America’s celebration of ignorance

Posted on September 26, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

“Deplorable” does not apply to half of Trump supporters—as Hillary Clinton exaggerated, then retracted—but it definitely applies to Trump himself. Since founding of the republic voters have had wildly diverse opposition to candidates’ positions, but we’ve long assumed they at least expect character . . . and that’s what Donald J. Trump lacks. This blog is not normally meant for political commentary, but the possibility of a distressingly unsuitable candidate for presidency of the world’s most powerful country is hard to put aside. “Unqualified” is too weak an adjective, one that could easily be applied to George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, along with many Democrat and Republican down-ballot politicians. But Mr. Trump goes beyond that. He is, as a person, by character and ethics, unfit to be a school principal, much less president.

Yet current, pre-debate polling suggests that roughly half of Americans will vote for him over Hillary Clinton in November. Two reasons promoted for that prospect are (a) Secretary Clinton is worse than he, untrustworthy and even disastrous, and (b) Americans in great numbers are unable to discern Trump’s unacceptability for office.

Secretary Clinton is not an unflawed candidate, though she has outstanding experience, a deep and thoughtful “policy intellect,” and has been vetted far more than any of this year’s aspirants. Further, few candidates have ever had as much spent on destroying them for decades as she. However, even though costly investigations proved no or insignificant guilt, in the twisted world of politics her opponents shamelessly cite the multiple investigations—instigated and controlled by her political opponents themselves—as proof of guilt!

Meanwhile, large changes in conservative circles over the past few election cycles have led to more fact-challenged politics since, arguably, the vitriol of the Adams-Jefferson campaign. Chief among the causes are fundamentalists’ theocratic incursion into conservative politics and the unprecedented influence of a specifically conservative media source. (I dealt with these phenomena in my posts, “Democrats vs. theocrats,” Jan. 30, 2016; “Flirting with theocracy,” Feb. 7, 2016; and “Batshit crazy, the stupid party,” Mar. 15, 2016.) The former inserted into political discourse “moral majority” beliefs with their uncompromising “God’s on our side” attitudes. The latter, Fox News, catered to conservative voters’ desire for “facts” tailored to their biases, as shown in reputable surveys to be at the expense of actual knowledge of domestic and international affairs.

The steady drum-beat of disinformation was mirrored in escalating internet falsehoods posing as—and by gullible millions mistaken to be—reality. Donald Trump—though a participant through his ridiculous “birther” claims—was not so much a cause of the evolving anti-science, fact-free swamp, but was by character well-matched to emerge from and exemplify it. To an alarming extent, facts just came not to matter. Emotional expression of angry voters were good enough to establish, or at least to satisfyingly mimic, truth.

The facts-don’t-matter environment transformed Hillary Clinton’s image. She has made some high profile mistakes, but partisan politics transformed those errors into a reputation for lying habitually, killing diplomats, and setting the Middle East on fire. Her almost unparalleled decades of public service and dedication to children and families mattered not. Some of her shortcomings were real (e.g., judgment about emails), many were manufactured (e.g., Benghazi, liability for President Clinton’s behavior), and some, as noted above, consisted of blaming her for being blamed itself (e.g., the multiple accusations instigated and pursued by Republicans that came to little or naught). The unrelenting behavior of far right Republicans and the unceasing disinformation from Fox News have, perhaps more than instances of Clinton’s actual missteps, led to findings by a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that voters by a ten-point margin judge Trump to be more honest than Clinton! That is about a man whose every appearance is likely to include lies. That is but one of the staggeringly bizarre comparisons, one similar to criticizing Clinton for her irritating secretiveness while dismissing Trump’s suspiciously hiding his tax returns.

My trepidation in this whacky presidential campaign goes much further than Trump, though I don’t want to understate his unsuitability for office. He is, of course, shallow, immature, blustering, reckless, narcissistic, arrogant, and deceiving. But he might lose the election, for perhaps most Americans, recognize him for what he is. In fact, it may be that most Republicans do as well; certainly the number of informed, thoughtful conservatives who have renounced him is telling. Still, he might win and subject the country to years of recovery from his damage—a post-Bush phenomenon on steroids. But win or lose, there’s a longer term worry. The campaign has revealed that there are millions of angry, ill-informed voters, many with honest grievances capable of being duped and manipulated by such a fraudulent candidate.

This election is not just about two different political philosophies. In fact, it’s hard to find enough coherence in Trump’s positions—even if they held still long enough for inspection—to deserve the word philosophy. If he governs by anecdote just as he campaigns, if uses presidential power to punish opponents just as he uses personal bullying, if as president he overlooks what most of us learned in 8th grade civics, if he treats national obligations as he’s treated his own as a businessman, if he seems never to know what he doesn’t know . . . the only philosophy that can be patched together is whatever at a given time pleases Donald.

A republic needs an informed, fact-conscious electorate; at our best we skate near the precipitous edge of that requirement. Trump endangers America at the critical core of governance, for his bombastic celebration of his own ignorance fosters that precarious, yet seductive attribute in the electorate. Clinton’s reputed shortcomings multiplied tenfold are not even in Trump’s league.

Posted in Politics | 3 Comments

Islam – 2

Posted on September 14, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

In my post “Islam – 1”  (June 28) I promised further “musing” about this fraught topic. Of more than 130 in this blog thus far, these posts on Islam involved the most time and led to the most consternation. Americans’ predominant concerns about Islam are religion-inspired violence and threat to church/mosque-state separation. Despite all that I’ve learned, still the most obvious preparation I bring to the subject amounts to troubled ignorance.

There is far too much to Islam for an amateur to explain, of course, but let me relate some of my preparation, augmented a bit from what I claimed in “Islam – 1”. I’ve read the entire Quran (Mohammed’s recording of Gabriel’s messages from Allah) and some of the extensive Hadiths (doctrinally important stories, though clearly secondary to the Quran). I’ve read modern books critiquing the faith and its history, visited a mosque for its afternoon prayers and an Islam orientation, and had a brief discussion in Washington with the executive director of Ex-Muslims of North America. I visited Tunisia shortly after the start of the ill-fated Arab Spring. (Having drinks—yes, alcoholic—in a bar in that almost 100% Muslim country was experientially useful. At least I told myself that.)

Islam is like other theistic religions in that it is based on nothing that can reasonably be considered evidence. From my humanist perspective, however, current Islam is immeasurably worse than current Christianity (excluding Dark Ages Christianity and Islam’s milder periods). It is not that Christianity has avoided cruelty and violence, but that most of its bad behavior was curbed by martyrs and philosophers of the Enlightenment. It is also not that the Christian God is a kinder character than Islam’s Allah, for (a) the two religions share the same Old Testament with its brutal Jehovah and (b) Jesus’s introduction of eternal punishment by fire was arguably more cruel than Mohammed’s message of killing humans. So I’ll regard that as a toss-up.

There are disagreements within Islam so great as to lead to violence. That’s nothing new to Westerners since our 2003 attack on Iraq taught Americans about Shia/Sunni antagonism. It seems to me, however, the more important distinction for non-Muslims to recognize is the one between Salafism and Sufism—essentially a distinction of severity of interpretation. Although radical Islamist extremists can arise from either Sunni or Shia groups, extreme aggressiveness is more in line with Salafism. (Osama bin Laden and Wahhabis are examples of Sunni Salafists.) Being opposed to separation of civil authority and religion, Islam is theocratic in the extreme, a characteristic that should be of concern to Western democracies. Further, while charity is important enough to be one of the “pillars of Islam,” the charitable attitude is not extended to religious liberty or blasphemy.

Islamic texts and discourse focus on the importance of monotheism. They refer repeatedly to Christianity as polytheistic. Muslims consider Christianity’s Trinity to prove their point. (Judaism, without the Trinity doctrine, is not so considered.) If you wonder why Muslims shout that only God is god, that is a refutation to religions that claim more than one god, such as (in their view) Christianity.

The Quran and spoken references to Allah are frequently strewn with honorific language for Allah, far more than is normally the case with Christians. The “Most Gracious,” the “Most Merciful,” the “Living,” the “Self-Sufficient,” the “Infinitely Enduring,” the “Most High,” the “Supreme,” the “Protector,” and on and on repeatedly. Of course, one would have to admit that if there were an Allah, no amount would be too much. So I point it out not as a criticism, but to distinguish it from normal Christian language.

Well, that, and for one other reason. Muslims are known to pray five times a day (there are variations) and to do so as a group when convenient or when it is time for Friday prayers. Much of the prayer is prescribed, enhancing the psychological effect of an oft-repeated mantra. Christians have a prescribed prayer as well—the “Lord’s Prayer”—but it is not used with nearly the frequency of prescribed Muslim prayers. Taking time to pray several times a day seems to me to keep even the typical Muslim more in touch with his or her religion than the typical Christian. I offer that as a gut feeling rather than an assumed fact—and, at that, a gut feeling about a group statistic, not individuals. These things, along with the theocratic design of government, prescribed gender roles, dress, and speech may have much to do with what a Westerner would experience as the Islamic entanglement of virtually everything with religion. Again, an opinion: so much immersion in Islam would have a suffocating effect upon any new thing, custom, action, or thought, due to having first to be strained through an Islamic filter.

A word about that filter. The primary book, as everyone knows, is the Quran. Muslims point out that it is truly and literally the Word of Allah. The Bible is not; it is a book by men who often claim to be speaking for God. The Quran, on the other hand, is the product of Mohammed’s taking down dictation from on high—communicated through Gabriel, but directly from Allah nonetheless. Moreover, it is only officially the Quran when in the original language, Arabic. Translations into English and many other languages are convenient and, they claim, largely accurate, but not the real thing.

That “real thing” is the master filter, even though there are disagreements about how it is to be interpreted. There are even more disagreements about the many Hadiths written not by Mohammed, but by others often about Mohammed. Hadiths are graded as to their reliability (genuineness in reflecting the true faith) and, consequently, not all Muslims agree as to their reliability “scores.” It is hard to get an accurate count of Hadiths. Some estimates go as high as 80,000, but those widely considered to be Sahih (“authentic”) Hadiths number just in a few thousand. (These are divided into Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadiths and Sahih Al Muslim Hadiths, depending on the imam who selected them). Got it? There’ll be a test…or, at least, you might expect one if you are Muslim.

Thus Muslims can boast, with a formidable case, that the Quran has a more direct line to its source than the Bible. The New Testament, for example, reached us despite several major obstacles, each of which threaten what many Christians claim it to be. That is another discussion, but suffice it to say, not only do we have no original writings of what became the New Testament, we don’t even have copies of copies of copies, some of which crossed from one language to another, all of which depended on scribes’ grueling attempts at accuracy and freedom from bias. In fact, it wasn’t until the fourth century that a selection of the eventual 26 New Testament “books” was largely accepted and the numerous competitors tossed aside. Unfair comparison or not, you can see why Muslims contend that the Quran more certainly comes from God/Allah than does the New Testament.

But all these considerations leave unanswered whether Americans should be worried about the spread of Islam and, if so, what can be done about it. As I stated in my opening paragraph, arguably the greatest of those concerns are whether (a) religious violence present in much of the Islamic world will become a feature of American life and (b) sharia law will become widespread in America.

Very few non-Muslim Americans think that all Muslims excuse or are prone to violence. Many understand that some Muslims do not support sharia as the civil law. (For this post, I gathered a great deal of data about the percentages of Muslims living in a couple of dozen countries who support having sharia as the law of the land in their own countries. That and reams of other data have been omitted in order to avoid making a book out of this.) Yet there is a fear in America that fundamentalist Muslims exert greater influence over other Muslims than their numbers warrant. In other words, bad apples spoil the whole bushel . . . and most good apples seem to be reluctant to speak out.

A point about sharia law: Sharia law is not a specific body of laws. It can be viewed as the religion of Islam converted into the civil law. In a theocracy, that is the natural state. I’ve never seen the case made, but I suspect one could say that much of Europe had a similar overlap of religion and civil laws during the Dark Ages, rather like we had our own Christian sharia. The reason it is not a specific body of laws is that its form depends on whose interpretations of Islam are being used. In other words, it varies—to put this in only slightly strained Christian terminology—with which denomination is proclaiming it.

Muslims do not unanimously find Sharia desirable and, to my surprise, are split on whether it should apply to non-Muslims even if adopted as general law. Moreover, some Muslims living in predominantly non-Muslim countries may be willing to leave murder and other serious offenses to the non-Muslim courts, while assigning family disputes and such to a Sharia process. Islam is theocratic, to be sure, but in a more nuanced way than I would have believed. (For persons interested in the details, I recommend research done by the respected Pew Research Center for Religion in Public Life.) It is only partially comforting that internationally most Muslims say that suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam are “rarely or never” justified (92% in Indonesia, 91% in Iraq, 86% in the US). These numbers appear to be shifting with time.

Whatever the actual percentages about Americans’ comfort with religious violence and with religion-based law, we are still presented with large policy quandaries. Sure, your next door neighbor Muslim is probably as offended by religious violence as you are. Quite likely he or she is no less or no more bothered by local laws that aren’t patterned after Islam as your Baptist neighbor is about local laws not modeled on Christianity. But in sociology and in politics it is the group statistic that is important. If Islamic proportions in the population were increased—say, to 60% Muslims (or 60% Baptists)—the political tone would undoubtedly be different, with profound effects on non-Muslims and Muslims alike.

In other words, there is a foreboding group issue here that cannot be overlooked, even while we are committed as ethical, caring persons to be tolerant, accepting, and liberal about individual Muslims.

Consequently, I feel compelled to write an “Islam – 3” post before I can let go of this topic. I want to share one further thought concerning the central question that spawned this Islam series: What can current Americans do to lessen at least one source of the fears, with minimal or no sacrifice of ideals fundamental to America?

Posted in Church and state, Politics | 3 Comments

Sunday at church on Gay Pride day

Posted on August 16, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

My wife and I went to church a couple of months ago; a rare experience for us both. Invited by close Canadian friends in Toronto, we attended the Sunday morning service of their liberal Protestant congregation. We were honored to be asked and greatly impressed by much of what we heard and saw. Because this was the weekend of Gay Pride festivities, the day’s topic focused on love and respect for those long callously treated (by Christians as well as others) due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The theology of this group differs from many Christian churches in North America. The latter have until recently been more focused on the sin of “unsanctified” sex than on acceptance of love and pleasure outside rigid fundamentalist norms. In the view of most Christians in the past and many still today, sexual behavior is something in need of being sanctified. In its effect on the human experience, this “bad unless shown to be acceptable” approach differs greatly from “acceptable unless shown to be bad.” Sexual behavior should be constrained, of course, by the same ethical standards as other conduct. (For most humanists, the ethical limit is acting against the survival and flourishing of others rather than the alleged displeasing of a deity.)

Consequently, there is nothing in gay, transgender, lesbian, or, for that matter, “normal” sex in and of itself that has any moral implications. (The wide-ranging and outrageous concept of sin is addressed in a number of my posts, including “Sin,” July 18, 2014; “The sin of sin,” Jan. 2, 2015; “Escaping the evil of sin,” Jan. 20, 2015; “Sin and evil,” Jan. 18, 2015; and “The immorality of religion’s morality,” July 18, 2016. Posts dealing specifically with homosexuality include “Being civil about gay marriage,” June 30, 2013; and “Gay pride?” Nov. 16, 2013.)

In other words, unethical acts are unethical acts whether sex is involved or not. Sex acts themselves need not be a special category of ethics any more than is highway construction or hair style, though a person could be unethical about both. However, love and pleasure have long been subject to religion-inspired opprobrium. Indeed, to describe a person as immoral is more likely to suggest engaging in unapproved sexual behavior than in cheating a vendor, breaking promises, spreading rumors, or being unfair.

Much of Christianity over the centuries has seemed to take pride in how many things it can label as wrong, as if a moral code is better to the extent it denies sources and types of pleasure and happiness. (Further treatment of these topics can be found in my posts “Secular humanism goes beyond atheism,” Oct. 24, 2015; “Morality in secular humanism,” Mar. 16, 2015; “Morality is too important to be left to religion,” Jan. 2, 2014; “The moral neutrality of extramarital sex,” Mar. 28, 2015; “What’s in a word, say, ‘marriage’?” Apr. 29, 2015; “Lust,” June 16, 2015; and “Lust still OK, damaging sentient beings is not,” June 25, 2015.)

Our host congregation in Toronto exhibited a refreshing absence of intolerance of homosexuality we would have expected in many other Christian settings and in most Muslim settings. Of course, there may still be a modicum of bigotry in the congregants of even a liberal church. But in this one I discerned none and breathed freer air because of it. During the entire service and coffee-room chats that followed, I was aware of only acceptance, inclusion, and recognition of dignity. Additionally, beyond the gratifying liberality about previously taboo sexual behavior, something else struck me that related to the chief (if not solitary) true benefit of churches and similar religious organizations: the creation and nurturance of community. In a modern, especially urban society persons can be alone while in a crowd. Religious congregations perhaps more than any other institution can go far to rectify that estrangement (unrelated to whether their beliefs are true). I felt that warmth at work in this group.

Having said that, liberal Christians are still Christians and that implies belief in a supernatural authority that has rules for behavior, an afterlife with promised reward and threatened punishment, and commands to worship Jesus. But even humane conduct when based on faith has a built-in problem. When a field of inquiry is undisciplined by reason (as a greater or lesser part of every religion must be), it is impossible to predict where the untethered reckoning will take it. Bend a bit one way and you get a cruel treatment of unbelievers; bend a little another way, and you get great acts of kindness. If one person’s conviction points to one god or one dogma while another person’s points to a different one, how can inquiry ever be a shared, productive human endeavor?

When reason is not the common denominator, the foremost human tool loses its utility. Faith brings a necessary dilution of reason—that’s why it’s called faith—so that discrediting a faith-based doctrine that happens to lead to harshness simultaneously indicts the similarly unreasoned process that happens to lead to a gentler, humanistic world. In other words, even the kindest of religions bears an uncomfortable genetic kinship with the most brutal.

This is not to say that reasoned change at the margins can’t occur. When a person’s sense of kindness or helpfulness (humanistic values) are in opposition to his or her religion’s teaching, he or she must suppress one resource at the expense of the other. Such resolution can go either way. Many are the sincere persons whose religion calls them to be ruthless more than kind. Many are those whose religion calls them in the reverse direction. In either event, changing from an initial persuasion is greatly fraught because of the ingrained strength of religious faith in one instance and the pull of conscience in the other. Religions have been so successful in teaching that faith, not reason, points the way to truth, we can tear ourselves asunder when our reason or our commitment to something better has the audacity to prevail.

Why do these insights take so long to bloom? How often do we look back years or centuries later and wonder how the immorality of accepted morals was so widely overlooked. How could the morality Christians said was divinely inspired not take notice that slavery, subjugation of women, treatment of persons of color and gays were just wrong? I submit that our humanistic morality is slow to develop because the morality of religion has always included enough God-pleasing as to dilute those parts that actually benefit human beings. Fortunately, despite the fundamentalists’ death-grip on ancient rules and their questionable derivation, some theologians and some liberal Christians do abandon or adapt what their religion has taught, perhaps by redefining Christianity itself or by superimposing on it more humanistic features.

One such pacesetter is Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong, who has long advocated a Christianity stripped of its baggage of ancient misunderstandings. Consider a few lines from his extensive oeuvre: “God is not a being, external to the world, prepared to invade life from on high to establish the divine will on earth. That [is] . . . an expression of the yearning present in the childhood of our humanity to explain the inexplicable. . . God is a process into which we live. Life, love and being are the operative words. What actions expand life? What actions increase love? What actions enhance being? That is the arena in which good must ultimately be separated from evil. It will never be found within a code of yesterday. It will always be found in the struggle to live fully, to love beyond the boundaries of our security, in the affirmation found at the depth of our being [italics mine; jc]. Do we then dismiss the great eternal codes of the past? No, but we also do not install them into the status of ultimate and unchanging laws. We do, however, ascribe to them the wisdom of the ages and we give to our ancestors, who codified them, the courtesy of our attention.” [Quoted from Spong’s “The Ninth Thesis, Ethics,” Part XXX, of “Charting a New Reformation.” http://johnshelbyspong.com/essay-archives/%5D

Bishop Spong’s attempt to find in Christianity an essence worth reviving has features of both desperation and hope. “Once one removes the concept of God as a supernatural being,” he says, “the whole superstructure of traditional Christianity begins to crumble before our eyes. . . If you have identified Christianity with this dated portrait or theological construction . . . there is nothing of great value remaining.” But his message is saved from despair, by his humanist (not necessarily advertised by him as such) conviction that humans can and should, in fact, “live fully and love beyond the boundaries of our security.”

Spong’s position, along with other liberal theologians, is undoubtedly too liberal even for most liberal Christian churches, but its strong stand “provides cover” for important, albeit less comprehensive, overhaul of Christianity’s shortcomings. Even those small steps are difficult. In this vein, the personal story of the speaker on that Toronto Sunday was captivating. He had been Catholic. He had agreed with the Catholic position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, even authoring literature arguing for his church’s punitive view. Over time, as his sense of humanity overpowered his church’s view on the matter, his anti-gay position became harder to maintain.

By the time we listened to him, he’d left Catholicism and become an Episcopalian committed to spreading a gentler, more humane message. He did not take the easy way out, hiding behind the “hate the sin but love the sinner” dodge. There may be instances in which that expression is justified, but as the human path toward greater inclusiveness proceeds, there are many instances in which it is unconvincing. In these instances, love the sinner rings hollow, giving an excuse to hide our failure to seriously consider that blame may lie in the faith-based definition of sin, not in the ostensible sinner. We must beware, though, that challenging such definitions can unexpectedly call into question a far greater complex of belief, rarely an easy endeavor.

We are fortunate that sometimes one system of belief succumbs, albeit agonizingly, to another, incurring pain to which our speaker could have attested. The speaker’s strength in honoring his sense of decency above his faith was encouraging. I am thankful to have heard firsthand of both his struggle and his conclusion. But also deserving of recognition was the integrity of the church that sought to hear him, for undoubtedly it has grappled with harsh and hurtful elements of religion in order to move increasingly closer to a stand for civility, inclusiveness, and in the end, love.

Posted in Gays and other LGBTQs, Life, living, and death, Morality | 4 Comments

Belief in versus belief that

Posted on August 3, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

“Do you believe in god?” How commonplace that question is! It can be heard far more frequently than “Do you believe there is a god?” But who cares about the difference? Aren’t they the same question? Isn’t the questioner looking for the same thing in both instances?

I can’t presume to understand what a specific questioner wants to know, of course, but I can see a difference in the two questions, though it goes largely unnoticed. Consider what it normally means to say we “believe in” a person or institution. Our belief in Jane Doe is an expression of confidence in some positive characteristic Jane has, such as honesty, physical prowess, or reliability. Our belief in marriage or public education is an expression of some positive value of these institutions. I can believe in a low carb diet, treadmill exercise, or trustworthiness as a way of life. Obviously, we would only believe in something that exists. It is unlikely we would ever believe in the honesty of the moon, for the moon has no capacity for either honesty or dishonesty.

Similarly, if we do not believe there’s a god, it is impossible to believe in god. So, to be picky about it, the questioner in asking if you believe in god is assuming you think there is a god to be believed in or not believed in. You could, of course, believe there’s a god, yet find that god to have no saving graces. (Ancient Jews’ Jehovah is a candidate for that honor (as I’ve dwelt on in my posts “God is love?” Nov. 23, 2014, and “God is neither good nor loving,” May 31, 2016).

Going a step further, you could even believe there is a god, but that because it just doesn’t matter, there is nothing to believe in or not believe in. In other words, in the questioner’s concise inquiry is hidden not only the prior question of believing in a divine existence, but deists’ conclusion that that there may be no reason to “believe in” even then. In any event, the common question, “Do you believe in God,” obscures both the belief in and the primary alternative about belief separating theism from deism.

There is, indeed, a great deal packed within the original question. It is not complicated, but it does contain more than at first it appears. Christians spend most of their efforts with requirements they’ve adopted for belief in. As with other established religions, there has been time for the evolution of extensive, very detailed actions or behaviors to be observed and thereby used to demonstrate one’s belief in. There’s been enough of that dizzying growth of prescriptive piety, that we have about 40,000 Christian denominations. Denominations in Islam are fewer and in a polytheistic religion like Hinduism seem almost incalculable. In other words, belief in is demonstrated by an uncountable number of life choices, missteps among them leading to squabbles, hostilities, and sometimes death.

If that seems overblown, I invite you to consider Islam’s Shia/Sunni and Salafism/Sufism disputes and the struggles between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. However, even in the absence of discord leading to violence, the number of dissimilar derivations worldwide is staggering, despite their all springing from a single starting point: There is at least one supernatural, authoritative being or entity.

Clearly, for any individual within any one segment of theism (poly- or otherwise), these observations don’t really matter. Religious faith for the believer rarely rests on any rational foundation. From society and family, we absorb many preferred options, then treat them as universal, from social habits to political expectations to religion. It can accurately be said that a Christian is a Christian or a Muslim a Muslim—or type of Christian or type Muslim—because his or her parents or communities were. That isn’t true of everyone, of course, but the odds against it are enormous. It’s enough to indicate that if there’s a payoff for being in one religion versus another, it is far more likely due to dumb luck than careful theological inquiry.

Persons who wish to spread a proposition (e.g., that the moon’s other side is as scarred as the one we see or that political conservatives more likely eat breakfast than do liberals) can do so in different ways. They can quote authorities, appeal to fear, produce evidence, or hide untested assumptions within a seemingly reasonable claim. Though phrased as a question, “Have you stopped beating your wife” is an example of the latter.

Shouldn’t we do as we’re told in God’s Bible? Shouldn’t people be punished for disrespecting Allah’s Quran? You notice, I’m sure, that the unspoken assumptions are themselves built on still further unspoken assumptions that preceded them. There are many further allegations built on these. Religions are a long progression of unproven assumptions so that even minor differences along the way lead to the uncountable variations in religious faith that we find in the world now and in the past. (That uncountable progression was the subject of my post on Dec. 21, 2013, “What’s God have to do with religion?”). The number is even greater if we include religions that are now out of date, ones whose branching of beliefs faded out. There is as much evidence for Thor and Zeus as Jehovah, so who knows? A religion even more ancient than ones we know (or ones to come in a few thousand years) might be the lucky guesses!

And every one is built on a beginning assumption—the master assumption, you might say—that there exists a supernatural authority of unimaginable powers that has intentions about human beings. That assumption by itself goes nowhere, not even to anything religious, unless other assumptions are tacked onto it, then another and another and another. And along the way assumptions are inserted that—though there’s no more evidence for them than for the master assumption—call for us to sacrifice our logic, our senses, our good intent toward our fellows, and the instruction of our children in lives of reason.

Believing in God—or other such god-like fantasy—has like a virus unfolded in a geometric, undisciplined way worldwide, dulling our reason and driving us apart, begun as it seems to have been in our fearful reluctance to question the veiled belief that that underlies and makes possible belief in.

Posted in Faith and reason | Leave a comment

Religion’s unearned harmlessness—1

Posted on July 29, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

One of the purported features of theistic religions is that—even in the absence of evidence for their extraordinary claims and even if completely fabricated—they are essentially harmless; they are innocuous. As to Christianity, it is said to have given the world the greatest moral code, along with great works of art, music, and architecture. It’s built hospitals and brought civilization to the uncivilized. What could be objectionable about a belief that, even if untrue, gives comfort in distress, emotional support in life’s disappointments, and release from the fear of death? Has faith not brought to humankind greater blessings than all the conveniences, scientific knowledge, and eradication of disease put together?

Anyway, aren’t we born with a built-in need for religious faith? Do we not seem to have a predisposition to believe in a supernatural authority? Isn’t religion the most marvelously beneficial insight of all time? Don’t humans need the threat of hell and hope for heaven in order to treat each other decently? If we didn’t have religion, how would we know not to cheat on contracts and promises? Worse, without religion, wouldn’t we deteriorate into crime and even warfare? Isn’t it obvious that religious faith has no downside? Frankly, even if religion proves to be more fancy than fact, wouldn’t it be great if other figments of our imagination were so productive!

Of course, religion does have downsides, in my opinion some pretty awful ones. Now, I know not all religions are alike, but they do share characteristics. Those that most people would have in mind all include a supernatural existence apart from the world we perceive—ghosts, goblins, angels, devils, a god or gods. The denizens of that existence have far greater power, authority, and freedom from natural constraints than we. Their understanding far exceeds ours, possibly operating outside the limitations of time itself. They have expectations of and rules for our behavior that supersede those that we might devise on our own. A belief that shares these characteristics is what I am calling a religion.

In America, while fewer and fewer people hold to these superstitions, those who believe them still outnumber those who do not. Religions are accustomed to decades of philosophic hegemony—and before the Constitution, centuries of frank theocracy. Understandably, their adherents are ready to fight to retain that influence, even resorting to altering history (the Christian nation hoax), fighting made more frantic as their control of the civil order succumbs to enlightenment.

But my point in this post is not the desperation of fading religious power, but the support granted to religion unintentionally by those who are not fooled by its delusions dressed as truth. In many cases, these are people who don’t choose to expend energy challenging religion’s claims. After all, people too busy to bother might reason, religions don’t matter and, at any rate, they’ll eventually wither away on their own. Besides, some people seem to benefit from religion; besides, at worst, religion is, well, innocuous.

Perhaps that is a reasonable conclusion. It is not mine. While I won’t dispute that religion will fade away as the centuries progress, I’m not confident that it will for a very long time. Meanwhile, religion does its damage to humanity, damage that the innocuousness policy fails to consider.  Let me reiterate that I do not maintain that religion does no good at all, nor am I unaware that some liberal religions earnestly seek to combat some of religion’s worst effects.

On the larger canvas, however, it is a worthwhile consideration whether the good that various religions do (that would not have been done in their absence) is greater or less than their adverse effects. At the very least, that comparison is integral to assessing the utility of our world of superstitious, often overbearing belief systems. It requires setting aside the supposition of harmlessness long enough to note the damages religion imposes on humanity. In my next post, or shortly thereafter, I will address a few of the ways religion does clear damage to humanity.

Posted in Religion's costs and foibles | Leave a comment

The immorality of religion’s morality

Posted on July 18, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

Religious people in the major religions regularly contend that authoritative morality comes exclusively from whatever god they espouse. Religion-based moral codes do contain some sensible rules of behavior, but are awash in shibboleths more damaging than helpful. In terms of benefit to humanity, much of religion-based morality is itself immoral.

Given religionists’ credulous dependence on superstition, that is strange but understandable. It is less understandable that “bystanders” (those aware of—often subject to—religion, but not adherents) are so willing to allow religionists to define proper human behavior for everyone else. Thus it is that primitive belief systems—like Christianity and Islam—are granted virtual hegemony on the topic of morality merely because they claim it.

We’ve all seen television discussion panels assembled to contemplate some community moral dilemma. Such panels are frequently composed of a priest, a rabbi, and a minister, as if these occupations bring commanding knowledge of ethics. Morality as conceived by Christianity, Islam, or Judaism is given the benefit of the doubt, then, despite its having far less integrity as a morality system if one considers its human effects and its resistance to updating as time would otherwise sharpen human sensitivity.

The way we inherit morals from primitive sources is prone to all the difficulties of oral histories and ancient manuscripts. The simple transmission of stories passed down through the ages was not unbiased, affected as it was by nationalism and tribal proclivities, along with the need to satisfy powerful rulers and presumed deities. By no means were they updated with the integrity expected of modern historians. After all, how could believers presume to correct their gods? Taken as a whole, then, whatever morality messages the ancient sources contain are fraught with inconsistencies and the harsh treatment of their times.

Even if the morality messages within a given religion were unambiguous, their primitiveness—bizarrely considered a strength by the faithful—doomed them to be developed within cultures steeped in superstition and devoid of scientific understanding. We would think it ludicrous in the 21st century to accept the primitives’ notions of astronomy, geology, and disease as informative, much less authoritative. Christians wisely dismiss biblical misconceptions in those areas, but many of them act as if there are no biblical misconceptions about morality (e.g., homosexuality, divorce, picking up sticks on the Sabbath). But without an authoritative, supernatural source, they lament, how otherwise are we to know right from wrong? How are we, in the words of Genesis, to have the “knowledge of good and evil”? (The story of the Eden tree and seductive serpent is a telling comment on how Abrahamic religions view intellect: as a threat then and even now to credulous faith.)

Incidentally, all three Abrahamic religions are immensely focused on sexual behavior in building their compendium of sins. (The shame of nakedness was not the first downfall of man, but came quite close.) The religious point of view is, in effect, that being preoccupied with sex is wholesome, whereas being occupied with it is sinful. As with other sin topics, much of Christianity has benefitted from the Enlightenment, while Islam remains mired in its 7th century primitiveness. Still, even today when a person is said to be immoral, the first immorality that springs to mind is sex related. (I addressed aspects of this genital-based morality in my posts “Lust,” Jun. 16, 2015, “The sin of sin,” Jan. 2, 2015;, and “The moral neutrality of extramarital sex,” Mar. 28, 2015.)

Actually, when not hindered by religious motivation to please an ancient god, humans can be pretty good at figuring out morality. We don’t need old texts and bronze-age creeds to tell us that murder, cheating, oppression, spreading falsehoods, and similar behaviors are not good. In fact, most moral verities that make sense have been developed across numerous religions and civilizations without the necessity for any given religion’s divine revelation. When guided by a philosophy focused on what is good for humans rather than on what is said to please a phantasm, our natural proclivities can be honed still further, resulting in a morality built around fair and kind treatment of each other.

Even if we develop and continually improve a human-based morality, it is true that many humans cannot or will not live up to it. (I distinguished secular humanism from atheism in my post “Secular humanism goes beyond atheism,” Oct. 24, 2015). We are likely to transgress whatever code is agreed to just as it happens to religious concepts of morality. That is unfortunately true. But my point goes beyond that consideration. I am contending that religion-based morality is flawed even if followed to the letter.

In making a rigorous effort to design and teach a moral code by and for humans rather than slavishly copying ancient, flawed ones, we can attend to what would benefit humans or even all sentient beings. (See my posts “Morality in secular humanism,” Mar. 16, 2015 and “Morality is too important to be left to religion,” Jan. 2, 2014.) Christians have complained to me that such a code would forever be relativistic rather than authoritative. We could never get all humans to agree; in contrast, the “Word of God” stands forever. Wrong. It isn’t as if all humans agree about that “word or god” claim and even when they do, their interpretations are widely discrepant. In other words, religion-based morality is quite as relativistic as one that makes no such claim.

Christians have been taught that relativism in morality is a bad word, and that something is right or wrong once and for all. Yet Christians themselves don’t adhere to that judgment. Yes, some American Christians in 2016, for example, would stick to their position that if sex between men was wrong, it still is wrong. On the other hand, but they are unlikely to say that if slavery was once not wrong, it must still be not wrong. But how about less blatant examples, such as whether the male is the head of the family? Was it the moral choice twenty centuries ago, but not now? Or did the world and status of women change, but only the really good Christians continued to observe it? How about cruelty toward sentient animals? Is morality of no effect just because biblical morality is silent on the subject?

Christians have a long history of declaring what their god approves and disapproves, only to adjust the reputedly divine message years or centuries later. They seem unable to consider that the dogma of today may itself need to be changed later, for that would mean their faith yields as many flaws as any other human activity. For example, while the morality of slavery might have escaped their notice a millennium ago, it would not have two hundred years ago. While the cruelty of racial prejudice might have escaped notice a century ago, it would not have fifty years ago. While the hurtfulness of bias against gays might have escaped notice a hundred years ago, it would not have three decades ago. While the inhuman treatment of “fallen girls” by the Catholic Church could be overlooked a mere couple of centuries ago, it would not be today. Christians apply the same cafeteria approach to morals that they utilize in focusing on some biblical prescriptions and ignoring others. From what little I have learned about Islam (upon which I am still to write a follow-up post), the same piecemeal observance of holy books is not unknown.

A religion that promotes or even condones a morality frozen in the distant past may in some cases be brought into the present, but that requires a tortuous reinterpretation of sacred scripture. During the period of change, at first most, then many, then only some religionists argue against humanistic values in favor of the ancient ones. Just consider where the bulk of Christianity stood with respect to any one of the terrible conditions I mentioned above. If there were a devil, these Christians could be said to be piously on his side, dragged only kicking and screaming to a higher morality. Only because humans are often more humane than their religion, can greater morality at long last win out…well, until the next such struggle. Religious morality thus in so many instances impedes the ethical progression of humanity.

So it can be said that humanist morality changes over time as human understanding and sensitivities change, while religious morality is so fixedly moored to ancient beliefs that, at best, appropriate change is slowed by their struggle to adhere to the old while painstakingly accepting the new. To use (and possibly misuse) John Stuart Mill’s phrase in On Liberty, whatever biblical proscription has been in effect for a long time becomes part of the “despotism of custom.” The cruelty and immorality of humans whose considerations of morality have been informed by religion go far to detract from whatever influence that religion has been for good.

As I’ve repeatedly said in this blog, many, maybe most, Christians are more moral than their religion (see post “God is love? Nov. 23, 2014) and more moral than their God. (Due to my greater familiarity with Christianity, I’ve written with that source in mind though the phenomenon I’ve noted is true in religions generally.) The same can be said of their morality, for Christians in enlightened settings tend at least in part to be more humanistically moral than their Christianity would have them be.

It is in light of these factors that I marvel at intelligent Christians’ acceptance of such a damaging form of morality. But I am astounded by non-Christians’ unwarranted grant of respect to the peddling of religion-based morality and unending theocratic efforts to force it on others by social and legal action. The world needs morality, to be sure, but it deserves a morality untainted by superstition, informed by science and compassion, and continually updated by the progression of human sensitivity. Neither theism nor atheism ensures so estimable a moral code, but theism—unlike atheism—actually prevents it.

Posted in Gays and other LGBTQs, Morality | 2 Comments

Islam (1)

Posted on June 28, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

Al-Farooq MasjidI was asked to subject Islam to the same degree of critique I aim at Christianity. Although I’ve frequently explained that Islam is already included in my criticisms of “Abrahamic religions” (or more broadly, “theistic religions”), I must admit having aimed more specific barbs at Christianity than at Islam.

(The picture is Al-Farooq Masjid of Atlanta, where my wife and I were treated to a cordial and informative orientation to Islam, allowed to be present during one of the five calls to prayer, and presented with two different English translations of the Quran.)

That practice doesn’t arise from wishing to give Islam a pass, nor is it due to thinking Islam imposes fewer harms on humanity than Christianity. From my humanist perspective, current Islam is immeasurably worse than current Christianity. (By “current,” I mean to exclude Dark Ages Christianity and Islam’s milder periods.) Further, having spent my life more among Christians than Muslims, I’ve been more affected by them. Due to my greater intimacy with Christian dogma and behavior, concrete examples within Christianity to illustrate this or that point are more accessible to me.

In order to address my own ignorance about Muslim beliefs, behaviors, and societies, I’ve taken a closer look at Islam in the past few years. I read the Quran as and books critiquing the faith and its history. I visited a mosque for an orientation and just last week completed a book on the politics of Middle Eastern Islamic countries, especially events leading to and following the Arab Spring. None of that qualifies me as a scholar on the subject, barely as an introductory student.

Even then, my mindset in this pursuit has largely focused on the meaning Islamic features hold for me or for Western democracies, an ethnocentric viewpoint not conducive to unbiased learning. Does the Quran really direct Muslims to kill infidels? Is Islamic extremism only a perversion of Islam, not the real thing? Are Allah and Jehovah the same God? Does Muslim immigration in America and in Europe foreshadow a downhill path to shari’ah law? Do these and similar Western worries arise out of actual possibilities or from our unschooled fears?

Obtaining a better grasp on such issues calls for knowing where and when Islam came about, the schisms that occurred within the faith, Muslim attitudes about Jesus, the relationship of Muslim sects to each other, their differential roles in today’s Middle East, and other comparisons between Islam and Christianity. While I don’t now—and possibly never will—have an authoritative understanding on this subject, I can share a few beliefs I’ve acquired.

First, Islam is as devoid of evidence as Christianity. I see no reason to think one is more likely to be true than the other. Second, while there are Muslim scholars and some Islamic apologetics, Islamic academic criticism is not nearly as rigorous among Muslims as that in Christianity. Third, being opposed to separation of civil authority and religion, Islam is theocratic in the extreme. Fourth, while charity is important enough to be one of the “pillars of Islam,” the charitable attitude is not extended to religious liberty. Finally, the storied commands and acts of Islam’s Allah are no more cruel than those of Christianity’s Jehovah.

These are opinions, however, about a huge category of human beings. They cannot be true of all individual Muslims, just as such sweeping descriptions would not be true of all Christians. To be sure, there are Muslim radicals willing to commit heinous acts in the name of Islam. And there are millions of Muslims disinclined to criticize those acts. It is obvious that there are fewer such radicals given to heinous acts in Christianity. While the period of Catholic ascendancy showed that Christians could be similarly violent, the Enlightenment succeeded in introducing enough freethought and humanitarianism to lighten those Dark Ages. Islam had no such opposition to its philosophical hegemony, so we can see reflections of our former selves in Islam’s present worldview and mistreatments.

My next post on this topic will continue the discussion; it may or may not lead to a third. I shall not attempt to “teach Islam,” for I’m not qualified to do that. The most I feel sufficiently knowledgeable to do is merely to share my own learning, musings, and questioning.

Posted in Church and state, Politics | 4 Comments

America’s birthday is next week

Posted on June 12, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

Not July 4, 1776? Right. Not. A group of nine relatively friendly, independent former colonies of England became the United States of America on June 21, 1788!

Into the world was born a new country (so I wrote June 17, 2013 in my post “Happy birthday, U.S.A.!”), historically unique in its extraordinary confidence in “we, the people” and its groundbreaking secular framework able to embrace people of all faiths and none. (I tend to pay little attention to my own birthday, but I’m persnickety about the country’s. Besides, this matter provides me the entertainment of a hobbyhorse of frankly scant philosophical importance.)

There’s no doubt, of course, that July 4, 1776 was monumentally important. Arguably, the Declaration of Independence was a necessary precursor to the founding of this new country. But it did not establish the USA and wasn’t meant to. It was a compact of rebellion among colonies seeking to be independent states, announcing the shedding of their galling status as colonies, violently if necessary. But the follow up to that successful revolution—trying to make a confederation of independent states work—did not go so well, leading to the exciting but dicey notion of joining into a single country. In a manner of speaking, the former colonies had declared their respective independence, only to soon renounce it.

Establishing a new nation is a rather different business than jointly going to war as even a cursory examination of all the new problems confronted can confirm. The Declaration was not a blueprint, nor did it help in this new task. After formation of the new country, it retained its historical value, but it has now no legal value. The new country was not founded on the Constitution plus the Declaration, but the Constitution alone.

The issues to be confronted were not the same as those facing writers of the Declaration. Now they became about how large states and small states can be accommodated. How “royal” should a chief executive be? How heritable will the leadership be? What is to be done by potential deal breakers like slavery? In what way can we prevent a growing hegemony of a powerful religious denomination? What will be the role and structure of a court system? How much state sovereignty is to be forfeited, signed over to the new government (it turned out: all of it!)? These new problems and more were the challenges of nation building, not war-making, but they were no less perplexing.

Finally, the work of Constitution drafting was finished and submitted to the states for consideration and, most of the founders hoped, ratification. One of the provisions of the Constitution draft was that it would become the official and exclusive charter of the United States of America when as many as nine states ratified it. (Here’s the actual Article VII wording: “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”) For those states, the USA would then be automatically created, leaving others out unless and until they, too, ratified.

In fact, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island were left out; they were not part of the initial United States of America, though these four joined soon thereafter. Still, to be absolutely accurate, we must recognize that the United States of America as a legal entity among the nations began with nine—not thirteen—original states!

So enjoy July 4th. But revere June 21st!

Posted in History | Leave a comment

Why my vehemence against Christianity?

Posted on June 6, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

Well, it isn’t just Christianity, but any theism, and even broader, any supernaturalism. But this post concerns the narrower question: what drives my formidable and publically expressed anti-theism. I have been asked about my “attacks” on religion by persons who know that in most ways I’m not a judgmental person. They wonder why the discrepancy. Why don’t I just leave people to their beliefs in peace. Why am I so intolerant of people’s sincerely held religious ideas? Am I offended by “Merry Christmas,” a Christian cross, a nativity scene, or that someone is praying for me? I think these are reasonable questions.

Truth is, my reaction to religion is of two quite separate sorts, only one of which gets a vehement reaction, while the other does not.

Here’s the mild one: I enjoy intellectual discussions of different belief systems, specific beliefs, and their origins. It is interesting to me, for example, when early Christians decided that a trinity would be orthodox and its absence would be unorthodox or even heretical. Or what led early Christians to incorporate Mary (mother of Jesus) into a heavenly figure. How did the Sunnis and Shia divide up Islam orthodoxy? What stages developed out of Siddhartha’s original Buddhism into the several branches existing today?

What is the evidence for I, II, and III Isaiah? Why is the Catholic Church so married, as it were, to an unmarried priesthood? Why did John Spong, liberal Episcopalian bishop, humorously say his atheist detractors accuse him of putting lipstick on a corpse? Which book(s) of the Old Testament seem not to have been written by Hebrew authors? Why are the “gospels” first in the New Testament, rather than the epistles which were written earlier? What gave rise to the competing Christologies of the first couple of centuries CE?How recently have European countries put heretics to death? How ethical are theists versus atheists and other non-theists? The list is endless and, I think, intriguing. These issues of history and theology engender in me a non-judgmental, calm, and friendly frame of mind.

Consequently, I am perfectly undisturbed by a cross or crèche on private property, by a cheery Merry Christmas, or a well-intended prayer. I am in no way offended by them. Of course, even if I were, I don’t have a right not to be offended. Moreover, I am frequently impressed by the humanitarian and charitable works of persons acting, at least in part, out of religious conviction. Theirs is a laudable gift to humanity, for whether the motivating religion is true or not, good will is to be celebrated and appreciated.

But there are religious matters that stimulate another reaction entirely rather than just an unruffled intellectual interest. For me, these issues of the second type are the only ones worth writing a blog about and the only ones that I feel evangelical about. So while the product of the first type of interest is fascination, that of the second is zeal.

A bit about the zealous one: My dander gets up when adherents to a religion seek to control others including, of course, me. Even then, I stand foursquare in favor of their religious liberty, that is, their right to believe what they will, practice their belief, and try to convince others—including me—if they wish. It is important, however, that their freedom is not to be construed as the right to tell others what to do, regardless of who is in the majority. Christians can erect a billboard extolling Jesus and I can do so saying the whole thing is a myth. I should defend their right to do that and they should defend mine, no matter how much each of us thinks the other is dead wrong. But that mutual commitment depends on our truly believing what our Constitution and—I would hope—our consciences have to say about religious liberty.

I become zealous when I hear of public school employees teaching Christianity or giving it special favor, as happens thousands of times daily in America. I’ve the same reaction when a city council prays at meetings, police cars have religious messages painted on, a public park has a religious display, or any other situation in which government decides what are proper religious positions. This blog has numerous posts addressing the abundance of Christian theocratic arrogance of this sort. (Two recent ones of probably more than a dozen are “Democrats vs. theocrats,” Jan. 30, 2016; and “Religion in the public square,” Oct. 20, 2015.) Any time public servants take advantage of their public role to espouse their religions positions, they are speaking as the government—patently unconstitutional. We all remember Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who, in popular perception, unilaterally disregarded the law of the land because she thought she had the religious liberty to do so. As an individual, Ms. Davis, does; but as a county clerk does not. I find that widespread type of bullying behavior infuriating.

Worse, on TV we were treated to the shameful spectacle of presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz coming to the defense of her proposition that the clerk’s religion-based distaste of LGBT lives justified not giving them what the law prescribed. Cruz and Huckabee, like the earliest European settlers of North America who came not for the ideal of religious liberty as is claimed, but for their own religious liberty over others. The current spate of misnamed “religious freedom” laws are, in fact, governmental preferences for certain fundamentalist Christians, excusing them from a legal requirement binding on everyone else, one that would not—despite pious pleas—deprive them of legitimate religious liberty.

Religion is rank supernaturalism, makes claims not backed by evidence and often in contradiction to evidence, it can justifiably be treated as just another of the bizarre and evidence-free beliefs of humanity. It can even offer some amount of comfort if you don’t look too closely. So although it provides fun discussion and occasionally contributes fodder for thoughtful consideration, more than anything else it simply demonstrates human gullibility.

Yet when armed with pious arrogance, religious adherents set out—as Christians and Muslims regularly do—to tell others what to do, to appropriate governmental power to promote their aims, to declare hegemony for their flawed moral code, and to claim entitlement to advantageous treatment, I am not just offended; that is far too mild a term. I am furious.

And that is why one aspect of religion to me is of anthropological interest. Yet the other aspect is sufficiently inhumane, counterfactual, and bullying to call for calculated opposition. In the presence of the first, I am calm, mellow, and playfully nerdy. In the presence of the second, I am vigorously belligerent, and yes, vehement.

But always to be remembered: It is no diminishment of my opposition to religion to argue with equivalent emphasis that respect for individuals of whatever beliefs is not just a nicety, but a moral obligation integral to humanist ethics. The mantra that has long worked for me is, “Though I do not respect your religion, I do respect you.”

Posted in This blog, this blogger | 2 Comments

God is neither good nor loving

Posted on May 31, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

How anyone can seriously say “God is love,” never fails to astonish me. Most observers know a few Jehovah stories of heinous acts. I grew up with them, but while aware of quite a few, I’ve never sought for and compiled them. Since I don’t believe in gods without evidence, detailed summary of their sins seems a waste of time. I was aware that Richard Dawkins in the second chapter of The God Delusion (2006) constructed a list of godly travesties in one sentence—which I found interesting but nothing new. He said, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

(Now, before I comment on this, let me make a couple of points. First, because Jehovah, Allah, and Jesus are legitimate literary figures, I will speak of them as if real, though I do not believe they are. Second, this post is not meant to attack individuals with faith in Abrahamic religions, but the damaging and fatuous stories they’ve fallen for and defend so energetically. My comments are meant like those of a bystander confiding in a passing motorist that the road she is on has misleading signage and doesn’t go where she thinks it goes. She might be wise to ignore my counsel, but absent ill intent on my part, it’d be silly to get angry about the unrequested guidance or to take personal offense. I say this because I’m not insensitive to people’s personal investment in cherished beliefs, nor the tendency to strike back when they’re questioned. Now back to Dawkins and his shocking sentence.)

Although I have no quarrel with Dawkins’s forceful words, I admit being struck by their unvarnished severity. Were pejoratives ever so imposing? But if mocking someone who according to popular legend created the universe, I suppose it is only reasonable to swing for the fences. However, my natural inclination is to be wary of possible overstatement. Exaggeration serves a rhetorical purpose of arousing emotional reaction. But it is damaging to sincere argument; it’s like shouting when quiet consideration is called for. Yet I know Dawkins to be careful in his use of words. So I wondered—as critical for almost six decades as is my own appraisal of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic deities—whether possibly I have been too lenient.

This topic arose in reading Dan Barker’s 2016 book, God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction, for which Richard Dawkins wrote the Foreword. In his book Dan takes on the meticulous task of seeing if biblical statements themselves justify all of Dawkins’s allegations. He found scores or hundreds of references, more than sufficient to back up Dawkins’s categories of monstrous behaviors. Dan is a former fundamentalist preacher and subsequently author of several freethought books—like Losing Faith in Faith, his first, and Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists. He and his wife, Annie Laurie Gaylor, are co-presidents of the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

The sheer magnitude of passages he found testifying to the loathsome and petty nature of the Hebrew’s bronze age deity is overwhelming. Even I was surprised how many references Dan found to make his case. In my November 23, 2014 post “God is love?” I shared my own thoughts on the depravity of the Abrahamic God in terms, it turns out, that are far too gentle. Since then I’ve read the Quran and now I’ve read Dan’s exhaustive tabulation of biblical references. I can say with confidence that the degree of Jehovah’s wanton cruelty is as great or greater than that of Mohammed’s Allah.

I don’t say that lightly. I can just imagine a Christian, Muslim, or religious Jew recoiling at the arrogance of anyone (me, in this case) judging God to be an abysmal character—after all (and here comes the cover up), “God’s ways are not our ways.” True, they certainly appear not to be. The goodness of all the Christians I know well is far greater than that of the God they worship. In a society, we shame and jail humans who act in ways that are not nearly as heinous as God’s. As to arrogance, if humans are incapable of judging God to be cruel, then they are equally incapable of judging God to be loving.

God, his prophets, and all those who stand in fear of God’s bullying poured out praises beyond number. “The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion, slow to anger, and of great mercy. The Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all his works,” said the Psalmist. He added, “For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.”

The faithful must have known that their unending, institutionalized sycophancy was safer than even slightly tugging on Supergod’s cape. This kind of slavishness, evident even in modern Christian hymns, prayers, and worship services differs little from the perpetual, tiresome obsequiousness in Muslim prayers and greetings. A quick check in my Quran found Allah repeatedly referred to as ever-wise, ever-cognizant, forgiving, appreciative, aware, charitable, bountiful, and the list of undeserved praise goes on.

Pious groveling is integral to the Abrahamic religions. God is to be thanked for everything that comes out well, but never blamed for things that do not. God is to be thanked for those who lived through the hurricane, but not the thousand who did not. (In a rare form of being more accurate than we meant, at least the bad weather is called an Act of God, while the sparing of some is not!). But the psychological burden goes on, naturally more on the very faithful than the less so. Believers are regularly caught up in self-effacing and self-blaming, for they can never live up to the standards imposed by a God to whom they willingly give authority he doesn’t deserve.

I want to cry out to them that they are better creatures than their God. They treat others better, they are more trustworthy, and they are far more loving than this horrific deity invented by the ancient Hebrews. Yet they feel compelled to confess their unworthiness without end. That might not be a bad choice, inasmuch as the unloving God threatens to consign them to everlasting fire for a number of theological misdemeanors.

As I said in the 2014 post, the ubiquitous phrase “God is love” is only a mantra, not a truth. Like cheers at a sporting event (“we’re number one! we are the best!”), it is contradicted by masses of scriptural references. Its only utility is to arouse the fans, not to describe a fact. The God of the Bible is not loving, but evil.

Dawkins focused only on the Old Testament stories. Barker went further to bring in the New Testament as well, a welcome addition, for Christians have long said that the God of the Old Testament became a softened character in the New. The coming of Jesus and his crucifixion provided relief from the burden of humans’ accumulated sin, for Jesus was imbued with God’s more forgiving, affectionate side—so goes the attempted vindication. A fierce God had eased up on his murderous, jealous, ill-tempered side when the gentle Jesus brought his message of peace and love. But that explanation is, at best, a weak defense.

Without stretching the meaning of the word beyond recognition, Jesus was not “good.” Yes, Jesus did bring new ways to express God’s will, even a number of thoroughly quote-worthy expressions of kindness. But he also made the point that he and God were the same, certainly not at odds. He came, as he said, not to suspend the law, but to fulfill it. Later writers battled over whether Jesus was actually God, an integral part of God, or just a figurative son in whom God was “well pleased.” (Christology is a fascinating part of theology—a study of who and what Jesus of Nazareth was, along with the historical threads of would-be orthodoxies competing with each other. Rather like the Trinity doctrine, it was finally settled by social struggle.) But the number of Jesus’s noble, humanitarian and benevolent actions and statements cannot erase his self-professed one-ness with the cruelty and callousness of God. Besides, Jesus brought fewer moral considerations than countless human philosophers. So excusing the horrid Jehovah because he repented and sent a gentler emissary does not compute. Did Jesus issue an apology or even a recognition of the cruelty imposed by Jehovah before Jesus’s coming?

The net balance of goodness and harshness in Jesus’s parables and acts aside, there is an even more startling way in which God—or God combined with Jesus—is perhaps more evil in the New Testament as before it: Our supposedly sweet and caring Jesus—illustrated with halo by countless churches, artwork, and children’s minds—brought horror far beyond any of those described in the Old Testament.

While the Old Testament God killed multitudes, made other multitudes suffer, accepted slavery, and in many ways was unfathomably cruel, the gentle Jesus brought, taught, and imposed the beastly, incomprehensibly evil torture of everlasting fire.

Despite all this, the Bible is not a bad book. It is a collection, translated as best we can, of ancient writings by people whose knowledge, fears, and ambitions were common to the ages in which they lived. We can nevertheless learn from writings of the ancients, but only if we—their progeny—interpret their beliefs, actions and, indeed, their plodding search for truth by using the modern benefits of reason and science to which their efforts finally led.

Posted in Religion's costs and foibles | Leave a comment

Sincere religious belief

Posted on May 24, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

The Christian Right has become greatly attached to this phrase. The most recent application is whether a business owner should be compelled to conform to the law if doing so is unacceptable in the owner’s “sincere religious belief.” Lately, freedom of religion is cited as a constitutional defense against serving persons who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. For many Christians, any sexual orientation other than heterosexual within marriage is a sin. Participating in LGBT life—even in wedding planning or catering—links the Christian with sinful activity.

As a self-employed consultant for decades, I valued and used the freedom to choose and to reject customers as I wished. Some, for example, were hard to get along with or slow to pay. Had the government told me I had no choice in the matter, I’d have been greatly disgruntled. So I can understand the value of a business person’s prerogative. My services added value to the society, hence the fee that enabled me to share in some of that contribution. If I were to serve some particularly troublesome customers, I would waste effort such that the net value both to society and to me would be reduced. In other words, the (more-or-less free) market worked. Attempting to steer it for whatever reasons, say, for a regulator’s opinion that everyone was equally deserving of what I had to offer, would have imposed a net cost.

So what is going on with so-called “religious liberty” bills in which state legislatures are currently awash? Do they not fall under the same logic I’ve just supported? Is religious choice not to be granted just as much legitimacy as my business choice? It would surely be more, for religious freedom is constitutionally protected, whereas business choice is not. How can compulsion to serve “unacceptable” customers not be as damaging as I’ve suggested when the reason not to do so is a religious reason?

The reason, of course, is public policy—“we the people” acting as a group. Our American history has been that the unencumbered exchange of economic goods (the free market) is the default position, but that for whatever reasons the public chooses—after all, that is the meaning of “we”—the body politic can override that market. We do so regularly and the most right wing of right wingers partake in that free market override. We do so whenever we vote for a public park or sports stadium, impose air traffic controls or food safety regulations, and a host of other public interferences with individual prerogatives. Yes, each such choice is controversial as it should be, but when decided is a legitimate public choice.

One such choice is that businesses offering their services to the public may not discriminate among consumers on the basis of race. This was almost violently controversial only a few years ago. Vendors, though they certainly tried, could not refuse service to non-whites just because they had “sincere religious” reasons not to partake in the mixing of races. Then as now with LGBT inclusion, in no case have the religious beliefs and practices of those sincerely religious people been curtailed, just their freedom to impose those beliefs on the public order of business. Now interference in vendors’ choice has been extended to customers of LGBT biology or predilection. Only sometimes do we remember that religious freedom does not include the freedom to tell others what to do nor the freedom to override the legitimately derived “we the people” values about the social order.

One of the problems with the “sincere religious belief” doctrine is that it is open-ended, capable of covering any excuse for exemption from law. Moreover, what court is competent to rule on the “sincere” component of the defense? Is it to be sincere within the dogma of an established religious organization? Can it be sincere within the dogma of an obscure religious sect? Can a Muslim taxi driver’s religious feelings excuse his or her refusing to accept a customer carrying a package store bottle of whiskey? How about sincerity within an established non-religious ethical union? In fact, is the religious part critical?  Can it be religious, but related to a sect no one has ever heard of? Frankly, is there anything “sincere religious belief” doesn’t cover?

Governmental action must focus on what overriding social requirements are so important as to be worth curtailing or tempering individual choice, yet even then in a way that preserves those rights short of their imposition on those of competing beliefs. Sincerely held religious beliefs deserve no less, to be sure, but no more.

Posted in Church and state, Gays and other LGBTQs, Politics | Leave a comment

God, a failed hypothesis

Posted on May 14, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

God is a hypothesis, one that’s never been confirmed. I’m referring not only to the assumed Jehovah and Allah, but the thousands of supernatural deities humans have invented over the ages.

Uncannily, very little “proof” is enough for believers to call a religious hypothesis “confirmed.” For most of the human race, ancient tales, emotions, and the testimony of authorities are sufficient to support unswerving conviction in the most bizarre of propositions. Unlike our less informed ancestors, a few centuries ago we became far more rigorous in systematizing the separation of truth and fiction—in what came to be called the “scientific method”—so we have less excuse for being mired in superstition as were our ancestors. Contrary to the widespread notion that religious claims are not legitimately subject to scientific inquiry, several of my posts argue that they are (for example, “…but there are some things science can’t explain,” Aug. 1, 2015; and “’You can’t put God in a test tube.’ Why not?” Nov. 19, 2015).

Actually, we do make use of modern epistemological discipline and with it have gained a massive expansion in our understanding of the natural world. Curiously, we make enthusiastic use of rigorous specificity and testing of hypotheses, along with powerful construction of theories. But we fail to do so in dealing with religion. In fact, religions frequently boast that they are based on faith, not scientific inquiry, as if faith—despite its having a few actual advantages—is a trustworthy test of truth. It is the height of arrogance that Christianity makes a shibboleth of Truth (with a capital T), for it cares so little about it, steadfastly protecting theism’s phenomenal claims from the best truth-testing mechanism humans have yet developed.

Lacking a foundation in reason on which to base religious assertions, it is not surprising that religion and other forms of supernaturalism have instead relied on social pressure, attachment to government power, threats of afterlife punishment, intimidation, and physical torture to obtain a free ride to legitimacy. To spread its extolling of belief over evidence as widely as possible, religion brings bankruptcy of thought, rigidity of orthodoxy, and clerical control with predictably deleterious effects on humanity. Its natural tendency is to accept no bounds to its purview, evident in its attempts to control astronomy, geology, paleontology, and other pursuits. Theology can be stretched to cover any topic because it professes to have special knowledge of the cosmos, thereby establishing a kind of universal, holy hegemony. Can we overlook what Catholicism did with respect to Aristotelean pre-science and what current fundamentalist Christianity does with respect to natural selection, gay marriage, birth control, and rules of sexual behavior?

It is common for the faithful to retreat into their commitment to morality and charity when confronted with these accusations, despite the “morality” of Christianity and other religions being a hodge-podge of frequently silly rules that have little to do with how humans treat each other, and despite the lack of data to support believers’ being more lawful or charitable than nonbelievers (see “Morality is too important to be left to religion,” Jan. 2, 2014; and “Believers/unbelievers and charity,” Dec. 24, 2015). However, even if believers could be shown to be more secure, kinder, and happier than nonbelievers, those characteristics have nothing to do with whether there is a god or there is not. They are factors that are simply irrelevant to the search for truth with respect to an authoritative theistic being or force.

(I accept that individual Christians, just as those in other religions, are as truthful, kind, and fulfilled as nonbelievers. My disrespect of the unreason of their religion is an opinion about that religion, not of the individual persons. I have loved many religious persons, still do, and cannot foresee loving them less. But I do not love their religions. Frankly, it is quite possible that my antipathy toward their religion is no greater than their antipathy toward religions that are not theirs. Any specific religion has long had more to fear from other religions than from atheists.)

One can, if one wishes, assume that there is a supernatural being or force that cares about and interacts with humanity, that occasionally suspends natural laws in response to human entreaties, and imposes codes of human behavior. But to do so is to proclaim as truth a hypothesis that has never been confirmed, putting it in the same category as deep faith in a guess. If persons choose to believe there is such a phenomenon and to practice accordingly, they surely have the right to do so. But to use that guesswork, no matter how strong their personal conviction, to influence government toward imposing the rules of this belief on others—as much of Christianity does in America and Islam does elsewhere—is an attack upon the very liberty that supports their right to live according to their guesswork all they wish. (See my posts “Christian bullying (Part 1),” Sep. 4, 2015; “Christian bullying (Part 2),” Sep. 13, 2015; and “Religion in the public square,” Oct. 20, 2015). In America, it is a favorite ploy of Christian groups to mistake religious liberty for the right to tell others what to do (see “Perverting the meaning of freedom of religion,” Apr. 16, 2014).

Of course, as astronomer Carl Sagan was fond of saying, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” or, in this context, there being no evidence for the existence of a god does not constitute evidence that there is not one. I have no more proof that there is no god than theists have that there is one. That is why I never claim that there is no god (except in the informal way most of us would claim there is no real Santa Clause). Philosophers have long known that religionists’ (or anyone’s) argumentum ad ignorantiam proves nothing, for the burden of proof is squarely on the argument for the unseen.

Moreover, another of Sagan’s favorite points is instructive: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The god claim is about as extraordinary as you can get. In fact, given our modern knowledge of the universe, flying reindeer and visitation to billions of homes in a single night is less extraordinary than religions’ claims for their hypothesized supernatural force.

Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, Satan, Thor, and others of their ilk are but failed hypotheses. Religious persons need not mourn their loss, for we’ve actually done without them all along.

Posted in Atheism and other freethought | Leave a comment

Leaving everything behind: the refugee crisis

Posted on May 9, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

In northern Greece in April my wife, a neighbor, and I were volunteers serving Syrian, Kurd, and other refugees fleeing their war-torn homes, seeking to get to middle and northern Europe. Macedonia had closed its border with Greece just a few weeks prior, causing there to be a daily growing accumulation of north-bound refugees when the pipeline was blocked. Greece, with little aid from other countries, reacted by establishing camps for the refugees. Greece, by the way, has risen to this unexpected problem despite its horrid economic state, perhaps the worst in Europe.

Every evening small groups of refuges would start fires, to sit around and socialize.

Every evening small groups of refuges would start fires, to sit around and socialize.

 

We were assigned to one of the new camps, Diavata, near the second largest Greek city of Thessaloniki. Our camp held about 2,000 persons of ages from infancy to advanced old age, though the entire camp system so hastily built may have held 50,000. Virtually all “our” refugees spoke Arabic; very few spoke either English or Greek. They were housed in tents and in hard tent-like family domiciles, fed by an outside vendor, and furnished water by either the European Union or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We volunteers distributed water, clothing, shoes, and hygiene supplies; less frequently we helped in building tents. Interaction with the refugees was encouraged, so we willingly (and, to us, meaningfully) and across the language divide, just visited with refugees themselves. The latter may have at any given time involved playing with children or having tea with grownups.

Children in refugees' tent. I'd been invited in for tea.

Children in refugees’ tent. I’d been invited in for tea.

 

In person-to-person interactions we heard frightening, saddening, harrowing tales of homes bombed, bodies damaged, families ripped apart, dangerous boat crossings (to get from the Turkish mainland to offshore Greek islands), long walks, scarce water along the way, and the fears of never completing their journeys. The poignancy of absorbing these stories from persons with recent and personal involvement in these serial disasters was touching. Largely, they were appreciative of the work we were doing; a lesser number were angry, though not combative. Children were needy and largely undisciplined, though very few were—in common parlance—“bad” kids.

It goes without saying that this experience was one we will cherish for years. We came home with heavy hearts and a deeply personal exposure to on-the-ground aspects of political conditions so ravaging as to spawn desperate emigration. On a more conceptual level, we came back with greater awareness of—though certainly not solutions for—the heartbreaking dilemma of masses forced by violence to exchange a culture they know for one they don’t.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Atheignosticism and the unseen seculars

Posted on March 26, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

You’re right. There’s no such word as atheignosticism. However, the orthodox versions—atheism and agnosticism—can be just as bewildering. This post expands on my May 18, 2013 post, “Atheist, Agnostic, it’s So Confusing,” in which I explored the various meanings ascribed to these words. If you are religious or for whatever reason interested in the waning of religious faith, it may be of interest.

First, let me separate them both from secular humanism. Humanism is the search for and practice of the best ways for human beings to treat each other. In other words, it concerns the ethics of interaction either human-to-human or human-to-all sentient beings (see my posts “Morality in secular humanism,” Mar. 16, 2015, and “Secular humanism goes beyond atheism,” Oct. 24, 2015). Accordingly, secular humanism is important only in the absence of a divine law-giver because it is under that condition that crucial ethics positions must be worked out by us; there is no other source.

So the following list, then, concerns only positions vis-à-vis a god (or gods), not positions about the ethical system. In each case I’m using the word god to mean a powerful supernatural being or force positioned in some profound way beyond time and space.

  • Theism: A theist believes there to be one or more gods concerned about human matters. It or they care what humans do, experience, or believe. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are familiar monotheisms (though Muslims would call Christianity polytheistic due to the trinity doctrine).
  • Deism: A deist believes there to be one or more gods that, while setting the universe in motion, either retreated from or never had any ongoing relationship with it or its inhabitants. Deism was popular during the beginnings of the United States; in fact, a goodly number of our founders were deists. They often referred to a god with few or no theistic implications.
  • Agnosticism: An agnostic may (a) lean toward a religious faith, but is not convinced, (b) fear being identified with a position long treated as taboo, or (c) think nothing about religion but may have a withholding judgment mindset. You can see how ‘a’ is often seen as a “junior atheist,” ‘b’ appears intimidated, and ‘c’ has a Missouri “show me” attitude.
  • Atheism: An atheist may (a) claim that there is certainly no god, or  (b) assert that there is no evidence that a god exists, but admit with Carl Sagan that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In position ‘b,’ belief in a god is much like a belief in Santa Clause—not disproven, but extremely unlikely. Of course, either to claim with certainty that there is a god, as well as to similarly claim there is not a god are both out on a limb, since neither is proven.

As you can see, the definitions need . . . well . . . more definition. Within theism are a plethora of contrary faiths, doctrines, and social implications. Within agnosticism, the three possible views are quite different from each other. Moreover, this four-part breakdown may not even be important to considerations that will matter to us. For example, an evangelical Christian may find that distinguishing between atheists and deists is unimportant, for both refuse to believe. An atheist finds that distinguishing between Primitive Baptists and Sunni Muslims is unimportant, for both operate as if old tales constitute evidence. Setting up relevant categories is always a critical step in making analyses. In selecting for basketball prowess, categories of height are useful, categories of ACT scores are not. In selecting for rhetorical competence, verbal skills are useful, mechanical skills are not. So, for sake of my argument, here I’m going to establish the categories of interest to be (a) belief in a theistic god and (b) lack of belief in a theistic god.

Why, in keeping atheism and theism, have I dropped agnosticism and deism? I dropped them because neither includes a supernatural influence over a person’s life decisions. Theism does. Atheism, agnosticism, and deism do not; these three do not posit a supernatural authority to do any influencing. Deism offers intellectually entertaining arguments, but it does not bear on how we live our lives. Agnosticism has similarly no guidance or commands to offer unless it is atheism masquerading as agnosticism. So we are left with theism—which has an abundance of influences in our lives—and atheism which has none. Therefore, I am positing that belief/nonbelief in a theistic sense is the relevant comparison to examine.

Happily, we already have words that capture these characteristics. It is no surprise that the words are theism and a-theism, the latter meaning non-theism or, to string it out further, “having no belief in a theistic construction of the universe.” A-theism refers to the absence of being convinced, not the unsupportable assertion of knowing no such god exists. Therefore, if an agnostic has no god belief even if searching for it, he or she is an a-theist. If a deist has no theistic god belief, he or she is an a-theist. If an apparent Christian or Muslim, although practicing all the expected religious behaviors expected, has no belief there is really is a God or an Allah, he or she is an a-theist—perhaps a secret a-theist, but just as much an a-theist nonetheless.

So how many a-theists are there and what are they like? The average person in the United States can be forgiven for thinking (a) there aren’t very many; (b) they tend to be shady characters or Grinches; (c) they are an unhappy lot; (d) they’re certainly not trustworthy; (e) they agonizingly fear death; (f) none are among your family and friends; (g) you surely don’t know any; and (h) you wouldn’t want to!

I can’t speak for that last one, but the rest of those beliefs are manifestly misguided. It turns out that religious people tend to know little about atheists, though they come in regular contact with uncountable numbers of atheists. The long-standing taboo against atheism spread by theists guarantees an extreme undercounting. Many atheists are in Christian pulpits and attending Friday prayers at the mosque. Many are your family members who do all the regular Christian things, but don’t believe all the obligatory miracles. Many are in the same pew with you every Sunday.

Most members of the atheist, agnostic, freethought, humanist groups in which I hold membership were once religious. They did not just wake up one day non-religious; they’d been practicing their faith-of-record for years with decreasing actual belief. Even when they’d evolved completely into atheism, making an outward move was often very hard due to family, employers, and friends.

You might be surprised how vindictive the faithful can be toward a former one of their own. No, it isn’t as bad as is true for millions in Muslim countries today and it isn’t as bad as in Christian countries a few centuries ago. But it has by no means disappeared. Despite the social cost, however, enough religious people reject their former beliefs to constitute an expanding phenomenon—not slowing down, but speeding up. These phenomena are some of the reasons religious persons need to know more about atheists and atheism, what it is and equally important what it is not.

The misinformation I listed three paragraphs above is revealing. The easy, very generally stated, responses are (a) there are more atheists than everyone (including atheists!) think, because, first, the atheism category is much broader than usually considered and, second, social pressure causes many atheists to stay unidentified; (b) they are not shady characters and, in fact, populate our prisons at a lower rate than believers and are roughly as helpful and charitable as believers; (c) they are as happy and playful as believers; (d) they keep their word, honor their contracts, and tell the truth as much as believers; (e) their approach to death is at least as peaceful as believers; (f) almost all of them live quietly among your family and friends,  so that (g) you know many but don’t always know you know them; and (h) you probably would want to know even more, for they tend to be less judgmental!

I have been an “out” atheist since about age 20 and, due to my memberships and my general outspokenness, I am easily counted. Many, perhaps most, are not. As a close-to-home example, the majority of my progeny are atheists, but are not easily counted either because they intentionally do not announce themselves or religion/irreligion is of so little importance to them that it doesn’t come up. Still, however faulty the counting, it is informative to have a feel for the prevalence and the trends about nonbelievers in the population, for it is changing life in America. I will address those data in one of the next few posts.

Posted in Atheism and other freethought | Leave a comment

Batshit crazy, the stupid party

Posted on March 15, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

These two phrases were uttered not by Democrats, but by prominent Republicans (Sen. Lindsey Graham, Gov. Bobby Jindal). Conservative author Matt K. Lewis said that although conservatism used to have “big, thoughtful ideas,” it has “lost its intellectual bearings.” The decay has been developing for years, so is by no means just in current debate behavior. As to that behavior, conservative historian Max Boot concluded the Trump surge “proves every bad thing Democrats have ever said about the GOP is basically true.”

Well, a proviso. I don’t think deterioration is unique to the Republican party, nor even the combination of the party and its tethered television outlet, Fox News. Further, I don’t agree with Boot that Trump’s performance, as appalling as it is, proves all Democrats’ claims to be true. I don’t revere everything Pres. Obama has done, nor do I criticize everything Pres. Bush did. Somewhat allied with Lewis, however, I do consider that the Republican party has been in decline since possibly the 1960s and surely since the 1980s, with a further marked descent since 2000. It is not the first political party to get lots of mileage out of untruths. Esteemed Democrat JFK won the presidency due in part to his damning, though inaccurate charge that that his predecessor, Pres. Dwight Eisenhower, had allowed a terrifying missile disadvantage vis-a-vis the USSR.

But I have additional motivation with respect to the Republican party: I fear that the US without a competent opposition to Democrats is a less robust, less philosophically muscular country. However, to my great regret, the current Republican party has forfeited that role by increasingly allying itself with the influences of xenophobia, bigotry, paranoia, and anti-science. (On a given issue, I might agree or disagree with the Republican position.) I find small mindedness, short-term focus, careerism, fudging and spinning, along with problems of agency in politicians of both parties. Each party condemns the other about actions for which it itself is guilty, for example, in recent years we’ve seen the reversal of which party is on which side of the Senate’s cloture rule.

Both parties stoop to intentionally quoting statements out of context in their arguments. For years Republicans have kept up an incessant drum beat of lies about Obama’s Democratic administration despite their being simply untrue, such as Obama’s “apology tour” or Obamacare’s inclusion of death panels. Neither was true, but the drum beat was too energizing to sacrifice to mere truth. In my opinion, however, while I’d not proclaim the Democratic party blameless, for the past fifteen years Republican conduct has been the most shameful.

Of course, bad things happen in every administration. It is never difficult to find things to criticize and well-deserved aspersions to cast. Unfortunately, it is hard to assess those aspersions, since the honesty of both parties may be in question and any issue’s importance may be misrepresented. As to importance, the rule seems to be that any act of the opposition that can be shown to be shady or questionable becomes important regardless of how trivial it is. What we can know is that choosing which charges to make and how crucial to say they are can never be trusted as unbiased and proportional.

Democrats, for example, would charge that the unending Benghazi investigations may have revealed unfortunate or unacceptable behaviors, but compared to Pres. Bush’s plunging the Middle East into a complex, extensive, and costly war is like comparing a skin rash to cancer. But whatever the wrongdoings that might be discovered about Benghazi, is it not curious that Republican elected officials have investigated the skin rash with a righteous fervor they never exhibited with respect to the cancer? They apparently value their role in making partisan points greater than their obligation as public servants, the role to which they were elected and for which they took an oath. All taken together, there is nothing done by the Obama administration or the Democratic party since the start of the century that comes close to Republican misdeeds.

Republicans have evolved into the anti-science party (see my post “Scientists (that’s plural!) define science,” August 19, 2013), substituting political judgment for scientific consensus whenever ignorance might be courted. They have reduced biology and climate science to political issues. Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin would have been right at home, having their highly disciplined truth-finding judged by magistrates and priests. Federal scientific advisory committees have been diluted with non-scientist Republicans beginning as early as the Bush administration, an attempt to remove any “unacceptable facts,” hardly the action of a party interested foremost in facts rather than dogma. Congressional hearings carefully select outlier scientists to corroborate political positions instead of the reverse.

From its mistaken belief that blocking ideas constitutes producing them, to risking the country’s financial health for small partisan victories, to treating compromise and playing by the rules as unacceptable, to outright lies and deception, and recently to conducting “debates” as if reruns of the Jerry Springer Show, the party has dishonored an earlier history of substantive concepts and those “intellectual bearings” Matt Lewis mentioned. Pity. The Republican party (along with unaffiliated conservatives) was at one time a party of political concepts that gave us William F. Buckley, Morton Blackwell, Paul Weyrich, and—to go back further in the history of conservative thought—Edmund Burke. (Not Lincoln, for despite the same name, his was a different party.) It is not necessary for either Republicans or Democrats to agree with these thinkers, but it is important to recognize what is lost when the lowest common denominator of judgment and intellect replaces them. Today’s Republican party has given us George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Fox News clown Glenn Beck, among other intellectual leaders.

Disinformation is a political strategy, one that hampers citizens’ ability to make rational decisions in complex matters. Millions of conservatives, sustained and abetted by the party, carried the torch of disinformation by spreading preposterous claims about Pres. Obama and Democrat officials. I have received many of these, often taking time to check their authenticity, sometimes engaging the senders. If anything was more pronounced than the implausible rumors, it was the attitude of senders that seemed to be if the farfetched claims aided their cause, then accuracy mattered little or none.

Did Democrats act as if everything President George W. Bush did was wrong? Unwilling to limit their criticisms to only the obvious and massive mistakes, some Democrats did just that. It is a human characteristic to slip into unfair criticisms and can be found in any party and about any party. I have known Democrats, for example, to act as if Pres. Bush’s time at his ranch was a dereliction of duty, just as inconsequential as similar charges Republicans have made about Pres. Obama. The difference is that in the past seven years, the Republican party raised unwarranted criticism and counterfactual deceptions to an art form.

When I watch the angry, shouting, sometimes violent behavior at a Donald Trump rally, I see people understandably angry due to their own real pain and fear, but also misinformed by the Republican falsehoods. Obama is a Muslim. Obama wasn’t really born a citizen. Obama is ripping American apart. Obama is a socialist. Obama is responsible for divisions in the country. Obama ignores the Constitution.

Although the Fox News faithful have been shown to be less informed about national and international events, you can be sure they are certain about where blame lies for any problem that comes up. No one seems to care whether the stories are accurate or “fair and balanced,” just that they fit fans’ brain receptors like a drug. Years of such aided ignorance brought the nation almost far enough to pave the way for Obama’s defeat four years ago. We shall see if doubling down on similar disinformation and innuendo will usher a Republican into the White House this year. And that brings me to this year’s debates.

The unbelievable antics of Republican party candidates for president are, well, beyond belief. Continued descent into Jerry Springer Show politics brings us closer to its becoming the new normal. We have already developed an inability to grasp how disastrous it could be for the globe’s most powerful country to toy with political psychosis. Observers outside the US have reason to worry about so powerful a nation exhibiting paranoia and anti-intellectualism. While the Democratic contenders fight it out almost totally on policy issues, their Republican counterparts conduct a verbal slugfest.

At times, they’ve seemed to be trying to out-Christian each other (see my post “Democrats vs. theocrats,” January 30, 2016), to out-condemn “political correctness” in each other (see my post “Political correctness,” April 20, 2014), and to out-shout each other with sins of Pres. Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Do they debate policies? Yes, somewhat, though there is a tendency only to bring up issues that enable an anti-Obama political point to be made. In any event, grownups are in short supply. I wonder if the candidates, if asked, would say their performance adds to the vaunted American Exceptionalism or detracts from it (see my post “American exceptionalism, American bloviation,” November 11, 2015).

Let’s turn to another drama I call “A Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.” Due to the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the Republican party has to deal with more than its embarrassing primaries behavior. A less conservative justice than Scalia will change the tilt of the court for years. Understandably irritating to Republicans is that the sitting president has the job of nominating a replacement and the job of the Senate is to “advise and consent.” There is no Constitution provision that excuses assigned duties just because a party doesn’t care to perform. The country was titillated or shocked (depending on party), by the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s announcement that, despite the Constitutional obligation, the Senate would simply not do its job; that is, even if Pres. Obama faithfully performs, the Senate will not. This irresponsible action—supported by most Republicans in Congress—is not just a matter of disagreement on some policy decision, but far worse. It is an intentional and autarchic change in the Constitutional rules, as if a football team unilaterally changes the rules to its benefit during the game.

(Sen. McConnell, as Republican leader, famously declared at the beginning of Pres. Obama’s first term that the “number one goal” of Republicans was to make Obama a “one-term president.” Funny, one would think any party’s main goal would have something to do with fulfilling the responsibilities of governing, in fact to perform so well that its political chances are increased honestly. (What happened to the concept of “loyal opposition”?) Republican Congressional behavior after that point was, in fact, consistent with its less-than-patriotic goal.)

Republicans’ stated justification for this kind of contemptable action varies, but is often rather transparent. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley compared Pres. Obama to King George III—for his ostensible “executive overreach,” in any event also a tactic of Pres. George W. Bush. Sen. Grassley hadn’t noticed that. Senator John Cornyn said that if President Obama nominates someone, Senate Republicans will make “a piñata” of the nominee—that said with no idea who the nominee will be! Moreover, said Sen. Cornyn, “I don’t think the voters are really interested in seeing the ideological balance of the court changed for the next 30 years by a lame duck president.” Of course, it is not “voters,” but Republicans who might feel that way. Sen. Cornyn has no idea what voters want and doesn’t care. Nor does it matter. Sen. Mitchell and his colleagues have decided that no president—no, this president—should be allowed a nominee in the last year of his (or her) term.

Compounding the dishonor, the Republican establishment began a rumor that refraining from nomination in a president’s final year is a time honored practice. It is not. This tactic should not surprise us, for the right wing of House Republicans has acted that way since early victories of the Tea Party. Lying and obstructionism, not governing, have become an acceptable theme of political leadership. Authoritative repetition substitutes for truthfulness until the lie is believed as truth; that is closer to 1984 than is comfortable.

We’re at a dangerous and embarrassing position. It is dangerous because the political machinery, at least on the Republican side, is more engaged in its hyper-partisanship than doing its job for the country. It is embarrassing because the United States, the self-described indispensable country, is disgracing itself at the highest levels with uncivil and childish antics, incompetence at facing and resolving diverse opinions, and shunning the science which has contributed to our ascent. This may turn out just to be a bad period, one in which we recover from humiliating political freefall as actually has happened before (e.g., the Jefferson/Adams campaign). But leaving that recovery to chance is excruciating.

_______________________

This post has been a brutal criticism of the Republican party by a complete amateur as a political pundit. I’ve tried to be fair. The torch carried by the Republican party in the past is an important element in an informed citizenry. Its loss is not trivial. It has already occurred and reconstituting a viable and responsible party may be a Humpty Dumpty affair.

In one of my next posts, I hope to look at the quality of public discourse this country deserves and the world deserves us to have. I have not enjoyed addressing a laundry list of failures that I believe to be true, but that at one time or another could be true of any party. I will be happy to get beyond partisan madness and the pits into which it occasionally falls. Frankly, on a personal basis, I am more comfortable with system design and system maintenance than I am with being critical of a political party. We have an opportunity to contemplate something far more hopeful as well as crucial and that is what I look forward to thinking about: The nurturance of a political system.

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment

Awe, we can be earnest, too!

Posted on March 1, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

I’ve been fortunate in life to have a fortifying sense of awe . . . or maybe I’m just sophomoric and easily impressed. I’m serious about atheism and secular humanism, but the most accurate label that fits my day-to-day living is, to use sociologist Phil Zuckerman’s term, aweist. I’m regularly flipped out by new facts and experiences; they don’t even have to be monumental or useful.

Part of the satisfaction is that as we age our accumulated experience need not make us jaded, for there always exist sources of awe we haven’t known about until, well, just a few minutes ago. That’s pretty cool!

This month’s announcement confirming gravity waves is a good example. “The universe is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.” I wish I’d thought of that, but it was Eden Phillpotts, an agnostic English poet. So much marvelous wonder just awaits our becoming sufficiently clever to find it! Maybe the greatest awe of all is realizing our knowledge will never overtake the supply of things yet unlearned. Running out just isn’t one of the options.

Obviously, aweism is an attitude, a very present sense that being alive overflows with wonder. But wait, I don’t mean aweism promises peaches and cream. It doesn’t carry with it perpetual exultation and it doesn’t prevent occasional unhappiness. And even though aweism often embraces a child-like quality, it neither requires nor need it cause gullibility.

Last year I titled a post “The heavens declare the glory of god” (June 10, 2015), taken from the Biblical psalmist who poetically expressed pure awe. In that post I shared a quote from another English poet, Sarah Williams, “I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night.” As a kid, my budding astronomy interest fueled overwhelming intellectual curiosity, but Williams’s unscientific quote augmented it with a warm comfort. To an aweist there are many sources of the sublime; for me just looking up was enough to tap into a formidable dose, and the more I learned of the physical heavens, the greater the treat.

The psalmist, just like everyone of his day, linked his awe to creator myths of his time, a practice still echoed by Christians and religious Jews of today. But awe exists apart from whatever in a given culture is considered its source. Albert Einstein, not a theist, spoke of “emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed out candle.”

We all differ in what results in our awe, as well as how much awe we experience. I’m awestruck by, among other things, exceptionally kind behavior, brilliant technical competence, astrophysics, neural development in infants, the discipline of the scientific method, and generally the openness of life to delight and playfulness.

Many people are awed with religious events, political formulations, the beauty of the human body, or sports events. Whatever awe’s source, it is a wonderful enhancement of life that repeatedly draws us to the grand adventure of life, whether privately within one’s own mind or shared in the company of others. It need not diminish the experience to understand that the awe of new love . . . or old love, the awe of a splendid speech, the awe of a magnificent mountain, or the awe of a religious experience is not—and need not be—proof that the love will last, the speech is honest, the mountain survives erosion, or the religion is true. The splendor may not be so much in the stimulus, but in the marvelous natural capacity to be awed that we carry with us.

I, and maybe you, will never know the awe of great discovery as did Galileo, Darwin, or Al-Khwarizmi, but we do have sources of awe all around us, mostly in the daily flow of the banal. But the splendid feature—it’s awesome actually!—is that an aweist’s life requires only, in the words of philosopher Paul Kurtz, the intent to embrace and experience “joyful exuberance!”

 

______________________________________

I came across the idea of aweism several years ago and felt immediately that it captured a way I look at life. The source was “Aweism” a short piece by Phil Zuckerman (Free Inquiry, April-May 2009, pp. 52-55). So it is to Dr. Zuckerman that I’m indebted for the captivating term.

Posted in Life, living, and death, This blog, this blogger | 2 Comments

No rage against the dying of the light

Posted on February 22, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

John Long died on Sunday morning, October 12, 2014. Because he chose to.

I had met John Long, J.D., a year earlier due to his letter to the editor in “The Secular Review,” published by the Center for Inquiry. He had taken issue with widespread and, in his opinion, misguided linking of atheism and political liberalism. For years, John had been a libertarian and also a contributor to freethought causes.

Years ago, until the Republican Party came to be so thoroughly entangled with—and, I believe, compromised by—the religious right, my moderate economic conservatism tilted me toward the GOP. Like John, I experienced no incongruity between political conservatism and unwavering atheism. So when John’s letter appeared, I set out to find him, seeking a brief discussion on this matter to which it seemed he’d given more thought than I. He agreed to exchange a few emails on the topic.

That brief discussion turned into a year of almost daily emails though we never met in person. His sharp mind and secular mindset were always ready for a discussion about economics, politics, and philosophy—often sprinkled with the playful intellectualism of sacrilege. He had strong and carefully contrived opinions about economics. He thought economist Thomas Pikkety was “wrong, wrong, wrong” and that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to purchase insurance was constitutionally questionable, to touch on two of a host of issues. We shared our admiration of Carl Sagan and even a poem or two, notably “I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night” in Sarah Williams’s poem, “The Old Astronomer to His Pupil.” I enjoyed for most of a year our interchange on topics that had no greater emphasis on death than would naturally occur between those of a philosophical bent.

We argued whether political and social conservatism is more vulnerable to being infected by religion than is religion by political and social conservatism. Can economic conservatism, then, be expected to suffer most in such contamination, as seemed to happen as a result of the Moral Majority and its later iterations? Similarly, is the “purity” of secular humanism predictably conflated with political and social liberalism? What has secular humanism to lose in such a mixture?

Although we began our interaction focused on liberalism/secularism issues, as the year went on we increasingly shared bits of personal information. To say we became close friends would be an overstatement, though we certainly learned a great deal about each other’s lives. We each had a penchant for getting facts straight and spellings correct. Within two weeks of his death he took time to nail me on an issue of grammar. Like all such exchanges between us, he was not playing “gotcha,” but simply honoring veracity and accuracy. Those energetic, almost daily exchanges exceeded my hopes in initially writing him, but his decision about his deteriorating physical condition added a wholly new feature.

A word of background: Atheists can feel differently about death even while agreeing it is final, not a transmission to an afterlife. In fact, there are among us differences even in the definition of atheism, from certainty there is no god to the simple lack of belief in gods. Slight differences had led to the rewriting of the Humanist Manifesto. So while I cannot represent the views of atheists, I should briefly characterize mine, for it came to pass after a year of emails my discussion with John took an unexpected turn from academic discussions about death to a very concrete instance of one man’s death.

“When I die,” I had written in another setting, “others will say, ‘John’s dead.’ But I, John, won’t be aware of it. I might have been aware death was imminent—‘this plane’s going down,’ ‘that 18 wheeler is coming right at me,’ or merely ‘oops.’ Perhaps I will have been aware of the darkening silence of fading consciousness. But my death itself will be other people’s business, not mine. My death will belong to others, not to me. (You could say I’ll be the last to know. That’d be wrong, of course, since the memo won’t even be coming my way.) All my verbs, so personally relevant, will switch immediately into past tense: is to was, drive to drove, lust to lusted, love to loved, write to wrote, and, of course, breathe to breathed.” I strain against the notion that I will miss such a seminal point in my existence!

I can remember no significant disagreements between John’s concepts of death and my own. Our mutual tendency to intersperse moderately meaningful philosophy with lighthearted word play filled the emails. We decided, for example, that in death we will not have “lost” our lives. We might have been in the process of losing life, but having done so, there will be no one to have lost anything. The universe will have gotten along without us for over 13 billion years, and even then didn’t pay much attention to the few decades it will have had us, our having lived as if “between two bookends of non-existence” or “a piece of the universe that woke up,” as Dale McGowan put it in Atheism for Dummies). We will have been—indeed already are—quite temporary, hardly a blip on the screen, and that not for long. As Christopher Hitchens said in his memoir Hitch-22, it’s “not that the party’s over . . . it is most assuredly going on—only henceforth in my absence.” It is easy to see why the afterlife belief is so compelling and how it provides such unexamined power to religious dogma.

Incidentally, isn’t it strange that religious believers, for whom an afterlife is a big deal, are as frightened by death as anyone? Jesus, they believe, got a head start on the afterlife phenomenon . . . sort of a beta test. Good thing it was believed to have worked, for it enabled St. Paul to say that if it hadn’t come out right, the whole religion would have had to be scrapped. What Paul, the persecutor formerly known as Saul, didn’t mention was all those other faith-celebrities who’d beat Jesus to it.

Toward the end of summer 2014 John told me that the burden of physical ill health was increasing and would soon become unbearable. He had been undergoing dialysis twice and sometimes three times a week, his strength was deteriorating, and he was somewhat confined to his apartment. His situation was not burdened by money worries, for his training in law and accounting, along with his keen intellect and skills with investing had brought him financial success. He saw no reason to go on.

“My kidney function,” he wrote,” had been declining for at least ten years and at the time of my hospitalization my GFR (glomerular filtration rate) had just slipped below 20 (normal GFR range is 90-137). My doctor knew I was close to inadequate function months earlier and had had an arteriovenous graft for access to my circulatory system surgically implanted months before to give it time to heal before it was put to use. Medicare begins paying for dialysis below GFR 20. Above that level while you will suffer from uremia you can still clear as much fluid as you take in. GFR 20 then; my latest blood test two weeks ago recorded a GFR of 8. Therefore, last year’s effects should be accelerated.”

In September he made the decision to forego continued dialysis, letting his body—the body that had for months or years been set against him–decide the day and the time of his death. On September 23, John wrote me that “I now can only walk 30-40 yards and stand for a few minutes. I’ve had my legs give way three times in the last week. My doctors want to do a lumbar MRI to check for spinal stenosis. That would really solve nothing as, if positive, it would lead to back surgery and weeks or months of recovery and rehab. Even that outcome along with debilitating dialysis three times a week is unacceptable.”

“Tomorrow will be my last dialysis session and I see a hospice representative right after. My demise should take 8 days to two weeks from tomorrow” (It actually took about two weeks longer than he expected.) Two days later, he reported, “This is a circus and my family won’t start getting here until Saturday. A nurse yesterday, another today. Delivery of a hospital bed, an oxygen concentrator, and other hardware including oxygen bottles; FedEx delivering two packages of drugs.” He received a call from the social worker and another call from a pastor, though I am sure the latter was not of his choosing. He said he wanted to be rude, but “couldn’t manage that,” adding “I feel no anxiety. What I do feel is a sense of wanting to get this over with.”

I found it interesting—and encouraging—that knowing he would die in a few days, John maintained his interest in his lifetime bridge achievement and in what seemed to be his favorite science fiction films. His breezy September 27 note read, “Off for my last bridge game and then to get my sister at the airport. Ciao for today.” Later that same day he was able to exult, “Won my last bridge game!”

John’s investment in his bridge performance was no idle engagement, witness his September 25 reply to my inquiry about sharing what had become a deathwatch story with others. “It’s fine with me if you share our correspondence whether my identity is known or not. My only concern at this point is that my situation not be generally known to my competitors during my final two or three bridge games Friday, Saturday, and Monday. It would be really morbid if every time they looked at me they saw a dead man, particularly since just a Thursday ago they honored me for reaching 5,000 points with a cake and a little party.”

“It is testimony to the human spirit,” I assured him, “that your concern should revolve around a weekend of bridge. I love it! Your 5,000+ points shall live on unsullied!” As to his interest in science fiction, I asked him to visualize the headline, “Man Delays Death in Order to See Last of Starship Troopers TV Series.” John was up to the kidding and, in fact, saw the irony and humor in his situation more frequently than I did. “Interestingly,” he said, “my cell phone battery is dying too. Maybe we’ll track together.” On another occasion, he observed, “Here’s a good one. It just occurred to me my death bed is awaiting me in my living room/dining room and I pass it every time I go to the kitchen.” We laughed about Woody Allen’s quip, “I’m not afraid to die, I just don’t want to be there when it happens.”

“I’m reminded,” I told him, “how bizarre this conversation would appear to most people. I’m happy that you approach this part of life so matter-of-factly. Your resoluteness is an encouraging example to others even though I’m certain you’re not looking to be anybody’s hero. I don’t like the prospect of losing you in late September or early October, almost exactly one year from our first exchanges, but I’d like it less if you had no choice in the matter.”

I told John “my wife thinks I am treating your death with too much frivolity. My response to her was that I think we understand each other on this matter and that I would expect the same matter-of-fact treatment from you. However, she might be right; it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve had to rely on her to save me from being an ass. So we have a few more days as long as you are up to it—our impiety, our irreverence, and our constant awareness of how fleeting and insignificant we are. Truth is, while I do minimize your death for you, I do not minimize it for me.”

John chose to use some of his remaining time attending to Christmas gifts. With no reference to the irony, he told me, “Wrapping what I already had seemed to be the logical thing to do.” In fact, his accounts of ironies and even fun were scattered through the days he had remaining. Just after the specifics of his impending death had been worked out, he emailed me, “I had my best day in a least two years yesterday. I feel as if a burden has been lifted. Right now I just wish things would move a little faster. This not a not a grave situation except literally. Shakespeare said, ‘Ask for me tomorrow, and you shall find me a grave man.’”

Then again, in early October, John announced, “Believe it or not I’m having fun. I spent time last week rearranging my investment accounts to minimize taxes and gain maximum tax avoidance from step-up in basis for my heirs. I took what few losses I had so they could be deducted leaving nothing but unrealized gains which will disappear. I’ve written detailed instructions for my heirs. And this morning I essentially finished the tax return for the stub period. My trust picks up from that point and will have to file its own return. I cannot imagine a better organized estate.”

“Yesterday I went over my estate and my instructions to my heirs. I’ve done everything I can to make a good sized estate simple and to minimize taxes. I have no sense of wanting to experience every remaining minute to the fullest. I am just going to try to fill the time with interesting things to do which is the same thing I’ve been doing for all the years since I became financially secure and didn’t have to worry about getting along day to day.”

I was interested in John’s active connections with the same issues that had long been important to him—political, economic, and philosophical items like libertarianism, atheism, and citizenship. I asked, “Is there a tendency, “I asked him, “for you to slowly withdraw from such immediate issues in order to focus more on vastly broader ones like the state of this species you were born into or like future species are to be born from the ashes of this one. I don’t know where I’d gravitate in your circumstance, but I think I’d be pulling away from issues specific to this time, this domicile, even this specific species.” But I knew my soaring expression could be completely full of crap. Despite the opportunity impending death brings to think more broadly, more focused on the universe, I might in such a period of concentration be consumed with a boil on my knee.

“I don’t wish to minimize the fact,” I told him, “that within another week when the John Long I now know no longer exists, I likely still will and a part of my intellectual life will be less interesting, less anticipatory of the next perspicacious point of view, or challenge to mine. But that is what I will miss. Emails, bridge scores, estate calculations, and dialysis drudgery simply won’t come up for you. As we both agree and have discussed, your death is my problem, not yours.”

The closest John came to emotional was on September 25 when he wrote me, “It’s been interesting corresponding with you this last year of my life. I did not expect a relationship to be so intellectually stimulating as the average person is something of a dolt and even the above average ones are not open minded. Please stay in touch. I don’t expect to begin feeling the effects until Monday or Tuesday. I’ll probably start on morphine late next week. Until then I want to hear what you have to say. You’re near the top of my list to be notified by my sons when the time comes.”

I thanked him for his intent to keep writing as long as his physical and mental condition allowed, then added, “Without meaning anything mawkish by the comment, your situation and your resolve have become precious to me, valuable and integral to the discussions we have had all along. Lead the way, friend, I’ll not be far behind you. Stay in touch as long as it benefits you. It always benefits me.”

John reported that he’d seen his “long time addiction therapist/counselor to say good-bye on Friday and Dylan Thomas’s poetry came up— ‘Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the passing of the light.’ Bullshit. Fighting the inevitable when it’s otherwise painful and demeaning is worse than silly. It’s inane, egotistical, self-centered.” That was the last I heard from John.

Five days later, October 13, I received a call at 9am from one of John Long’s sons that John had died on the previous morning, Sunday October 12. His intention to control his own demise was fulfilled. His interest in intellectual banter had continued until he weakened too much to go on with it. Of course, he did go quietly “into that good night,” for by then the night was truly his friend and came at his invitation.

I benefitted from my year’s interaction with John Long, particularly the final few months of his life. The honor of frank sharing of a person’s approach to a secular death was as educational as it was poignant and inspiring. John’s choice of a passive suicide removed part of the social stigma, to be sure, but may have freed him to be more contemplative in that the mechanics of a contrived death did not crowd out his philosophical focus.

Many theists would be surprised that there was no last minute grasping for admission to an afterlife, no “deathbed conversion” (a far rarer event than theist lore has it). He died fully convinced he was approaching non-existence where “self” loses meaning in a twinkling, where the brain’s magnificent ability to create mind becomes only a tangle of a hundred billion lifeless neurons. John’s effortless, calm conformity between philosophy and behavior exhibited for me an impressive integrity.

He understood that we live until we die—not a complicated thought, in fact, a very simple one. Though the chemicals of life so precisely assembled inexorably yield to entropy, it is not the entropy that sets us apart but the preciousness of life that for a short while wins the race. The atheist’s death, so exemplified by John Long, is a death without pretension, without mirage. Until the last moment, we live to live.

 

___________________________

Post note: Quotations are from emails that passed between John Long and me unless otherwise noted. I published a shortened version of this post as “The Chosen Death of John D. Long” in Free Inquiry, Dec. 2015/Jan. 2016, vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 33-35. I am indebted to Tom Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry and executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism, for permission to reprint this original version, slightly longer than that which made it into print.

Posted in Life, living, and death | 4 Comments

A belated apology to my father

Posted on February 12, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

I just want to say I’m sorry. Fifty-five years too late.

John Bruce Carver, Sr., my father, died 55 years ago today. I was not yet 23. He was not an educated man, having gone only through the eighth grade as had my mother. (My mother doesn’t appear in this post due to her advanced Alzheimer’s in the 1950s and, therefore, had no role in the following interactions with my father.)

I remember my father as a hardworking, conscientious, religious man. He had been a Church of Christ elder for 14 years in the in the Brainerd congregation in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He was very much a man of his word. For reasons I still don’t understand, we were not close, though we were never really estranged either. He was pleased, I believe, that his only son seemed headed for the ministry. Still, he was supportive of my joining the U.S. Air Force a few months out of high school.

I came home for a month after basic and technical training, ordered to fly afterward to a three-year assignment in Germany. Preserved as one of those lifelong images we retain for no discernable reason, I can still see him standing on the tarmac when I hesitated at the top of the gangway to board. He had driven me to Chattanooga’s Lovell Field on his way to work wearing, as always, blue overalls with the Esso insignia. Although he’d never said so, I knew he was proud of his 19-year-old son flying off to serve our country.

By the middle of my time abroad, after months of questioning, contemplation, and reading with no tutoring or other personal influences, I had come to doubt my former religion, the faith I was reared in, the faith my father exemplified. I felt that it and probably all other religions had no foundation in fact, but rested only on feelings, indoctrination, unsubstantiated conclusions, and tradition. I called myself agnostic at that time, but later chose atheism as more accurate.

Even at the age of 20, I was disposed toward laying out all the cards. Consequently, I thought it honest to write the elders of my home church to ask that I be removed from the membership roll, including an explanation for so unusual a request. The elders never did acknowledge my withdrawal, but my father did…in an unusually long letter. I’m not sure now how much I resented not being dealt with as an adult by the elders. I was dealing with a serious matter and felt I deserved a serious response from the governing body of my “home congregation.”

My father’s arguments against my apostasy and for Christianity—or, rather, the particular version believed by the Church of Christ—were sincere but hardly convincing theologically. His letter was earnestly constructed, but poorly argued, relying on many of the weak arguments my church used then and that much of fundamentalist Christianity still employs. The Bible is the word of God because, in effect, it says it is. The existence of the Biblical God is proven by the marvels of nature. Apparent design proves a Designer. The planets stay in their orbits because God wills it. An eternal, fiery hell awaits the unfaithful. In testimony of these truths we have the perfection of the Bible, an ancient book with no errors, inspired by God himself.

What I did not understand then and what did not emerge in my youthful perception, was how much my reply must have hurt my father. From his viewpoint, I’m sure the letter he wrote me was his best effort, his heartfelt, genuine counsel to an unexpectedly wayward son. What he got back from me was also sincere, but one argued more as if directed to a debate opponent rather than to a disappointed, possibly distraught father. My unintended insensitivity when added to the original news must have hurt him woefully.

Fortunately, when I returned to civilian life and lived near my parents, he and I would from to time just talk about life, though we never argued the points that divided us. Those easy-going discussions were not only rewarding and gentle, but brought a closeness I’d never had with him growing up. Unfortunately, after only a few of those good months, he succumbed to a heart attack. We had never talked about the effects of my letters.

Fast forward to late 2015. Sarah Harrison Green, Tennessee Director of American Atheists, spoke at the monthly meeting of the Atlanta Freethought Society. Someone in the audience asked her advice on how new atheists could best inform their parents of having left the family faith. I was struck more by her first two words in reply than by her more specific guidance that followed. She said, simply, “Be kind.”

Those words reverberated in my mind for days. They came to rest on my logical, but insufficiently kind reply to my father a half-century ago. The reasoning I gave then about philosophical factors—though expressed with the cheeky, ebullience of youth—is still defensible to me today. Yet today I would express that philosophy to my father with more care.

I deeply regret having had so little recognition then of how difficult the experience must have been for him. To be sure, I owed my father the truth of my changed convictions. But equally certain, I owed him the gentleness due from a son. In my youthful gusto I fulfilled the former, but in thoughtlessness I failed him and even myself on the latter.

Obviously, I have no belief in an afterlife. So this public apology is not offered in hope he will hear it, but because I owe it to the memory of him to say it.

 

Posted in This blog, this blogger | 7 Comments

Flirting with theocracy

Posted on February 7, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

Fundamentalist American Christians as a group can no more be trusted to mean “religious liberty” when they say it than the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea can be trusted to really mean “democratic.” My home state of Georgia, accustomed to over two hundred years of fundamentalist hegemony—two centuries of anti-liberty for blacks, women, and gays—has at this writing seven different bills afoot in its legislature, each purporting to preserve or restore religious liberty.

With precious few exceptions, they have little interest in religious liberty, but a great deal in Christian liberty or, more accurately, fundamentalist Christian liberty. As I’ve argued in this blog, the liberty they mean is not just the freedom to worship whatever and virtually however they please. No, they are so accustomed to having their way that their definition of liberty includes the freedom to tell others what to do (see my post “Perverting the meaning of freedom of religion.” Apr. 16, 2014). Historically, that’s a frequent behavior of religions. They act as if there is a religious right to dominate civil affairs—not, as they argue, just to be in the “public square.”

Quite a few of the thought leaders as America’s became a country were deists—quite unchristian. Jews had been here since the 17th century and later a scattering of Hindus and Muslims. These were not considered part of the main body of believers. It is true that the dominant faith when the United States was formed was Christianity. But not all Christianity. Catholicism, the largest creed worldwide, was hardly embraced as part of that Christianity. If present day revisionists wish to pretend that ours is a “Christian nation,” they’ll have to accept that it’s not so much a Christian nation as a “Protestant nation.” Except not all Protestants were welcome either, depending on the colony or state. At various times in various settings, Unitarians and Anglicans were outsiders, and late comers, like Mormons in the 19th century, were not warmly embraced.

Thus it is that to take seriously the ostensible purity of America’s Christian origins, one would have to disavow a great many religious people, even—as I’ve noted—those who had an equal claim on being Christian. Writing a research paper that justifies calling the United States a Christian country would require a lot of asterisks. And that is just with respect to the US demographically. To justify calling it Christian nation in terms of the nature of its government and civil structure requires skullduggery of the magnitude of discredited pseudo-historian David Barton, considered the leader of the Christian nation fantasy.

But even if all the claims of Barton and his followers were to be true, it is a long argument away from demonstrating that the Christianity of the colonial period deserves a special, favored place in 21st century America. It hardly proves, for example, that churches and church leaders should be able to commandeer the public schools to teach their religion for them, to get special tax treatment for their churches and their ministers, or to be accorded a leading role in deciding public morals.

But those comments bring me back to the separation of civil authority and religions. Remember it was Baptists who feared the hazards of being outside the in-group that prompted Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter about what he called a “wall of separation.” It is that same wall that many of today’s fundamentalists (including Baptists) rail against. While Baptists then needed the First Amendment protection, many of them and other fundamentalists now endeavor to install their religion in the halls, lawns, courtrooms, and classrooms of government.

This week a group of Christian leaders here in Georgia complained that their faith and their freedom of religion were being trampled. They cited proof that included a decision by a Carrollton, Georgia school board not to allow a local church to use its stadium for baptizing students (Atlanta Journal Constitution, Feb. 3, 2016, p. B3). “Trampling” is defined by a pretty low bar. Sometimes it seems that Christians have a need to claim martyrdom even when they are in control. The fictional “war on Christmas” is another instance (see my post “To the ramparts . . . atheists are coming for your Christmas trees!” Dec. 9, 2015). Examples abound of the widespread religious expectation that the public square is not so much for broad philosophical exchange, but solely theirs for the taking (see my post “Religion in the public square,” Oct. 20, 2015).

As to the Constitution’s separation of religion and civil authority, apparently among fundamentalist Christians a wall is good when you want it, but a bad idea when you don’t. One of the seven Georgia bills, sponsored by Representative Kevin Tanner, is to protect religious figures from being forced to marry gay couples. No such danger has been shown to exist. (Most pro-gay marriage citizens think the real purpose is to garner cheap favor with fundamentalists, not to protect the pulpit where none is needed.) Last week, in justifying the need for his “pastor protection” bill, Rep. Tanner explained that his intent “is a simple reaffirmation of our bedrock principle of separation of church and state” [italics mine, JC]. I suppose the wall can be denied and used at the same time.

Many religionists along the way have learned the hard lesson that religious freedom for one automatically means being free from others’ freedom of religion. Those who over the ages have inconvenienced, conspired against, and damaged religious people have seldom been atheists, but religious people of another faith (see my post “Freedom of religion requires freedom from religion,” Oct. 8, 2014). They seem not to understand that their freedom requires that others not have as much as they’d like, and vice versa. We have a Constitution to support the delicate balance.

So if America isn’t a Christian nation, nor certainly not a Muslim nation, what kind of nation is it? It is a people’s nation. What I mean by that is as time rolls along the country automatically becomes whatever the people’s values are, as averaged by some credible process. Protecting a stability that protects flexibility is the job of a carefully crafted process. The process is the part that stays stable, while the values of the country take whatever path that “we the people” choose. The process itself may need to be changed, but that is a serious and sober undertaking, like messing with a computer’s operating system rather than just installing a program.

Perhaps Americans do want more religion in government. There are many clamoring for such a merger, the most extreme of whom are the dominionists. But most right wing Christians, who have so thoroughly infused conservative politics, don’t want all the implications the dominionists’ dream would entail. Like Mr. Tanner’s words reveal, they want to dip in and out at will, claiming freedom from governmental power when they want it, but a religionization of governmental action when they don’t (as long it is their religion!). Their flirtation with theocracy demonstrates a shallow recognition of how damaging it would be to the liberty of thought and practice precious to religious and non-religious alike.

Posted in Church and state | 1 Comment

Democrats vs. theocrats

Posted on January 30, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

Republicans were a party of intellectually respectable politics only a few decades ago, so much so that its take on economics, particularly fiscal policy and free markets, won me over. Later, however, the path went sadly downhill from Ludwig von Mises and William F. Buckley to clowns like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, from the Buckley-Kenneth Galbraith debates to Fox News. The Koch brothers’ money and the Moral Majority’s voting strength proved too alluring for a party with otherwise so cerebral a product.

In the rough tumble of politics, economic conservatism needed voters, while due to its theocratic predilections, social conservatism wanted a seat at the table. Thus did Republican ideation come to be joined by, then dominated by religious ideation, despite there being no compelling reason for kinship between the two kinds of conservatism. With the repetition of years, however, the two seem inextricably married, so that social conservatism and its religiosity now seem essential, indeed integral, components in American political considerations.

Rationality is not religion’s strong suit. Dogma needs no evidence, just feelings and familiarity. The caretakers of political conservatism began to sound increasingly pious, increasingly motivated to out-Christian each other, increasingly hesitant to embrace science. Religionization invaded conservative politics, bringing with it positions less encumbered by reason. (For example, the anti-science flavor of today’s Republican Party came not from its own parentage, but from the Christian Right.) Facts became less important than support of dogma—not just religious dogma, but now political dogma as well. Politicians like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee sounded like Christian missionaries as much as aspirants to the White House, the latter even proposing that the Constitution be modeled on the Bible.

Benightedness has a charm of its own, one disciplined little by reality, but beguiling in its appeal to emotions. Otherwise intelligent conservatives circulated unfounded internet rumors, rarely bothering to check their authenticity. Even national television produced a source of conservative political correctness indebted more to observing and spreading doctrine than to journalistic integrity. (A TV network’s slogan of “Fair and Balanced,” like a country named “Democratic Republic of X” or a legislator’s bill titled “Restoration of Religious Freedom,” cries out for skeptical examination.) Chillingly, in the current presidential campaign, whether a candidate tells lies seems to a substantial part of the electorate rather unimportant. Truth just doesn’t matter.

Politics and religion have well-deserved reputations for being more emotional than rational to begin with. That is one reason, with regard to politics at any rate, that a carefully designed political system is required to support the more rational side of us and restrain the less rational side. The American Constitution was a valiant effort to do that, more so than predecessor documents and more than earlier colonial entities in North America. It attempted, not always successfully, to guaranteeing religious freedom while keeping religion and government out of each other’s way: Encourage religions to control themselves . . . and only themselves. Regulate the government to play no favorites.

The hegemonic desires of religion are difficult to keep tamed, as they must be if separate religions are to be kept safe from each other. Religionists entice government to support them since, after all, they claim divine patronage. They may first do so at the broadest level, that is, religion in general, after which the dominant religion would want support for Christianity only, then the dominant denomination of Christianity, and so forth. Domination knows no natural stopping place, even though religious people should be first in line to maintain a wall between church and state. Although a weakened wall promises short term gains—e.g., churches getting favored tax treatment—it threatens long term loss of religious freedom, at least for the smaller religions as the larger ones expand their civic imprimatur and its accompanying power.

The Democratic Party is not immune to this kind of pandering and its inevitable deterioration. But it has not been as infiltrated—so far, at least—by fundamentalist religious influence as has the Republican Party. In any event, organizations like Liberty University, American Family Association, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Family Research Council, American Center for Law and Justice, Focus on the Family, Faith and Freedom Coalition, as well as a number of TV evangelists have brought their religious agendas into (predominantly) the Republican Party. As the process has continued, candidates’ piety earns more political points than their rationality and competence.

Even trying to negotiate opposing positions, so necessary to governmental vitality and difficult under the best of conditions, is proof of insufficient commitment to one side or the other. Uncompromising, all-or-nothing positions, delivered with incendiary rhetoric and driven by religion-like passion and obduracy solidify otherwise resolvable legislative logjams. In the melding of religion into politics, it is creative compromise—said to be a proud art of politics—that has suffered, not the dogmatic intensity of religion. The rigidity of religious faith—understandable if in its own realm—further handicaps reasonable politics in that it introduces the aforementioned problem that “facts” themselves must first be politically—rather than scientifically—vetted. Anthropogenic climate change, biological evolution, and other fields crucial to human flourishing and survival demonstrate my point: if modern science and an ancient book differ, it’s the science that’s to be questioned.

The party that could once have been accused of being coldly logical came to have an appetite for the hotly illogical, the use of innuendo, and made up or distorted charges against opponents. That kind of loss of mental integrity isn’t easily contained. Hence, charges by conservatives against each other came to be just as disingenuous and uncivil. For example, Mitt Romney was blamed for paying the low, legal tax rate by other Republicans, a patently unfair charge. Few seemed to notice that candidates who opposed him did not speak up even though some of them had been or were in the Congress and could have changed the tax law. Rubio and Chris Christie have recently openly called each other liars; either lying or false accusation seem important enough to discuss.

The entanglement of church and state that our founders were wise enough to avoid in the Constitution is increasingly much with us. Watch candidates Huckabee and Ted Cruz with Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, each preaching that unilaterally disregarding the law of the land because you don’t like it is OK if your reason for not liking it is based on your religion. Consider, as well, the fanatical symbolism (and untruths) of social conservatives about Planned Parenthood, their sanctimonious support for intelligent design, and reckless opposition to the science of global climate change.

There are intelligent, even brilliant, advocates of conservative economics and science-based reasoning, but they’d be unlikely to make it in today’s Republican Party, for the parading of piety and the disdain for any science that challenges religion are sacrosanct, “political correctness” lines not to be crossed. (“Politically correctness” is a human phenomenon, not a specifically liberal one. See my post “Political Correctness,” April 4, 2014.)

I grieve the loss to political dialogue of important matters of the sort an unfettered Republican Party would have championed, before it was compromised by superstitious effusions and retrofitted to religious pandering. I mourn the loss to the country of the thoughtfulness it once had to bring. I mourn the Republican descent into proto-theocracy.

 

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Christian lying

Posted on January 7, 2016 by John Bruce Carver

Is a large segment of Christianity culturally addicted to lying? I don’t mean the unproven and unprovable foundation on which all religions are built, such as utter faith without evidence in a myriad of meticulous propositions about supernatural beings and forces. I do mean the disinformation Christian groups seem prone to spread about each other and about non-Christians, a type of missionary zeal that is neither necessary to protect their dogma nor required to exercise religious freedom.

[Disclaimer: I recognize that attributes of Christians asserted in these lines are not true of all Christians in all situations. I do, however, claim them to be characteristic of Christians taken as a group whether due to proportional significance or in “noise level.”]

As an atheist who made my lonely, untutored way out of a Christian rearing, I look back and see inaccuracies promoted about the non-Christian world that I then believed. Were they intentional lies? Not in most cases, just as now Christian misinformation is not necessarily intentional lies. The Christians I grew up among didn’t seem to care whether their criticisms of atheism (or of other religions) were accurate or not. The untruths were satisfying and self-congratulatory and in some agreed-upon, pep-rally way felt true.

I had to learn later that atheists were not untrustworthy, unhappy, and unhelpful as I’d been taught—at least no more than Christians. (Relevant previous posts on this blog include “Morality in secular humanism,” March 16, 2015; and “Wretched and unfulfilled without Jesus,” April 26, 2015.) I found they were not uneducated; in fact, persons whose careers are most concerned with teasing out truth from ignorance—research scientists—not priests, preachers, imams, and rabbis, are far more likely to be atheists than is the general population. I had been misled by my congregation in a number of ways.

Keep in mind that the kind of disinformation that’s the subject of this post is not that of theist dogma, but theist behavior. I’m not taking issue here with the points of faith that describe a religion, in this case Christianity. The misleading I’m referring to is what Christians say about their philosophical opponents’ beliefs and personalities, in my case atheism. So my topic here is not the “facts” of an omnipotent Jehovah and afterlife eternal punishment, but the questionable “facts” of atheists’ ethics and charity. Whether a God and hell are real or not, the lives of atheists are not relevant to that determination, nor do attributes of religions’ worldview stand or fall based on how atheists live their lives.

Therefore, in my childhood was it really necessary for Christians to misinform themselves and others (and me), whether by intent or negligence? Is it acceptable in the Christian moral code to spread untruths, whether by intent or by uncaring? Or is misrepresentation OK as long as it supports one’s religion, rather like “anything goes as long as you are on the ‘right’ team”? Muslims are permitted to lie for the advance of Islam or to gain the trust of non-believers, and Catholic theologians have flirted with “mental reservation.” But I suspect that theological justification is rarely considered. I propose that the consideration is whether anything opposing a matter of faith deserves one’s honesty, thereby conceiving truthfulness to be dependent on the status of one’s opponent, not a characteristic integral to one’s own integrity.

Religious lying no longer surprises me. On a personal level, Christians are approximately as honest as atheists. Nevertheless, in matters of faith, people in one religion have been known to lie egregiously about people in other religions. And just as we give politicians a pass for lying, we are also not prone to condemn religionists for lying; after all it is in their “good cause.” As a child I frequently listened to a Baptist preacher in Ringgold, Georgia carry on a broadcast radio skirmish with a preacher of my denomination in Chattanooga, Tennessee (close enough communities for AM radio). What they ascribed to each other went far beyond arguing what scripture said and what it didn’t.

Isn’t it interesting that to me the Baptist’s criticisms were so obviously wrong than those of “my” side . . . as far as my indoctrination enabled me to perceive. Maybe a few hundred years ago I’d have been easy to convince that Jews drank the blood of Christian babies. I don’t even want to consider what conclusions I’d have come to if I had lived in a community where witches were said to disrupt the Godly order of things, for strong religious positions are frequently associated with incredible beliefs. And Christians, like all religionists, have no problem with incredible beliefs that they’ve learned from childhood.

In the present age, it may be that most Christians tell fewer such bizarre lies about what their religious opponents are like or believe or what atheists are like or believe. I don’t want to let them off the hook too generously, though, for I’ve often watched Christians stand in silence when other Christians perpetrate misinformation. I’ve wondered why the quiet ones said nothing, why they let damaging and untrue characteristics and charges be made without challenge. The faithful would be surprised, maybe chagrined, if a fellow congregational member stood to refute a preaching pastor’s inaccurate portrayal of atheists.

Inaccurate information runs through much of religionists’ conversations, affecting large issues and small. Shortly after my complete adoption of atheism 56 years ago, one of my sisters (thoroughly Christian) tried to convince me that even if Christianity were not true, believers are nonetheless blessed with the highest possible code of morality. I credit my sister with sincerity, but I’m quite sure she had never examined what other religions and philosophers have had to say about morality. She did not actually know that Christian morality is the “highest possible,” nor had she clarified for herself criteria on which one could reasonably make such a judgment. Even in that micro-argument, in the absence of having ever read or studied other moralities, she relied on her faith that Bible-based morality simply must be the best; she needed no evidence.

Many present day Christians also need no evidence to say that Christianity, compared to atheism, brings greater ethical conduct or, on a sociological scale, dominance of Christianity in a population compared to less religion is associated with a more ethical country. Were they to seek actual data, they’d drop these unsupportable assumptions. But data are useless if faith is all that’s needed, enough blind confidence to believe that Christianity has so salutary an effect that seeking facts doesn’t matter.

Of course, there are big lies and there are small ones. Here is an example of a small one, significant in that it is but one of hundreds I see annually. I received the adjacent photograph and superimposed message (“Our VETS and their sacrifices deserve to be honored”) from a Facebook “friend.” The person posting the item did not mind telling a lie about what the atheists’ point was, because by lying the atheists could be made to look unpatriotic. The accompanying message was: “An atheist group won’t give up their fight to have a 1925 World War I veterans memorial in Bladensburg, MD removed. The 40 foot cross reads ‘This Memorial Cross Dedicated To The Heroes of Prince George’s County Who Gave Their Lives In The Great War For The Liberty Of The World.’ Those Veterans and the sacrifices they made deserve better than that. They deserve to be honored.”

Cross and Our VetsThe message is pretty obvious: Atheists don’t care about veterans. Atheists are so offended by a cross that they will dishonor veterans. The problem is that these are untrue. The message is an intentional lie or, at best, arises from not caring whether it is a lie or not. It makes atheists look bad, so it must be true. It makes Christians look good, so it must be right. The truth is that atheists care about veterans in the same way that believers do. (Incidentally, there are atheists in foxholes, despite the well-circulated fabrication.) Another truth is that most atheists are not offended by crosses, just crosses erected with public money or on public land. Unless Christians actually have difficulty understanding that simple distinction, then comments like those attending the Facebook entry are merely lying by implication.

Normally, because stuff like this this is pandemic, I mutter a “tsk, tsk” and go on to opinions of greater integrity. Religiosity and pious posturing are like background noise in America, spouting prevarications too numerous to list. But small lies repeated unendingly matter; a “thousand cuts” comes to mind, lies not enough to merit much opposition. That little Facebook entry is an example, representative of 999 other cuts. Even recognizing its insignificance by itself, I weakened and gave it attention it did not deserve with this short retort:

“Yes, our vets and their sacrifices do deserve to be honored. Of the many atheists I know, not a single one disagrees with that. The atheist argument is with Christians using the government to do their missionary work for them….as in using a Christian symbol as if patriotism is a Christian phenomenon or in pushing Christian dogma in public schools. Absolutely YES to vets. NO to Christian bullying.”

There, that felt good and was within the usual brevity of Facebook comments. And other than its helping my cardiac health, it made not a whit of difference. Christians (OK, not all, but a greater percentage, I’d wager, than the percentage of Muslims inclined to be terrorists) are accustomed to having more rights than non-Christians in America. Opposing that special treatment is immediately called an attack on religion, for they’ve come to define freedom of religion as the right to tell others what to do and the right to commandeer government power to lend its authority to their cause.

I collect instances of such Christian bullying as a hobby, but only from the mouths of Christians themselves. Of the hundreds I’ve collected in just a few years, here are a representative few:

  • “Counterfeit religions, alternative religions of Christianity have no right to the free exercise of religion.” Bryan Fischer, long time spokesperson for American Family Association.
  • “In Jesus’s name we pray. Amen.” Lisa Patterson, primary school principal, Rabun County School District, in prayers offered at district-sponsored graduation ceremonies. Tiger, Georgia.
  • “Atheists are throwing a fit because they don’t have their own day. They do have their own day; it’s called April Fools’ Day, because you are a fool if you don’t believe in God.” High school history teacher (name not disclosed), Rankin County High School, Flowood, Mississippi.
  • “Politicians who do not use the Bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office.” Beverly LeHaye, Concerned Women for America.
  • “The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant—baptism and holy communion—must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.” Gary North, in Political Polytheism, Tyler, Tex. Institute for Christian Economics.
  • “The Christian community has a golden opportunity to train an army of dedicated teachers who can invade the public school classrooms and use them to influence the nation for Christ.” James Kennedy, Center for Reclaiming America.
  • “Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody’s pseudo-right to worship an idol.” Joseph Morecraft, Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, Cumming, Georgia.
  • “57 percent.” Public Policy Polling, summarizing its nationwide survey of whether the Republican Party base “supports establishing Christianity as the national religion” (vs. supporters of Rick Perry 94% and Mike Huckabee 83%).
  • “We should be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their [sic] choice on Sunday to see if we can get back to having a moral rebirth.” Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen.
  • “Share the Gospel and bring people to Christ and strengthen their beliefs.” Irma Hernandez, Deputy City Manager, Orange, Calif., describing the purpose of 2013 and 2014 Mayor’s Prayer Breakfasts for which city personnel coordinated invitations, arranged musical performances and speakers, suggested the mayor’s Bible verse selections, set the theme of the keynote message, and prepared Mayor Teresa Smith’s opening remarks.
  • “We’re all about wanting to see the cause of Christ go further…in more public arenas in the American culture…We want to see Christ in our schools. [This is an] attempt to bully us.” Pastor Justin Coffman, explaining to Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt why removing Christian plaques mounted by the Midlothian Independent School District are not justified.

Sharia law, though far worse, is not the only religion-based code of law we need to resist. Christians do not just seek to control everyone else, they already do to a frightening extent. A constitutional ruling on gay marriage by the Supreme Court was overridden by a single county clerk. It was temporary, but the distressing feature was the widespread, angry applause from millions of other Christians, the backing of Christian organizations, and even pandering presidential candidates.

We need not wait for Christians to be so fair—so moral—as to voluntarily relinquish their special rights. Some will and have made known their opposition to undeserved power. (Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a mix of religious and nonreligious members.) But so far those Christians who cling to and fight for advantageous treatment by government—over Jews, over atheists, over everyone other than Christians—have ruled the day. After all, they prize tax advantages others don’t get, their access to public school students, space on government property for religious displays, and other perqs. For them, even that is not enough, for they want still more and cry out as if victimized at any hint of being obliged to play on a level field.

As I have opined in this blog numerous times, religion in general is little interested in truth. Christianity makes a mantra of the word “Truth,” but continues to be tied to “revealed truth,” a hollow designation in that it can never be distinguished from revealed untruth. In such a weak position, having built so many castles on sand, it is no wonder that telling the truth about others or about matters bearing on Christian hegemony just isn’t very important.

Now, let’s see. Where did that “highest code of morality” go my sister so sincerely believed Christianity stood for?

Posted in Morality, Religion's costs and foibles | 1 Comment

Believers/unbelievers and charity

Posted on December 24, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

Are people of faith more generous to those in need than unbelievers? Scriptures of the Abrahamic religions encourage—some even demand—charity.

Charity is one of Islam’s five towers of the faith, divided as I understand it largely into zakat, a type of obligatory tithing, and sadaqa consisting of voluntary helpfulness that can be non-monetary (plus a few other categories). Mohammed said, “Your smile for your brother is a charity . . . removal of stones, thorns or bones from the paths of people is a charity.” Hebrews were instructed to give to those in need, tzedakah (which can also refer to justice). Translations of one of Christians’ favorite New Testament chapters, 1 Corinthians 13, conflate charity with love. In Matthew charity to the needy is a gift to “the King” himself.

Since major religions espouse (sometimes threaten about) charitable giving, one would think the faithful would, on average, be more charitable than persons not subject to what they believe to be commands of a deity. Consequently, many Christians are convinced that Christians are more moral and more charitable than non-Christians. Some even suggest, as exemplified in a recent comment to this blog (“Secular humanism goes beyond atheism,” Oct. 24), that “people of faith, especially Christians and Jews, can rightfully explain their desire to help each other flows from a natural result of their faith, not an innate quality of their humanity,” so that “any tendency for the non-religious to help others is an exception, not the rule.”

This opinion is not surprising. The doctrine that most or all good things flow from religion is a very effective, circular self-reinforcement, similar to believing the Bible is God’s word because it says it is. It is built into a number of religions, accepted often without challenge, that without belief in a god, human beings would not be charitable and, on a broader scale, unable to determine right and wrong. Atheists cannot be trustworthy or even “truly” happy for they’d not have the blessings of supernatural guidance. But the ways in which religions summon unimaginable mental gymnastics to protect themselves are not the point of this post. It suffices for now to notice that some Christians have decided that compassion for others exists only because it was instilled from the divine, i.e., helpfulness human to human would not exist without God. However the research literature so thoroughly precludes the extreme proposition, even a light scan of research literature is enough to discard it:

  • No research I could find shows religious faith to be necessary either to general altruism or, more specifically, to charity, helpfulness, or compassionate acts. Charity, helpfulness, kindness exist regardless of a person’s religion or lack of it. In fact, charity/helpfulness shows up in little children prior to any religious indoctrination, prior to their having any religious faith. That should not be surprising, for the trait of helpfulness has been found even in non-human animals, chiefly primates.

But if helpfulness is a characteristic of both believers and unbelievers, are believers likely to demonstrate more? The scriptural urgings would seem to cause believers to have the edge, since their “natural” charity would be augmented by an extra measure due to their religion. One source we might inspect to find that difference would be, in the US, federal income tax returns.

There are immediate problems, however. For example, a significant amount of donations, though they qualify as charity under federal tax law, are for organizations not charitable in the sense I use in this essay (help to people in need). My tax return, for example, includes contributions to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Atlanta Food Bank, and the West Africa Fistula Foundation. Although each of these qualifies as a charitable deduction under tax law, only the last two are truly charities, the first is not. So the charity as meant in tax law may overestimate my charity and, by extension, the charity of nonbelievers in general.

Believers’ donations are similarly confounded, but worse. Consider a believer’s charity deductions for the Baptist Church, Doctors without Borders, and the Union of Concerned Scientists—all lawful deductions. But just as in my atheist’s list, one item doesn’t count (the third). Additionally, however, believers’ charities include another level of uncertainty. Donations to one’s church would include some amount of “real” charity and, in most cases, a significant percentage for costs of ministers, teachers, choir directors, and other church personnel and for costs of building maintenance, construction, utilities, and educational materials. Typically, only a small percentage is real charity; spreading the gospel, comfortable sanctuaries, and an inspiring façade are not. Just like my donations to a humanist ethics discussion hall, church donations are, in part, contributions to a private club.

My remarks thus far have not considered that there might even be damaging or “anti-charity” expenditures that qualify for the legal definition of charity. For example, some would conclude that the Catholic Church’s anti-condom work in Africa (and elsewhere) increases human pain and should be subtracted in counts of real charity. I’ll assume that donations to jihad organizations and, at one time, to maintain slavery would obviously count as negative charity. In perusing this topic, it was a surprise to me that religions can actually teach a “subtraction effect,” as implied in the Mormons’ Book of Moroni, vs 6-10, “A man being evil cannot do that which is good . . . ; it is not counted unto him for righteousness [italics mine, JC].” Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, noting a “nullification effect” in Caritas Veritate International (a Catholic group specializing in charity and proselytizing) that “Charity without faith is useless.” I am unaware, however, of other religious sources that teach that for charity to be a good thing, it must be out of religiously acceptable motivation by a religiously faithful person. At any rate, I have not used any such criteria in these notes.)

What would experimental research reveal? (“Experimental” research differs from just comparing information as in the tax example cited above. It connotes the placement of subjects into different “treatment” groups, trying to remove the effects of all variables other than that being tested.) I’m not back in graduate school where dealing with such a question would require hours if not days in the library to accumulate and critically judge such research. I was trained in experimental design for doing research myself and also, pertinent here, the ability to find in published research the flaws that make its conclusions untrustworthy. Not only am I rusty at that, it would require far more inspection labor than I am willing to give. So I set out merely to look through a smattering of research, admittedly not enough to please my decades-ago professors. Below is an unrepresentative smattering of results, but their inconsistent findings led me to this provisional conclusion:

  • Unfortunately, studies seeking an answer to this question are sufficiently mixed to render the matter inconclusive, at least at my level of inspection. That is, various studies were mixed about whether believers or nonbelievers are more charitable, helpful, or compassionate. That conclusion is presented here, prior to the miscellaneous studies and their findings excerpted below, because I assume no reader of this blog will wish to slog through it all to get to my summation as just stated.

However, whatever the source of persons’ charity/helpfulness, the findings of Elizabeth W. Dunn and Ashley Whillans are enlightening. They found what they termed the “Grinch effect,” citing the Grinch’s “small heart [growing] two sizes” upon grasping the spirit of Christmas giving. In their studies, spending money on others boosted the happiness of the giver and was even associated with a drop in blood pressure. Their research, they concluded, “points to the conclusion that embracing the spirit of generosity may not only be heartwarming; it may also be good for the heart.”

 

[This is the end of the body of this post. What follows is a random, unsummarized miscellany of theory and research findings, untidily formatted, related to the question of differential charity/helpfulness between persons of religious faith and persons without. Although I have not intended to insert bias into selecting the items, I cannot guarantee the list to be bias-free.]

 

ASSORTMENT OF VARIOUS RESEARCH THEORY AND FINDINGS

Here are excerpts, summarized wording, and frank plagiarism (mine) from of a number of studies and theories regarding helpfulness from person to person. (Well, soft plagiarism, at worst; I am not claiming any of the following wording to be my own.)

Several theories of helping agree that, in the long run, helping behavior benefits the giver as well as the receiver. One explanation involves actions guided by “social economics.” This action is called the “social exchange theory.” It states that human interactions are transactions that aim to maximize one’s rewards and minimize one’s costs. We exchange not only material goods and money but also social goods—love, services, information, status (Foa & Foa, 1975).

  • Arousal: Cost-Reward Model. The arousal: cost-reward model suggests that people feel upset when they see a person in need and are motivated to do something to reduce the unpleasant arousal. People then weigh the costs of helping versus not helping. The clearer the need for help, the more likely people are to help. The presence of others inhibits helping behavior due to diffusion of responsibility, a belief that someone else will help. Environmental and personality characteristics also influence helping.
  • Empathy-Altruism Theory. According to the empathy-altruism theory, helpfulness is seen in those who have empathy with the person in need.
  • Evolutionary Theory. Evolutionary theories propose that people help others to ensure the survival of their genes, at the risk of endangering themselves. There are two specific types of helping in the Evolutionary Theory. One is kin protection, which claims that devotion goes to one’s children before themselves. The other is reciprocity, which has the same components of the reciprocity norm. Basically, if you help someone, they will return the favor.
  • The Reciprocity Norm. An expectation that people will help, not hurt, those who have helped them.
  • Social Responsibility Norm. An expectation that people will help those needing help.

Circumstances that inhibit or enhance helpfulness include:

  • Number of bystanders. The bystander effect states that victims are less likely to get help when many people are around (Latane & Darley, 1975).
  • Helping when someone else does. People are more likely to help others if they have just observed someone else modeling that specific helping behavior, e.g. Los Angeles drivers offering help to a female driver with a flat tire (Bryan & Test, 1967), New Jersey Christmas shoppers dropping money in a Salvation Army kettle (Bryan & Test, 1967), British adults donating blood (Rushton & Campbell, 1977).
  • Time pressures. People leisurely on their way to an unimportant appointment usually stopped to help, but those late for an important date seldom stopped (Batson et al., 1978).
  • Similarity. People are more empathetic and helpful toward those similar to them (Miller et al., 2001), e.g. in dress (Emswiller et al., 1971; Gary et al., 1991), in race (Benson et al., 1976; Clark, 1974; Sissons, 1981), in beliefs (Myers, 2005).

Who Will Help?

  • Personality traits. People high in positive emotionality, empathy, and self-efficacy are most likely to be concerned and helpful (Bierhoff et al., 1991; Eisenberg et al., 1991; Krueger et al., 2001). Those high in self-monitoring are attuned to others’ expectations and are therefore helpful if they think helpfulness will be socially rewarded (White & Gerstein, 1987).
  • Religious faith. People who rate religion as “important” are more likely to report working among the needy (Colasanto, 1989; Wuthnow, 1994; Deuser & DeNeve, 1995), to campaign for social justice (Benson et al., 1980; Hansen et al., 1995; Penner, 2002), and to give away higher percent of their incomes (Hodgkinson et al., 1990, 1992), especially over the long-term (Myers, 2005). Furthermore, they are likely to give money to missionary causes, rather than secular, objective organizations that have no motive of religious conversion.

How to Increase Helping?

Research studies by social scientists have suggested that the following factors can help to increase helping:

  • Reduce ambiguity, increasing responsibility. Personal appeals for help are much more effective than posters and media announcements (Jason et al., 1984). Nonverbal appeals can also be effective when they are personalized (Snder et al., 1974; Omoto & Snyder, 2002). So does reduction of anonymity (Solomon & Solomon, 1978; Solomon et al., 1981).
  • Guilt and concern for self-image. People who have been reprimanded for their transgressions are more likely to offer help than those who have not been reprimanded (Katzev, 1978). People who have given door-in-the-face responses are likely to agree to a smaller and more reasonable request (Cialdini et al., 1975). Labeling people as helpful can also increase helpful contributions (Kraut, 1973).
  • Teaching moral inclusion. Broadening the range of people whose well-being concerns us (Batson, 1983) and inviting advantaged people to put themselves in others’ shoes, to imagine how they feel (Batson et al., 2003), helps.
  • Modeling altruism. It’s better not to publicize rampant tax cheating, littering and teen drinking, and instead to emphasize – to define a norm of – people’s widespread honesty, cleanliness, and abstinence (Cialdini et al., 2003). Norms for generosity could perhaps be cultivated by simply including a new line on tax forms that requires people to compute – and thus to know – their annual donations as a percentage of income (Ayres & Nalebuff, 2003). Modeling effects were also apparent within the families of European Christians who risked their lives to rescue Jews in the 1930s and 1940s and of 1950s (London, 1970; Oliner & Oliner, 1988; Rosenhan, 1970; Staub, 1989,1991,1992).

 

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

In the 1950s, a scientific study of about 2,000 Episcopalians across the U.S. turned up “no discernible relationship between involvement [in the Church] and charitable acts. In some cases, a negative relationship appears.”

In a questionnaire-based study of male college students in 1960, there was only a slight correlation between altruism and belief in God, and no correlation at all between altruism and attendance of religious services.

Interviews with randomly selected adults in 1965 found that nonbelievers were “nearly as frequently rated as being a good Samaritan, having love and compassion for their fellow man, and being humble as the most devout…”

Less than half of college students in a 1975 study resisted the temptation to violate an honors code on an exam, and religious beliefs were unrelated to honesty. (In fact, atheists were the only group in which a majority did not cheat.) Religion was also irrelevant to the students’ willingness to volunteer time with disabled children.

In 1984, a researcher who interviewed more than 700 people from different neighborhoods in a medium-size city expected to find that religious people were especially sociable, helpful to their neighbors, and likely to participate in neighborhood organizations. Instead, she found that religious involvement was unrelated to these activities.

In their study of people who rescued Jews from the Nazis, Samuel and Pearl Oliner found that “rescuers did not differ significantly from bystanders or all nonrescuers with respect to their religious identification, religious education, and their own religiosity or that of their parents.”

///////////////////////////////////

 

In comparing 18 month old humans and free range chimps, rewarding was not necessary to elicit helping behaviors in either species; helping was sustained even if the efforts for helping were slightly raised.

Altruistic motivations are already apparent early in human ontogeny, requiring not much socialization (if any). Moreover, altruistic motivations to help others do not seem to be unique to humans. This speaks in favor of the possibility that our phylogenetic ancestor already possessed at least the rudimentary capacity to act on the behalf of others.

 

////////////////////////////////////////////

 

Chronicle of Philanthroopy “Religious Americans Give More, New Study Finds”

By Alex Daniels 11/25/2013

The more important religion is to a person, the more likely that person is to give to a charity of any kind, according to new research released today.

Among Americans who claim a religious affiliation, the study said, 65 percent give to charity. Among those who do not identify a religious creed, 56 percent make charitable gifts.

About 75 percent of people who frequently attend religious services gave to congregations, and 60 percent gave to religious charities or nonreligious ones. By comparison, fewer than half of people who said they didn’t attend faith services regularly supported any charity, even a even secular one.

“If your goal is to connect with donors, it’s clear that one of the things that matters to them is their religious orientation,” says Shawn Landres, Jumpstart’s chief executive and a co-author of the report.

The study of more than 4,800 American households, which covers members of five major religious denominations and people who are unaffiliated with any faith, was derived from two national surveys on giving compiled this year and analyzed by Jumpstart, a nonprofit research group, and researchers at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. The report used data from two surveys: the National Study of American Religious Giving and the National Study of American Jewish Giving.

Among the findings:

  • Giving rates among black Protestants, evangelical Protestants, Jews, mainline Protestants—which include Episcopalians, members of the United Methodist Church, Presbyterians, and some Lutherans—and Roman Catholics were about the same. However, while roughly half of all members of the other faith groups contribute to religious congregations, only 37 percent of Jews did the same.
  • American households donated a median $375 to congregations, $150 to religiously identified nonprofits, and $250 to secular charities in 2012.
  • Black Protestants, followed by Roman Catholics and Jews, were the most likely to give out of the desire to help the needy.
  • The three most popular charitable causes for all households regardless of religious affiliation were, in descending order: basic social services, “combined purpose” organizations (like United Way), and health care.

The study also looked at how much money went not only to congregations but also to charities with religious identities but secular missions. It shows that religious giving is sweeping: Forty-one percent of all charitable gifts from households last year went to congregations, while 32 percent went to other nonprofits with a religious identity and 27 percent went to secular charities. The results of that piece of the study have an 8 percent margin of error.

 

The immediately previous study

was challenged by the following one [JC]

 

Patheos “Are Religious People Really More Generous Than Atheists? A New Study Puts That Myth to Rest”

By Hemant Mehta, 11/28/2013

Last year, a study released by The Chronicle of Philanthropy suggested that the most religious states were also the most charitable:

Donors in Southern states, for instance, give roughly 5.2 percent of their discretionary income to charity — both to religious and to secular groups — compared with donors in the Northeast, who give 4.0 percent.

Before you jump to conclusions that religion and generosity were somehow connected, keep in mind that those numbers included giving “both to religious and to secular groups”… In other words, church counted as charity. But when you excluded donations given to churches and religious groups, the map changed dramatically, giving an edge to the least religious states in the country:

Of course, that didn’t stop the media from using headlines like this: “Religious States Donate More to Charity than Secular States.” Earlier this week, a new report released by the National Study of American Religious Giving put a rest to that myth that religious people are more charitable than the non-religious. It turns out nearly 75% of charitable giving by all Americans… benefits places of worship and faith-based charities. A lot of the money isn’t helping the poor and less fortunate. It’s going to the church.

Jay Michaelson of Religious Dispatches explains: The study found that 65% of religiously-affiliated people donate to congregations or charitable organizations. (More on that statistic later.) 80% of Americans are religiously affiliated. And 65% of 80% is just about… 55% of the total. In other words, the religious people who are giving say they’re giving because of religion. And they’re overwhelmingly giving to religion as well.

Probably the most notable statistics, though, are those which compare religious and non-religious philanthropy. Religion is supposed to make us better people, which includes, I assume, being more generous. So, is it the case that religious people give more generously than the non-religious?

Well, yes and no. Remember that statistic, that 65% of religious people donate to charity? The non-religious figure is 56%. But according to the study, the entire 9% difference is attributed to religious giving to congregations and religious organizations. So, yes, religion causes people to give more — to religion itself.

A lot of religious giving, then, is self-serving, in the guise of helping others. Often, the donations benefit their faith. Donations to religious congregations — primarily for religious activity or spiritual development — represent about two fifths of household giving nationally……

“Much of what has previously been thought of one-dimensionally as giving to ‘secular’ purposes actually goes to religiously identified organizations,” said report co-author Dr. Mark Ottoni-Wilhelm, professor of economics and philanthropic studies at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. He added that innovative research methods allowed for a clearer picture of the way religious ties shape the giving landscape.

It’s not like there aren’t secular alternatives to religious charities. There’s no shortage of secular groups that feed the hungry and house the poor and fight for the under-privileged. But religious people aren’t giving to those groups as much as they’re giving to groups that do good while also proselytizing. (Which means some of that money being donated is going toward spreading the faith, not actually helping other people.)

In any case, we now have even more proof that religion doesn’t make you any more likely to be generous or willing to help other people. What religious people have that people like us don’t are excellent vessels for giving. But if we can offer secular ways to give, there’s no reason our numbers can’t match theirs — and be more cost-effective at the same time.

 

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

BBC poll shows that religious people give more to charity than non-religious. Maybe…

Posted: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 09:02 by Terry Sanderson

Here we go again – the BBC has commissioned a survey that apparently shows that religious people are more likely to give to charity than non-religious people.

If you look at the results, you see that the difference in charitable giving between believers and non-believers is not that big. The headline results state:

“Three quarters of people in living in England who practise a religion (77%) have given to charity in the past month. This compares to only two thirds of English people who do not practise a religion (67%).” What the poll does not tell us is what the religious people donated their money to.

This is important because a similar poll in America ran with the headline that the Southern States of the USA (the ones shown to be most religious) gave significantly more to charity than the Northern States (least religious). But when you took out the donations given directly to churches rather than to humanitarian charities, the figures reversed. The Southern States were donating vast amounts to their churches, most of which was spent directly on church activities such as building maintenance, salaries and proselytising. The Northern States were donating to real charity that directly helped people in need.

In this country, every donation made to a church counts as charity and is presumably included in these latest figures and will benefit from tax relief that will be provided by us all, believer and non-believer alike.

However, I suspect that this poll will be grabbed by some as implicit proof that religion makes people “better” or more compassionate. Non-religious people, some religious leaders will rush to explain, have no reason to be sympathetic to the plight of others. Nor are they compelled by the religious injunctions that guide believers. Which, in turn, leads to the conclusion that atheists have no real moral compass.

The only trouble with this reasoning is that it isn’t true.

I’m really sorry to have to even make this argument – it shouldn’t matter who gives what to charity or what their motives are – but given that the BBC has decided to make an issue of it, here we go:

Every year, Forbes magazine lists the fifty most generous charitable givers in the United States (and therefore, the world). The first three on the list are all self-declared atheists.

Warren Buffet has donated $40.7 billion to charities working in “health, education and humanitarian causes”.

Bill Gates donated $27.6 billion to “global health and development and education”.

George Soros has donated $10 billion to humanitarian causes of various kinds.

The previous possessor of the record for charitable giving before these three came along was Scottish-born Andrew Carnegie, a steel industry mogul, once the second richest man in the world, who also gave billions to aid the poor and the uneducated – and who was also a self-defined non-believer.

Personally I find these polls aimed at boosting the image of religion and implicitly criticising the non-religious to be rather sad. They indicate a kind of inferiority complex among some Christians, a constant need to be reassured that they are morally superior.

I am not in any way trying to belittle the charitable efforts that religious people engage in. All help for the disadvantaged and suffering is useful, but the divisive message of this poll and others like it (“religious people are happier“, “religious people are healthier” etc.) does nothing to unite us in a common cause.

When there is a big appeal on TV, for instance, such as Children in Need or as when the tsunami struck South East Asia, vast amounts of money are donated by the British people. These hundreds of millions cannot all be generated by the generosity of religious believers.

Not when you take into account another, far more interesting finding from the survey (a finding which, for some reason, the BBC chose not to highlight).

When asked the question: “Do you practise a religion? By practising we mean that you pray, read a holy book weekly or attend religious services of gatherings at least once a week.”

Only 23% said they did, but a massive 73% said that they didn’t.

Given what statisticians are always telling us, about people overstating their religious observance in polls, it is likely that this disinterest in practising religion is even more dramatic than the present figures indicate.

It is a sorry thing for the BBC to have produced this poll and then spun it in the way it has. It adds fuel to a religious fire that need not be burning.

 

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

Religious kids don’t share as much

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/11/05/Study-Religious-kids-dont-share-as-much/8221446748655/

By Brooks Hays   |   11/5/2015

“The secularization of moral discourse does not reduce human kindness,” said psychologist Jean Decety. “In fact, it does just the opposite.” New research suggests religion has a negative effect on the altruism of children. Religion may save your soul, but it won’t necessarily make you more altruistic.

In a recent study, children from more religious backgrounds and upbringings were less likely to exhibit altruistic behaviors. The study analyzed the behaviors of children, between the ages of 5 and 12, from Canada, China, Jordan, South Africa, Turkey and the United States. More religious kids were less likely to share and more likely to exact harsh punishments for bad behavior than were their less religious peers.

“Our findings contradict the common-sense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind toward others,” study author Jean Decety, a professor of psychology at the University of Chicago, said in a press release. “In our study, kids from atheist and non-religious families were, in fact, more generous.”

The worldwide studies had groups of children participate in experiments designed to measure their willingness to share and their “moral sensitivity.”

Sharing was measured using the so-called dictator game, whereby each child is given ten stickers and told he or she can share as many or as few of them with an unseen child. Moral sensitivity was measured by having children watch short animations featuring a character either accidentally or purposefully bumping into another character. After watching, children were asked to judge their guilt and dish out various levels of punishment.

Children from Christian and Muslim backgrounds tended to give away fewer stickers. They also were harsher judges, handing out stricter penalties. Children from atheist, agnostic or non-religious families tended to give away more stickers and were more forgiving.

Though children of all backgrounds tend to share more as they get older, the increase in altruism among religious kids was stunted.

“The negative relation between religiousness and spirituality and altruism changes across age, with those children with longer experience of religion in the household exhibiting the greatest negative relations,” researcher wrote in their new paper, published this week in the journal Current Biology.

Researchers didn’t attempt to explain why religion has this effect. Perhaps adults and their ideas get in the way of what comes naturally to young people. Recent research has shown that kids as young as three are surprisingly empathetic.

“These results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children’s altruism,” Decety said of his latest finding. “They challenge the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior, and call into question whether religion is vital for moral development — suggesting the secularization of moral discourse does not reduce human kindness. In fact, it does just the opposite.”

The new results also serve as an interesting parallel to other studies that show participation in a religion and religious community have small but statistically significant positive mental health effects on adolescents.

 

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

Study finds that children raised without religion show more empathy and kindness

November 5, 2015 by San Arel

A study conducted by the University of Chicago has found that children raised in non-religious households are kinder and more altruistic than those raised with religion.

The study which was published in the journal Current Biology looked at 1170 children between the ages of 5 and 12 years in six countries (Canada, China, Jordan, Turkey, USA, and South Africa) and examined “the religiousness of their household, and parent-reported child empathy and sensitivity to justice.”

The study found that “family religious identification decreases children’s altruistic behaviors” and “children from religious households are harsher in their punitive tendencies.”

In other words, children raised in the absence of religion are more giving and generous, as the study states:

Across all countries, parents in religious households reported that their children expressed more empathy and sensitivity for justice in everyday life than non-religious parents. However, religiousness was inversely predictive of children’s altruism and positively correlated with their punitive tendencies. Together these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children’s altruism, challenging the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior.

“Our findings contradict the common-sense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind toward others. In our study, kids from atheist and non-religious families were, in fact, more generous,” said Prof. Jean Decety who led the study.

According to the study as well, the findings did not change much over time and children raised in very religious households didn’t follow the natural trend of being more giving with age.

Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.

The study also showed that punishment in religious households was much more severe as religious parents “favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.”

“Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children’s altruism. They challenge the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior, and call into question whether religion is vital for moral development—suggesting the secularization of moral discourse does not reduce human kindness. In fact, it does just the opposite,” Decety said.

The study comes as little surprise to those of us who raise kids outside of religion as I outlined in my own book Parenting Without God. Children raised without dictatorship type rules and threats of eternal punishment just seem to turn out nicer.

This does not mean that religious children cannot be good people or even grow up to be good people, but it does imply strongly that religious parenting is not an ideal parenting method and as Decety points out, it gives evidence to the case for a stronger secularization of the U.S. and the world.

 

/////////////////////////////////////

 

Poll: Brits View Atheists As More Moral Than Believers, Religion More Harmful Than Good (VIDEO)

Author: Frank Minero November 8, 2014 10:55 pm

An eye-opening survey conducted in the UK reveals a truth many in the United States will find shocking. When asked if atheists are more or less moral than religious people, our allies across the pond favor atheists.

The British feel those who identify as atheists are more likely to be good people. In fact, 12.5% of Britons believe atheists are more moral, while only 6% say atheists are less moral.

Fewer than a quarter of Britons believe religion is a force for good. On the contrary, over half believe religion does more harm than good. Even 20% of Britons who describe themselves as ‘very religious’ are on record stating religion is harmful to society.

The poll, conducted by Survation for the HuffingtonPost UK’s series Beyond Belief doesn’t address why Britons have come to this conclusion, however faith in God and religion is falling in America as well. Jerome Baggett, a professor at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California told The San Francisco Business Times why he thinks people are retreating from religion in the United States,

“Religious institutions themselves have lost their legitimacy in the eyes of many Americans due to sexual and financial scandals, or political overreaching ‘by the so-called Christian right.’”

Linda Woodhead, professor of the sociology of religion at Lancaster University, told The Huffington Post UK she found the results of the poll “striking.”

“This confirms something I’ve found in my own surveys and which leads me to conclude that religion has become a ‘toxic brand’ in the UK. What we are seeing is not a complete rejection of faith, belief in the divine, or spirituality, though there is some to that, but of institutional religion in the historic forms which are familiar to people.”

Woodhead explains the reason Britons are distancing themselves from religion are “numerous” and include: sex scandals involving Catholic priests and rabbis, as well as Islamist terror attacks and conflict in the Middle East,

“I’d add religious leaderships’ drift away from the liberal values, equality, tolerance, diversity, [which is] embraced by many of their own followers and often championed by non-religious and atheist people more forcefully”.

Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association had this to say,

“This survey just confirms what we know is the common sense of people in Britain today – that whether you are religious or not has very little to do with your morality. Most people understand that morality and good personal and social values are not tied to religious belief systems, but are the result of our common heritage and experience as human beings: social animals that care for each other and are kind to others because we understand that they are human too. Not only that, people understand that religious beliefs themselves can be harmful to morality: encouraging intolerance, inflexibility and the doing of harm in the name of a greater good. We only need to look around us to perceive that fact.”

Posted in Life, living, and death | Leave a comment

To the ramparts . . . atheists are coming for your Christmas trees!

Posted on December 9, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

Oh, my. Here it is already the first third of December gone and I haven’t even begun my part of the annual War on Christmas!

Bill O’Reilly of FoxNews, who has bravely protected Christmas from marauding atheists for a number of years, reminded me (OK, along with millions of others) that the war is officially on. But the more proximate reminder greeted me when I opened my Facebook account. A Christian Friend had posted a dazzlingly colorful message complete with glaring use of upper case fonts (“As For Me And My House We Will Keep Christ In CHRISTmas And We Will Proudly Say MERRY CHRISTMAS”). The implied defiance, I suppose, only underscores the magnitude of encroaching suppression.

The happy result of these reminders is that I now know there’s a war on, though in my defense, it was easy to miss the clarion call, carelessly overlooking that a precious right is under attack.

It was easy to miss because, try as I might, I can’t find any warring against Christmas going on. My bad, perhaps, since O’Reilly and others similarly inclined surely wouldn’t say there is if there isn’t. Yet I know I don’t want to take anybody’s Christmas away from them and I don’t know any fellow atheists who do. But O’Reilly and Facebook postings wouldn’t lie, so maybe I should look a little closer . . . .

  • Let’s see. There has been a concerted effort by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, American Atheists, the Center for Secular Humanism, and others to convince government to stop taking sides on religious matters, including December holidays. Asking nice hasn’t worked well, so their tactics have stepped up, a bit more in-your-face in order to bring to government officials’ attention that the Constitution prevents any religion from using the power of government to do its missionary work. No war on Christmas there.
  • And I’ve heard of businesses that instruct employees to say “Happy Holidays” so as not to offend Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and anyone else who might think twice before buying Little Sally’s dollhouse from an obviously Christian store. For decades retailers have done just the opposite: trying to out-Christmas the store next door, kind of like politicians trying to out-Christian other candidates on a ballot. So there has been a swing of retailers’ pendulums (pendula?) that’s hard to miss. Yet it doesn’t take Christians’ rights away to celebrate Christmas all they wish. In other words, while there is some pandering to get our favor, it isn’t a reduction of rights. No war on Christmas there either.
  • Individual government employees, even those low on the career ladder, represent the government to the rest of us. So if a school teacher favors Christianity in the classroom or a license clerk disfavors gays because of her religion, to the student and to the license applicant it is the government choosing up sides. Getting the teacher and clerk to claim their religious freedom proudly for themselves but not for the government is hardly a war on either. The Constitution grants freedom of religion to all individuals, but it grants no such freedom to units of government or persons fulfilling the role of government. There is still no war on Christmas to be found.

So for the life of me, I’ve not been able to find one instance of threat to the right of individuals to believe, celebrate, and express whatever they choose unless they’ve chosen to wear the mantle of the state.

Happily go ahead and put a Christmas symbol in your home—an angel on the tree if you wish!—but not in the public school class you teach, the county patrol car you drive, or the city council room. Placing a manger scene on the church lawn or in a Christian’s front yard is a precious freedom. That same crèche placed on the courthouse lawn or in a public school is an attack on fair play as well as on a precious freedom.

You see, while I don’t agree with my Friend’s Facebook phrase, I can shout from the rooftops my strong support for the right to proclaim it.

The War on Christmas is not just nonexistent, it is just silly.

And, oh, Merry Christmas!

Posted in Religion's costs and foibles | 2 Comments

Planned Parenthood and pandering politicos

Posted on December 1, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

As if enough disinformation about abortion has not been spread by politicians lately, the domestic Christian terrorism in Colorado last week has stirred heated rants on the political right. Don’t get me wrong, the left is quite capable of misinformed ranting as well, it is just that the right has cornered the current market.

No doubt whatever norm of craziness describes the nation’s political life, the Republican pre-primaries make it worse. More than a dozen seekers compete to out-Christian, out-conservative, and out-bombast each other among an electorate—never much wed to accuracy anyway—that seems not to care a whit whether a politically satisfying claim is true or fabricated

(My use of “Christian terrorism” is a parallel to “Islamic terrorism,” though clearly of a far milder and less frequent sort due to centuries of the Enlightenment that began in the 1600s in Europe. Terrorism, though its meaning has been stretched lately, is violence toward one or some that is intended to influence political change by others. The Planned Parenthood shooting of November 27 fits.)

The title I’ve given to this post announces where I am going with these thoughts. So let me take it by the numbers:

  1. Individuals have the right to think all abortion, some kinds of abortion, or some intrauterine ages of abortion should be made illegal.
  2. Were the Constitution not relevant, a popular vote in each state could settle the matter. At this point in time, such legislation would probably fail. For fifteen years the pro-life and pro-choice count has gone back and forth around equality. However, Gallup earlier this year found Americans divide 50% pro-choice and 44% pro-life.
  3. The Constitution is relevant because the question deals with which rights it guarantees. The judiciary is empowered by the Constitution to rule whether denying gestating women an abortion violates it. In Roe v. Wade, 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that, indeed, laws outlawing abortion were in conflict with Constitutional guarantees.
  4. The Supreme Court did not decide women should have abortions or that abortion is good, bad, unbiblical, moral, immoral, distasteful, or ill-advised. The Court did not “impose” anything on Americans, nor did it engage in legislating, i.e., making new law. It merely compared one law to another and found them discrepant. One was the basic American law (the Constitution) and the other was not.
  5. And, by the way, the same Constitution vested in the Court the authority to say on any specific issue whether there is such a discrepancy or not, as settled by Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
  6. It is not the Supreme Court’s job to make the United States more Biblical. (So far we have been able to avoid the theocratic absurdity of presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee’s suggestion that the Constitution should be based on the Bible.) The Bible might be, in effect, an individual’s “constitution,” but, to coin a phrase, the Constitution must be the Court’s “bible.”
  7. Anyone stopping or even interfering with an abortion seeker in securing an abortion is guilty of violating a civil right just as much as someone prohibiting a woman from voting or a black from restaurant service.
  8. No one, due to their finding abortion heinous or immoral, has the right to suspend a civil right, though they do have the right to raise their pens and voices in moral persuasion.
  9. Abortions by Planned Parenthood have never been found to be illegal within the meaning of the Court’s language. That can be changed, but only by a later set of justices—not impossible, but neither predictable nor easy.
  10. Planned Parenthood, instead of destroying aborted whole or parts of fetuses, made them available to research organizations in pursuit of medical findings that might help others. They did so at cost, not to raise funds beyond cost. Persons who find the research use of deceased body parts unacceptable have not to my knowledge complained about other medical establishments doing the same thing, just not with fetuses. If distaste, disturbing empathic feature, or “yuk” factor is a reason for declaring illegality, much of medicine and medical research would be lost.
  11. If Planned Parenthood’s actions are illegal (e.g., selling fetal parts above costs), the usual undramatic law enforcement process is available, augmented by cost accountants. That is hardly a matter of national debate, much less a part of choosing a presidential hopeful, or a Congressional inquiry.
  12. Republican candidates have not only spread lies about this issue (Carley Fiorina comes to mind), but have done their part in misrepresenting the Constitutional aspects. They can do that safely and even politically profitably because great numbers of Americans really don’t care whether alleged “facts” are true or whether the roles of courts and legislatures are intentionally misstated by candidates…and these Americans are not all Republicans.

Consequently, a Congressional composition not known for getting important things done at the best of times is about to institute hearings about what happens in Planned Parenthood agencies. Given the whipped up furor around an already emotional issue, hearings by politicians cannot be expected to avoid grandstanding, twisted “facts,” and political posturing galore, all further depressing the sadly low Congressional IQ. On the upside, they might learn that abortion is a small part of Planned Parenthood’s operation and that Planned Parenthood renders a broad health service to women otherwise hard to find in many parts of the country.

What they will not learn is that having a Congressional inquiry either of (a) whether there are violations of law that a political committee is ill-designed to deal with or (b) whether things occurred that, without running into a Constitutional barrier, are odious enough that they should be against the law. The latter, you’ll notice, is an indictment of the law and, therefore, of Congress, not of Planned Parenthood.

The Planned Parenthood sideshow by (mostly) conservative politicians, editorialists, pundits, and befuddled partisans is shameful and unethical, furthering more deterioration of an America founded with so much wisdom and thoughtfulness.

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment

You can’t put God in a test tube. Why not?

Posted on November 19, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

I’ve long wondered why Christians and other theists ignore the successful truth-seeking process of science when dealing with whether a god exists. Quite often I’ve been told, “You can’t put God in a test tube.” This phrase, a fairly common Christian retort, is normally stated with a “got you on that one!” inflection.

The implication, of course, is that the Hebrew/Christian Yahweh is far too magnificent, too powerful, and too universal to be subject to human inquiry. The question seems to need no answer, because it’s so obvious that it is arrogant for us, mere humans, to think God is subject to our tests. It’s like standing before a judge in a court of law, demanding to inspect her law school transcript before submitting to judgement. Moreover, if there is testing to be done, a religious person might say, it will be God testing us, not we God.

Theists think—with what seems to me rather opaque logic—that when it comes to being convinced of really extraordinary claims, faith is a more virtuous guide than evidence . . . especially when there seems to be no evidence. What’s more, faith strong enough to ignore or even to deny opposing evidence is better still. This peculiar characteristic puts religionists in the same class as astrologers, fortune tellers, extreme political partisans, dedicated sports fans, and infatuated teenagers.

Moreover, this malady of anti-reason, while a distinguishing mark of religious believers, is rarely applied to the secular parts of their lives. In other words, one doesn’t have to be constitutionally dismissive of evidence to be religious, just be so in one’s religious life. This is a bizarre compartmentalization of superstition in otherwise rational people. One can be a perfectly reasonable, clear-thinking engineer, historian, politician, carpenter, accountant, mathematician, or lawyer while his or her peculiar thinking about theism is kept in its place.

Consequently, the framework of propositions that hold a religion together is a vulnerable structure, unable to stand if examined with the same fastidiousness used to evaluate a medical treatment, financial investment, farming practice, or astrophysics quandary. It is because of this susceptibility that religion, unlike other hypothetical schemes, fights for and is given special protection. In some cultures (and likely in all cultures at some time), even criticism of religion is or has been banned. In Western democracies in the modern age, the more frequent special protection is to give religion a “pass” with respect to verification, taxation, and social respect. Thus it is that religion is widely thought to be a “good thing” even by persons who are not particularly religious. Thus it is that when some moral uncertainty faces a community, it is a group of clergy brought together to expound on morality. Thus it is that religion demands and is largely granted the right to define morality for everyone, its theistic claims seldom questioned and normally not criticized.

But let’s get back to the test tube. I’ve been an atheist for over a half century, yet I’ve never sought to put God to a test. What I put in a test tube is not God (whose existence is at best questionable), but the thinking or theology of anyone who proclaims such an overwhelming proposition with absolutely no evidence. Can I put not God, but believers’ opinion about a god in a test tube? Well, of course! Frankly, to do otherwise would be not only reckless, but would testify to my low opinion for truth, as it does theirs, for “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” not less as believers would have us accept.

That quote from Carl Sagan was based on earlier wisdom, like “The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness,” by Pierre-Simon, Marquis de Laplace, as well as “A wise man . . . proportions his belief to the evidence” and “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish,” both by David Hume.

You see, I’ve no argument with God, no more than I’ve an argument with Thor, Allah, or Vishnu. My argument is with my colleagues on this planet who insist they know what (I maintain) they can only imagine. Their regard is not for truth, but for what Stephen Colbert called truthiness . . . the preposterous assertion that because we feel something to be true, therefore it is. St. Paul, the Bible says, dismissed the need for substantiation by defining faith as “evidence of things unseen,” as childish an approach to ascertaining fact as one can imagine.

Humans lived and observed their environment for tens of thousands of years before happening upon what came to be called the scientific method. The purpose of science, I’ve heard it said not quite jokingly, is to keep us from believing stupid things. And it works exceedingly well, as our command of the world of matter and energy has shown in just a few centuries. As science discovered more and more, the arena left to superstitions (including religion) became smaller and smaller. Even the most religious people in America now rarely see a warning from God in the reddish total lunar eclipse. Still, many of the faithful are heard to proclaim about any remaining mystery that God is therefore proven. After all, how could my son have been spared in that awful accident?

Their God is shrinking, remaining only the “God of the gaps,” a concept described originally by a Christian lecturer, Henry Drummond, in the 1800s. In fact, it was another Christian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, martyred German theologian, who said during World War II, “how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We [should] find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.” The actual phrase “god of the gaps” is attributed to Methodist leader and Oxford mathematician Charles Coulson’s 1955 book Science and Christian Belief.

The test tube analogy brings to mind men or women in white coats doing laboratory experiments. But, of course, the phrase actually has nothing to do with labs or chemistry. The point is whether we can use the scientific method to guide our gullible minds in seeking truth. It is not that methods of science can answer all questions, for they cannot. However, it can answer them better than our otherwise undisciplined, subjective casting about in the epistemological dark, seeing phantasms all about. In our yearning for knowledge, there is little disagreement about the acceleration of gravity or the atomic composition of salt, but wide disagreement on what exists supernaturally. Incidentally, virtually no one fights over the former, but many have fought over the latter.

Premonitions, individual proclivities, and earnest feelings are useless tools in the search for reality. But religions do not give up easily. Is there a god? We don’t know. Are there other-worldly visitors from space? We don’t know. We can propose probabilities, but the tools of science come up with nothing. In a bizarre approach to reality, religionists often use this very lack of scientific evidence as proof that science is an unfit guide.

Whether God exists is not a scientific question, they say. While science finds nothing, human imagination finds volumes of contradiction and detail, constructing complex configurations of pure fantasy. No, make that fantasies, for there are almost as many of these illusions as there are human minds to conceive them.

 

 

Posted in Science and society | 9 Comments

American exceptionalism, American bloviation

Posted on November 11, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

Much of the world has long noted—often with affection, often with contempt, often with disparagement—that Americans, along with a frequently charming can-do attitude, are sold on themselves, their power, and the purity of their national motivation. I, too, have an almost worshipful respect for certain features of government and personal liberty America introduced to the world.

America’s economic and military strength is impressive, to be sure, but they are more the outcomes of inhabiting much of a continent with great resources, a demanding frontier in which to expand and experiment, the ambition and confidence born in part from isolation from the political congestion of Europe. We used those circumstances to great benefit, but we did not create them. What our founders did create—not without struggle and opposition—was an experimental setting for enlightenment philosophers’ ideas about pairing personal freedom and the rule of law: the judicious balancing of liberty on one hand and restraints on the other. I believe that maintaining this balance is the central task of our republic and, unfortunately, one that requires its fine points to be continually reconsidered as circumstances change.

Indeed, one stream of our history exemplifies what I mean. Resolution of slavery and, later, the status of women are part of that rolling modification; racial injustice is another. These have taken two centuries and are not yet completed. Freedom of speech, problematic since our founding, went through important redefinition a hundred years ago and still troubles us. Preserving separation of religious freedom from state intervention—a central intent since founding of the republic—continues to be grossly violated and widely misunderstood, even by presidential aspirants. Finding the sweet spot with regard to international entanglements is yet another.

Our greatest strength is our attempt, albeit greatly flawed much of the time, to keep the pursuit of the balance true to a horizon that continues to recede. But there is no assurance that the pursuit is destined to outlive the many ways it can be compromised. While we are all affected by the to and fro of national values, one I have been drawn to is that between theocratic pressures of various religions and the maintenance of a theologically neutral civic playing field upon which religious freedom can thrive. Religious people, seduced by short term interests, seem unable to see that their freedom of religion is not threatened by unbelievers as much as by other religions. That is why metastatic religious forces make it necessary to save religious freedom from religions just as crony capitalism makes it necessary to save market freedom from businesses.

But whether one is drawn to the arena of conflict which so interests me, we can all pay attention to the chief enemy of continual enhancement: the flurry of self-congratulation which intentionally or not masks the needs for and possible solutions for improvement. I don’t mean that we should never bask from time to time in what America has done well, just that beating our own drums can blind us to the stubborn fact that the need for perfecting is unending.

So it is that I wince when I hear expressions like “where but in America can X be done,” “the greatest country in the world,” “the freest country in the world,” or description of the US president as “the leader of the free world.” We are scandalized if a leader admits we’ve ever done anything wrong to other countries or failed to live up to our declared values (remember the lies about President Obama’s “apology trip”?). (I’d list the seemingly overreaching feature of America’s baseball “World” Series, though happily that term comes not from braggadocio, but from the playoff’s sponsorship by the now-defunct New York newspaper, The World.) At any rate, we seem not to have noticed that America no longer owns the Horatio Alger phenomenon, that other countries have claim to “the greatest” on one thing or another and just as much freedom, that even though leadership in the non-communist world may have been focused at one time, it is unlikely that free countries would designate America as their leader now.

Much of American bloviation is captured in our claim to be “exceptional.” Even I think America has some honest claims to exceptionalism, though I would point to America’s contributions in the 18th century rather than to some assumed righteousness today. In that sense, to paraphrase coach Barry Switzer, we of modern America were born on third base and go through life bragging that we hit a triple. The only thing exceptional about America, one observer said, is its claim to be exceptional. President Reagan, possibly our foremost exceptionalist, spoke of the “city on a hill,” “in the divine scheme of things that was set aside as a promised land,” and “the last best hope of man on earth.” Unfortunately, I fear that his and others’ similar words serve more as instruments in the service of our bragging rights than an energizing instigation to find and fix every way in which we fall short of so high a national self-concept. Waiving productive, healthy criticism need not be the price of waving the flag.

Where might we look? Oh, for a few examples, we might start with the dysfunctional Congress, partisan politics that resemble schoolyard brawls more than serious statesmanship, leaders who call for the Bible to outrank the Constitution in civil affairs, geographic illiteracy, general academic poor performance, byzantine tax structure, inability to find information needed for citizenship that can be trusted (including utterances of elected and would-be leaders), voters’ approval of politicians’ lying as long as they are in the favored party, and on and on. Is it even possible that America is the greatest country in the world with respect to any of these inadequacies? I think it would be sheer absurdity to claim so.

Posted in Politics | 2 Comments

Secular humanism goes beyond atheism

Posted on October 24, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

Many of my blog posts concern atheism or atheism’s relationship with theism. It would be understandable to think that my major identity is atheist. But it is not. My major identity is secular humanist. Unfortunately, in the United States if there’s a philosophical term more misunderstood or more vilified than atheism, it is secular humanism.

The reason secular humanism is my foremost interest is that it addresses the most vital matter in the lives of human beings (or, taken a step further, all sentient beings): our ability to live together most beneficially to human (or sentient) life. Atheism or, for that matter, deism is only useful in the face of widespread theism. (I’ll refer in this post to atheism/deism rather than to atheism alone. The reason is that, while deism maintains there to be a god or gods of great creative power—just as much as the god or gods of theism—there’s no godly interaction with humans and their affairs. Consequently, any argument between atheists and deists is for academic enjoyment, for neither has implications for worship, defining good and evil, or dogma.)

Atheism/deism makes impossible the delusion that moral rules for human life are imposed by an unseen, undocumented, supernatural being. It is crucial that the delusion be thwarted, for as long as much of the human race believes that a primitive phantasm is the best source of morality, we will be caught up in pleasing the delusion, not human needs. We will worry about earning the favor of a god, not the wellbeing of the human race. (Those who think these are the same thing are naive or uneducated.) I have written enough in earlier posts on what humanist ethics are based on (“The sin of sin,” Jan. 2, 2015; “Morality in secular humanism,” Mar. 16, 2015; “Lust,” June 16, 2015; “Lust still OK, damaging sentient beings is not,” June 25, 2015). Here I wish only to add that the broad development of humanist ethics is obstructed so long as superstition-based morality clutters the field.

It is not that all atheists/deists are secular humanists, but that their non-theism is a prerequisite to avoid theism’s damage to ethical development. I am engaged in the struggle against the inhumanity, absurdity, and cruelty of theism; that is, I’m an atheist. But I am also engaged in the struggle for fairness, scientific discovery, and enlightenment; that is, I’m a humanist who is secular. Not having the distraction of trying without end to find god or gods, and without the distraction of a moral code based primarily on what we think such god or gods have to say, we are able to turn our attention to what is best for humanity, what constitutes the good life and, indeed, what may reasonably be called goodness at all.

Posted in Morality, Secular humanism | 5 Comments

Religion in the public square

Posted on October 20, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

The term public square has become popular in Religious Right language in recent years. There is a great deal of umbrage taken that liberals and atheists have pushed religion out of the public square. Many Christians complain about the “attack” on Christmas crèches, crosses, and symbols on courthouse lawns, Ten Commandments plaques on the walls of government buildings, prayers by school boards, and political declarations of piety.

They convince themselves that perceived loss of Christian presence in public discourse is tantamount to a modern martyrdom, occasionally characterizing their plight as like facing lions in the Coliseum. Poor Christians. There is and long has been an overwhelming presence of the Christian message in public affairs. Along with Christianity’s theocracy-minded influence in government decisions, it still plays the persecution card. Thus does the Christian Right portray its bullying as victimization, all the while professing its actions—often even violations of law—to be in the service of religious freedom. As I pointed out in a previous post, Christian “freedom of religion” frequently means freedom to tell others what to do, using when possible the power of civil government.

Little inspection is required to see how hollow their dedication to religious freedom is. The flaw in Christians’ efforts to keep religion in the public square is that it is clearly Christianity they want there, seldom is it religion in general, and certainly not opinions antagonistic to their specific religion. In other words, their interest is not enrichment of public discourse; that would be a meritorious pursuit in a democratic society. Their interest is in the theocratic preference for Christianity to dominate the scene. One of their strategies is the rewriting of history, trying to demonstrate that America is and was intended to be a “Christian nation,” a patently unsupportable notion which this blog has also addressed.

Like the Pilgrims and Puritans who installed European Christianity on North American soil, the likes of Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee, the late Jerry Falwell, and thousands of conservative Christian leaders (not to mention millions of their followers), they have little interest in religious liberty except their own. Just watch the uproar when non-Christians try to place their messages on the same courthouse lawns or on the same schoolhouse walls. Billboards erected by freethought organizations with statements like “Jesus is a myth” or “Good without God” have been opposed vehemently and often vandalized. Similarly, demands by non-Christian groups to be given equal time for their points of view in schools, councils of government, or on public property are opposed as evil attacks on Christian hegemony.

Christians as a group (not all, to be sure) enjoy and demand as much theocracy as they can get away with, unmindful of the petard upon which government entanglement threatens to hoist even their own freedom of religion. The greatest threat to freedom of religion is that promulgated by religions, for religionists’ greatest combat is with each other, not with unbelief. A brief glance at history demonstrates the religious poisoning of civic life when one Christian sect or another becomes dominant. No one goes to war for atheism, but they have and still do for Sunni, Shia, Protestant, Catholic, and other faiths. Short of war, of course, have been numerous community travesties in America when one religion or another dominated the scene. Real freedom of religious expression brings the “threat” of our various religious sects assailing each other.

So if we must pollute our civic environment by homage to Jesus in the public square, let us invite all philosophies in without preference. Beyond common courtesies, they need not worry about giving offense or calling their opponents’ beliefs false. Open expression in the public square—unlike in the privacy of churches or other institutions of worship—must be truly open expression. Atheism is part of that discussion, so let secular humanists promote ethics that don’t rely on a supernatural source. Let Catholics extol the transubstantiation of Christ’s flesh and blood. Let Mormons and Hindus and Muslims preach their takes on reality. Let atheists say boldly what ridiculous propositions form the foundation of all religions.

The courthouse lawn and interior walls would fill quickly. Little children in public schools would be surrounded with competing religious and nonreligious world views. There would be scant justification for selecting some beliefs and non-beliefs to exclude. Government’s role would be one of strict neutrality in the melee, showing no preference between one faith and another, nor between religious faith and no religious faith.

Therefore, there would be a great deal of religion in the public square, though with no government preference. There would be no police cars garnished with religious slogans, no special attention to Christian views in public schools, no religious mottos and symbols in the courts, no tax benefits to religious institutions beyond those extended to other nonprofit organizations, no tax exclusions for the housing of religious leaders, and no hesitance in education to acknowledge findings of science, no pretense that American law is based on one of the sets of Hebrews’ Ten Commandments, and the many other ways in which religionists have manipulated government to favor their theology, symbols, practices and even their legal rights.

As a side benefit, atheists eventually could successfully run for political office, no longer subject to the preposterous religious lie that they are less trustworthy than the pious. Political office-seekers and office-holders, just as everyone else, would be free from having to afford religions freedom from criticism. Religion, like any other world view or proposition about reality would be as subject to reproach in polite society as nonreligious ones. Politicians would not feel constrained to punctuate their rhetoric with the obligatory “God bless America.”

Actually, I’d rather enjoy that vivacious, energetic kind of public square. But the most important consideration is this: our Constitution demands either this possibly disturbing scene or one in which public property and public decisions are reserved for civic affairs only, no sectarian messages allowed. Since religious people are in the majority in the US, it would even be religious people making the choice between these alternatives (since the nature of the public square, as long as it is Constitutional, would be a civic choice, not a religious one). But it is not a Constitutional option for the faithful to grumble and lick their pretended wounds while routinely violating Constitutional protections they don’t like.

In view of these considerations, would Christians, particularly those of the Religious Right, really want religion in the public square?

Posted in Church and state, Liberty | 2 Comments

Christian bullying (Part 2)

Posted on September 13, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

This the second of a two part series on Christian bullying. In case you missed Part 1, here are excerpts to set the stage for Part 2:

Our country was designed to accommodate citizens of whatever convictions about religion, with no governmental adjudication or even favor to one or another of these convictions. Government could be neither religious nor anti-religious; it must be a-religious.

Government, however, is composed of individuals like governors, police officers, school teachers, and driver’s license clerks. Every person who speaks for any part of government must carry out the a-religious commitment—not in their private lives, of course, but in their governmental capacity. That line of thought is simple and enables “we the people” through a careful process to decide the largest questions, including what will be “rights.” The personal self-control necessary to maintain governmental discipline right down to specific topics and specific persons (e.g., in marriage license applications) has not proven to be easily maintained, whether due to carelessness, lack of understanding, or zealous proselytizing.

Our rights belong to us acting as individuals. They do not belong to the government at federal, state, or local levels. They do not belong to the positions of mayor, sheriff, or County Commissioners. They do not belong to the County Clerk position and office. So while Kim Davis—the individual—is free to express and to practice her religion, for the County Clerk to do so is just as clearly a violation of others’ rights, a civil offense. Insidious nullification of lawful rights by piously mouthing commitment to misconstrued religious rights does not give up easily.

The Christian Right and others have confused the latitude allowed to government operatives with the religious freedom they possess as individuals. Unless those two matters are kept separate, our government cannot be one “of laws, not of men.” Americans’ rights would then depend on the religious views of whichever government employee they interact with. That would be an intolerable situation for a country that values liberty. But, as I shall illustrate in my next post, we have crossed that line in many ways, blatantly representing the robbing of freedom as religious freedom itself.

The purpose of this post, “Christian bullying (Part 2),” is to lay out a few real situations in which bullying happens all across America in many walks of life, so much that a constant stream comes even to my restricted attention. It is as if violations of Jefferson’s “wall of separation” might more accurately need to resemble a dam holding back the religious theocratic flood. It is not my intent to display more than a sampling of it. In fact, besides space limitations and my not having access to all the bullying, I’m including almost exclusively instances in which the “testimony” is in the bullies’ own words—in other words, ones for which I can could find a quotation. (Trained in scientific research, I am compulsive about fair handling of citations, but I’ll apologize at the outset if any have been mistakenly recorded.)

Finally, a word on words: “bully” and “bullying,” ones I’m sure Christians will consider to be unduly harsh. After all, most of the persons and groups included below do not think of themselves as bullies. They are merely doing God’s work (even if an idiosyncratic version thereof); they mean well. But when a public official refuses to issue an automobile vanity plate for ATHEIST, while issuing one without question for BAPTST based on the clerk’s beliefs, just what is that? When the Internal Revenue Service allows ministers and other clerics to avoid income tax on housing allowances, while others must pay, just what is that? When government officials (e.g., school boards, councils, commissions) can turn public meetings into opportunity to sermonize or otherwise favor some specific interpretation of Christianity, just what is that?

Daily in this country’s public schools, teachers lead or encourage audible group prayers consistent with his or her convictions, not recognizing the difficulty for children to choose between mockery for their dissent or submission. Daily in this country whole schools are subjected to Christian pictures, slogans, and activities, clear violations of the Constitution. Daily in this country, officials stand up for teachers’ “religious freedom” (which they have fully in their personal lives) by running roughshod over the religious freedom of children and their parents. Thomas Jefferson warned a fledgling nation about the evil in doing “good.”

As this essay is posted, the whole country is aware of the shameful refusal of a County Clerk in Kentucky to issue marriage licenses to gays, along with the pandering political candidates who appeal to and energize a public convinced that their religion deserves not only free expression but free control over others. I use the word bully freely in describing the use superior power and intimidation not for lawful purposes in lawful ways, but to force an outcome or enforce personal values on others too weak, too young, too vulnerable, or too much in the minority to escape or resist.

Moreover, I regret that I have secured dates for most, but not all entries.) So the following are but a few examples I have chosen from the many I review every month. Further, inasmuch as all points of view have individual “crazies,” persons whose ranting represents no one but themselves, to the extent possible, I only quote persons in positions of legitimacy. That includes public officials and religious leaders, but not random “persons on the street” except when they obviously represent a large group. I regret not having recorded dates for every entry. I have also chosen to present, for the most part, only recent entries among the many I have.

Bullying public school students by imposing or favoring Christianity. The courts have agreed that when schools endorse a religion or allow students on school time or property to do so, it is a violation of Constitutional neutrality of government. This does not apply to bona fide private schools, but does apply to charter schools operating under the auspices of public boards of education. Teachers and whole schools that see Christian symbols, activities, evangelizing, and showing favor to Christianity are particularly insidious since they are dealing not only with captive audiences, but ones unequipped to argue back or to be strong when forced to be unlike other kids.

“Before every game at Grady Stadium [Atlanta], the pastor would come down and pray before every football game. I don’t remember anyone getting carted off that field paralyzed.” Allen West, former Florida U.S. Representative, suggesting that coercive school prayer kept football players free from injuries. Atlanta, Georgia. 2015.

“Jesus died on the cross for our sins.” Message delivered by Horace Turners, an evangelist known as “Bible Man,” allowed to lead monthly assemblies during school hours, preach sermons on bible readings, and distribute religious literature. Coalmont Elementary School in Altamont, Tenn. in the Grundy County Department of Education. March 2015.

“We are Christians at College Oaks.” Inscriptions on T-shirts sold to students by College Oaks Elementary School, Lake Charles, Louisiana, in Kids for Christ program. 2014.

“Establish and endorse a non-theistic religious worldview.” State of Kansas’s grounds cited before the U. S. District Court to stop adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) because they do not include a religious point of view. December 2024.

“[The theme] reflect[s] our strong belief in prayers.” Promotional explanation of the annual “Keep Christ in Christmas” parade by Piedmont, Alabama City Schools. 2014.

“We Pray Salvation.” Printing, along with large Christian cross on Licking Valley School District, Newark, Ohio marching band t-shirts. 2014.

“To fire a bus driver for praying for the safety of the children [is not right].” George Nathaniel, pastor of Missionary Baptist Church in Minneapolis, commenting on a school bus driver fired for refusing to stop leading hymns and prayer to students on his public school bus. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Dec. 2013.

“I personally love my job as a public school teacher because I am able to talk with many kids about Jesus.” Unnamed teacher at Vidor High School where Christian prayers are broadcast over loudspeakers at football games. Vidor, Texas. 2014.

“It’s about God being in our children’s schools. It’s about us standing up for the fact that God’s in our school.” Lisa Huski, parent of student in Mountain Peak Elementary where permanent plaques announce “Dedicated . . . to faithful teachers in the name of the Holy Christian Church.” Midlothian, Texas. 2014.

“To see as many Men, Woman [sic], Boys, and Girls make a legitimate decision to follow Jesus and be BORN AGAIN.” Self-described goal of “Jubilee Gang,” a group giving an assembly at Licking Valley Elementary School, Newark, Ohio.

“We are asking local churches all across Middle Tennessee to adopt a school to serve as the point person for prayer on that school campus. This will be a multi-church, multi-denominational time of prayer at each of the more than 200-plus schools. We would like to know which schools your church would be willing to adopt and serve as the liaison in your community.” Trey Reynolds, Wilson County director of First Priority of Greater Nashville, Tennessee.

“The countywide event will be held Sunday, Aug. 2, from 2-4 p.m. on the campus of every public school in Hawkins County, including the independent Rogersville City School.” Announcement by Expecting God’s Help, a Christian group teaming with First Priority in Hawkins County, Kingsport, Tennessee.

“TO ALL FOOTBALL PLAYERS, PARENTS OF PLAYERS, COACHES, AND STAFF. . . We have to wear a breastplate of righteousness, helmets of salvation, and we must wear our cleats for the preparation of the gospel of peace. We have to be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. ‘PUT ON THE WHOLE ARMOUR OF GOD, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.’ Ephesians 6:10-13.” Villa Rica High School football booster club, Villa Rica, Georgia. 2015.

“We had the privilege of baptizing a bunch of football players and a coach on the field of Villa Rica High School! We did this right before practice! Take a look and see how God is STILL in our schools!” First Baptist Villa Rica video, concerning video shot on Villa Rica High School grounds just before football practice. Villa Rica, Georgia. 2015.

“Uniting the Local Body of Christ with a Plan of Action to Influence the School with the Gospel”. …”Christ-Church-Campus” …”The Hope of Christ in Every Student.” Expecting God’s Help, a Christian group in Rogersville, Tennessee. 2015.

“Nobody else in the school seemed to be bothered by it.” Evangelical Christian painter Warner Sallman regarding painting “The Head of Christ” hanging in the [school] hallway for decades. Some residents were displeased at its removal, one saying “”There were only one or two evolution kids and they didn’t seem to be bothered by it.” 2015.

“We are permanently planting churches in Central Florida Schools,” The Venue Church, speaking of public school systems of Orange and Seminole Counties (in and near Orlando), Florida. 2013-14.

“I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” and “If God be for us who can be against us?” Monument at entrance to the football field unveiled by Madison County School District, Danielsville, Georgia. 2014.

 “We’re all about wanting to see the cause of Christ go further…in more public arenas in the American culture…We want to see Christ in our schools. [This is an] attempt to bully us.” Pastor Justin Coffman, explaining to Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt why Christian plaques mounted by the Midlothian Independent School District, under suit as a church/state violation, are justified. 2014.

“Wednesday Morning Devotions.” Buchtel Divo Group, begun by Brad Lingenhoel, teacher with Akron Ohio Public Schools, for students in the school library before school. 2015.

“May God grant me the strength to always live by this creed.” Bethel High School Naval Junior ROTC, along with prayers “in the name of Jesus.” Bethel, Connecticut. 2015.

“The school board is being attacked because they pray in the school board meetings [and] their teachers have bible sayings in the classroom . . . We certainly stand with our school board,” Pastor Jeff Buchanan, First Baptist Church, in support of Levy County School Board, Bronson, Florida. 2015.

Many children have been introduced to the Gospel and have given their hearts to Jesus.” Claim about its Christian teaching by Northwestern Elementary School, Wicomico County Public Schools, Maryland. 2014.

 Bullying young adult athletes by imposing or favoring Christianity: These instances are taken from college level circumstances, often in athletic situations, wherein coaches become tax-paid missionaries.

“I’d do it anyway. I did it anyway at Florida State. I don’t care about political correctness; I want to be spiritually correct.” Legendary former Coach Bobby Bowden when asked by a Fox & Friends interviewer what he thought about “Orange County [Florida] right now saying there’s no place for faith in football” and his own having repeatedly used his tax-supported coaching position to preach, pray, and otherwise proselytize for Christianity. 2014.

“That’s what he is, he’s a preacher… He preaches the Word – the gospel … what we all need to hear . . . [teaching them to] stop being sissies for Christ.” University of South Carolina president Dr. Harris Pastides, commending USC football team chaplain Adrian Despres. 2015.

“I am a character coach at Wichita State because I love God, I love basketball players, and I love helping basketball players learn how to love God.” Chaplain Steve Dickie, with the Wichita State University basketball team to lead team prayers, bless team dinners, and “influence for the glory of God.” March 2015.

“Our message at [the University of] Georgia doesn’t change, and that’s to preach Christ and Him crucified, it’s to win championships for the state of Georgia and win souls for the Kingdom of God, so we’re going to continue down that path. We [also try] to get these guys plugged in to church. I tell people … that come to Georgia that are not Christians and allow me to speak in their lives, I encourage them to walk with Jesus. I encourage them to get into Bible study. I encourage them to get in the Word. I encourage them to memorize Scripture.”” Rev. Kevin “Chappy” Hynes, University of Georgia football chaplain. 2015.

“We can’t allow [church/state separatists] to move into these areas that traditionally have always been a part of the football program. Faith, family, football—have always gone together. Here’s [Freedom from Religion Foundation] coming in and trying to tear that out.” Pastor Troy Schmidt, First Baptist Church of Windermere, Florida. 2014.

“Our goal is to see peoples’ lives changed as they discover God’s purpose for their life….using sports as a platform to help people answer questions of faith and to point them to Jesus. We dream of a day when there are Christ-followers on every team, in sport, in every nation.” Athletes in Action (a Christian youth sports ministry), granted $300,000 for its mission by the state of Ohio. 2015.

“We build our program around faith in Jesus Christ.” Steve Prohm, Iowa State University head basketball coach describing his previous coaching job at Murray State University in Kentucky. 2015.

Bullying the general public and non-Christian beliefs by using the power of the state to promote Christian dogma, beliefs, and actions above other philosophical positions: The Christian Right has twisted the meaning of religious freedom to include its freedom to tell others what to do, choosing to ignore that every government employee who deals with the public is an extension of the state, not an independent individual—see my immediately previous post “Christian bullying (Part 1)” for the reasoning. An easy (and very frequent) example would be protecting a public school teacher’s “religious freedom” to proselytize children, overlooking the religious freedom of children and their families. Moreover, convinced they represent God, the faithful are wont to justify governmental endorsement of Christianity based on the claim that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. In fact, it does both inasmuch as freedom of logically includes freedom from. For the rationale, see my post “Freedom of religion requires freedom from religion,” October 8, 2014.

“How are you going to tell [teachers] they can’t pray? You’re violating their Constitutional rights.” Gerald Dial, Alabama State Senator, in support of a bill making it acceptable for public school teachers to participate with students in prayer. 2014.

“On God’s authority.” Kim Davis, County Clerk of Rowan County, Morehead, Kentucky, when asked on whose authority she was not issuing marriage licenses [for gays]. Sept. 1, 2015.

“At the end of the day, we have to stand before God, which has higher authority than the Supreme Court,” said Randy Smith, leading the group supporting Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis. Morehead, Kentucky, September 2015.

“The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the free exercise of the Christian religion. Founding Fathers did not intend to preserve religious liberty for non-Christians.” Bryan Fischer, Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy, American Family Association. Sept. 2011.

“If the people who come before us are upset by [the Bible displayed at city council meetings], let them go to whatever country, ask for whatever type of Bible they want. This is a Christian nation.” Cecil Bradbury, former mayor, Pinellas Park, Florida. 2014.

“Jesus Welcomes You to Hawkins.” Sign on city property in Hawkins, Texas, Will Rogers, Mayor. 2015.

“Share the Gospel and bring people to Christ and strengthen their beliefs,” Irma Hernandez, Deputy City Manager, Orange, Calif., describing the purpose of Mayor’s Prayer Breakfasts for which city personnel coordinate invitations, arrange musical performances and speakers, suggest the mayor’s bible verse selections, set the theme of the keynote message, and prepare Mayor Teresa Smith’s opening remarks. 2013, 2014.

“This is a good Christian community that welcomes people who move here. But if you want to attack God, you should leave.” Mike Tavalario, official with Johnson County, Tennessee.

“The official state book will be the Holy Bible, published by Johannes Prevel.” Louisiana Rep. Thomas Carmody, in introducing HB503 to legislate this declaration, 2014.

“Christ.” Word emblazoned, along with a Christian cross, on the official seal of the Sheriff of Humphreys County. Waverly, Tennessee. 2014.

“The Town of Montgomery is PROUD to keep CHRIST in our Christmas celebrations.” Text on Facebook page of City of Montgomery, Louisiana. 2014.

“We’re a Christian nation with Christian ideology . . . we need to move toward our Christian heritage.” and “The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard.” Al Bedrosian, member, Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, seeking to exclude non-Christians from offering pre-meeting invocations. Salem, Virginia. May 2014.

 “57 percent.” Public Policy Polling, a survey organization, in a nationwide survey of whether the Republican Party “base” “supports establishing Christianity as the national religion” (vs. supporters of Rick Perry 94% and Mike Huckabee 83%). Feb. 2015.

“We should be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday to see if we can get back to having a moral rebirth.” Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. March 2015.

“Your group is a strictly an anti-religion group intending to deprive all organized religions of their constitutional freedoms . . . The City of Warren cannot allow this.” Mayor James Fouts, Warren, Michigan, in rejecting a non-Christian citizen’s request to set up a so-called “reason station” in a city hall atrium in which Tabernacle Church (Church of God) had already been issued a permit to establish a “prayer station.” July 2014.

“[It would] end up being a problem, just as if I were to allow a Nazi group during our MLK celebration. [It] is intended to deprive all organized religions of their constitutional freedoms.” Jim Fouts, Mayor of Warren, Michigan, in rejecting application for an atheist display in city hall in which the “prayer station” of a local church was accepted. February 2015.

“We need to . . . amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it [sic] lines up with some contemporary view.” Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, candidate for president, 2007 and 2015.

 “The servitude of the African race . . . is abundantly authorized and justified . . . by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations.” Texas Ordinance of Secession, declaring a Biblical basis for enslaving blacks, enacted Jan. 22, 1861.

Gays “want to make Houston another San Francisco . . . Drive them out of our city . . . Send them back to San Francisco . . . Sometimes you have to do that when people are totally opposed to God like that, and wickedness rises up.” Steven Hotze, MD, proprietor of Hotze Health and Wellness Center, launching his “Faith, Family, Freedom Tour” in advance of Houston elections. Houston, Texas.

“I think what you have to do is ask a very specific passage of the Bible and specific portion of the Constitution.” Ben Carson, MD, seeking Republican nomination for US presidency, in reply to Chuck Todd of “Meet the Press” who asked “Does the Bible have authority over the Constitution?” 2015.

“When the Christians exercise dominion, good things happen. When we surrender dominion, bad things happen . . . God has made us in charge of this planet and He’s given us dominion and we’re supposed to exercise dominion . . . God has given us dominion, we have to do that.” Pat Robertson on the 700 Club. May 12, 2015.

“Americans have the freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion. That’s why I am introducing legislation that requires Congressional approval before any change would be made to military oaths . . . The moral foundation of our country is in serious danger if we allow radical groups to dictate whether or not we can freely express our religious beliefs. It’s time to take a stand.” U. S. Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, to “protect the religious freedom of American troops” by not removing the Christian reference in the military oath.” March 2015.

“Official Faith-Based Partner.” Designation by Northwestern Elementary School, Wicomico County Public Schools, Maryland, granted to Mardela Springs Wesleyan Church. 2014.

“Save Tennessee for Jesus.” June Griffin, introduced as the “minister today” in her prayer for the Tennessee Legislature, January 2015.

“[Marriage licenses would have to be approved by] an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi.” House Bill 1125 filed by Oklahoma State Rep. Todd Russ, who explained, “Put it back to what it was supposed to be and was originally a holy matrimony and a very solemn and spiritual vow.”

“It shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to hire and employ any person because of said person’s atheistic practices and beliefs.” U.S. Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio in a motion for inclusion in revision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“I don’t see what good it would be to take it out of the constitution. I don’t think you would have the support to remove that from our constitution at all.” Mississippi State Rep. Scott DeLano, disagreeing with a proposal to remove from the Mississippi Constitution the words “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.”

“The State of Mississippi hereby acknowledges the fact of her identity as a principally Christian …. State….accordingly, the Holy Bible is acknowledged as a foremost source of her foundling principle.” Proposed constitutional amendment put forth by the Magnolia State Heritage Campaign as an initiative to be placed on the ballot. 2016.

“In your place, what would Jesus do?” Wording of large framed picture of Jesus displayed in the main entranceway of the courthouse in Jackson, Kentucky. 2014.

“We are going to say a prayer. If any of you are offended by that, you can leave into the hallway and your case will not be affected.” Judge Wayne Mack, Montgomery County, Texas, introducing a minister who read from the bible at length then asked all to bow their heads and pray.

“We, the people of the United States recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Savior and Lord of all, in order to form a more perfect union….” AND “We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union…” Unsuccessful proposals to Congress to amend the preamble of the U.S. Constitution by the National Reform Association and Christian Amendment Movement, respectively, to declare the US to be a Christian nation. Mid-1860s. [Congress was presented by similar proposals in 1874, 1896, and 1910, all unsuccessful. In fact, a similar idea was floated, but defeated by the drafters of the Constitution.]

“Having Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country. . . The Supreme Court is not the Supreme branch and it’s certainly not the Supreme Being. . . This . . . undermines . . . our fundamental right to religious liberty!” Donald Trump, candidate for US president, in tweeted comment September 2015.

“Other religions are in the minority. The U.S. and the Constitution were founded on Christianity. This is what the majority of people believe in, and it’s what I’m standing up for.” Carroll Mitchem, Lincoln County Commission, explaining why only Christians are allowed to give invocations at Commissioners’ meetings. Lincolnton, North Carolina. 2015.

“[I] urge everyone who does not know Jesus Christ to go and find Him.” Board President James Na, statement in public meeting of Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education that normally open with prayer and often include bible readings. San Bernardino County, California. Dec. 2014.

“I think what they want is an affirmation that the people of the state of Maryland don’t care about the Christian faith, and that is a little offensive.” Christopher B. Shank, Minority whip in the Maryland Senate, interpreting why a secular coalition is calling for removal from the state constitution of a prohibition against atheists holding office. 2014.

“Anytime you find a group of people whose lives have been adversely affected [by] major fire . . . storm or a disaster . . . is an evangelistic advantage . . . I may be able to share with you a word from Christ.” Police chaplain E. Baxter Morris, who rides with Montgomery (Alabama) police with access to crime scenes, 2013.

“To exclude church-owned vehicles, which are designed to transport 30 passengers or less, from the definition of commercial motor vehicle for the purposes of commercial driver’s licenses.” Mississippi House Bill 132 as passed, to exclude churches from requirement that bus drivers have commercial driver’s licenses. February 2015.

“Religious liberty in America is in grave danger. . . this is about . . . the ability of Christians and other religious people to serve in positions of public trust. If this is not resolved . . . this will, in effect, establish a reverse religious test barring those who hold biblical views of marriage from positions of public service.” Tony Perkins, Family Research Council President. Sept. 3, 2015.

“A faith infused gospel music mega event . . . enjoy some all-night Saturday revelry in anticipation of a feverous day of Sunday worship and prayer.” City of Jonesboro and other sponsors of Gospel Fest concert (advertised with Christian imagery on the city’s official Facebook page). Jonesboro, Georgia, 2015.

“When Christians say we shouldn’t be involved in politics, you’ve got to be kidding me. We are the government.” Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin (retired), now executive vice president of the Family Research Council, who maintained that Muslims are not entitled to First Amendment protections. 2015.

Bullying justified by erroneous and prejudicial explanations of lawmaking and Supreme Court judicial review. Ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803 established the authority of federal courts to judge whether executive or even Congressional actions violate the Constitution, there have been a number of such actions. A court does not make law, but it does have the right to declare Executive Branch and Legislative Branch actions to be contrary to the Constitution. Unfortunately, I don’t normally seek to record either intentional or ignorant misconstructions of SCOTUS’s role. But many like the few below have occurred recently with respect to gay marriage by religious persons wanting law to reflect their religious definition of marriage.

“The Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people aren’t fully human.” Mike Huckabee, former governor and two time presidential candidate, in argument with radio host Michael Medved, explaining why the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision is not binding. Sept. 2015. [Huckabee ignored his legal training, for the Fourteenth Amendment changed the Constitution such that the earlier and, frankly, shameful treatment of African Americans was nullified.]

“He [Jesus] explicitly outlined what marriage is … So when people say Jesus didn’t talk about same-sex marriage, he did by virtue of talking about what marriage is.” Mike Huckabee, on MSNCB’s “Morning Joe” explaining why the Bible is against gay marriage though it isn’t mentioned. Sept. 2015. [The bullying aspect is that whatever the Bible has to say is relevant to American civil law. Persons who believe gay marriage is wrong can still say so and certainly can avoid it themselves, so religious freedom is unaffected. But Huckabee and other theocrats think what (they think) the Bible says should trump democratically established American law.]

“Friday’s Supreme Court Justice decision to make same sex marriage ‘The Law of the Land’ is yet another example of America’s highest court usurping its authority by making law. It started by taking prayer out of school, then legalizing abortion and now spits in the faces of all Christian organizations.” Kevin Jackson on The Blackspear blog, member of the Liberty Alliance, saying the Supreme Court action is “better known as treason.” 2015. [The court declared that state laws providing for marriage of opposite sex parties while not doing so for same sex parties violated the equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Constitution. There was no usurpation; there was no lawmaking.]

“The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body.” Bobby Jindal, governor and presidential candidate. 2015.

“For the first time we’re seeing a Christian woman thrown in jail for standing up for her faith. . . I stand with anyone else that the government is trying to persecute for standing up for their faith. It is inconsistent with the first amendment of the Constitution. We are a nation that was formed by people fleeing religious oppression and coming to seek a land where we could worship free of the government getting in the way.” Ted Cruz, U. S. Senator and 2015 presidential candidate, interviewed by Megyn Kelly on Fox News. [Early settlers to America did seek freedom to worship in their own way, but right away began governmentally stopping others from worshipping in their own way. They sought freedom to squelch the freedom of others, a characteristic of religion generally. The freedom of worship of the Christian woman (Kim Davis), whose “persecution” Cruz decries, was never limited by anyone. What was limited was her authority as a single individual from deciding what the law of the land should be in Rowan County, then—adding insult to injury—demanding that her illegitimately proclaimed authority be seen as her exercise of religion. Ms. Davis is not a martyr, but a bully.]

Posted in Morality, Religion's costs and foibles | Leave a comment

Christian bullying (Part 1)

Posted on September 4, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

It’s in the nature of many religions to bully those outside religion in general and even outside their own specific faith. Christianity and Islam are the worst offenders. Examples abound through history: Catholics versus Protestants, Shia versus Sunni, and religious versus nonreligious. Pogroms, wars, executions, civil penalties, shunning, and penalties both social and economic have been employed with fervor by those who speak for unseen gods. “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully,” observed Blaise Pascal, “as when they do it from religious conviction.”

I shall focus on Christianity here, choosing not to address Islam for two reasons: first because Islam is so oppressive once in a controlling position that making my point would be like shooting fish in a barrel, second because Christianity doesn’t deserve to escape challenge simply because it is not as repressive as Islam. As to bullying, the difference between Christians as a group and Muslims as a group is one of degree, not substance.

Clearly, millions of Christians do not think of themselves as bullies. Many if not most Christians do not mean to be bullies. Indeed, there is no ill intent among the Christians I know well. Most are kind, helpful, thoughtful, trustworthy, well-meaning persons. They might dismiss my point out of hand because the self-concept of bully is so foreign to them, so ridiculous to contemplate as not to be worth consideration. That is a conclusion with blinders, however, for it fails to recognize the millions who do wish to force their beliefs on others, not to mention the vast difference between the behavior of a group and members of a group taken individually. It is not uncommon in human affairs that ethical individuals can comprise an unethical group.

In the opinion of each Christian, God has described how life should and should not be lived. Among Christians, there are vast differences in what God has decreed, so it is always problematic when a Christian claims God says this or that. Even from one congregation to another (there are over 300,000 in the US), there are differences. Further, within each church there are even more disagreements, though lesser ones. Still, there are broad matters on which a majority of Christians can agree. Catholics and Protestants, for example, can get together on the importance of belief in God and Jesus. When Jews are added to the mix, Jesus drops out. (In US history, Jews have been included only if a significant proportion of the population or if political correctness of the era frowns on excluding them.)

The United States was formed by instituting a godless Constitution in September 1787. Religion was not among the hot topics in the convention that wrote the Constitution, although its Article 6 decreed, “[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” After ratification, ten amendments were quickly added (referred to as the “Bill of Rights”), the first of which said, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The new federal government was to be religiously neutral. Although many founders were religious (some Deists, but most Christians), they did not create a “Christian nation” in the sense of a Christian government. To the founders, freedom of religion was important, and they understood the greatest threats to such liberty were religions themselves. (The Declaration of Independence spoke of God, not Jesus, making it possible for Jews and Deists to sign on.)

The colonies and the later new country experienced a great deal of religion-on-religion strife, as well as government interference in religion. In a previous post (“Our Debt to Roger Williams,” Aug.26, 2013) I opined on the early struggle in the 17th century. It began early and continued with shameful violence into the 19th century. In modern times the less violent Christian cudgel has been taken up against equality for women, abortion, and homosexuality, as well as making vehement demands that local, state, and federal government support Christianity. The latter continues today. Not only are there severe threats to church/state separation, but revisionists of the Christian Right (including fabrications of the discredited David Barton) have gone so far as to preach that the founders meant no separation of church and state at all. Like the Puritan settlers in Massachusetts, the Christian Right has scant interest in religious freedom, except for themselves. They have so inverted the concept that religious freedom, as they use it, means having the right to tell others what to do.

Inescapably, one challenge to democracy is never ending irreconcilable differences of opinion. Civil governance must be robust to provide a lasting framework of political resolution without, at the same time, shortchanging freedoms. Civility on a social level and dedication to the provisions of such a system (until that system is lawfully changed) are required to prevent collapse. Just as courts can overrule governmental actions that violate the supreme document on which the country is founded, elected representatives acting within their lawful latitude cannot be overruled by individual government employees.

Our country was designed to accommodate citizens of whatever convictions about religion, with no governmental adjudication or even favor to one or another of these convictions. Founders who were Christians related to religion in a passionate and personal way as individuals, but knew that allowing the civil authority into the conflict was a different matter. Government could be neither religious nor anti-religious; it must be a-religious.

Government, however, is composed of individuals like governors, police officers, school teachers, and driver’s license clerks. Every person who speaks for any part of government must carry out the a-religious commitment—not in their private lives, of course, but in their governmental capacity. That line of thought is simple and enables “we the people” through a careful process to decide the largest questions, including what will be “rights.” The personal self-control necessary to maintain governmental discipline right down to specific topics and specific persons (e.g., in marriage license applications) has not proven to be easily maintained, whether due to carelessness, lack of understanding, or zealous proselytizing.

Consequently, the concerns I’m voicing are not abstract issues. They come down to millions of exchanges between individual persons in our schools, courts, legislatures, and other parts of local, state, and federal governments. In my next post, “Christian bullying (Part 2),” I will share a number of specific situations in which Christian bullying is regularly found—instances so widely present as to touch not just some, but most Americans.

Here is a single example, included here because of current news about Kim Davis, elected County Clerk of Rowan County in Morehead, Kentucky. Ms. Davis is a Christian who thinks her religion-based view of gay marriage should, in the Rowan County Clerk’s office, trump the Supreme Court of the United States. She is not alone in that opinion. Many elected officials, religious leaders, and regular citizens also believe that their interpretation of God’s way of marriage is one-man-one-woman and that homosexual marriage is an abomination. (It should be noticed that not all Christians accept that interpretation.) They are fully entitled to that belief as individuals and as faith groups.

But they are not entitled to redefine public employment unilaterally based on that belief. Their church does not have the right to decide public policy. Similarly, it is not lawful for a public school teacher to teach his or her religion to students even in subtle ways. Rights held under the Constitution by citizens are not subject to what a county official or school teacher decides are legitimate rights of citizenship. In flagrant opposition to these principles, Ms. Davis released this press release just a few days ago:

“I owe my life to Jesus Christ who loves me and gave His life for me. Following the death of my godly mother-in-law over four years ago, I went to church to fulfill her dying wish. There I heard a message of grace and forgiveness and surrendered my life to Jesus Christ. I am not perfect. No one is. But I am forgiven and I love my Lord and must be obedient to Him and to the Word of God I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s Word.  It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution, and in the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Our history is filled with accommodations for people’s religious freedom and conscience.  I want to continue to perform my duties, but I also am requesting what our Founders envisioned – that conscience and religious freedom would be protected.”

It is impossible to read her statement without noting and even valuing the sincerity in her conviction and the importance she places of following what she believes is a divine command. To squelch Kim Davis’s right to shout these comments from the rooftops or to interfere with her living in accord with them would be a clear violation of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, rights we all cherish, rights the American experiment (inherited not from religion, incidentally, but from Enlightenment philosophers) boldly brought to the world.

[Within a few days, Clerk Davis was jailed for defying U. S. District Judge David L. Bunning’s order to desist her obstruction of gay applicants’ right to marry. Christian Right reaction was soon forthcoming. Former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee praised her for “not abandoning her religious convictions and standing strong for religious liberty.” His usual doomsday scenario came from Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and staunch defender of the “Christian nation” position: “Religious liberty in America is in grave danger . . . this is about . . . the ability of Christians and other religious people to serve in positions of public trust. . . in effect . . . barring those who hold biblical views of marriage from positions of public service. . . The time to protect and accommodate religious liberty is now.” (I can remember similar statements made following court decisions in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, Loving v. Virginian in 1967, and in less heralded cases that struck down decades of previously legal, but inhumane traditions.)]

Our rights belong to us acting as individuals. They do not belong to the government at federal, state, or local levels. They do not belong to the positions of mayor, sheriff, or County Commissioners. They do not belong to the County Clerk position and office. So while Kim Davis—the individual—is free to express and to practice her religion, for the County Clerk to do so is just as clearly a violation of others’ rights, a civil offense. Insidious nullification of lawful rights by piously mouthing commitment to misconstrued religious rights does not give up easily.

The Christian Right and others have confused the latitude allowed to government operatives with the religious freedom they possess as individuals. Unless those two matters are kept separate, our government cannot be one “of laws, not of men.” Americans’ rights would then depend on the religious views of whichever government employee they interact with. That would be an intolerable situation for a country that values liberty. But, as I shall illustrate in my next post, we have crossed that line in many ways, blatantly representing the robbing of freedom as religious freedom itself.

Posted in Morality, Religion's costs and foibles | 1 Comment

Blasphemed lately? Watch your back!

Posted on August 20, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

The word blasphemy is not as frequently heard in the Western world as it used to be. But among the faithful the concept has not gone away. (Christians often condemn blasphemy in words and deeds while avoiding the seemingly archaic word.) In other cultures—primarily Muslim—blasphemy still has deadly consequences.

Deadly or not, to believers blasphemy by whatever name is a big deal. After all, “whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven,” we are told in the synoptic gospels. “He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death (Quran Surah 24:16). Moreover, it is not just the blasphemer who suffers the wrath of God, but also the congregation that fails to fulfil its duty to “stone him…to death” (Leviticus 24).

In the American colonies, long before the United States Constitution introduced an Enlightenment attitude toward liberty, there were severe blasphemy laws. One would hope Christians and Muslims would visit their religious taboos only on their own crowds, but that’s not been their inclination. They just can’t keep their beliefs to themselves. And that goes beyond the evangelistic commandment in Matthew 28 that Christians spread their “good news” worldwide. From the Crusades to Catholic missionaries to today’s politically active fundamentalists, Christians’ tactics make Matthew’s challenge look unambitious. In the U.S., they seek to control laws, tax policies, and entertainment by hijacking the power of the state; they are no less oppressive just because Muslims do it more forcefully. Quran 24:16, for example, directs that “the [blaspheming] stranger” be stoned just as readily “as he that is born in the land.” Visitors don’t get a pass.

Steeped in stories of the faithful being punished because of sinners nearby, it is understandable that Christians and Muslims have a need to force nonbelievers to conform to their doctrines. God made it clear to Lot that he’d destroy everyone in Sodom unless 50 or more “righteous” could be found. That and other examples of Jehovah’s harshness toward good people just because they exist alongside sinners makes some of Pat Robertson’s nuttiness explainable. Angry about “Gay Days” at Disneyworld, Robertson predicted that God would rain down “serious hurricanes, terrorist bombs, earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor” on homosexuals as well as gay-friendly Central Floridians and their guests.

Christians even make the convenient misinterpretation that religious freedom means—in the words of Robert Boston’s Taking Liberties—telling others what to do, using the power of civil government to do so when they can. The separation of church and state so carefully designed into the Constitution not only annoys them, but becomes the victim of a rewriting of history by David Barton and other fundamentalists (many of whose only other knowledge of the Constitution relates to their guns). Against that shoddy context, they are not content to voluntarily impose blasphemy constraints on themselves, but seek by social or legal forces to inflict on others the same restrictions.

The first European settlers in the New World had great trouble with establishmentarianism (likely because in England it was not their own creed being established). Churches in Massachusetts saw to it that the first written expression of capital offenses included blasphemy along with idolatry, witchcraft, murder, and other dastardly crimes. But by the late 18th Century, cooler heads prevailed in the formation of the new United States of America. Happily, our founding fathers paid more attention to Enlightenment philosophers than to their Bibles.

However, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) did not apply to states, only to the national government. So while the federal government was created to be entirely secular and thereby indulgent toward all beliefs, popular or otherwise, most state laws afterward remained little changed for years. The Constitutional intent was not a defeat for the faithful, but a protection of smaller or less politically powerful denominations from large church bodies getting their hegemonic way. (Thomas Jefferson’s assurance to frightened Baptists in the Danforth Baptist Association of Connecticut explains the problem and its solution.)

In 1868, the 14th Amendment extended the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom to state governments, so with the usual foot-dragging, all levels of government across the land were prohibited from both imposing a favored religion upon others and religion generally on the non-religious. That meant that blasphemy laws, inasmuch as blasphemy is a religious phenomenon, are unconstitutional and came to be of no legal effect. It’s understandable that many Americans mistakenly think that laws against blasphemy were completely eliminated soon after passage of the 14th Amendment. But if you do think they’re gone entirely, think again, for about 150 years later six states still have blasphemy laws: Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wyoming.

(In majority Muslim countries, of course, blasphemy laws are the norm. In majority Catholic countries they are less frequent, but still exist. In Ireland, the parliament did not abolished the blasphemy provision of the criminal code until well into the 21st Century. It did so over opposition by the Catholic Church and Pentecostal Church. The Catholic attitude toward freedom of expression was clear in its warning that if “the identity of a person of faith can be freely insulted, then personal freedom is undermined.” It’s touching to see the Holy See concerned about undermining personal freedom.

Here’s a glance at blasphemy laws still on states’ books in the United States, the country that pioneered and is largely (except for many Christian fundamentalists) still proud of its separation of church and state:

Massachusetts “Whoever wilfully [sic] blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.” General Laws Chapter 272, Section 36

Michigan “Any person who shall wilfully [sic] blaspheme the holy name of God, by cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who has arrived at the age of discretion, who shall profanely curse or damn or swear by the name of God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” Michigan Penal Code Section 750.102 Act 328 of 1931.

Oklahoma “Blasphemy consists in wantonly uttering or publishing words, casting contumelious reproach or profane ridicule upon God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Holy Scriptures, or the Christian or any other religion.” Revised Laws of Oklahoma, Article XXVIII Section 2398.

South Carolina “Any person who shall . . . use blasphemous, profane or obscene language at or near the place of [a religious] meeting shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, on conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than twenty nor more than one hundred dollars, or be imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year or less than thirty days, either or both, at the discretion of the court.” South Carolina Code Ann. § 16-17-520.

Wyoming “Nothing in W.S. 1-29-104 or 1-29-105 shall authorize the publication of blasphemous or indecent matter.” […104 and …105 deal with privileged material of governing bodies or criminal and civil proceedings] Wyoming Statutes Chapter 9 § 1-29-106.

 Pennsylvania “An association name may not contain words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name.” 19 Pennsylvania Code §17.

[The foregoing information is not legal advice nor assured by a qualified attorney.]

Despite their existence, blasphemy laws are rarely enforced in America. Moreover, state government actions based on provisions like those above would certainly result in their being ruled unconstitutional. However, that they are still on the books, as one commenter said, “provides the states with a ‘symbolic power’ of moral condemnation, as well as the prospect of actual punishment.” In other words, although actual prosecution can happen and administrative inconvenience can be inflicted, the broader and more surreptitious effect is to chill freedom of expression, thereby giving covert and undeserved support to religious control. “Inconveniences” like these still occur.

In 1957, in Pennsylvania the principals of Conversion Center, Inc. applied for a non-profit corporate charter. The charter was administratively denied (but was granted by the state supreme court on appeal).

In 2007, George Kalman a filmmaker in Pennsylvania was denied his application for nonprofit incorporation of his organization, I Choose Hell Productions. His application was rejected due to the state law barring “words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name.”

In 2014, an application for ATHEIST as a license tag was denied even though others specifying equivalent Christian words were not. It took court action to correct the applicant’s inconvenience.

In Oklahoma, the legislature dealt with, though defeated, several resolutions to stop Richard Dawkins from speaking at the University of Oklahoma. Still, some lawmakers asked for an in-depth investigation of Dawkins’ speech.

Indeed, social pressure, lobbying, and political pressure against blasphemy are widespread even though, thankfully, less enforceable by law than in the past. The broadest effect can be found in the language and posturing of politicians. Like sparrows in mines, they are sensitive to religious proclivities including religionists’ needs to be coddled, get special consideration, and to receive stamps of official favoritism to the social detriment of their opponents, directly or with a wink and nod.

South Carolina is home to Christians Against Blasphemy the goals of which include promoting congressional legislation to protect the “integrity of the church.” Since the integrity of churches is up to churches, not the legislature, I assume this goal has more to do with protecting their dogma from criticism.

Of course, there are organizations fighting back. One, the American Humanist Association, called for the repeal of all blasphemy laws. According to Mel Lipman, its president, a constitutional lawyer, “Laws prohibiting blasphemy are a relic of the Middle Ages and are blatantly unconstitutional. Blasphemy is a purely religious offense and hence the sole concern of religious organizations and their own members.”

Clearly, blasphemy of any degree is an offence only to believers; it should not even be implied that they are relevant to anyone else. Even slight reflections of their blasphemy rules in law or regulations are at an unconstitutional cost to those who are not of similar faith. Blasphemy rules deserve no recognition in an enlightened society and no place in social and commercial intercourse. Perhaps time will eventually consign the concept of blasphemy to the junk heap of history, along with amulets, talking serpents, and angel-dictated holy books.

 

 

Posted in Church and state, Liberty, Religion's costs and foibles | Leave a comment

…but there are things science can’t explain

Posted on August 1, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

I can’t say how many times I’ve heard this phrase from theists. It is, at the same time true and, as an argument, meaningless. Many theists must think it proves something, for it’s asserted as if it defeats any argument against theism or, at least, against deific omniscience.

Of course, it ends no argument. It only demonstrates a lack of understanding of science or a commitment to God-of-the-gaps theology.

Certainly there are many phenomena in the universe no one can explain. In fact there are more we cannot explain than ones we can. Even those we can explain have beneath them ever finer definitions or explanations of reality, for answers force our minds to further questions. Our ancient quandary about why lodestone pointed north was answered at a simple level a couple of millennia ago. But that only introduced further questions, including much later the relationship of magnetism and electricity. The iterations continued further; we now struggle with the unknowns that cause the earth’s magnetic poles to switch positions. How could we question the infinitesimal difference in proton and neutron mass (a neutron weighs 1.6749286 X 10-27 kg; a proton 1.6726231 X 10-27 kg) if Ernest Rutherford had not hypothesized these subatomic particles a century ago? Knowledge builds on knowledge.

The history of science is chock full of sequentially deeper and deeper explanations. The history of religion is not, for explanations are “revealed” by God, not tested to tease causes out of observations. In fact, the nature of science as a human attitude toward inquiry yields what might be called descending levels of explanation, levels that are expected to be never ending. In fact, you could say that scientific inquiry continually exposes even further ignorance. In other words, it is not just that “there are things that science can’t explain,” it is that science itself is the most prolific source of things it cannot explain!

(The theist blunder is reminiscent of creationists’ taunt that no “missing link” has been found between humans and an earlier life form. Of course, when evidence of an evolutionary mid-point is discovered, that creates two more missing links. As others are unearthed, the remaining missing links are multiplied, providing creationists an unending supply of “proof” against biological evolution.)

It is an elementary error to assume that the inability of science to explain everything is somehow proof that religion can. Theists do not claim they have the answers themselves, of course, but that their assumed deity does have (or is) the repository of all possible explanations to all possible questions. Were that to be true, the explanations of science definitely come up short. Funny, though, that through the centuries religious beliefs about the physical world have been supplanted by research-based conclusions. The reverse has not occurred. Joshua didn’t make the sun stand still; a star didn’t reposition itself over a manger; a spherical world does not have four corners.

The problem with religion is that its claims are not falsifiable. While science discards a hypothesis for which there are no methods of inquiry that would show it to be untrue (if it is), the epistemology of religion takes a very different path. Religion doesn’t need science, for it has all the answers it needs, so allegations from a preferred authoritarian source (for Protestant Christians, the Bible; for Catholic Christians, the Church and Bible; for Muslims, the Koran and Hadith) are treated as unquestioned truth whether there is evidence or not. Unfalsifiable claims are not seen with skepticism, but with ingenuous enthusiasm, as if mysteries are part of the appeal. Thus a claim that there is a celestial teapot (thanks to Bertrand Russell), because it is unfalsifiable, is in the same category as a claim that there is a Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, or Jehovah. There is no way to prove any of these untrue.

The ancients, out of ignorance, fear, and powerlessness, filled in the gaps of their understanding with all manner of unseen spirits. Lightning was due to static discharge rather than angry gods, rainbows due to refraction not a divine promise, plague due to rats not retribution for sin. Knowledge caused these gaps to shrink, but not to disappear. Theists have a long tradition of ascribing to God whatever gaps remain at a given time. Even a century and a half after Henry Drummond spoke of the concept, theists still fall back on the mindless phrase that began this essay, as if what we still don’t know shows there must be a supernatural cause, one that—whoops—cannot be disproven!

In holding fast to their “argument from ignorance,” theists conveniently overlook that it means “my guess is superior to your recognition that there is no evidence.” Had this bizarre position not been largely overcome by those strong or foolish enough to blaspheme, the unending stream of scientific discovery would have been throttled even more than it was. “I don’t know what causes plagues, but let’s study it” would have been beaten down by “plagues are punishments from God, so what’s to study?”

Biblical symbolism unintentionally exposes the religious mindset when it describes the first sin, the ostensible event that turned a perfect creation into a punishing existence: Adam and Eve consumed a fruit that—horrors!—exposed them to knowledge. Six thousand years later, millions of otherwise intelligent theists fight scientific discovery whenever it threatens to countervail their faith, fearing to make their vengeful God mad again. One need only consider the current dispute over “intelligent” design.

So, are there things that science cannot explain? Of course. And there always will be. Science exists because there are not only things yet unexplained, but beyond them, questions not yet asked. Thus, the perfection of human knowledge will always be a receding horizon. We humans, so little removed from our evolutionary origins, must come to terms with the fact that many—nay, most—understandings are beyond us. That does not make them supernatural, it simply makes them unknown.

 

 

Posted in Science and society | 2 Comments

Want a god? Make up a good one!

Posted on July 23, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

Virtually without doubt, the thousands of gods we have loved, feared, and worshiped over the eons, we’ve had to invent ourselves. But as powerful as many of them have been reputed to be, they couldn’t create themselves. To exist even in fantasy, they awaited human superstition, prophetic oration, terrifying natural events, or foreign subjugation. In a pinch to find a protector or explainer, verily did we come up with some doozies!

I’m not completely against gods, even though my atheism is biased by never having found one I can warm to. However, if making up a god makes your life happier and the world a better place, then go for it!

Unfortunately, most previous efforts have yielded gods with questionable ethics, intelligence, or sanity. The Hebrews created their deity from, I assume, spare or discarded parts previously created by other, earlier cultures. He (like most powerful gods, it was male) was OK on intelligence and maybe sanity as well. But, wow, did he fail on the ethics test.

Christians and Jews (and Muslims, for that matter)—acolytes of the Big Guy—pay less attention to the cruel side of Jehovah than once might have been the case, when tyrant gods were more in fashion. Back then, a bullying god was needed to intimidate other nations’ gods. A little bit of the good old days shows up even today. Think U.S. Army Lt. General Boykin, who bragged that “my God was bigger than [a Muslim’s] god.” (Frankly, I think that comment confused Jehovah, whose Islamic and Christian credentials are of comparable provenance. But I’m pretty sure omniscience would guarantee Jehovah’s quickly recognizing Gen. Boykin’s flattering intent.) At any rate, my point was that the whole “God is love” catchphrase in Christianity make it more fashionable to ignore Jehovah’s fussier, nastier side.

So if you want to conjure up a god, you can do far better than Jehovah. This is a blog post, not a book, so I’d be wise to leave a listing of his downright meanness to the Bible. But don’t wait for a Christian pastor to educate you on those references; they tend to stay away from them. In your immediate presence, there is probably a copy nearby with plenty of passages that make the case better than I. The ultimate Cliffs Notes, however, is the adjective-rich summary of Jehovah’s seamier side by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Other than that, Yahweh’s cool. What did you expect? Perfection? Look no further. If we can accept the “God is good” pretense for a deity whose own book testifies to even a few of the foregoing character flaws, it’s no big deal to accept that he is perfect because he says he is.

I know this kind of talk is seen as the height of blasphemy by Christians, Muslims, and—to a lesser extent—Jews. But the truth is that I am not questioning God—we made him, we can criticize him—I am not questioning the projection, but the projectors. Sticking with a god created by illiterate bronze age wanderers is just, well, unseemly when a so much better god can be devised…one who will be genuinely kind, comforting, enlightening, and—except to people who threaten human welfare—non-threatening and non-punitive.

Now that’s a god I can get behind!

Posted in Religion's costs and foibles | Leave a comment

One hundred blog posts!

Posted on July 2, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

The immediately previous post (“What good are Christian soldiers without an enemy?”) was the hundredth I’ve posted since kicking off johnjustthinking.com on April 27, 2013—twenty-six months ago. Now seems an auspicious time to review just why I write this blog and why I plan to continue.

Having retired from paying work a few years ago, I write these essays only when the (ahem) spirit moves me rather than pursue a preset pace (too reminiscent of working for a living!). There has been no shortage of topics that attract me and present an opportunity for thoughtful contrarian views. The long stream of subject matter still on my list consists largely of philosophical considerations in religion, secular humanism, ethics/morality, sexuality, and sometimes simply awe about this universe and its denizens. But the overwhelming issue has been—and will likely continue to be—the conflict between the superstition of religion and the rationality of secular humanism.

This blog has afforded me an outlet for strong and, I trust, thoughtfully constructed views on such matters. I get dismayed over faulty thinking and enraged over the haughty, hollow piety of so many religionists. As I’ve explained in an earlier post, I am not “offended.” (No one, including me, has a right not to be offended. If we can’t take the gloves off on life’s biggest issues, just what does deserve our passion?) I am either mildly amused or angry, but nothing so lily-livered as offended.

My preoccupation with these matters may seem excessive. However, this obsession is not greater than (a) my engagement for almost three decades as theorist, author, and consultant about corporate governance or (b) the focus of most ministers, priests, imams, rabbis, and even many lay religious persons with their Bibles, Korans, or Torahs. Still, despite the importance of such matters to me, my life has not been just about them. A great deal of my daily interest is in my marriage, science, friends, family, political events, and travel.

My interest in atheism, thence secular humanism, began around the age of twenty when I set out to rethink the faith of my (literal) fathers. My interest today undoubtedly grew from that, but it long ago ceased being driven by that. It would seem wasteful of life in the extreme to spend years merely in reaction to a churchy childhood. In fact, my interest in religion takes three forms or levels of engagement, from negligible to enormous—in three degrees. However, at each level my support of religionists’ freedom of speech and belief remains firm.

1] Disregard. Having not “lost my faith” so much as discarded it, most religious topics and activity are of no interest to me whatsoever. For the most part, I attend to religious subjects, people, and news about as much as I do to the social life of Hollywood performers. When religious persons refrain from bullying (see #3 below) and from inviting friendly disagreements (see #2 below), my reaction to their superstition is merely to be thankful for the good things they do, like hospitals, third world relief, and—in the past—some really fantastic buildings.

2] Intellectual attraction. I enjoy the light-hearted, friendly fun of arguing points of view about religion, but only when invited to participate. Religious discussion of this sort carries no emotional heat, considerably less than crossing verbal swords with a Cubs fan. Like an affable fascination with economics, international politics, and which chili recipe is tastiest, this involvement is just a pleasant exchange of varying points of view.

3] Combative. Neither of the foregoing two types of interest would motivate me to write a blog. The interest that drives me to take the time to write is my reaction to the haughty, faux pious, oppressive nature of most religion…including the bullying that perfectly decent people innocently do when motivated by religion. I don’t wait for an invitation to engage in this level of involvement; a hostile religion-based challenge or an instance of religious bullying is provocation enough.

In a later post I will speak to what comprises the bullying I am quick to oppose. Religious people probably don’t even recognize their bullying when they hear of it, see it directly, or even do it themselves. There is a strong tendency for them to act as if actions otherwise unsociable or unfair are OK if done in the name of religious faith. For example, Christians use their faith to bully others when a public school coach prays with the football team, when a city government hosts Christian symbols, and when politicians base laws on their religious rather than civic views.

Happily, there are signs that religious hegemony in the United States is weakening, but it still exerts massive influence. For example, Gallup reports that citizens who say they’d not vote for a qualified atheist candidate for president has dropped to 42%, although it was 82% in 1958! However, religion’s loss of power can be expected to generate even more egregious tactics as religions scratch to regain their authority or even just to maintain it.

In my immediately previous post, I quoted a few religious leaders who do not hesitate to make up history (e.g., the “Christian nation” arguments), lie about unbelievers (e.g., not trustworthy, immoral), demand that science conform to their faith (e.g., intelligent design aka creationism), and capitalize on gullibility (watch a few TV evangelists). Yet, incongruously, religious people seem unable to understand that their seeking to marshal government support for their faith and practice is itself a threat to religious liberty…in fact, the only threat that exists, at least in the United States.

At any rate, there are still many (and repeated) religionist behaviors that merit not only my #3 (combative) reaction, but that of all thinking people….easily enough to warrant another hundred posts.

 

 

Posted in This blog, this blogger | Leave a comment

What good are Christian soldiers without an enemy?

Posted on June 28, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

Christians, most of whom are well meaning, seem unable to grasp how bullying it is to use the power of government to support their views. Christians, like Muslims, Jews, Atheists, and all else are totally free to practice and argue for their beliefs in their homes, churches, and on the street. There has been to my knowledge no attempt to deprive Christians of their Constitutional freedom of opinion, speech, and worship (though Christianity’s historical record on that has been a bit less congenial).

However, non-fundamentalists and unbelievers have become increasingly aware of fundamentalists’ overreach and their bullying actions toward persons who have competing views, an overreach pursued largely by continual attempts to appropriate government power to their own ends. In the United States, that aggressiveness includes a direct attack on the “establishment clause” of the first amendment to the Constitution. Despite the Constitutional safeguard, fundamentalists have forged ahead with actions like getting public schools to teach their views of Christianity and creation “science;” obtaining special tax treatment for churches and for ministers; and political campaigning from the pulpit.

When there is any attempt to roll back some of these ill-gotten gains of power, the cry goes up that Christianity is being attacked. Poor Christians, though none of their citizenship rights are threatened, their power over others is. I can see how that is an unwelcome trend to them, but hardly one to be taken seriously. But take it seriously they do, with great yelps of whining and gnashing of teeth. Somehow their need to be seen as David rather than Goliath co-exists with their decidedly Goliath-like behavior.

Through history, the greatest amount of persecution of Christians has been by other Christians, though there was a time when Christians were truly persecuted by non-Christians. It still occurs in a few places in majority Muslim countries. Sadly, when in a country like the United States that enshrines freedom of religion, they’ve taken the opportunity to turn the tables. Just as in the early colonies, Christians have shown themselves not so much to be for freedom of religion as for freedom of their religion. Their outright persecution against those Christians and non-Christians who disagreed with them showed up as early as our first settlers in the 17th century (can you say Roger Williams?).

I am aware that many Christians disavow fundamentalists’ histrionics. After all, even adamant religionists can only put so much lipstick on scare-mongering, inaccuracies, and outright lying. I appreciate and congratulate whatever disavowals they issue. But what about the alleged present-day persecution of these beleaguered believers, understandably grieving their loss of power over others? Their leaders along with politicians who curry their favor (actually, their votes) sound the alarm with increasing regularity.

Let me illustrate that with the persons quoted below, each of whom has enough of a following to be called a Christian leader or relevant office-seeker. I ask your pardon for my occasional snide annotations. Sorry; I keep up with so much fundamentalist hyperbole that it rubs raw after a while. Anyway, here are but a few of my favorite quotes:

“I’m beginning to think, are re-education camps next? When are they going to start rolling out the boxcars to start hauling off Christians?” Tony Perkins, president, Family Research Council, speaking on Jan Mickelson’s radio talk show, Iowa. 2015.

[Boxcars? My, I wonder what historic visual Mr. Perkins wishes to suggest! He is either psychotic (which I doubt) or just lying. It is frightening to think that there’s a sizable population that believes such overblown, consciously misleading hyperbole.]

“I do think [the jailing of Christians] could very well come…in our lifetime.” Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council, 2014.

[There is a distinct Chicken Little sound to much of what Perkins has to say. But he makes up in persistence what he lacks in logic.]

“Conservative churches will be dragged into court by the hundreds…pastors may have to officiate at same-sex marriages, and they could be prohibited from preaching certain passages of scripture.” James Dobson, founder, Focus on the Family. Statement to WorldNetDaily, 2015.

[Rev. Dobson has an imagination as impressive as his disinformation. No one has questioned his colleagues’ freedom of religion. In fact we of his opposition are more committed to freedom of conscience than he. While we do mock his stream of cockamamie ideas, we’ve never contemplated shutting him down, not only because he is free to have and preach them, but he is such an irreplaceable example of the craziness religion can embrace.]

“I’m telling you that if the court decides to issue another Roe v. Wade, in this case the Roe v. Wade for marriage, we will not obey it. We’ll go to jail if we have to go to jail, but we will not bow to this agenda and violate our beliefs in God.” Janet Porter, Religious Right activist. 2015:

[Ms. Porter exemplifies a frequent brand of foolishness. What does she mean, “we will not obey it”? Does she think federal marshals will come to force her into a gay marriage? Moreover, how exactly does she presume to say someone else’s marriage violates her beliefs?]

“Your group is a strictly an anti-religion group intending to deprive all organized religions of their constitutional freedoms…The City of Warren cannot allow this.” Mayor James Fouts, Warren, Michigan, in rejecting a citizen’s request to set up an atheist “reason station” station in the city hall atrium in which Tabernacle Church (Church of God) has been operating a “prayer station.” July 2014.

[Really, Mr. Mayor? The group in this scenario sought to have a place in that public square religionists keep referring to. See, it isn’t just that nonbelievers want to keep religion out of the public square, but that religion shouldn’t be given sole access to it. That said, it would be best if religions of all sorts and anti-religion not be hosted by civil government.]

“If homosexuals are allowed their civil rights, then so would prostitutes, thieves, and anyone else.” Anita Bryant, former entertainer and anti-gay leader.

[This is dated, of course, but I include it to make the point about the bullying gays have endured at the hands of a substantial proportion of Christians for years.]

“Legalizing gay marriage will lead to preachers being arrested for hate speech just for reading the Bible.” Rafael Cruz, active in the campaign of his son, Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator and announced presidential aspirant. Nov. 2013.

[Normally, a relative of a leader should not be put in a list such as this, except that Senator Cruz’s father is active in his campaign and his views have not, to my knowledge, been repudiated by his son. ]

“I would warn Orlando that you’re right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you . . . it’ll bring about terrorist bombs, it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor.” –Pat Robertson, on “Gay Days” at Disneyworld.

[The Rev. Robertson has made enough such proclamations as to be entertaining. Likely most Christians find him a bit over the top, but his fans continue to support his unabashed nuttiness.]

“[The gay community will] abolish age of consent laws, which means we will do away with statutory rape laws so that adults will be able to freely prey on little children sexually.” Michele Bachmann, former member of U. S. Congress. 2014.

[Ms. Bachmann has long made questionably intelligent and questionably accurate pronouncement, but enjoys a large following among the most fundamentalist wing.]

“That’s what [Freedom from Religion Foundation] is attempting to do – eradicate Christianity in the public marketplace of ideas.” Todd Starnes, author of “Florida School District Replaces Football Chaplains with ‘Life coaches,” writing for Fox News about Florida’s Orange County Public Schools’ ending the long-standing tradition of having local ministers serve as volunteer chaplains for football teams. 2014.

[You got that all wrong, chaplain. FFRF was seeking to stop Christian “life coaches” from being granted a monopoly on the public marketplace of ideas.]

“[Some in the United States] wish to criminalize Christianity.” Mike Huckabee, presidential aspirant, 2015.

[I follow these matters fairly well, but I’ve never read or heard anyone, even among the most adamant atheists, indicating anything even close to such a wish.]

“Not yet.” Bill O’Reilly, Fox News, replying to John Stossel’s 2014 criticism of his {O’Reilly’s} reference to a “war” on Christianity, saying “you’re just a 10-foot-tall crybaby. Christians aren’t being killed.”

[Thanks, Mr. Stossel. OK, Bill, I suppose this is just an extension your “war on Christmas” campaign that was,  for you, unfortunately limited to a few weeks shelf life. Now, a “war” has year-round relevance…and makes just as much sense.]

“We’re involved when the government says you can’t have a nativity scene, you can’t sing Christmas carols. We’re already involved when we’re told that we can’t have a marriage ceremony that is limited to one man, one woman.” Mike Huckabee, presidential aspirant, Jan 2015.

[But, Mike, when has the government ever said you can’t have a crèche, sing carols, or get married any way you wish? Oh, wait, I get it. Indeed, some parts of the government have said public property can’t be used for your nativity scene to the exclusion of other beliefs, you can’t use the public schools to spread your hymnal worship, and you can’t tell gays they can’t marry because your god said they shouldn’t. Again, governor, I understand you are incensed to give up your theocracy, but there’s no war against your religion to respond to.]

“The Supreme Court has spoken…on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage…The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature’s God on marriage than it can the law of gravity…If accepted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment.” Mike Huckabee, presidential aspirant, June 2015.

[There you go again, Mike. You are confused—or more likely invested in a lie—about the civil use of the word marriage versus your religious use. The former is not a religious matter; churches don’t get to define it. The latter is a religious matter, but no one has taken away your right to it. I don’t recall the Supreme Court decision fighting “laws of nature and nature’s God” on this matter, because it wasn’t relevant. Besides, humor me, please name just one of those “serious blow[s] to religious liberty” other than the one you perceive to grant religion the “liberty” to force its beliefs on others?]

 

Most of us are accustomed in political science to the invention of fake enemies as a tool in domestic politics. Apparently it applies to matters of religion just as well. Unhappily, leaders of Christian soldiers, at least the fundamentalist sort, need to fabricate enemies to keep the troops stirred up.

Posted in Church and state, Morality, Religion's costs and foibles | Leave a comment

America chose liberty this week

Posted on June 27, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

For those who think their Bible trumps the Constitution in civil matters, this week has been disappointing. The theocratic lunacy of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and other Christian fundamentalists appeals to and multiplies the ignorance of those who think “freedom of religion” means Christians’ right to tell others what to do, and their fantasy that the Bible has anything legitimate to do with court cases or law. It is astonishing to hear conservative voices raised in anguish that the Supreme Court’s decision means loss of freedom when, in fact, it is an expansion.

Non-theocrats are exhilarated. They know that religious freedom is not freedom specifically for Christians. They know that shrieks about “God’s definition of marriage” and other witless comments are and have always been completely irrelevant to the question of gay marriage. They know that the relevant question is not whether gay marriage is right or wrong in the view of one religion or another, nor whether they approve of homosexuality or not. No, it is a matter of liberty as much as were decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Loving v. Virginia in 1967, each having been fought by incensed religious lobbies. Ranting church leaders and bloviating politicians seeking their favor are extraneous despite their claim to speak for God.

No one has fewer rights now than last week except for the “right” to control this republic by Christians’ holy book or, rather, by idiosyncratic interpretations of that book (for there are many Christians who disagree with the fundamentalists). But we don’t have to become entangled in whether fundamentalist Christians or liberal Christians are right about their interpretations, for that, too, is immaterial. The question was only whether gays wanting access to marriage can be denied in view of the equal treatment under law promised by our Constitution.

America is a freer country this week!

Posted in Church and state, Gays and other LGBTQs, Liberty, Politics | Leave a comment

Lust still OK, damaging sentient beings is not

Posted on June 25, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

I wrote in a recent post (”Lust,” June 16, 2015) that “Lust and damaging other people in the presence of lust are separable issues.” Naively, that statement seemed to me to be so simple and straightforward as hardly to merit an argument.

My implication was that it’s easy to tell the difference between (A) feelings of desire and even consensual expression of them, and (B) directly damaging actions such as inflicting pain or raping. I was making the point that A can be moral while B is immoral, and it doesn’t take a philosopher to see the distinction. Therefore, if in a specific instance A co-exists with B, A does not then become ipso facto immoral. In other words, lust is OK, force is not; force being not OK does not then make lust less OK. No matter how heinous B might be, the logic doesn’t disappear. In much of life we make such distinctions frequently, even where considerable danger attends choosing wrongly.

However, my allegation in that post provoked a comment that lust is morally bad because there’s only a “razor thin” distinction from child abuse or other rape. In other words, the two matters are so intertwined or similar that their independence is lost. Let’s see where that kind of bogus reasoning can take us….

Drinking alcohol is morally wrong because there’s only a razor thin distinction between it and drunken spouse abuse. Similarly: Having respectful sex with your partner and marital rape, overeating at Thanksgiving and gluttony, a woman’s wearing a short skirt and being a “fallen woman,” “look[ing] at a woman with lust for her and commit[ing] adultery with her” . . . for in each pairing the former is tainted because the latter might be or might  become the case.

Such thinking is ludicrous to the degree that anyone can recognize its silliness. Well, almost anybody. The comment about the post on my blog was based on the same reason it arises as a moral issue in our culture: religion. No surprise. The foolish moral strictures of religion were not developed in careful consideration of human needs, human protection, and human enhancement. Their presumed authoritativeness is that some god must be propitiated, not that they are best for humanity. In fact, whether they are best for humanity—and might even be damaging—is not even a consideration.

Consequently, religion has given us a plethora of frankly risible rules about morals. A person in one religion can see the absurdity in those of other religions, but rarely in his or her own. To discern nonsense in one’s own creed would be tantamount to eating fruit from “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” to use a Genesis phrase that at least implies that knowledge is suspect.

The force brought to bear to convince the faithful to keep their blinders on—again, only about their own religion—is formidable and effective. Misinterpreting some authoritative prohibition in the liberal direction might be disastrous (in Christianity, hell awaits), so safety demands that any interpretation be in the stringent direction. Then, to lock all the dogma in place, there is a master sin which makes even innocent questioning suspect. The distinctions between questioning and doubt or, in a next step, doubt and heresy are indeed razor thin, for the risk of slipping over the horrifying edge is terrifying. To the faithful, beyond here be dragons.

I confess to being utterly surprised that anyone would invoke the razor thin argument, for it requires throwing aside reasoning that would be normal in other walks of life. My further astonishment is that cataloguing horrific characteristics of damaging people (B) can be cited as if it strengthens the spurious conclusion that the razor thin argument— contingent on obliteration of a clear conceptual difference—is therefore fortified.

So I am led to reaffirm that lust and damaging other people in the presence of lust are separable issues. No matter what damage to sentient beings (immoral acts) a person inflicts, it is the infliction, not the lust itself, that constitutes immorality.

Posted in Morality, Pleasure, enthusiasm, and awe, Secular humanism | Leave a comment

Lust

Posted on June 16, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

OK, relax. This post comes with words only, no pictures

Let’s consider lust. Not the symbolic sort like that for power and money—the lust I have in mind is the original type: desire for a sexual partner. What got me to thinking about the moral dimension of lust was an item I came across a couple of months ago on Facebook.

The Facebook entry concerned the difficulty—nay, near impossibility—of the writer to banish or at least ignore his lustful thoughts in the presence of a comely female. He built to a conclusion that it was not a situation to be blamed on women, but on himself. For that acceptance of responsibility he is to be commended. If only more radical Muslim men would had such insight.

But if blame is to be ascribed at all, I suggest it be to those who spend a lot of effort to make lust wrong to begin with, those who sully the important concept of morality with such foolishness, those who dilute the utility of moral principles by their ancient doctrines about what well-meaning people do with or even think about regarding their genitals.

I had two reactions to the man’s essay: first, a tender feeling of sadness about the pain and shame caused by this young man’s struggle against a natural, even healthy, desire; second, anger about the nonsensical, hurtful dogma to which he’d been subjected, one which threatened an afterlife of fiery, eternal punishment were he to fail in his denial.

Christianity and Islam are not just self conscious about lust, they are scared to death of it. Right wing Christians go so far as to mount symbolic exhibitions of their anti-lust, anti-sex struggles even when symbolism is all they get rather than results. The recent Bush administration, with huzzahs from the religious right, funneled about one billion dollars into “abstinence only” sex education even when research showed minimal if any reduction in students’ sexual activity and sexually transmitted disease. Apparently it was of no matter that it didn’t work, for God would be pleased at our sacrificing lots of money as a show of piety.

What on earth gave lust a bad name? What arbitrary delineation decided that interest and desire integral to gender-based life would be shameful, even immoral? The Christian line, of course, is that sex is OK if “sanctified by marriage.” All that means is that lust is undoubtedly bad (why else would it need to be sanctified?), but a get-out-of-jail-free card is available, a permanent escape from the moral dilemma: marriage.

Oops, that doesn’t solve the problem, for as even Jimmy Carter confessed, lust is not a pointed arrow so much as a splatter. Damn stuff goes everywhere. (There may be persons who have never felt lust for more than a single individual, but I wager they are a tiny minority. For anyone who makes so rash a claim, the more probable condition is denial. At any rate, my remarks are directed at persons in the normal range.)

It is no surprise from where the damage arises: religion, at least the fundamentalist wings of the Christian, Hebrew, and Muslim varieties. Religion caused President Carter to “confess” that he sometimes “lusted in his heart” rather than just “say” he did. (His statement caused pundits to gasp that his remark was stupidly impolitic. Few questioned in print why the whole thing was such a big deal.) Religion drives spouses to pretend they’ve only one lust object or to feel bad about it if they have more. After all, in these religions lust is niggardly rationed, hidden, and harshly punished…in this life and in the next.

As I’ve argued in previous posts, our human race is in desperate need of a morality to guide our living together. Religion is not just an inadequate source, but a positively damaging one, first because it fails to strongly and pointedly prohibit a wide range of horrid human behaviors, second because it harshly condemns innocuous behaviors based on ancient superstitions, and third because it presents itself as the only legitimate source of morality, the monopoly provider of distinctions between right and wrong.

So where would lust fit in a sensible moral code? Where would it show up in a morality that actually confined itself to those actions that damage humans’ (or any sentient beings’) survival and flourishing, stripped of the superstition-based propitiations of hypothesized gods? Surely doing damage to people is properly a moral issue. Lying and deceiving are properly moral issues. But whose bodies touch whose where is, in itself, hardly a moral issue except to persons who have bought into the foolish and puritanical approach to human conduct exhorted by religion.

Misleading people for personal gain, damaging others in a physical or direct non-physical way, breaking promises—these seem obvious candidates for “wrongness.” But while lust does sometimes occur alongside real moral transgressions, in practice it is not always so, and in theory there no necessity for their being linked together.

A person might fight against or otherwise avoid lust for his or her personal reasons, such as to preserve a focus on something else, to recover from an earlier loss, or to avoid feeling overwhelmed when desirable persons abound. Lust in and of itself, however, whether for the same or opposite sex, whether momentary or intended for permanence, whether carefully considered or impulsive, has absolutely no moral significance.

Posted in Morality, Pleasure, enthusiasm, and awe | 4 Comments

The heavens declare the glory of god

Posted on June 10, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

My first attraction to science was a second grade fascination with astronomy, a world of enchantment found in the pages of The Book of Knowledge set of encyclopedias my parents had wisely furnished me. With no in-person adult guidance on the subject, though, my enthusiastic application of book learning to the actual night sky now seems humorous. (I confidently told whoever would listen that three particularly bright lights in a row about 20 degrees long were Mars and its two moons, Phobus and Deimos—an impossible configuration.) The charm remained undiminished as I grew up, but as growing up and grown up exigencies flourished, spending time with the sky was crowded out by life’s terrestrial preoccupations.

However, I’m still awed by a new space probe view of a planet, a “deep sky” picture crammed with galaxies, or just the unaided beauty of a clear night sky, particularly if the latter is spiced up by Venus or Jupiter. My selection of a Facebook Cover Photo reminds me of my sadly dormant telescope and stargazing activity—an exquisite Hubble shot of our next-door galaxy, Andromeda.

I recently received a Facebook message accompanied by a beautiful telescopic view of an unnamed part of the sky. The originator, a Christian, viewed the marvelous splendor as proof of a supernatural creator (the one specific to his religion, of course). It is easy—and almost automatic—for my first reaction to be the all the reasons that celestial wonders are no proof of the supernatural at all, much less of a theistic God, and far less of this man’s particular God with all its trappings of angels, sin, miracles, salvation, hell, heaven, and genital-focused morality.

Like our own Milky Way, this galaxy may have a billion stars and dust.

 

There is a time for that debate. There are occasions for us to argue about attributing to natural phenomena whatever will support one’s religious narratives about them, just as there are opportunities for railing against religions’ tendency to impose its rules on others. In seeing God in the galaxies, I’m sure the faithful merely see themselves as “giving God the glory,” as St. Paul said, a worshipful acknowledgement of their God. I can see how they’d do that and certainly defend their right to do so. But I hope they can see that persons who don’t believe their stories nevertheless stand in just as much awe as they, imbued with just as much pulse-quickening appreciation of this spectacular universe.

Science offers a baseline on which religionists and unbelievers can both agree: the splendors themselves whatever their source—the “raw data” of experience made more penetrating with telescopes for visible light and radio frequencies, along with noncontroversial findings about energy and mass. Relieved of speculation and doctrine, we can celebrate these wonders together.

NO7_350x261

Freed of making dogma of ancient guesses, atheists can then easily appreciate and even be inspired by fables of the ancients. After all, they gazed at the same stars and planets and were, as we, inspired by so compelling an unknown. We need not burden these ancient tales with modern supernaturalism in order to benefit from the sense of awe they articulated.

I remember being on the deck of a cruise ship in the Mediterranean late one night. I was with a few others who, like me, had grown tired of a day of studying and subsequent imbibing in the bar. We agreed to just go look at the sky, all reclined on chaise lounges under a panoply more striking due to being unopposed by city lights. The setting and experience moved me to recite these lines in the quiet of that evening, speaking to myself as much as to my colleagues.

The heavens declare the glory of God;

And the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Day unto day uttereth speech,

And night unto night sheweth knowledge.

There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.

To me, this poetic translation of one person’s awe is beautiful. Abrahamic religions ascribe them to the colorful Old Testament character David—he of the smooth river rocks and the demise of Goliath. His poetry is neither diminished by its cloudy provenance nor is it enhanced by believing David was on speaking terms with Yahweh. It expresses with no footnotes necessary a sentiment that we, our ancestors, and our progeny can access nightly.Galaxy

Being enthralled by the stars is personal to me and, at the same time, shared with multitudes across the world and with multitudes across the eons—not just with David, but every human who ever looked up and wondered, then wondered anew. Sharing across generations and across creeds and geography is a powerful authentication of the comradeship of human beings. It is no surprise that the human race has been so awe-struck by the celestial extravaganza as to make up countless stories about what it is and where it came from.

The most succinct expression of my intimacy with the stars was given to me at an early age. Dr. Károly Hujer, a Hungarian astronomer, autographed my juvenile astronomy notebook with a sentence taken from “The Old Astronomer to His Pupil” by the 19th century English poet Sarah Williams. I rarely bask in the night sky without remembering her words:

I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Pleasure, enthusiasm, and awe, Science and society | 2 Comments

Religious freedom to refuse service?

Posted on June 5, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

The current flap over refusing service to gay couples goes beyond refusing marriage licenses. One example is Jennifer Schoenrock of Waynesville, Missouri, a court clerk in Pulaski County, who is quoted as saying she will refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples even if the Supreme Court strikes down states’ authority to withhold them. She claims to be a “conscientious objector” (her term) who is merely expressing a right to her own religious freedom. Ms. Schoenrock is only one of many public officials with this point of view. In fact, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court a few months ago instructed county offices to violate a federal court ruling in this way.

Perhaps anyone can see—should they be honest about it—that government officials in their official capacity have no lawful choice but to follow the law of the land. In this case, that includes the rulings of a court of proper jurisdiction. (The Supreme Court certainly qualifies, but so do other federal courts at a lower level and state courts. And there’s normally a simple way to distinguish their relative authority.)

Fundamentalists of the Christian right conveniently miss that point when adamant about pushing their beliefs on everybody else. For example, they not only defend but routinely encourage teachers in public schools to violate court rulings. Their excuse is religious freedom of the teacher (not of the child and his/her family), as if the teacher or coach is not exercising a governmental action. Yes, persons who teach in public schools have freedom of speech; but teachers while being employees of a governmental entity do not.

That seems, despite the strident claims of right wing groups, rather straightforward. The Constitution is clear on the matter. But what about non-governmental organizations, such as pizza parlors, wedding planners, pharmacists, and others operating in the public market? Admittedly this is less obvious, yet the civil rights era made it clear that businesses that present themselves in the public market cannot discriminate against blacks and other protected groups. Argue with the logic of that if you will, but in the United States the matter is well established since around the time former Georgia governor Lester Maddox threatened to use an axe handle to keep his restaurant white. It is a simple extension of that concept to require (if a relevant court or legislation so decides) that pharmacists, say, must fulfill their roles even if they religiously think that a birth control medication will be used for “immoral” purposes.

But thus far I have written as if the fundamentalists’ interest is an honest commitment to freedom of religion. It is a commitment to getting their way and, it seems, they are not constrained by honesty to do so. (Witness their ludicrous predictions that gay marriage rights will force clergy against their beliefs to marry same-sex couples, a claim that is either ignorant or dishonest.)  Consider the treatment of school children and the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Schools regularly require students not only to stand for the pledge, but to recite it without omitting the clearly religious words, “under God.” Keep in mind that there are ways for schools to punish or expose to criticism pupils who choose to “misbehave” by refusing to fulfill one requirement or both. Being put in the hall during the pledge or pointing out his or her noncompliance to other students are two common ways.

It is important to point out that as early as 1942 the Supreme Court determined that schools cannot lawfully require students to stand or even to participate in the pledge; doing so unconstitutionally violates their rights of conscience. (It has also ruled on more subtle embarrassments in the case of children.) Yet in 2015 the practice still goes on. What has not yet been legally settled is the “under God” issue in which the pledge—intended as a civil commitment to allegiance, not a religious one—is itself (not the whole pledge, just these two words) a violation of the church/state separation. The original pledge was written by a Baptist minister in 1892. No substantial changes were made until pressures from the Knights of Columbus and a general fear of “godless” communism, the religious words were added by Congress in 1954.

At any rate, the religious right—self-proclaimed defenders of freedom of religion—has made no noise about these Constitutional violations of the rights of our weakest citizens, children. These are the same people who have spread the revisionist idea that the United States was born a Christian nation and the “wall of separation” Jefferson spoke of is a misconception. As the percentage of Americans who are active religionists continues to drop, these attempts by the pious to force their views on everybody else make less and less sense, if indeed they ever did. Perhaps their frantic misrepresentations are the last gasps of a defeated ideology.

Posted in Church and state, Gays and other LGBTQs | 2 Comments

Faith and certainty

Posted on May 19, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

A reader’s comment on my most recent post (”There’s nothing wrong with the Bible,” May 9, 2015) opined that “a thing does not ever really become a fact until all uncertainty is removed” and “where certainty ends, faith takes over to explore possible future outcomes not currently supported by facts.” He noted that “scientists are always upgrading ’facts’ with new evidence,” rendering the term “settled [science] problematic.”

Well, “problematic” is the natural state of humans who’d love to know, to be able to separate fact from conjecture, guesswork, lies, and simple errors. While I (and a few million others) argue that the scientific method is our most effective tool for separating out facts from beliefs and guesses, even facts discovered by the most rigorous science can be reversed in the face of new data or greater rigor. “We see through a glass darkly” is the human condition under the best of conditions.

Let me take issue not only with the commenter, but with my previous paragraph! He and I have blithely spoken of “fact” and “certainty,” as if we all mean the same thing by it or, indeed, that any one of us means the same thing at different times. One contribution of the scientific method is to teach us the value of doubt, to be ready to be shown that what we regard as fact is, in fact, not. In other words, it taught us that certainty is never fully removed. We deal in probabilities, at least our guesses about probabilities. I don’t mean our perception about things that are, apparently, truly probabilistic in nature (e.g., atomic decay or a hand of cards). I mean those characteristics of our universe that, we assume, are steady or fixed (e.g., the utility of algebra, the growth pattern of a plant, Boyle’s Law). Even those things we know only probabilistically.

In other words, we “know” only in differing amount of probability and those probabilities are themselves known only probabilistically. For example, I know the sun will come up tomorrow with more “certainty” than I know my Delta flight will actually get me to London. I know my wife loves me with more “certainty” than I know she will love me next year . . . and so forth on into all the “facts” our feeble minds can deal with. So if we wait for all uncertainty to be removed, we’ll be waiting a long time.

René Descartes tackled the problem by trying to find a logical point at which our knowledge is certain. He hoped he could then build on that certainty with further propositions. He came up with one that is, I’d wager, impossible to top: cogito ergo sum, “I think, therefore I am.” If I cannot trust my senses or my beliefs, at least I know there’s an “I” doing the doubting. In my opinion, having made a brave and brilliant start, Descartes then went off the rails with his next steps, adding assumptions that were patently arbitrary. But my point is that beyond that juncture of maximum certainty, we live in a world in which we can never be without uncertainty of some magnitude.

That is to say, certainty comes only in degrees. And it is the gradations we live with and learn to manipulate as part of living. We are “certain” that a second grader’s judgment about an airfoil design is less than an engineer’s. Can the engineer be wrong? Of course, due either to sloppy calculation or a new, as yet undiscovered principle of fluids. The certainty that a youth’s directions to some local site will get us there is less, we’d say, than directions given us by a fire fighter or cop. It is in this way that “settled science” does have utility as a shorthand term, differentiating a scientific finding that has endured many unsuccessful attempts to falsify (that is, disprove) it versus one that has fewer. A bit sloppy as a term? Yes, it is, but “settled science” is a shorthand rarely used by scientists except when the attempts to falsify the position in question are exceptionally numerous. The acceleration of gravity, evolution by natural selection, and quantum theory are examples of “settled science,” rather than propositions which have not endured a multitude of research testing. But if by “settled science” one means the level of certainty of cogito ergo sum, then it is being used wrongly.

“Where certainty ends,” the commenter wrote, “faith takes over to explore possible future outcomes not currently supported by facts.” Well, maybe. The normal progression is that observations are made (possibly by accident) that taken together suggest a hypothesis that goes beyond them and might explain them. I suppose an experimenter could have such strong opinion about one or more hypotheses such that his or her mindset could reasonably be called “faith,” but that would be quite unusual. In any event, testing the hypothesis consists in whether it accurately predicts observations not yet made, but “hypothesized,” i.e., predicted by the hypothesis. If its prediction of new observations works, then we might have something. Might. For all we will have done is fail to falsify the hypothesis; we have not proven it.

In non-scientific life, it is at this stage we often go awry. We consider the hypothesis (OK, our guess) to be true if its predictions come true. But all this small success means is that we have not proven the hypothesis to be wrong, that is, we haven’t falsified it. Many further failed attempts to falsify the hypothesis certainly raises the probability that the hypothesis is true, but as I pointed out earlier, in the strictest terms, it is never perfectly proven. Another hypothesis might come along with even greater predictive power. Now, in normal life we’d have consented to treating the hypothesis as “fact” some time ago in the process.

(As an aside, this seems a good spot to point out that one of the problems with religions is that very few hypotheses garnered from it are open to falsification. It is like saying there is an invisible frog than exists only where no human instrument or sense can detect it. Could be true. But if false, you’d never find out.)

A theory is even more demanding than a hypothesis for it embraces multiple hypotheses. Einstein’s theory of gravity, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, and Wegener’s theory of continental drift are well-known theories. (Uninformed persons often make the mistake of referring to a scientific theory as if “theory” means no more than an extensive guess. Such references have been frequent in the American politicization of evolution.) But no matter how advanced our science, knowledge goes from rung to rung, not from ignorance to perfect knowledge is a single inspired leap. Sometimes a rung adds more precision to the previous rung; sometimes it totally reverses it. And while scientists are elated by the latter (how exciting it was when Einsteinian gravity informed and in some ways replaced Newtonian gravity!), anti-scientists see it as proof that science is less to be trusted than their intuition and their religion—for since religion’s claims come ostensibly from an unimpeachable source, it can’t be wrong and therefore can’t be changed.

The “God package,” as the philosopher Bertrand Russell called it, still keeps shrinking as the scientific tortoise continues to keeps making incremental changes in our understanding of the universe—one carefully considered step at a time, continuing to surpass the religious rabbit so bent on once-and-for-all sweeping scenarios of heaven and earth in one divine breadth.

I’ll make only a short rejoinder to the commenter’s reference to “defenders of ‘climate change’” pushing “their agenda.” That comment suggests that the commenter has a strong opinion about global climate change, a position that can only be arrived at by (a) a meteorological scientist or by (b) adopting a political position on the matter. While the former is legitimate, it is surely lonely. If the latter, it has value for a science-ignorant electorate and therefore has partisan utility, but none for forming a rational opinion. Allow me to reiterate the point made in “Science and society—separating the roles” that I posted on this blog on October 2, 2013:

Scientists are the best sources to define science and to define what legitimate science has found. Can they err? Of course, but they are the most qualified source we have. They can certainly do so better than press or, especially, politically partisan news sources, politicians, and partisans. At any rate, because scientists sometimes disagree, the rest of us have no intelligent choice but to follow the scientific consensus—the consensus, not individuals who say what we’d like to hear. In the climate change matter, there are innumerable unqualified persons on both sides ready to quote from sun spot data, atmospheric chemistry, and other matters that support their politicized point of view.

So what do the scientists and scientific organizations say? Whatever they say, it is more qualified than my commenter’s or my unqualified statements. Here are a few sources (there are more), along with dates to show this is not new information:

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)
  • American Chemical Society: “Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.” (2004)
  • American Geophysical Union: “Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)
  • American Medical Association: “Our AMA . . . supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.” (2013)
  • American Meteorological Society: “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (2012)
  • American Physical Society: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (2007)
  • The Geological Society of America: “The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.” (2006; revised 2010)

Certainty—unless it means a highly probable description of reality—is simply not available to us. It is inviting, I do understand, to adopt political, religious, or personal positions as if they are certainties. Religion and politics offer many possibilities to persons more bent on feelings of certainty than on the integrity of their understanding.

Posted in Science and society | 2 Comments

There’s nothing wrong with the Bible

Posted on May 9, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

I’ve been asked why I am against the Bible. I’m not. I am against neither the Bible, the Koran, the Upanishads, or any others of humanity’s religious antiquities.

They are products of their times, creations of ancient people trying their best to make sense of their environment, their fellows, their feelings, and their compelling thirst for knowledge. They can be interesting, enlightening, even exciting. That Jehovah created the universe in a week or that his son came to earth to die and rise again are accounts rich as any modern play. That Mohammed took dictation from an angel and rode a whirlwind to heaven are electrifying. That the Universal Cosmic Soul was god of all gods and caused the origin of all else is a powerful story.

What would it even mean to be “against” any of these? They are what they are, no less, no more. We can look at them as we look at all phenomena of our world, whether they be clouds, eclipses, seasons, pain, or fantastic tales from our less civilized and less informed past. One can appreciate them, with no more necessity to “believe in” them than it is to believe in Shakespeare, Al-Khwarizmi, Galileo, or Ptolemy. (“Believe in” is a curious construction. We never say we believe in Jefferson, though we might say we believe in a friend.) One can accept that the writers were “inspired”–as human imagination and competence often are–without inventing a supernatural stage manager to account for it.

I do object to the flawed thinking—the manner of analysis, deliberation, and deciding—that underlies the promulgation and preservation of religion. This kind of thinking is marked by three errors: (a) It acts as if the scientific method were never developed to help us separate fact from fiction. (b) It ignores modern psychological/sociological findings about how easily beliefs and emotions can fool our intellects and misinform our direct experiences. (c) It rests heavily on Tinker Bell’s conviction that “believing makes it so.”

Belief in and worship of a supernatural being or beings could not exist without these impediments to intellectual integrity. Religion requires a naive approach to determining fact. Such ignorance is excusable in ancient cultures; in the modern world it is frighteningly sophomoric. While there are other fields infected by intentionally poor thinking (politics, economics, and topics like UFOs, vaccines, astrology, homosexuality, and climate change), religion is uniquely formidable in its effects. Due to its deeply personal nature, the likelihood of being absorbed in childhood, and its claim upon the afterlife, it exerts unparalleled authoritative power over human beings, arguably even more than political partisanship, family bonds, and patriotism.

Leftover remains of earlier cultures are like children’s belief in monsters under their beds. Each legacy remnant can inform anthropology and psychology, for they are studies of us. But they’re of no help to uncover the secrets of cosmology, physics, and genetics. Yet a great part of humanity thinks otherwise, preferring instead to test scientific findings against their “holy” books. If the Bible says there are monsters under the bed, then any evidence to the contrary can be ignored as either an honest mistake or a plot against God.

Neither the Bible nor any other book, “holy” or otherwise, is a problem. But those who seek to find in them revelations of a world for which there is no evidence foist absurdities on the human race.

 

Posted in Faith and reason | 2 Comments

CNN finds Jesus . . . or doesn’t

Posted on April 30, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

A few weeks ago, CNN began a series titled Finding Jesus, subtitled Faith Facts Forgery. I watched the first instalment and most of the second with interest. Not interest in the Jesus story itself—though I rather like it as a piece of creative fiction—but interest in how CNN would straddle the competing worldviews of science and religion, the former relying on evidence, the latter on faith. After all, CNN is not in business to anger the great proportion of Christians in America, yet it also needs to present something more respectable than The Passion of the Christ redux.

What CNN did was to use a lot of dramatization of things Biblical literalists believe, a cute trick since the segments assume reality without CNN actually saying right out that the crucifixion, the resurrection, and other less dramatic stories are, ahem, honest-to-God true. I believe there was no attempt to show scientific reaction to each of the scenarios.

CNN let stand lots of poor reasoning. Here are a few quotes taken from some of the speakers who contributed to the “expert believers” sections: “the shroud of Turin bears witness to the Jesus story,” “blood stains on the head portion likely came from the crown of thorns,” “my gut tells me it’s real [said by a priest],” “the blood stains show the actual blood of Jesus of Nazareth.” And so forth. These were unopposed conclusions without any evidence, but were presented as if they were evidence in themselves! Consequently, there was little to distinguish between real evidence and mere testimonies of belief.

But, to give CNN some due, carbon dating that showed the 16th century origin (vs. 33CE as some guests had been saying) of the shroud of Turin was presented. However, the time given to such direct contradictions to matters of faith was far less than given to dramatizations and testimonies on the literal Christian side. Anyone familiar with dramatic presentation knows that viewers will believe and remember dramatized material more than non-dramatized material. To be sure, the Bible is a far richer source of good stories than is scientifically precise research.

Hence, CNN could have its cake and eat it, too. I found that to be cowardly “history,” but was not surprised. Keep the believers happy while being able to point to a modicum of even-handedness if challenged. My experience of the first and part of the second episodes was not useful enough to continue watching, so I’ve no idea if later instalments dealt with whether Jesus of Nazareth existed at all, discrepancies among the four gospels’ accounts of post-resurrection events, analysis of supposed Old Testament prophesies predicting Jesus, the virtual impossibility of tracing original writings (of which we have none) through many generations of translations, and other features reasonably expected to be addressed in a series subtitled Faith Facts Forgery.

People with a sincere interest in history have some time ago found it is not to be found—at least, not consistently—on the History Channel. I greatly hope that Finding Jesus is not an indication that CNN is following suit, though it is clear that Fox News fans think it already did.

Posted in Religion's costs and foibles | Leave a comment

What’s in a word, say, “marriage”?

Posted on April 29, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

This week the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is hearing oral arguments concerning two cases brought on the matter of whether states’ denial of rights to marry (or rights to be recognized as married if the act was conducted in another state) constitutes an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the laws. The Court is expected to make a ruling this summer.

Americans on each side of the argument feel strongly about this topic; I can’t remember anyone who is neutral. Some see the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment along with basic ethics and compassion to lead to the indisputably right choice, one decades (centuries?) overdue. Others see the shattering disruption of social fabric, recklessly impetuous reversal of long tradition, and even a sacrilege against the divine plan. It is no secret I long ago chose the former position, considering the latter to be, well, not very Christian.

This post is not to argue the matter, at least not directly, but to note that much of the fury surrounds a single word: marriage. Traditionalists resisted granting gays civil union status, but they relented. After all, making a point of treating gays with a bit more civility—while not to their liking—did not threaten their religion so much as their social comfort. But taking over the definition of marriage, a matter religions have long assumed is theirs by God-given right, was in their eyes not just increasing gay rights, but shouldering in on religious territory–just one more instance of the War on Religion, I suppose.

That is, it is easier to give ground on something called “civil unions,” even if you abhor any recognition that some human beings are good people who sexually desire others of their gender. But changing the very nature of marriage (as allowing gays in would appear to them) is unscriptural—no, anti-scriptural. Contrary to America’s destiny as righteous City on the Hill, it instead brings us a dangerous step closer to being the United States of Sodom and Gomorrah. Marriage is a word controlled by God, not by vote, not by courts, and certainly not by Sodomites.

My inclination is to rail against the idiocies of such thinking, of which I have done my share. But not now; not here. As I opined in “Being civil about gay marriage” (posted June 30, 2013), at least some part of the current dilemma is founded in mixing religion and government to begin with. To tie religions’ definitions (there are many) of marriage and tie the state’s legislative definition of marriage was a natural thing to do—I doubt before twenty years ago I’d have noticed the error—but it did set us up for some of the current strife.

We might have, more wisely, engaged the state in civil unions for all and let the churches own the word marriage, defining it any way they wish. Really now, how does it make sense that my marriage, though meaning whatever my wife and I choose for it to mean, has anything to do with the state except for legal purposes? In other words, civil unions, an unromantic but perfectly freeing concept, would be sufficient and would keep church and state separate. Under those conditions, if we chose to have a religiously-defined marriage, we could certainly avail ourselves of it, but would have to meet a religion’s guidelines. That’s fair.

What could be more Biblical? Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Render unto God (or whatever that concept means to different faiths) what is God’s. Jesus may have said little or nothing about homosexuality, but according to Christians, definitely did say something about separating civil laws and religious ones.

From my secular humanist perspective, if religionists are so hell-bent to dictate to others the definition of the word marriage, then let them have it! Magic words are important to the faithful, but need not be to anyone else.

Posted in Gays and other LGBTQs, Liberty, Life, living, and death | Leave a comment

Wretched and unfulfilled without Jesus

Posted on April 26, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

Recently I read how Christians can deal successfully with (that is, convert) unbelievers. The writer (please allow me to render the writer anonymous) says his recommendation is almost guaranteed to work. His method is to inquire into the unbeliever’s life, an inquiry that soon yields accounts of riotous weekends, jet-paced but ultimately meaningless revelry, and a generally unfulfilling life. Having admitted his or her futile existence, the unbeliever is thus reduced to an awkward silence.

Perhaps the writer has actually had experiences like this, coming in contact with unbelievers with such a wretched existence (the “whitened sepulcher” analogy comes to mind). Can it be? Of course, it can. Unbelief does not assure a life of meaningfulness. But neither does belief that Jesus is the son of God (just look around). In the scenario, however, the Christian’s life is presented as full to overflowing with joy and with certainty. Can that be true? Of course, it can. I’m sure there are Christians for whom it is true. The error in the argument is the implication that religious belief is both necessary and sufficient for such an assurance.

A distressing number of religious people play this shallow game, keeping up a fantasy of joyful Christians and unhappy unbelievers. It is similar to another pretense: that Christians are moral and unbelievers are not…or, at least, that Christians subscribe to a high code of morality while unbelievers have no moral basis to subscribe to.

Obviously I don’t know how true the writer’s story is or, if true, just what kind of unbelievers the writer has met. He seems never to have met the atheists that I know. By far most of them live meaningful, ethical, loving lives. In a previous post (“Atheism born in tragedy and in thought,” July 26, 2013) I pointed out that a person can be an atheist for reasons as superficial as the reasons given by some for being Christian. In that post, I was pretty rough on such atheists and frankly have little truck with them. Just that sort of unthinking atheist would fit the writer’s stereotype of the empty-headed unbeliever, vulnerable to the sophomoric arguments advanced by the writer.

I remember such ridiculous accounts presented by leaders in the church of my childhood as they tried to demonstrate the supposed validity of some point. I’m embarrassed how long it took me to learn that examples and rationale need little coherence among the faithful so long as there is no serious questioning of the dogma that binds the group together. That exercise in self-congratulation leads to their feeling increasingly invincible, but to others not part of their smug game, they just look silly.

Each of us brings meaning to life. Secular humanists do it by accepting responsibility for creating it, then searching for what makes life better. Religionists do it by choosing (or inheriting) one of a number of prepackaged dogmas. Those dogmas should be required—just as all human propositions—to stand on their own feet, that is, to produce evidence as convincing as that for a scientific hypothesis.

In the absence of evidence, religionists rely on hope, groupthink, social pressure, intimidation, and punishment (happily, less of the latter than in previous times), rather like shouting makes one’s point more effectively. But sadly often their “proofs” fall back on such shallow, frivolous, and—ultimately—unethical arguments as those that stimulated this post.

Posted in Atheism and other freethought, Life, living, and death | Leave a comment

Scientific method or just better thinking?

Posted on April 23, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

Since whenever our species or its predecessors began to wonder, the challenge of figuring out ourselves and our surroundings has confronted us daily. We know of the wanderings out of Africa into the Middle East, thence west to Europe and east toward Asia. But we think far less of the powerful questioning that accompanied their wanderings.

To our modern minds the wondering and the eventual learning seem mind-numbingly simple. What are clouds? Why is the sun red just after it wakes up and just before it goes to sleep for the night? Why do people die after eating certain plants? The quandaries grew more complicated. What causes retrograde motion of the “wandering stars”? What or who causes plagues?

Measured against the tens of thousands of years of learning a little at a time–often learning that was mistaken–our species in the recent past finally made giants strides in satisfying the wondering. A way of testing our guesses emerged in the seventeenth century that, along with developments in mathematics and inferential statistics, led to what we came to call the scientific method.

One does not have to be a scientist to use the method, but its application to what became physics, then to other “wonderings” brought almost overnight growth of knowledge, a growth spurt that the previous hundred thousand years had failed to match. Unfortunately, these new fields of study were so successful that the scientific method became associated solely with them. In fact, the findings of these undertakings–that is, the answers they yielded–was first called “natural philosophy,” then later called science. Science to most people now denotes a set of facts discovered by the scientific method rather than a method of uncovering them. Unfortunately, high school science courses taught more the facts than the discipline of discovery that revealed them.

What we missed is that the scientific method is a way of thinking about what we know or think we know. Yes, it is what scientists do, but there is absolutely no reason for it to belong specifically to those we call scientists. It is a way of thinking not only available to us all, but incumbent on us all. Perhaps continuing to call it the scientific method is part of the problem; doing so leaves non-scientists free to wallow in our ignorance, failing to have so powerful a tool at our disposal.

My wife and I had the delight recently to see American media’s most recognizable living scientist, astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, lecture an audience of 4,000 on American science illiteracy. He made a convincing case that we are falling behind our erstwhile attainments as well as the advances of other nations. The past few decades have seen a frightening growth of anti-science, in considerable part due to fundamentalist rejection of evolution and conservative blindness toward anthropogenic global climate change.

Facts are not determined by popular vote nor by “fit” with an ideology. The scientific method requires knowing that, just as it requires a grasp of what inferential statistics can do (if not its mathematical intricacies). There is no excuse for these abilities to be absent in normally intelligent adults or missing from the education of our youth. The current flap over vaccinations illustrates what ignorance in the use of data can bring. Politicized obstinacy about global climate change demonstrates the public inability to relate to disputes among scientists. Intelligent design (anti-evolution) advocates talk as if school children are equipped to judge evolution theory. Here are a few quotes from persons whose leadership positions make their ignorance arguably criminal. There are many more.

  • “Evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. Scientific data actually shows this is really a young earth….9,000 years old….created in 6 days as we know them. [The Bible] teaches us how to run all the public policy and everything in society. As your congressman I hold the holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, DC.” Paul Collins Broun, Jr., M.D., U.S. Representative, and member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
  • “The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide.” US Rep. John Boehner, Speaker, US House of Representatives.
  • “The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is,” former U. S. Senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum.
  • “The idea of human-induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus.” U S Rep. Paul Broun, member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  • “Mars is essentially in the same orbit [as Earth] . . . somewhat the same distance from the sun, which is very important. A few have seen pictures where there are canals, I believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe.” Dan Quayle, former U S Vice President.
  • “I could read [science journals concerning climate change], but I don’t believe it.” Larry Bucshon, US Congressman, member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  • “Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.” Former U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann.
  • “[Scientists] disagree about what is causing climate change.” Proposed social studies textbook adapted for Texas State Board of Education.
  • “I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.” US Sen. Rand Paul.
  • “We have too many deaths on the road, and I believe toughening medical requirements for applicants is fully justified.” Alexander Kotov, director, Professional Drivers Union, in support of new Russian regulations that deny drivers licenses to transgender applicants as accident risks.
  • “Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rainforests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?” U. S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, when asked whether American climate policy should focus on reducing carbon emissions.
  • “It’s not about affecting global temperature and climate change. There’s public commentary out there; that question has been asked and answered, saying ‘no.’” Larry Bucshon, US Representative, member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  • “I am not convinced that the problem of global warming is what the scientists say it is. Particularly in light of the recent research, that demonstrates that there are a lot of shenanigans going on with the data.” Tim Griffin, US Representative, member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  • “When you think about the complexity of a worldwide system and the amount of data you’d have to capture, and how you adjust for a sunspot, and how you adjust for a hurricane and I think it’s incredibly arrogant for the Al Gores of the world to stand up and say the world is coming to an end.” David Schweikert, US Representative.
  • “[There are] a lot of contentious facts and claims about global warming and whether it is manmade [however there is] not much unanimity.” Doug Lamborn. US Representative.
  • “Here in the state of Colorado as our tree rings demonstrate, we’ve had droughts long before there were very many people here,” and acknowledging that humans can affect the climate is futile because it would “divide America.” Scott Tipton, US Representative.
  • “The existing [science] curriculum “propagate[s the idea that] life originated from a ‘primitive cell’ that was set in motion by the ‘Big Bang’.” Marco Feliciano, Assembly of God pastor and member of Brazilian Chamber of Deputies, arguing for requiring creationism to be taught in the Brazil’s public and private schools since “since the creationist doctrine is prevalent throughout our country.”
  • “Some of the scientists, I believe, haven’t they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? There’s a lot of differing opinions and before we react I think it’s best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what’s taking place.” US President George W. Bush.
  • “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” US President Ronald Reagan.
  • “In 20 years, when nobody thinks about ‘global warming’ anymore, the leftist-published textbooks will blame ‘corporate conspiracies,’ especially ‘big oil’ and ‘multi-nationals’ for creating the global warming hoax to increase their own profits by getting the taxpayers to subsidize their non-functioning windmill projects and to dupe the public into buying their expensive boutique ‘green’ products.” Charles Krauthammer, political columnist.

 

Well, ‘nough said. The science ignorance is deplorable and the understanding of what makes the scientific method so valuable is ultimately even worse. The foregoing statements reveal one or another type of misunderstanding, each seemingly missed by the speaker’s ignorance.

But the larger problem is the science ignorance of common folks, the ones who vote for these officials and the ones who must judge their wisdom and performance. It is they who seem unable to see through officials’ misunderstandings and outright partisan treatment of the most effective human method ever developed for separating truth from fiction in the natural world, whether that inability is due to religious dogma, inconvenience, or failure to have been scientifically educated.

Perhaps using the phrase “scientific method” is itself part of the problem, for it distances good thinking from normal life. The scientific method is merely an advance in our ability to think, to discover, and to avoid factual errors.

As one commenter put it, the scientific method exists to correct our tendency to believe what isn’t so.

Posted in Science and society | 1 Comment

The moral neutrality of extramarital sex

Posted on March 28, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

In my most recent post, I compared “revealed truth” (ostensibly divinely imposed) morals with those developed without feigned divine commands, the latter being based on minimizing the damage each of us might do to the “survival and flourishing of sentient beings” (credit to Michael Shermer for the term; see my previous post).

Religious concepts of morality—based on ancient texts of minimal provenance—have so permeated society, that the supposed immorality of many acts is ingrained in us. Consequently, in developing a rational, anthropogenic moral code, the humanist task is to extricate religio-genic elements to which we have become accustomed. If we cannot do that, any would-be humanist morality will remain contaminated by components based on folklore, not on reason. So consider this:

Apart from any opinion inherited from religion, is eating broccoli morally neutral? How about drinking a liter of whiskey? Speaking for myself, it is unlikely that I would consider eating broccoli to be morally bad; in like manner, it’s unlikely that I would decide drinking a liter of whiskey is morally bad. Reasons of health, taste, decorum, or expense, however, might cause me to decide either would be bad for me to do. But the point here is whether the act is morally bad. The moral judgment is based on whether an act impedes the survival and flourishing of other sentient beings—arguably the purpose of all secular morality. That comparison convinces me that ingesting either broccoli or whiskey is therefore morally neutral.

But how about eating broccoli (not sharing) in the presence of a starving child? How about drinking the whiskey while piloting a plane with passengers? My guess is that everyone—Christians and humanists alike—would decide that both are morally bad even though they were morally neutral just one paragraph ago. Have the new conditions converted broccoli and whiskey into that which is morally bad? Of course not. It isn’t the broccoli or the whiskey, but the other conditions I’ve added that introduce a moral issue.

But that was easy. Unless you are George H. W. Bush about the former or Carrie Nation about the latter you likely agree with me. But let’s press the point further. Even in cases wherein we have greater emotional involvement, we must use the same dispassionate logic. For that, what could be a more familiar and emotive subject for demonstration than extramarital sex?

Most if not all Christians (and religious people of many persuasions) consider extramarital sex morally wrong, wrong even if the married parties agree and even if no one is damaged. That view is so sternly held as to warrant the judgment of moral turpitude for a person who is kind, honest, considerate, and truthful—even the very embodiment of goodness otherwise—but is “guilty” of extramarital sex. I find no moral issue in the sexual behavior, but clearly one in the judging. In other words, as with broccoli and whiskey, I contend that extramarital sex is morally neutral.

Humanist morality turns solely on our obligation to others, real others, while Christian moral prohibitions additionally—even primarily—concern disobedience to and insult to a supposed supernatural authority. If extramarital sex has a moral component, that can only occur because of additional association with morality-relevant matters, not unlike my modifying conditions for broccoli and whiskey. For example, extramarital sex that involves force or lying becomes a moral matter only because of the force or lying, not the sex itself.

Consequently, this moral neutrality means a person who refrains from extramarital sex is not, ipso facto, a better, more valuable, or more loving person. He or she is not thereby more moral. It means a person who engages in extramarital sex is not a worse life partner, untrustworthy, or in any way morally blemished. These are implications of what I mean by morally neutral.

I am not making a case here for extramarital sex, nor against it, hence the adjective “neutral.” The analysis I’ve used has the option—lest this point be missed—for married persons to agree to monogamy, after which extramarital sex that violates that promise is not morally neutral at all. (This is the only condition wherein the word cheat is accurate; for extramarital sex by itself it would not be.) Extramarital sex that abuses, misuses, or deceives the parties involved is not morally neutral. It is the extramarital sex per se that is morally neutral. Monogamy is a legitimate choice, but not a requirement of morality.

Christian morality has little built-in flexibility; it judges extramarital sex to be a sin whether or not it is accompanied by inconsistency with others’ survival and flourishing. In other words, it is immoral in itself, quite apart from cheating, lying, hitting, breaking promises, or failing to fulfill commitments. Constructed for simple and uneducated people, Christianity is filled with such rigid and unexamined morals (consider “lust in [your] heart”), while it has shamefully allowed, even promoted, actual damage to human beings for centuries. From a behavioral perspective, it is and has long been an immoral religion.

The reason for this post is not extramarital sex itself, but to provide an example of secular humanists’—well, this secular humanist’s—approach to morality and the vital freeing of morality from foolish, hurtful, and often inexplicable rules conceived in credulous times.

Meanwhile Christianity demands that Christians impose their arcane, often juvenile religious morals on others as well as on themselves, morals with a bizarre emphasis on sexual matters. Secular humanism, in my interpretation, looks only to unleash the human spirit and intellect, charging us seriously but minimally to restrain ourselves with respect to the survival and flourishing of the world’s sentient beings. It arises not from ancient attempts to gratify a jealous and vengeful phantasm, but from our obligations to each other.

 

Posted in Morality, Religion's costs and foibles | Leave a comment

Morality in secular humanism

Posted on March 16, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

When I’d been an atheist for no more than two years, one of my sisters put this question to the 22 year old me: “Even if you believe there’s no God, how can you not believe Christianity offers the highest standards of morality?” In the past few months, two Christian friends implied that without God, there’d be no morality. But just because many people wish for an authoritative, supernaturally dictated moral code does not mean there is one.

Some Christian apologists maintain that atheism is wrong because it leaves humans without a set code of morality—obviously a cart-before-the-horse argument. It isn’t uncommon for Christians to laud their supposedly God-given moral standards and either rage against or pity those who don’t recognize the superior source and, accordingly, the superior properties claimed for Christian morality.

Morals driven by religion are not of a higher standard, but are more flawed—some merciless enough to be despicable—than those attainable with reason.

A word on words: (1) Because “morals” in this discussion will be synonymous with “ethics,” the distinction I drew between them in a recent post [“The sin of sin,” Jan. 2, 2015] is not needed, therefore morals and morality will be used as secular humanists consider them, a product of reason, not presumed revelation and, happily, without the genital focus of religious morality. (2) For simplicity, I will not make overt references to Islam, though it is worse than Christianity. (3) I’ll drop secular from secular humanism, since unlike in past centuries humanism is now usually assumed to be secular.

Except in ways wherein there is overlap—that is, when religion and reason come up with identical moral judgments—religious morality is less elegant, less humane, and more packed with trivialities than that of humanism. Moreover, religious morality depends on continued belief in the god said to decree it. That’s why Christians often act as if in the absence of their faith, human morality would disastrously collapse.

The data do not support that frantic conclusion, of course. Religious people are not more humane, less criminal, more trustworthy than non-religious. The excuse that morality cannot be developed without divine intervention is simply a way of refusing our responsibility in the matter. Morality is severely damaged by the religious doctrine that our moral responsibility is to a god rather than to each other.

And whether we warm to the challenge of thinking rather than obeying, the actual human condition is not relieved by pretending that gods are in charge. After all, we made up what we then say gods said—an accusation believed even by Christians as long as it is applied to what others’ religions say God said.

The task of morality is to guide us in living with a world full of other people. As humanists approach morality, has no utility in a world of just you or just me (not true for religious morality), because it is not needed to appease an unseen, supernatural authority. Without that supernatural supposition, we must construct our own morality, for we are neither vassals nor victims. Depending slavishly on another source—whether man or spirit—to decide what is immoral renders us, like Nazi war criminals’ pretense, agents more than actors.

For persons indoctrinated in Christianity, it may be difficult to imagine a different morality or even where to get started in considering morality outside what the Bible decrees. (Of course, there’s a problem figuring out what the Bible says.) It’s a pity that we know of Jesus, but little of Epicurus, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Locke, Russell, Dewey, Kurtz, and other considerable intellects (there’s an extensive philosophical literature) who have struggled with this task.

But we can begin by using only the intelligence we apply routinely to other constructs, that is, begin with the overall, not the specifics. In this case, that would be what we could call a “master moral,” the overall reason for self-constraint, a purpose upon which further components of morality depend and which all further moral distinctions must serve. We must ask, in other words, what considerations of others’ lives constitute my overall social obligation, my ticket into the company of “good” persons.

Across diverse cultures, various forms of the Golden Rule have been widely accepted as this foundational moral value. I’m most recently attracted to the version of Michael Shermer in his 2013 book, The Moral Arc. His “golden rule” would have us base morality on the survival and flourishing of sentient beings. (He adds that it must be “based on science and reason,” but I will forego that part, perhaps raising it in a separate post.) In other words our moral code operates to prevent our natural self-interest from running roughshod over other sentient beings’ survival and flourishing.

However, neither Shermer nor anyone else is our morals Czar, so his and others’ thinking serve not to instruct but to influence. You probably noticed Shermer’s use of “sentient beings” instead of just human beings—thereby accepting a moral obligation to horses and dogs, but not to roaches and pre-sentient human embryos. It is unlikely that humanists of a thousand years ago would have thought through morality of so fine a delineation, but that serves to illustrate that morality is an evolving attribute, one that makes moral sensibility both more fluid and more relevant to the times, to new knowledge, and to new insights, for the pursuit of further moral comprehension is never-ending.

If, as Shermer (and I, I should add) considers, the basic intent of our morality is survival and flourishing of other sentient beings, it quickly becomes obvious that, on one hand, many religion-based morals we’ve been taught are unrelated to morality at all and, on the other hand, there are great moral considerations left unaddressed by religion-based morality. To a great extent, religion-based morals have long turned sensible morality upside down, ignoring the important, focusing on the trivial. Religion has tormented people about petting, sex outside marriage, divorce, smoking marijuana, enticing lust, interracial marriage, drinking alcohol, and countless other “sins.” To most, if not all humanists these prohibitions are absurd.

Contrast that with morals derived from dicta ascribed to gods and fixed in the time of being “handed down” (e.g., “do not kill” other Jews).

Consider a Muslim father who kills his daughter because she has refused to cover her appearance; she is thought to be immoral, he is thought to be moral.

Consider a Christian mother who instills damaging guilt in her son for masturbation; he is thought to be immoral, she is thought to be moral.

Consider the ill treatment of blacks in America even after slavery, shameful treatment of homosexuals and Jews worldwide, discrimination against persons of other beliefs and nationalities—all not only tolerated by religions, but given cover and even support.

In other words, contrary to some Christians’ understanding, humanist morality is not a “do it if it feels good” escape from responsibility. It is an earnestly contemplated code that is more incisive and often more restrictive than theirs, yet more freeing and cognitive of the varieties of human experience. Recognizing that we are on our own in figuring out morality demands serious and extended reflection, a thoughtful undertaking that begets greater conceptual respectability than religion can ever achieve. Religion-based morality is tied to Bronze Age supernaturalism and–if compared to present knowledge–brings with it a frightening load of ignorance. Humanist morality doesn’t spring from random and time/environment-specific considerations of ancients who believed the absurdities of evil serpents, living walking sticks, and talking bushes.

Those ancients and their progeny came up with a morality that made immoralities of thinking about sex outside marriage, playing cards, using condoms, going to motion pictures, showing (and certainly sharing) one’s body parts, having babies out of wedlock, cursing, and a long list of other such prohibitions. (Of course, any of these actions at one time or another might be stupid, dangerous, hindrances to other goals, or otherwise ill-advised. But those characteristics are not the same as immoral.) Constructing, maintaining, and improving the utility and integrity of morality is challenge enough without adding superfluous strictures; unnecessary behavioral boundaries dilute the effect of important ones. Thus, a stricter moral code is not, ipso facto, a better one. Religion-based morality is shot through with straining at gnats and swallowing camels, bursting with absurdities.

“Whoever is able to make you absurd is able to make you commit atrocities,” said Voltaire, “And from this derives all those crimes of religion which have overrun the world.” Notice how frequently Christian morality (perhaps especially the genitally focused rules) is a small-minded misconstruction of what morality should be all about. Christians so often argue that this sophomoric, often silly misconception of morals puts them on the high road of morality. To the contrary, their religious moral code—dreamed up by the ancients, ascribed to a god, fawned over by well-intended persons who leave much of their intelligence at the church door—is itself immoral.

I must add that not all humanists would see the concrete manifestations of morality and immorality in exactly the same way as I, though they would of course agree that morality is of human origin and a human responsibility. Due to possible variation, however, I owe other humanists the courtesy of not presuming to speak for them, especially in consideration of issues more detailed than the Golden Rule. The need for that restraint will become more obvious in my next post on the moral issue of extramarital sex.

Posted in Morality, Secular humanism | Leave a comment

Revisiting Selma

Posted on March 7, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

My wife and I saw the movie Selma. It is a dramatization, not a documentary, so could be expected to depart from an exact history. In this case, the most insistent complaint I’ve heard is over the portrayal of President Johnson. I lived through the years depicted and, while I never witnessed anything as violent and despicable as shown on screen, I’ve no doubt that life for black Americans was just as bad as characterized.

I have, however, met persons years ago whose faces and voices seemed to seethe with hate and anger directed against blacks who were just looking to be treated like equal human beings. I have seen and heard the same prejudice, somewhat quietened by the social changes that have intervened, in a few of my contemporaries. With almost no exception, those of my acquaintance were and are Church-goers, certain of their faith and certain of the superiority of their code of morality.

As I once again watched the Selma events—admittedly dramatized—I could not avoid thinking about the everyday, peaceful, seemingly good people who could so easily become monsters when their racial bias and white superiority were threatened.

My thoughts in those moments were not happy ones, nor were they complimentary to the white citizens of that southern town, or to the hundreds of other quite similar towns. Nor was the brutal treatment by Christians anywhere near as bad as it has been in the history of the South, of the country, or of the world. I also knew that even under such powerful situations of group-think writ large, some Christians would stand against such behavior. And some showed up in the movie. But those Christians were in the minority on the horrid occasion and even more in the minority in the days leading up to it.

I salute the nonviolence of blacks that must have taken so much courage and trust in the method. And the blacks who led the process, unwilling to allow the situation to go on as it had for years, taking chances with their own lives. So with gratitude to and appreciation of blacks and those other whites, what went through my mind was this:

  • In white Selma, most citizens likely believed Jesus of Nazareth to be God incarnate, the source of all goodness, who was resurrected after death, and now hears prayers and will later judge.
  • In white Selma, most law officers likely believed Jesus of Nazareth to be God incarnate, the source of all goodness, who was resurrected after death, and now hears prayers and will later judge.
  • In white Selma, most bystanders who stood by and watched as blacks were beaten likely believed Jesus of Nazareth to be God incarnate, the source of all goodness, who was resurrected after death, and now hears prayers and will later judge.
  • In white Selma, probably all white preachers believed Jesus of Nazareth to be God incarnate, the source of all goodness, who was resurrected after death, and now hears prayers and will later judge.
Posted in Religion's costs and foibles | Leave a comment

That was then, this is now

Posted on March 4, 2015 by John Bruce Carver

When confronted with historical, horrific acts by Christians in the name of Jehovah and Jesus, today’s faithful frequently point out that civilization in general was harsher, more violent, and uneducated than now. Their argument is that previous mayhem was a misinterpretation of the faith, and that today’s Christians have developed beyond these appalling practices. Christianity qua Christianity today is not responsible for Christianity yesterday, so it is simply an unfair criticism to draw so uncomplimentary a connection.

They think, apparently, that they are more truly Christians than their earlier co-religionists, since Christians now consider witch burning and slavery to be immoral, unchristian acts. Their religion, therefore, is blameless; using earlier misconduct as a criticism today is thus uncalled for and unfair. Most honest Christians know they might have made the same egregious mistakes in those long ago years, but I’ve one Christian friend who maintains that she and her sect would not have acted the way Christians did then. Needless to say, I regard that assertion to be a claim with more certainty than insight.

Clearly, I consider the basic claim (“we didn’t do those things, they did”) to be a weak argument when the reference is to Christian behavior during the Inquisition or even further back. But I have been surprised to hear it used to distance today’s Christians from misdeeds of relatively recent vintage. One outstanding instance is discriminatory treatment of African-Americans modern enough for my own parents to have been silent supporters—or more distressing, so contemporary as to describe prejudice against blacks by persons my own age.

It is as if anything more ancient than, say, last week can be cast aside as irrelevant. Christianity has left a trail of immoral behavior in its wake, at each stage able with a straight face to deny previous cruelty, as if mere passage of time justifies letting Christianity off the hook.

That trail from widespread ill treatment toward more moral behavior (the “long arc of justice” of Theodore Parker in 1853, used by Martin Luther King in 1965) is being laid down even today. I’ve no doubt in a few years Christians will look back on their widespread, insensitive treatment of gays with the same desertion of accountability. As with slavery, as Michael Shermer has pointed out, churches resist improvement until change becomes inevitable, then they see the light and profess to have been leaders all along. Or—and this is my point—they decide that earlier churchly misbehavior only misinterpreted what the Bible teaches Christians to be.

Perhaps, of course, misinterpretation does plays a role, but what Christians studiously avoid is meaningful challenge to the religion itself, particularly to the foolishness and even evil of its Bible. So while vehemently and haughtily claiming the high road in morality, Christians carefully sidestep the wide range of cruelty their Bible upholds as godly behavior. By letting Christianity itself off the hook, the same old process of being a force against ethics (in its broad sense) will continue on its repetitive course. In our present day among many Christians, the vicious notions in Leviticus still outweigh most believers’ common good will and kindness.

Christians have great capacity for overlooking Biblical references to slavery, to selling daughters and killing sons, to cruel massacres at Jehovah’s behest, and other callous acts. Ah, but let me not omit the most horrific Biblical evil of all—everlasting torment for those who honestly find the bizarre, mistranslated stories unbelievable. Moreover, this unspeakably abusive maltreatment was promulgated by none other than the “gentle” Jesus himself. But if it seems strange that these unethical elements of Christianity can be so casually overlooked, it is no weirder than the empty, 1984ish phrases of “Jesus loves you” and “God is love.” The kind of love exhibited by the Jesus and Jehovah of the Bible toward their children would among mere mortals be called child abuse.

In the Western world, at any rate, public morality accelerated markedly in what is called the Enlightenment. (Islam has not been subjected to a similar strong, humanizing pressure . . . and shows it.) It comprised new ideas in “rights,” in ideas of government, in science; it questioned and defeated many notions of miracles, superstition, slavery, and the divine rights of kings. These advances came not from religion, but in spite of religion. During and following that period the morality of Christianity became less severe and insensitive.

But to do so, Christians had to wear blinders regarding their holy book, for they themselves became increasingly more humane than their jealous, loathsome gods. At each point along that hard-won progress in human morality, one could rightfully have said, “The Christian moral code is inhumane. Surely we can design something better.” And, with little doubt, at each point the insight would have been seen as misguided and even blasphemous. The pretense had to be maintained, whatever the cost in mental integrity and inhuman punishments as long as possible.

Slowly, then, as a result of philosophy and the scientific method, Christianity today has come far from Christianity of yesteryear. What should cause Christians massive embarrassment is that to a large extent religious authorities, with acquiescence and support of the common folk, actually opposed these advances, many of which they can now presume to champion.

What changed in this religion that claims the Bible to be the word of God? It seems God himself was waiting for the Enlightenment to modify the sense of archaic texts. Funny, in ancient times God had ancient understandings. In medieval times, God had medieval understandings. In modern times, God has modern understandings. This is, I remind you, an omniscient creator of the universe. Did he not see the Enlightenment and science coming? What wonderful advances still await us that he might tip us off to?

OK, we can let Christians off the hook a bit since all corners of humanity were harsher in antiquity than now; the behavior of humankind has come a long way. But the point here is that lessons from divinity didn’t help people be more moral, more understanding, more caring than their background of worldly beliefs and practices. The God of the Hebrews was actually as cruel as the surrounding world.

So it is that one would hardly recognize the Christianity of pre-Enlightenment if compared to the local Baptist, Methodist, or Catholic congregation. (Perhaps Paul just got it wrong when he wrote “Jesus is the same yesterday and today and forever.”) My Christian friends and family are less Christian in its earlier form and far more humanist than they know.

The Christianity of today is less severe and more loving because the humanism of the Enlightenment has happily found its way, at least partially, into the churches. To some degree, Christians have been saved from their religion, even if schizophrenic mind twists are necessary to achieve that. Who knows? If the Enlightenment continues to do its work, the churches of Jesus may eventually back their way into humanism, free of the superstitious, inhumane leftovers from ancient minds.

Posted in History, Religion's costs and foibles | Leave a comment