerous, destructive cult created by a pulp science fiction writer. Most practicing Scientologists are, like many religious believers, decent but credulous people who are being taken advantage of by con artists. However, the Sea Org (Sea Organization) is a Church paramilitary that suppresses freedom of speech, and freedom of inquiry. Like many mainstream religions attack the natural sciences, Scientology smears hard-working mental health professionals. Responsible for the single largest infiltration of the US Federal Government in all of American history. Suppresses free speech by trying to ruin the lives of its critics. Breaks up families. Also responsible for several deaths due to negligence and neglect. Scientology's brutal tactics have led me to conclude that the late L. Ron's Church should be added to the list of Domestic Terrorist Organizations. If the Earth Liberation Front is a DTO, then where's Scientology on that list? I'm waiting for an answer. Waiting... waiting... going once, going twice... moving on. Next...

Unitarian Universalism:

MOTTO: "Most of my best friends are atheists."

Really not a bad group of people. They appreciate skepticism and comparative studies of religions. Some of them believe some pretty wacky things (see: New Age), but most of them are quite rational, and a number also identify as agnostic or atheist.