Religious Discrimination Against the Non-Religious

As you may or may not have heard, the esteemed atheist Richard Dawkins had a scheduled talk in Rochester Hills, Michigan. Well, that didn't exactly happen. It is good to know that this is perfectly acceptable behavior. I understand that it was a private club, but the sad reality is that these people have no fear from public humiliation. They can get away with it (for the most part) relatively unscathed unless Dawkins & Company decide to sue for breach of contract. And we all know what the defense will be.

These sorts of things happen all the time. It rarely gets any media attention. The reasons for this are numerous, but I think one of the primary reasons is that there is a common misconception that atheists and non-believers are a very tiny (if not vocal) minority. And while the non-religious may feel comfortable enough to acknowledge their non-belief in an anonymous poll, most are still not "out" to their friends and family. It gives the religious (Christians in particular) a false sense of security about expressing blatantly discriminatory views.

I'm out. I've been out since high school. And I support anyone who chooses to make their Atheism publicly known. In fact I urge you to, but only if you feel comfortable that it wouldn't create problems in your family life. I wouldn't want anyone to lose a sibling or parent over silly ideas. But for every atheist that raises their hand, it makes it easier and easier for everyone else.

Bombs for Jesus

Sorry for the delay on my promised post (not that I have an audience). I sometimes get distracted.
In the article I linked before is described an ethics class given to military officers. Ethics are a good thing to be teaching people who are ingaged in a conflict. Especially since the conflict in which these people are engaged is one where pressing buttons or giving orders can lead to a number of deaths. I would even go so far as to say it is imperative to be sure that military officers have a strong ethical foundation. These classes in particular were taught by chaplains, which may not be of issue in and of itself. Many religious officials have gone to school and studied many philosophical points of view and are very likely equiped to offer a class on general ethical principals.

Unfortunately these classes in particular were taught bibilical ethics.

"There were several things that they found disgusting," Mikey Weinstein founder of the [Military Religious Freedom Foundation] said. "The first was the fact that there is actually a slide that makes it clear that they're trying to teach that, under fundamentalist Christian doctrine, war is a good thing."

There are a few obvious objections that a secularist would immediately raise. Nevermind those. Nevermind the fact not everyone in the military is christian or religious. Nevermind religious chauvinism. Lets instead think about the ramifications of what these types of ethical lessons might have on the christians who take this class.

You take a soldier, one that already believes in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God. You teach this soldier that war is sanctioned by God. You show him the passages where war is commanded by God. This is all set amongst a backdrop of standard Christian doctrine: belivers go to paradise and non-believers deservedly recieve eternal torture. You take this soldier and you place him in a conflict where there are obvious religious lines drawn (intentionally or not). Now you give this soldier power. You give him missles. You give him command of other soldiers. You give him authority.

It seems like a volitile situation from my point of view. Now mind you, I'm only privy to the information in the article. I wouldn't dare accuse anyone in our armed forces of falling into this category without evidence. But as someone sitting on the sidelines, as someone who has seen how egregious acts become honorable in the eyes of fanatics, I would not think we would want to take the chance of poking that nest of bees.


But on a good note, here is one of the many, many totally awesome things that have come out of the US military

Required Reading

I'm speechless. Take a look at the Air Force's course on ethics as it pertains to war. I'll have some thoughts about this later after I've digested it.

And why does anyone take her seriously?

I know I've heard Bachmann call herself a small buisness owner, but I had no I idea it was anything like this. I am trying to stay away from politics in general on this blog, becasue being an atheist does not require any particular political stance on any issue. Whatever your views on homosexuality may be, you will probably agree that selling a cure for an ailment without the cure being scientifically verified is immoral and potentially dangerous.

I laughed, I cried

Just saw someone entering the Psychic on Rosedale Hwy near Allen. At first I laughed to my wife and cried "someone is actually going in there!". Then I realized that the poor woman was likely going to spend hard earned money to have someone blow smoke up her ass. Psychic businesses should be illegal.

The Devil's Windpipe

Go ahead and take a look at what stem cell research is capable of. Now place your face firmly in your palm as you realize what religious beliefs have kept American scientists from achieving. Stem cell research represents the most exciting advancements in medicine. I am just a layperson when it comes to these types of things, but even I can understand the profound benefits of being able to grow your own replacement organs. For one, you wont have the fear of organ rejectionion. You won't have to be on immuno supressants. Strain will be taken off of the donor lists because donor organs will be temporary fixes until they can be replaced with your own living tissue.

Life extending medicine is likely the closest thing to being immortal we'll ever achieve. It makes me downright angry to think that what has been standing in the way has been pure make believe.

Justice in the afterlife

In case you have been living under a rock, Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder. It has been called a miscarriage of the justice system. Mothers across the nation are up in arms about the verdict. Who is to say that they are incorrect. Only Casey Anthony knows for sure if she is guilty or innocent. Christians who believe that she got away with murder will readily claim that she will get what is coming to her when she is judged by God.

The idea of divine justice is appealing from a fairness and equity point of view. It would be comforting to know that those who did crummy things in their life had crummy things happen to them in just proportions. And if Casey Anthony did intentionally kill her daughter I would be willing to say that is deserving of something equally as terrible. Unless, of course, her daughter was being unruly:

18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. 20 And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear. -
Deuteronomy 21:18-21s

 And in case anyone wanted to claim that the New Testament changed all of that:

For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ - Matthew 15:4

It seems to me that God would be pleased if that were the case. But even if he weren't the sense of justice we all yearn for, the sense that was bred into us over tens of thousands of years of social living, would not be satisfied. The god of the christians is claimed to have created the ultimate loop hole. All Casey Anthony would be required to do to side step any sort of posthumous reckoning would be to, on her death bed, let Jeebus into her heart and accept him as her savior. It is pink ponies and birthday cakes from there on out.

Those of us who are non-believers know that any recompense for crimes would need to be made in this world: the one world we know we have. Perhaps that is unsatisfying. But reality does not conform to what we find satisfying, otherwise I would be paid to stay at home and play video games instead of trudging into work every morning.

I wonder what He would think of an M1 Abrams

I am reminded of this tastey verse from the bible by the good people over at The Atheist Experience (whose broadcast I enjoy religiously):

"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron - Judges 1:19 "

They even put up a counter apologetics wiki based on the idea. It is a solid resource for some of the more popular apologetic arguments you might come across.

Happy 4th

Hurray for 'Merica. Hurray for religious freedom.

I'm not so sure about that

I happened across as a letter to the editor posted on The Bakersfield Californian website. I find it very stereotypical of the sorts of circular reasoning you find from believers. The evidence they point to is in the Bible. Why should we trust the Bible? What makes the Bible trustworthy? I've yet to hear an answer that satisfies my skeptical mind.

The truth of the matter is that there isn't any physical evidence of a god or gods existing. Studies have shown that intercessory prayer does nothing apart from provide a placebo effect. You can't measure God. If you can't measure something then it has no effect on the natural world we live in. Things that have no measurable effect on the natural world are indistinguishable from things that do not exist.

You have to do more than just assert that a god exists with some vague references to fulfilled prophesies. You have to demonstrate the thing you are asserting.

The Third Option

Something that has often ruffled my feathers in the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate (as to the extent that one could call it a debate) is the name of the debate itself. The topic is often framed in a way that attempts to set up a logical statement:

Either A or B
(Either Evolution or Creation)

The simple fact that the debate is framed that way is giving the ID side an advantage it shouldn't rightfully have. The first premise is already in place and apparently accpeted as true. Framing the debate with it's first premis already in place sets up one of two syllogism:

Either A or B
A
Therefore Not B


and


Either A or B
Not A
Therefore B

What you find is that either side will attempt to establish the truth of their own second premise. Each side has to either show that the side they support is true or that the other side is false.

This is where the problem arises. The Intelligent Design camp is under no burden to prove that ID is true to claim victory in the debate, and you almost never see ID proponents offer up evidence in their favor. Instead they attempt to undermine the opposition. They deliver their complaints about the theory and their understanding of the evidence. If their opponent does not have the exact examples that counter their complaints, the ID proponent will take a victory lap.

On the Evolution side, you will see the opposite occur. Most often than not the Evolution proponent will make claims to evidence that support the theory and ask (and never receive) evidence that contradicts it. The entire debate becomes a squabble about the details of evolutionary theory and the outcome relies entirely on the Pro-evolution debater's off the cuff knowledge of specific species and mechanisms.

The route that the ID proponent takes should not even be available. The dichotomy presented by the debate is a false one. It is a fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses. It should be written as thus:

Either Evolution or Not Evolution

The way the debate is usually framed it assumes that there are no other options. It assumes that if one is debunked then the other wins by default. That simply is not true. So remember that the next time someone tries to score points for Creationism by pointing at gaps in the fossil record. Even if Evolution was invalidated by new evidence, it wouldn't necissarily mean that there is an Intelligent Designer. It doesn't even bring them one step closer to establishing that they're right.

Improbability

Through my journeys on the interwebz and my conversations with actual real life people, I have found that humans (in general) have very a deep reverence for very large numbers. The figure of speech “one in a million” is an example of that. Never mind the fact that there would be about 7,000 people on a planet of roughly 7 billion that would qualify to be “one in a million” (about 300 of those would be patriotic Americans, no doubt). The reason I point this out is to show that what we consider rare from our every day vantage point, statistically becomes an inevitability given a large of enough sample.

As an example, suppose you take a standard deck of 52 playing cards, shuffle it well, and deal yourself a five card poker hand. The chances of you getting the first card you are dealt is 1/52. The chances of you getting the second card you got is 1/51 etc. Those odds don’t seem very large. But when you look at them in combination with one another, the chances that you got the precise hand you were dealt in the order that you got them is 1/311,875,200. By most people’s standards that is a pretty rare event. Lets extrapolate that further. Suppose instead you place each card face up in turn from left to right until all 52 cards are laid out in a line. The odds that they are in the order that they are in is 1/52! (That’s 52 factorial, not “OMG 52!!!!1!!”) or 1/8.065*10⁶⁷. For clairity, it is

1/80,658,175,170,943,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Rare things happen all the time and we shouldn’t be surprised by them. If someone was told that they had a 1/8.065*10⁶⁷ chance of any specific good thing happening to them, they would probably consider that to be a miracle. I don’t however think that they would consider the specific shuffling of a deck of cards to be all that miraculous.

The reason I bring this up is because of the supposed improbability of our existence when explained by natural forces. Rarity is often conflated with impossibility in everyday life, and for the most part it works out okay. It is mental short hand that humans employ and generally works out to our benefit. We spend nearly no time on things that are statistically improbable, save for a few exceptions (notably the Lottery or any gambling). The trouble comes in when these rare things do occur with respect to the things we happen to believe are significant.

Example: Cancer cases are known to rarely have natural remissions. When looking at a large sample (with a basic understanding of biology, immunology, etc.) we would expect to see a few remissions that are not connected with treatment. However, it is very likely that any given individual that experiences a natural remission will place a very large amount of significance on that particular event. When you look at the situation from the perspective of the “one in a million”, your situation seems too improbable to happen by chance. But do not forget about the 7,000 other people feel the exact same way.

Evolution is often criticized with an appeal to large numbers (in general: humans are far too complex and improbable to have happened by chance.)  If you think of the individual minute mutations that occur on the genetic level as the individual dealings of a card from the deck, the probability of each mutation seems much more understandable. As mutations continue to occur in a species, the probability of each individual mutation does not increase. However, the probability of the cumulative mutations that you can or do get become seemingly astronomical the more you layer on those mutations. You should not be impressed by those large numbers!

When you begin to examine the sheer size of the universe and the number of things that there are in it, your concept of improbability beings to change. In a Lecture delivered by Prof. Lawrence Krauss entitled “A Universe from Nothing” (look it up on Youtube, it’s great.), Dr. Krauss says about exploding stars:

“…only one occurs every 100 years per galaxy, there are enough galaxies that if you put your hand up at night and looked in dark spot in the sky the size of a dime, with a large enough telescope you’ll see 100,000 galaxies.  And that means that even though stars explode only every 100 years in a galaxy, in a given night you’ll see 10 stars explode.”

Remember now, our own galaxy has 100 billion stars in it. 1 out of 10,000,000,000,000,000 (10 million billion) stars in a dime sized area of our sky explode every single night.