Archive for category Atheism

“Agressive Atheism” Because Religion Kills…All of Them

This video is going wild-viral as I write (see Splurb.com)

Imagine a world without religion. Let me count the wars. BRB…

47 Comments

When Christianity stands for bigotry, only bigots will be Christians

At Street Prophets, Pastor Dan has is discussing the ways in which young Americans increasingly identify as non-religious:

But in general, thanks a lot, Religious Right. Not only did you help f*** up this country by propping up a bunch of venal sociopaths and helping them win election after election, but you also helped undermine the very religion you claimed to defend by convincing an entire generation that it was made up of hateful, narrow bigots. Way to go. Well done, good and faithful servants.

Read the rest of this entry »

No Comments

The Practice of Healthy Skepticism

One of my favorite books is Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World (and I need a Kindle edition since my paper version is falling to bits). In one of the best and one of my favorite essays in the book The Dragon in My Garage, Sagan asks,

Now what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, my say-so . . .

You’d wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I’ve seriously underestimated human fallibility. . . Surely it’s unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative – merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of “not proved.”

Sagan aims most of his fire at things like UFO’s and visions of the Virgin Mary. Our minds play tricks on us. We perceive things that aren’t there and incorrectly see things that are there. We hear things that aren’t actually there, we mis-hear what is there. We sometimes see what we want to see, or hear what we want to hear. We human beings – wonderful, mysterious, accidentally amazing primates that we are – have evolved in such a way that we just aren’t that efficient at perceiving the world around us in consistent ways; we want to see it is as it is, but we often don’t. A bit of practice being skeptical is a good thing.

The habit of skepticism comes uneasily to us. As humans, we seem to be wired in a way that makes us want to believe. Sometimes we seem to want to believe in terrible things since that opens the possibility that something equally good exists – IOW, we will believe in the devil because if the devil is real, God must be real. Read the rest of this entry »

5 Comments

America: Becoming More Secular

Newsweek has an interesting cover story, The End of Christian America, that points out that:

. . . the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent.

15% may not seem like a big deal but it means that is 45 million Americans have no religious affiliation; only the Catholic Church has more official members in the US (the Catholic church is the single largest denomination in the US, the Southern Baptists are the largest Protestant denomination). Accurately measuring religious affiliation is a complicated matter. Millions of Americans will self-identify as members of one denomination or another, but will in fact not have set foot in church for years. Other Americans are strictly C&E – or Christmas and Easter – attendees. Other Americans will clearly claim a religious affiliation but do not go to church except to get married or buried (or to see a family member do the same). A better measure is attendance versus membership. I don’t remember the exact numbers (I’m sure someone here will know them) but even in Utah there exists a vast chasm between active attendees and official members. Some denominations (i.e. the Episcopal Church) actually report more attendees than members in many local congregations.
Read the rest of this entry »

8 Comments

This, I don’t Believe

Part Whev in a never ending series.

I don’t believe that lying for Jesus is a good way to promote the claim that you can’t have morals without a god.

Read the rest of this entry »

33 Comments

The Silent Minority: The Non-Religious

The most evolved of our species are the least tribal. Witness…

The Silent Minority

There is a minority group in America that is a bigger percentage of the country than blacks or Hispanics. But they are often ignored or derided in public. Almost no politician would ever admit to being one. And they are given no voice in the public arena.

They are the non-religious. A new comprehensive study by The Program on Public Values at Trinity College shows that this group is now a whopping 15% of the country. Mormons by comparison are a puny 1.4% of the population, and people can’t shut up about the Mormons. The Senate Majority Leader is a Mormon, one of the top Republican presidential candidates was Mormon and even HBO has a whole show devoted to them. Read the rest

Interesting. This story is the hottest thing on Digg right now.

16 Comments

An Open Letter to Paul Mero: You Asked for It

Paul,

I’ll tell you a bit about myself qua LDS person. I was born and raised in the church, served a mission to Germany, got married in the temple, paid my tithing, did all of the right things. Then one night as I was reading the Book of Mormon in preparation for teaching a Sunday school class, a realization hit me like a bolt out of the blue: “This is a modern book.” I described this experience years later (anyone interested can see the article at http://signaturebooks.com/apocrypha.htm) as a deconversion because it had all of the inscrutable suddenness of conversions TO Mormonism that I had seen on occasion in the mission field. That night my life changed forever. There was no arguing with this experience. It wasn’t the end of a years-long struggle with faith. I had no such struggle. The realization came unsought, and unwanted. But it happened, and it overwhelmed me. Sometime later, I was coming back from an evening in San Francisco (my wife and I were living in Berkeley at the time), and as I drove over the Bay Bridge and peered into the darkness, I felt like I was staring into the abyss. EVERYTHING about my life was up for grabs. My most cherished beliefs were shattered like Humpty Dumpty beyond any chance of repair. No sane person seeks such loneliness and emptiness, or such terror.

Now, if it makes this experience palatable to you, you can dismiss me as someone who simply gave into temptation. But I’ve had temptation, Paul, and sometimes I’ve yielded and sometimes I haven’t. This wasn’t temptation. This was being run over by a truck that you never saw coming.

Does this make me an apostate? Perhaps, in the sense that I’m no longer active in the church. But apostate to me means someone who CHOOSES to leave, who deliberately turns his back on the church, someone who therefore by way of self-justification seeks to harm the church. I never did that. In fact, it may surprise you to learn that I’m still on the books as a member. So is my dad. I have never and will never ask to have my name removed. The church may choose to excommunicate me, but that will be their act not mine. I make this choice out of respect for my past. I did not EVER repudiate my church or my past. My world changed and I found myself removed as if by transporter to another place from which I could never return to meaningful fellowship based on shared belief.

But I owe my past something. I owe Brigham Young, my great-great-great grandfather something. On any number of points of doctrine, Brigham and I would probably be at odds. There is, for example, the question of the existence of God, which he affirmed and which I doubt. But on any number of other issues, he and I would have a lot in common. Brigham, for example, devoted his entire life to the notion of building the kingdom of God here in Utah. Not a doctrinal kingdom but a real-life, down-to-earth, practical kingdom. Strange as it may sound, I share that vision. My kingdom isn’t a religious one in the conventional sense, unless for you as for me religion is ALL about how we relate to each other and to the earth. I don’t give a rat’s ass about whether heaven is one kingdom or three or whether the three Nephites walk the earth or not. What matters is what effect our belief has on how we live in the here and now. Belief, it seems to me now in retrospect, is more often than not a distraction from the real business of life, which is what we make of it.

It’s for this reason that I still care about what the LDS church does. I happen to be in love with Utah. I love this place passionately, and it hurts me to see the mess of it that we are now making, with the church’s connivance or unawareness. Some time ago, I saw a documentary entitled The Power of Community  http://www.powerofcommunity.org/cm/index…), which tells the story of what happened to Cuba after the fall of the Soviet Union. We here in the U.S. have heard and seen some of the bad things, but few of us have heard about Cuba’s amazing transformation in positive ways. One of these was the refashioning of Havana into one of the greenest cities on earth. Because they had no oil with which to make artificial fertilizers and pesticides and because they had no oil to power industrial farm equipment and processing plants, Havanans had to reinvent how they grow and process food. Today, half of the food consumed in Havana is raised inside the city limits, and 80% of that food is organic. No city in America can touch these figures. All around Havana, every square inch of available space, from rooftops to patios to yards to empty lots has been converted into garden. People raise, process, market, and buy their own food, neighborhood by neighborhood. Similar transformations have occurred in education and health care. Despite their many problems, Cubans have a life expectancy equal to our own and a child mortality rate better than ours. Cuba is in fact an exporter of well-trained physicians and other knowledge workers. It is a pioneer in the development of phage technology, an alternative approach to antibiotics. And Cubans are reexperiencing what real community is about.

As I watched this documentary, I thought, why is this happening in Havana and not Salt Lake? Must we too go through disaster before we are willing to change, or can we muster again the sort of energy that enabled the early Mormon saints to build a viable, self-sustaining community here in the unlikeliest of places? Can we build such a community anew here?

We face problems greater than any the pioneers did. What’s at stake, although it isn’t yet our immediate survival, is nothing less than the survival of our civilization. I see an opportunity for the LDS church to play an undreamed-of role in remaking our society on sustainable grounds. Salt Lake is uniquely positioned because of its built-in social matrix and its history, however dusty and forgotten, in communal living. I absolutely believe that the LDS church can in deed change the world, by working to change Salt Lake City, along the lines now being pioneered by our communist rivals in Cuba.

When, therefore, I see the church squandering its real and political capital chasing gays when it should be building solar power installations, replanting ward gardens and farms, and urging the saints with all possible urgency to embrace conservation, I DO get angry. It’s not because I can’t leave the church alone. For twenty years after my deconversion, I wrote nothing and essentially did nothing in connection with the church. As far as I was concerned, the church was a non-issue. I have never attacked the church on doctrinal grounds, and I discussed my own story strictly as a personal memoir, not an agenda for apostates to gang-bang the church.

My isolation came to a self-imposed end when I began to realize how much my own life had to change in order to become sustainable. And I realized that however much I did on my own, it would probably come to nothing without a similar transformation throughout Utah, and indeed the world. Change must START with me, but it can’t end with me. That’s where Who Watches the Watchers and I part company. He’s a survivalist, I’m not.

So, I began my own underground, but now increasingly public, campaign to get the church off its ass and into the frontline, where it should be as an institution that claims prophetic leadership. If the church does not act now and we end up where climate scientists predict we’ll be, the membership of the church and the world at large will have reason to point the finger at the men downtown and say, “You frauds! How dare you talk to us about prophecy when you failed to act ten or twenty years ago on problems evident to anyone!”

So, Paul, that’s my story. If it helps you to sleep at night, call me an apostate. But our dialog is more than a debating contest. We face life and death problems to whose scope and nature the church has yet to awaken. Forget about me. Consider what YOUR role could be toward the church. If you, as a faithful member, think that things here in SLC are just fine, that the air we breathe is OK, that the fate of our snowpack and of our rivers is in good hands, fine. If not, what are YOU doing about it? Why aren’t YOU demanding action from the church? For let’s not kid ourselves, you and I and Who Watches the Watchers can build as nice a little survivalist kingdom as we want behind our domestic barricades but without the church’s cooperation Salt Lake City as a whole will remain untransformed. And untransformed, it is a bomb waiting to go off.

11 Comments

Is belief a virtue?

So last night I’m watching CNN. They were running a story on the Republican primary in South Carolina and the importance of conservative evangelicals in the race. Apparently South Carolina has the highest concentration of conservative evangelicals in the country. Also, apparently, since 1980 no Republican candidate has won the nomination without winning South Carolina. So, winning over the evangelical vote in South Carolina is an absolute must for the Republican candidates. (Not coincidentally, this plays into Thomas Schaller’s thesis that we should run against South Carolina conservatives just as R’s have demonized supposedly liberal Massachussetts.)

The CNN story interviewed a number of evangelicals, including a vignette at a conservative church where the worshippers held their personal bibles aloft and recited one of the most disturbing creeds I’ve ever heard: This is my bible, I know it is the word of god, I’m a believer not a doubter.”

The entire emphasis on belief, on believing as a primary virtue, within the conservative Christian subculture in the US is disturbing. Why is belief raised as a virtue? Read the rest of this entry »

12 Comments

Then Call it God

http://hypnocrites.blogspot.com/

Biblical Family Law

2 Comments

Deep Karma Canyon

Sunday night posting – probably dangerous territory.

My day today has been oddly bookended. This morning Pastor Erin Gilmore guided the congregation into the writing of the hebrew prophet Malachi. She posed two questions:

1. Where is the God of justice in the world when horrific, unjust crimes are being committed against God’s people?

2. Where are the people who would follow the God of justice?

This evening, I began reading Richard Dawkins The God Delusion. In the opening chapters, he makes the assertion that there is no God, the evidence is poor at best and religion is incredibly dangerous. Dawkins explores the idea for that for some reason, when it’s time to discuss things, we can say any damn fool thing we want, proclaim it is part of our religion and demand others respect the damn fool thing. Dawkins says that in such cases, the burden of proof should be on believers not those who doubt (after all, if its a daft idea, the person holding it should have to offer proof, rather than the unbeliever offering disproof.). Dawkins describes, in a memorable turn of phrase, Deism as watered down theism and pantheism as sexed up atheism. (I’d guess he’d include Borg’s panentheism as sexed up atheism as well.)

So tonight, I find myself in a deep karma canyon (thanks to Bob Mould for that phrase btw).

Erin’s question strikes me as eminently sensible. It’s not enough to whine that God isn’t there for us – were we there as the followers of God before?

Dawkins assertion also echoes powerfully for me. I know the positive evidence for God is pretty thin. Certainly, based on the behaviors of God’s most vocal followers, belief in God doesn’t exactly result in positive outcomes for society. God seems like a baneful influence at best.

So tonight, I am in this deep canyon of moral, ethical, existential questions. Belief versus unbelief. Dawkins talks about Einstein’s unbelieving religion in which God is not a being or a force but a metaphor, a poetic term. I think it’s fair to agree the majority of believers of almost any theistic faith would find such an approach difficult to swallow. But, using Dawkins formulation, the discomfort of those invested in an inherently illogical believe system shouldn’t slow anyone’s inquiry into the universe and it’s truths.

In this approach, God is a null value – the character inserted into the lengthy equation that moves us to the next point. It is the unknown but some day to be known value. God in this model is not a force, a being, a knowable entity unto itself. God is simply what we don’t yet know or cannot explain.

The late Carl Sagan wrote (with Ann Druyan) a powerful collection of essays – The Demon Haunted World. Sagan explicilty wrote that science, not faith, is the salvation of humanity. More knowledge, more education more information, more power. Sagan acknowledged that science can be misused and misapplied – but far less so than, for instance, religion.

Marjorie Heins’ book Not In Front of the Children, ends with a powerful summation in favor of more knowledge, more education, more information.

“. . . in the words of the much censored Judy Blume: “Children are inexperienced, but they are not innocent. They need help from adults to figure out how to act in the face of life’s realities . . . We cannot restore a ‘lost innocence’ that may never have existed, but we can offer perspectives from our experience and help interpreting the world, flaws and all.”

“Intellectual protectionism frustrates rather than enhances young people’s mental agility and capacity to deal with the world. In inhibits straightforward discussion about sex. Indeed, like TV violence, censorship may also have “modeling effects,” teaching authoritarianism, intolerance for unpopular opinions, erotophobia, and sexual guilt. Censorship is an avoidance technique that addresses adult anxieities and satisfies symbolic concerns, but ultimately does nothing to resolve social problems or affirmatively help adolescents and children cope with their environments and impulses or navigate that dense and insistent media barrage . . “(Page 257)

I’d add to Heins’ words my own: avoiding ideas, especially uncomfortable ones, leads us away from solutions. Adult fears about adolescent sexuality explain the popularity of abstinence only (mis)education; but in no way are the needs of adolescents met. In matters of spirituality, faith and belief, avoiding the hard words of a man like Richard Dawkins or Albert Einstein doesn’t help faith. Avoiding the tough questions doesn’t resolve them, doesn’t address social needs or problems.

If belief in God, as Dawkins asserts, is actually socially and personally harmful, then I have to face hard questions as not only a member but a lay leaders in a church community. Certainly, the evidence suggests that belief in God results in a wide array of damaging behaviors and attitudes. Atheism – not agnosticism – may in fact be the healthiest choice for society – rationalism, the human institution of science, a way out of problems.

But for tonight, since I don’t have answers and haven’t finished Dawkins book, I’m left in a deep karma canyon without answers and a wide array of questions, wondering if I can face my own values honestly and look at the evidence and follow it to the reasonable end.

4 Comments