Skepticum

My household survived another irreverent Halloween party. I had to advertise this year’s party as “not for the religiously sensitive.”

And this is why:

We had so much fun that some members of my household went a little overboard.

Click “continue reading” to see what happened… at your own risk. Parental guidance strongly advised:

Continue Reading »

When I was a child my nanny would drag me to church with her. My family was religiously mixed (as I like to call it, they may disagree) and as a result religion was only used as an excuse to pick fights at the end of a copious family dinner. And every family dinner had to end with a big argument spiced up by wine, after which the ladies would retire to chat and the men and children would pass out and nap.

My nanny felt obliged to save me from being religiously confused, so with every occasion she would sneak me off to church with her. Her faith was Greek Orthodox, but the closest church was an old Greek Catholic church built and dedicated by Mary Theresa, during her imperial rule over Transylvania.

Greek Catholicism is a hybrid version of Catholic and Greek Christianity introduced in Transylvania with the rule of Mary Theresa. In simplistic terms Greek Orthodoxy is represented by full communion with Rome but worship through Orthodox (Eastern) rites, and it was the compromise introduced in order to convert the Transylvanian masses to Catholicism, by marrying their traditions to the Catholic Church.

Going to the Greek Catholic church was my preference not only because it was close by, but because it had pews and I didn’t have to stand, standing being the rule in Orthodox churches. Once I even foolishly tried to take refuge from the neighborhood bully by hiding in the church. And no, god didn’t come to my rescue and the priest didn’t either. I got the crap beaten out of me right there by the holy water dipping bowl (I have no idea what they’re called, so someone please enlighten me), to the left of the Madonna. God didn’t even consider that maybe being a female punching bag at the feet of Virgin Mary should earn me some sympathy from the blessed mother.

Despite my frequent, clandestine (and sometimes mob-induced) trips to the church down the street I just couldn’t get the warm fuzzies about religion. My nanny even taught me how to pray, and that didn’t help either. As I entered adolescence and started noticing the difficult realities of life I thought maybe believing would make life easier. Yet I couldn’t believe. I really, really wanted to believe. I so wished I could believe!

Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Seat of Transylvania, Sibiu, Romania. Image courtesy of staicu.com

I preferred my chemistry club and basketball events to religious endeavors, and I preferred reading history of religion to religious books. I saw this world of science and books in front of me and I could not waste another precious moment on trying to believe. And I’ll admit, I couldn’t waste a basketball minute either.

So at about 17 I decided I was cool with being an atheist. Proud of my new decision I told my flame at the time that I was an atheist. He replied, “no you’re not, you believe in yourself so you are your own god.”

That’s when I knew that those who really want to believe will struggle with numerous rationalizations to construct their belief system, just so that they won’t incur the potential consequences of disbelief. Or maybe it’s ourselves that we fear.

Of course, the struggle is not just with belief, but it’s also with what to believe in. Back in June, the Baptist Press published an article on a female Episcopalian priest from Seattle who decided she’s both Christian and Muslim:

“Why would I spend time to try to reconcile all of Christian belief with all of Islam?” Ann Holmes Redding told The Seattle Times in an article June 17. “At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That’s all I need.”

Reading the beginning of the article I couldn’t help but wonder what was missing from Christianity that made Redding be enamored (as the article reports) with Islam? The answer came further down in the article:

An African American who wears her hair in dreadlocks, Redding told The Times that becoming a Muslim was like coming home after years in predominantly white congregations.

“To walk into Al-Islam and be reminded that there are more people of color in the world than white people, that in itself is a relief,” she said of the local Muslim worship center.

And there you have it, some want to believe so badly that they will resort to any combination of possible proof for the existence of god. I’ve heard in the atheist community arguments on how Christians pick and choose what they interpret literally from the bible. I also believe those who seek faith will pick and choose what they will believe in based on a combination of intellectual and cultural elements.

Just like Mary Theresa wanted all her peasants to bow to the rule of Vatican, but could only make that happen by allowing them to maintain their worshiping culture, religions have to continually make compromises to explain new science discoveries that deny biblical teachings, or to accommodate cultural elements that may otherwise alienate worshipers. And people themselves have to pick and choose what they believe if they truly want to hang on to a belief system without sinking into the oh, so dreaded rationality.

I will speak directly to those who don’t believe but wish so dearly to believe. So your brain tells you there’s something not quite right about the story of god, but you want to believe so badly that you search for signs, emotions, and tales to construct proof of a god. Every tiny stirring, every warm feeling gets attributed to god, because you want it to be god. If someone you want to convert may believe in god but doesn’t like your culture, you apply their culture to your god. And if I tell you I don’t think there is a god, you tell me that I do, I just don’t know it. You get mad at god because you do everything you’re supposed to do to receive a manifestation of your faith, yet you don’t feel belief’s stirrings. Trying to find god, the true church, consumes you, yet there’s never one god or one church that ever makes complete sense. Sound familiar? Then I only have one question left, why do you want so badly to believe in god?

In searching for topics for a Holiday edition of “What Would the Atheist Say?” I happened upon an “atheist Christmas story” from last year. Being that the story has gotten most of the commentary it was going to get, now it makes for a good topic to summarize, especially with the upcoming Winter Holidays knocking on our door.

Possummomma wrote back in January about her daughter’s reaction to a pop-quiz assignment requiring the kids to write an essay on what they wanted for Christmas:

What do I want for Christmas, I want a less assuming teacher. I want a teacher who thinks past the standard “What I want for Christmas…” assignment when she’s aware that three out of her twenty students probably don’t celebrate Christmas. I want a world where my friends will be asked to write essays about how they might use their winter vacay’ to help other people. I want my mom to be healthy again. I want my grandmother to quit smoking. I want my grandfather to quite bugging her about it. But most of all, I want to not get an “F” on this assignment because you get angry with me for saying all of the above. Merry Christmas, Mrs. “X”

Apparently, the teacher gave an A+ to this essay and asked to talk to the student (named here possum#1) after class.

After class, possum#1 said that her teacher told her she couldn’t be an atheist because her “ability to care for others’ feelings isn’t an atheist trait.” and that her “attitude was very Christian.”

As you can imagine the comments poured in on possummomma’s website, and the story was picked up by about.com as well.

Austin Cline at about.com turned the story in an article titled “Caring for Others’ Feelings Not an Atheist Trait?”

Anti-atheist bigotry isn’t just widespread, it’s also very fundamental to how bigots view the world around them. By this I mean that when someone is bigoted against atheists, they are unable to grant any real sympathy or consideration to atheists: they refuse to accept that atheists can be kind, moral, decent, civil human beings. Atheists are barely even human from such perspectives and it really drives home just how destructive religious theism can be.

Of course, more discussion ensued after the publication of the above-mentioned article and Cline got a response from Michael William (”master of none,” who also says, “when you’re Michael Williams every day is a good hair day”), who claimed Cline, “denounces stereotypes of atheists by leaning on stereotypes of Christians in the very first paragraph.”

Aside the fact that I’m thinking Williams is trying to say something else than what he’s saying, and Cline’s first paragraph being the one above, the reader can see that Cline doesn’t mention Christianity specifically in that paragraph. Secondly, Cline notices how subtly Williams implies being an atheist negatively changes behavior:

If it strikes you as bizarre that Michael Williams would assume that the first paragraph is about Christians generally (which suggests that he’s the one with stereotypes about Christians), it gets better. He quickly insists that being an atheist isn’t like being Jewish or black because skin color has no inherent effect on behavior. Well, that’s true, but what Williams misses is that atheism isn’t a philosophy or a religion either and, like skin color, has no inherent effect on behavior. It’s precisely the assumption that atheism prevents people from being moral which drives so much anti-atheist prejudice, but for some reason Williams passes over this.

I’m guessing I’ll be spending a quiet Christmas watching TV and having lots of irreverent thoughts. The most Christian gesture I will do on Christmas will be to try and stay off the roads to not increase the Christmas-induced rates of drunk-driving.

Why Don’t You Blog listed Skepticum on their “10 best blogs on WDYB’s Blogroll.” I truly appreciate the mention, especially because WDYB is on my list of 10 Best Blogs.

I mostly read blogs that challenge me, not only those that I agree with, and the blogs I consistently read make it on my RSS list, which is absolutely the only way to keep up with all of them.

Here’s a list of ten that appear on my RSS list in addition to WDYB, and that I read on a regular basis (I have more than 10 that I subscribe to) :

Atheist Revolution–vjack, doesn’t miss a beat when it comes to atheist topics.

Middle Aged Vampiress Atheist–Vamp DiVerL addresses atheist topics with wit and humor.

Figleaf’s Real Adult Sex– Figleaf discusses sexuality in an educated manner, with a sprinkling of naughty thoughts (or more than a sprinkling sometimes).

The Atheocracy–Jeffrey W Hawks has some of the catchiest headlines in the atheist blogosphere.

Black Sun Journal–BlackSun writes (very well I might add) highly educated and well supported arguments against religious myths without appearing belligerent.

The Jesus Myth–Deals with agnostic and atheist topics not just Christian mythology.

The Jewish Atheist–Alan writes very well thought-through posts on sophisticated religious topics.

Tikkun Olam in Nicaragua–Maddy’s travel log shows us how we can make the world a better place one person at a time.

Five Public Opinions– Arthur shows us that people across the world may think the same, and that all is “best viewed with a brain.”

Dictionopolis in Digitopolis–Ben keeps me smiling with his entertainment news and smart-ass comments (smart-ass in this context is a compliment).

There are many more blogs that grace my rss reader, marketing/seo blogs, international blogs, financial sites, news sites, etc that I subscribe to, but I will keep this list to blogs that feel like they have a person (or more) behind them, rather than a news organization. One more mention, for the “deceased” aesahaettr.com. We miss Mel’s contribution to the blogosphere.

Illinois Atheist Rob Sherman and his daughter Dawn filed suit today in U.S. District Court to challenge the constitutionality of the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act, that requires state schools to observe a moment of silence each day. The act goes into effect next Tuesday as follows:

(105 ILCS 20/1) (from Ch. 122, par. 771)
7 Sec. 1. In each public school classroom the teacher in
8 charge shall may observe a brief period of silence with the
9 participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the
10 opening of every school day. This period shall not be conducted
11 as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent
12 prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities
13 of the day.

What I find very interesting in this act is the contradiction between “shall not be conducted as a religious exercise” and in the same sentence “but the opportunity for silent prayer.” If the purpose was indeed to give “silent reflection” the act would state “silent reflection” without references to prayer. Silent reflection could be prayer or daydreaming, or meditation, or sleep… Instead, the Illinois state legislators have chosen to mention prayer both in the title of the act and in the description.

Sherman’s says, “the obvious purpose of the law is to get more prayer into the public school classroom, in clear violation of all three prongs of the “Lemon Test” three-part Supreme Court standard for state/church separation. ” He also claims the sponsors of the act are Senator James Meeks, pastor of Salem Baptist Church, Senator Jacqueline Collins, a minister at Saint Sabina Catholic Church, and Representative LaShawn Ford, member of the Saint Martin de Porris Catholic Church Parish Council and Finance Committee.

According to Sherman his daughter says, “she will not tolerate her education being damaged by having the public school cause her first-period biology class to have ‘more religion, less science.’”

This battle is going to be a hard one for Sherman particularly because of the disclosure stating the reflection period will not be conducted as a religious exercise.

According to Chicago Tribune, “The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois did not sign onto the lawsuit. Spokesman Ed Yohnka declined to explain the reasoning beyond noting the statute’s dual focus on meditation or prayer. A moment of silence during the school day is not legally objectionable, Yohnka said. A moment of prayer is. The legal distinction, however thin, is significant.”

So it appears that the Illinois legislators found a very subtle way to get prayer into public schools, under the umbrella of “reflection.” We can’t object to it because it’s not just prayer, it’s reflection. But what I can’t understand is why isn’t the act called “silent reflection act,” why does it have to specifically name prayer as one of the activities to be done during this reflection period? And what does prayer have to do with the “anticipated activities of the day”? Oh, and here’s another one, why do we need a law to get kids to reflect?

Here is a Sherman interview on the matter:

Dinesh D’Souza wrote today that a “great benefit of Christianity is that it helps us to cope well with suffering and death. ”

Time magazine reported on the case of a woman who suffered a series of tragedies. Her husband was laid off. She had a miscarriage. A month later her first cousin was diagnosed with cancer. Then two hurricanes struck her home town in Florida. Finally, one of her best friends died from a brain tumor. Here is the woman’s reaction: “We’re putting our lives in God’s hands and trusting He has our best interests at heart. I’ve clung to my faith more than ever this year. As a consequence, I haven’t lost my joy.”

Joy under these conditions simply isn’t natural, and that is this woman’s point — only the supernatural can produce enduring joy in the face of life’s tragedies. When we are in pain and feeling hopeless, Christianity raises our spirits. We don’t know why we are in this situation, but we have faith that there is a reason, even if only God knows what it is. Perhaps God is trying to teach us something, or to draw us closer to Him. Christianity also gives us the hope that when someone dies, we will see that person again.

It is heart-breaking to hear one has gone through so much in a short period of time. As D’Souza didn’t link to the Time article he paraphrased I could not verify the story but I will choose to assume it is a true story.

D’Souza uses this story to support the idea that Christianity is great because it helps us [humans?] cope with suffering and death. I will argue below that Christian manifestations of faith are just an expression of human coping mechanisms, and do not prove Christianity as the end all of human need.

So let’s assume the worst happened within a year, and the woman says she hasn’t lost her joy. In this report we don’t have any behavioral indication that she is happy, however D’Souza takes her statement as fact. And because he sees this as fact he adds that “when we are in pain and feeling hopeless, Christianity raises our spirit.”It is myopic though to claim this story as proof for how Christianity may raise one’s spirit. However, a recent study on depression and anxiety showed that people who attended church with a certain frequency and prayed a few times a week suffered less than others from depression and anxiety. BUT:

This benefit disappeared with the most religious patients, the ones who prayed at least once a day and attended church with the most frequency. They actually suffered the highest levels of depression, anxiety, and psychosomatic symptoms, along with kinesiophobia, the fear of movement and reinjury. “In essence, prayer appears to be a very effective pain-coping skill until it is used exclusively and to the exclusion of other active coping strategies,” Edwards says. “There is a time for prayer and there is a time for action.” Duke Magazine, Oct-Nov. 2006

The researchers involved in the study mentioned above also found that meditation and yoga had similar effects as prayer, so it’s not the religion that helps with depression but activities that relieve psychological stressors.

Our body exibits a number of other coping mechanisms in the face of pain and trauma. In cases of stress-related pain or trauma, the body responds with stress-induced analgesia. For example, our brains produce endocannabinoids, a chemical similar to cannabis that doesn’t only have analgesic properties but also helps us forget.

Other studies have shown that in situations of trauma our body also kicks in endorphis, which results in a reduced amount of information the brain stores (also known as memory loss).

“If you’re hit by a car,” Edwards asks, “how productive is it to remember the first sound of crushing or the feeling of a rear wheel breaking an arm and a leg?” Likewise, he says, there’s an evolutionary advantage for women to forget the agony of childbirth: It makes them more willing to endure another pregnancy and pass on their genes. Duke Magazine, Oct-Nov. 2006

D’Souza’s claims on Christianity’s usefulness at diffusing suffering are unsupported and faulty. Christian prayer is just a coping mechanism, one of numerous possible coping mechanisms, and certainly one that may not simply work on its own. Any other religion’s prayers may work just as well, or just as little. Medical intervention may help even more. So by D’Souza’s logic should we call medicine god?

There is one last question I’d like to raise, why did the woman choose the word “joy” to express her emotions? Does not feeling joy imply lack of faith? At the end of reading D’Souza’s post it was this question that preoccupied me most. The response to the tragedy was not, “we are saddened but we’re putting our lives in god’s hands.” I could see that as a potential expression of faith. But no, the answer was “I haven’t lost my joy.” Who was she trying to convince?

When someone sneezes in my vicinity, there is usually a “bless you!” shouted at the same time as my “Gesundheit.”English-speakers may be more used to hearing the sneezing benediction yet wishes of health such as the German “Gesundheit,” are common in European cultures, where the Spanish respond with “salud,” the Finnish with “terveydeksi” and the Romanians with “sanatate.” In Hebrew, Russian and Bulgarian the responses are also health related.

Some Romanians also joke about more than 2 sneezes. They’ll say, “to your health,” to the first 2 sneezes and if a 3rd is released they’ll laugh and say, “the hell with it, you’ve caught a cold!” What’s the point of wishing you health when clearly you’ve caught a cold?

It is unclear how “bless you” came about, but some claim the source is indirectly disease related, yet spread through papal history. According to straightdope.com, the sneezing benediction came about with the ascent of Pope Gregory the Great to papacy:

Pope Gregory the Great (540-604 AD) ascended to the Papacy just in time for the start of the plague (his successor succumbed to it). Gregory (who also invented the ever-popular Gregorian chant) called for litanies, processions and unceasing prayer for God’s help and intercession. Columns marched through the streets chanting, “Kyrie Eleison” (Greek for “Lord have mercy”). When someone sneezed, they were immediately blessed (”God bless you!”) in the hope that they would not subsequently develop the plague. All that prayer apparently worked, judging by how quickly the plague of 590 AD diminished.

Religious associations with sneezing date back to ancient Greece:

Odysseus returns home disguised as a beggar and talks with his waiting wife Penelope. She says to Odysseus, not knowing to whom she speaks, that he will return safely to challenge her suitors. At that moment their son sneezes loudly and Penelope laughs with joy, reassured that it is a sign from the gods. (wikipedia)

The only direct connection between a religious figure and a sneeze benediction can be found in the Islamic Prophetic Traditions, where Muhammad gives guidance:

When one of you sneezes, let him say, ‘Al-hamdu-Lillaah (Praise be to Allaah),’ and let his brother or companion say to him. ‘Yarhamuk Allaah (May Allaah have mercy on you).’ If he says, ‘Yarhamuk-Allaah,’ then let (the sneezer) say, ‘Yahdeekum Allaah wa yuslihu baalakum (May Allaah guide you and rectify your condition).

The atheist most certainly will stay with the secular tradition and wish the sneezer health. I may also recommend the French tradition where for the first sneeze one would say “to your desires,” and for the second, “to your loves.” Who says atheists have to be dry?

This is post 3 in the What Would the Atheist Say (WWAS) series.
Read part 1 and part 2

TechTags Plugin [ religion | Christianity | blessings | gesundheit | islam | atheism ]

Salient has a great post on serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer’s claim that the theory of evolution cheapens life, and how he learn the concept of accountability only through his post-arrest conversion to Christianity:

If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep within acceptable ranges. That’s how I thought, and I have since come to believe that the Lord Jesus is truly God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they’re the only true God.

In 1989 Dahmer was first arrested for sexually assaulting a 13-year old boy, after luring him with the promise of paying for a photo session. During this arrest three psychologists examined Dahmer and agreed he displayed traits of anti-social personality disorder (aka he was a sociopath), he was manipulative, resistant and evasive, and his only remorse was that he should have picked an older victim. They recommended hospitalization and intensive treatment , yet after Dahmer and his lawyer made a persuasive argument that he wanted to “tread the straight and narrow” (notice the religious narrative), and turn his life around he got one-year work release and five years probation, and was released after 10 months. This is where he began his killing, necrophilia and cannibalism in earnest (he had killed before his 1989, and his early victims were yet to be discovered). He was finally brought to trial in 1992 after one of his victims managed to escape. He was convicted to 15 life-terms in prison. In 1994 he was murdered by two of his prison mates.

During this short time between his arrest and death, Dahmer claimed to have found God in prison. All who came in contact with Dahmer agree he was well-spoken and persuasive, common traits in sociopaths, and he does appeared very calm and persuasive during an MSNBC interview.  So did Dahmer convert in earnest, or was it just part of a manipulative ploy? And would his conversion even be relevant to behavioral change?

As I mentioned earlier Dahmer claimed that only through God did he come to a realization of his accountability, and without God there was no accountability. One would be lead to conclude from this statement that before his conversion in prison, he was unaware of God’s saving grace. A quote I presented earlier from his 1989 pedophilia trial shows he was familiar with and did not shy away from employing religious rhetoric. His 1992 trial statements also show he was perfectly aware of the social expectations of God’s grace in time to make one last rhetorical attempt at appearing humbled before his trial ended:

The doctors have told me about my sickness, and now I have some peace. I know how much harm I have caused… Thank God there will be no more harm that I can do. I believe that only the Lord Jesus Christ can save me from my sins…

If we analyze this statement we can see traces of another anti-social trait, focus on self, or the need to feel important by drawing attention to oneself. Despite trying to show he understands he harmed people he makes no specific mention of those he had harmed. He doesn’t even mention his victims through generic terms. He says “I have caused harm,” but to whom he does not say. He shows an inwards focus as he points to his sickness, and he wants to be saved from his sins.

During the MSNBC interview that Salient uses as the centerpiece of the post, Dahmer is once again very centered on his own experience. A Crime Librabry article reviewing the book on Dahmer’s conversion (by Roy Ratcliff who was Dahmer’s spiritual guide) mentions two other instances that show Dahmer preoccupation with drawing attention to himself. Ratcliff mentions Dahmer was upset his lawyer was channeling his meager prison wages to his victims’ families, and also because his prison-mates made it difficult for him to live his faith. So despite his claims he understood he hurt people, and that he had found accountability through God, his actions showed he continued to display anti-social behavior.

Ultimately, whether he believed in evolution or in creation Dahmer was still a sociopath. In fact, that’s the paradox of prison conversion stories–those who do the converting appear to be exclusively concerned with the acceptance of god or Jesus as a path to salvation (just as Dahmer is fixated on one concept and one concept only–accountability to God), not necessarily with remorse, or more importantly, with behavioral change. Christian spiritual guides are focused on the salvation of the soul, which to them has a very short requirements list–sincere acceptance of Jesus as the savior.

It was not the theory of evolution that made Dahmer a sociopath and it was not his conversion to Christianity that stopped him from being one. He stopped killing because he was caught, imprisoned and murdered. And nothing in his public statements between his arrest and death pointed to his comprehension of the value of human life. He talked of his personal salvation, he talked about accountability to God, he talked about taking his urges to torture, rape, kill and rape again too far (as if taking them not-too-far was acceptable). The only believable thing he ever said was that his parents were not to blame. It is irrelevant whether or not he was sincere during his conversion when it comes to his being a dangerous murderer. His conversion just made him a very dangerous Christian.

TechTags Plugin [ religion | Christianity | serial killers | sociopath | evolution | creationism | God | Jesus ]

Via EnoNomi I found evidence for the existence of God. Her name is Google and She is worshiped through the Church of Google. So we find Christianity is expired, and Atheism is tired, but Googlism is wired.

We reject supernatural gods on the notion they are not scientifically provable. Thus, Googlists believe Google should rightfully be given the title of “God”, as She exhibits a great many of the characteristics traditionally associated with such Deities in a scientifically provable manner.

There are 9 proofs that Google is God of which the following 3 are my favorite:

» PROOF #3
Google answers prayers. One can pray to Google by doing a search for whatever question or problem is plaguing them. As an example, you can quickly find information on alternative cancer treatments, ways to improve your health, new and innovative medical discoveries and generally anything that resembles a typical prayer. Ask Google and She will show you the way, but showing you is all She can do, for you must help yourself from that point on.
» PROOF #6
Google remembers all. Google caches WebPages regularly and stores them on its massive servers. In fact, by uploading your thoughts and opinions to the internet, you will forever live on in Google’s cache, even after you die, in a sort of “Google Afterlife”.
» PROOF #8
According to Google trends, the term “Google” is searched for more than the terms “God”, “Jesus”, “Allah”, “Buddha”, “Christianity”, “Islam”, “Buddhism” and “Judaism” combined.

There are also 10 commandments, yet I cannot find them as persuasive as the Christian ones (persuasive translates here as guilt and fear inflicting). You truly need the threat of eternal burning in hell to invoke attention (if not respect) to the Christian doctrine. But what’s the worst that can happen if you do not follow The Church of Google’s commandment # 6–Thou shalt not misspell whilst praying to me?

What happens is that in Her vast kindness, Google will guesstimate correct spelling for you. Which probably makes Google more magnanimous than the Christian god, but so much less threatening. What’s the use of a church if it can’t inflict or promote ideas of pain and suffering, hell, guilt, and punishment?

TechTags Plugin [ religion | atheist | atheism | agnostic | hell | commandments | googlism ]

Following on my earlier post on “Do Atheists Believe in the Existence of a Soul,” and “Professor Says There Are Atheists in Foxholes,” I decided to start a series called “What Would the Atheist Say,” or “What Would Atheists Say” (I’m still thinking about which exactly to go with… any suggestions?)

And yes, it’s a play on “What Would Jesus Do?”

The previous questions I posed were ‘what would atheists say about the existence of a soul’ and ‘WWAS about the expression “there are no atheists in foxholes.”‘ I won’t divulge the upcoming questions yet because that would destroy the idea of a series.

Talking about “ideas,” I was inspired to start this series as I was googling different atheists phrase combinations. I realized that while the atheist community is very active through atheist channels, we don’t SEO (search engine optimize) very well.

When searching for “what would atheists say,” a UK article about Dawkins ranked first, and then 3 other sites that appeared to be theistic based on the title. These proved to critically analyze theists’ views of atheists, on a second look–”What Would Atheists Do if the Gospel Were True?” and “The Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists.”

Let’s enhance atheistic SEO trends. As atheists, we get confronted often with the question of morality. Can you have morals if you’re an atheist? Morals is one large topic, so let’s break it down for those who believe that humans can only obtain answers to life questions through the lenses of religion. What would atheists say about … [you-name-it]?

So, what are you atheists saying, are you in?

TechTags Plugin [ religion | atheist | atheism | agnostic | morals | morality ]

In an earlier post, “Do Atheists Believe in the Existance of a Soul,” I discussed the difference between soul and consciousness. My take is that a strong atheist will not believe in the soul as a untangible entity that defines a person, and exists independent of the body, the body being just a vessel for this soul. In the Socratic tradition the soul is equated to consciousness as a product of the mind.

In a Salon interview philosopher Rebecca Goldstein and her husband, cognitive scientist Steven Pinker discuss why neuroscience’s concept of consciousness as a pure reflection of brain’s functions is threatening to religious beliefs:

Virtually all religious believers think the mind cannot be reduced to the physical mechanics of the brain. Of course, many believe the mind is what communicates with God. Would you agree that the mind-brain question is one of the key issues in the “science and religion” debate?

PINKER: I think so. It’s a very deep intuition that people are more than their bodies and their brains, that when someone dies, their consciousness doesn’t go out of existence, that some part of us can be up and about in the world while our body stays in one place, that we can’t just be a bunch of molecules in motion. It’s one that naturally taps into religious beliefs. And the challenge to that deep-seated belief from neuroscience, evolutionary biology and cognitive science has put religion and science on the public stage. I think it’s one of the reasons you have a renewed assault on religious beliefs from people like Dawkins and Daniel Dennett.

The neuroscientific worldview — the idea that the mind is what the brain does — has kicked away one of the intuitive supports of religion. So even if you accepted all of the previous scientific challenges to religion — the earth revolving around the sun, animals evolving and so on — the immaterial soul was always one last thing that you could keep as being in the province of religion. With the advance of neuroscience, that idea has been challenged.

Ann Coulter does it again, after offending gays, and saying her dream is for women to lose their right to vote (because women vote stupidly, especially single women), now she says Jews need to be perfected (Christianity is more like Federal Express, you get the fast track to being a perfected Jew), and Heaven would look like New York during the Republican National Convention, because people would be happy, Christian and tolerant. Forget Britney Spears, here comes Ann Coulter to make an extra buck (million buck) on making our jaws drop in awe. Should heaven be what Coulter wants it to be, I pray to go to hell.

TechTags Plugin [ politics | religion | society | judaism | feminism | tolerance | hell ]

Via Black Sun Journal I read the Deseret News (official Mormon church newspaper) article on Utah ranking #1 in Google searches in 5 categories: Recreation, Literature, Food, Religion, and Sex.

Utah ranks No. 1 in the nation — and sometimes the world — for using Google to search the Web for such terms as “Jesus,” “family history,” “Harry Potter,” “Mormon,” “Lord of the Rings,” “NBA,” “snowboarding,” “home storage” and “Mitt Romney.”

Utah and/or Salt Lake City also rank tops in the nation in searches for “pornography,” “naked girls,” “striptease,” “topless,” “nude,” “strip poker,” “lingerie,” “blonde” and “brunette.”

The article goes on to quote psychologists, sociologists, religious leaders, etc, all trying to explain why Utah (my former state of residence) would be plagued by such a dichotomy. I will assume that the readers of my blog will not need an explanation for why the forbidden fruit may be so tempting.

It was the comments on the article that blew my mind, made me laugh and made me want to cry, all at the same time. Repression turns people into sick, sick beings, who say things such as:

In order to keep my children safe, I automatically assume that everyone I meet is addicted to porn and is potentially a child molestor. That is why my children are rarely left alone with others, especially men.

In this case I still have some hope the author was being sarcastic, but this next one is for real:

The number one reason male students at BYU go to the counseling center is for sexual compulsion. The number one reason female students at BYU go to the counseling center is for eating disorders. These are real problems that need to be confronted. The findings could be spun as Satan working harder to destroy the church.

And here’s the one that made me cringe:

Pornography is not something to laugh about, it is not harmless, nor is it a natural, uncontrollable desire that people have. It is fake, un-natural, and destructive to everybody that is involved.

The dude who wrote this (by the name it was a guy) needs to go get this balls checked, make sure they’re still hanging between his legs where they belong, and haven’t been hung out to dry by some religious authority figure.

OK, so I’m harsh, but Utah is a harsh place too. After living in Utah I walked (ran, rather) away from the best snow on earth with the realization that sexual oppression can be highly damaging personally and to relationships. There is no perversion in the bedroom of consenting adults, how they do it and where they put it should be left to be their decision-making, not to the judgment of a religious authority or group.

I think it’s time for a new expression: Those who don’t do it, Google it.
TechTags Plugin [ religion | mormonism | sexuality | google trends | sex | atheism ]

I’ve been following a few recent posts on the not-so recent topic raised by Dawkins in 2006 regarding religion teachings being mentally abusive to children. The Rational Fool writes a very thoughtful post with a focus specifically on the issue of inducing fear in children and Mahendra of An Unquiet Mind gives the perspective of one raised in a Hindu family.

I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, however, the perspective that these two posts brought to me is worth exploring–it’s worth exploring the concept of fear in religious education, the implications of family, society and tradition.

Dawkin’s main example of mental abuse in children is the fear-inducing teachings of hell. He says, “the threat of eternal hell is an extreme example of mental abuse, just as violent sodomy is an extreme example of physical abuse.”

The Rational Fool tells a powerful story of his experience growing up under religious-induced fear:

Born into a religious Hindu family, I still remember how the adults used to scare me with dire consequences to deter me from committing minor transgressions. For example, if I attempted to steal a sweetmeat before it was consecrated to the gods, they’d admonish me with, “swami kannakkuthiduvar” [in Tamil]. Translated into English, it literally means, “god will drive a dagger into your eyes”. For major transgressions, there was the ubiquitous threat, “You will go to this horrible, horrible, place called hell”. Occasionally, I too have nightmares of being thrown into a vat full of boiling oil in a scorching desert, with emaciated men and women around me being roasted on the skewers! I shrug off these dreams when I wake up, but not everyone does.

He goes on though to wonder if watching horror movies may have the same effect on children, and if a parent lets a child watch a horror movie, will it be just as scaring as threatening children with hell.

To answer this I would look at the emotion itself. Fear, is a useful feeling, that allowed humans and other creatures the ability to discern danger and flee, fight, hide, or invoke another protective behavior. This emotion has been essential to our evolution.

Emotions though do not function on their own, require a certain behavioral output, or else there would be no channel for the emotion, and the emotion would not be recognized. We recognize fear by its manifestations, most of them physiological, such as cold sweating, heavy breathing, panic, etc.

Scary movies are designed to make people jump out of their skin, and appeal to the large population of thrill-seeking, adrenaline junkies. Children can be easily impressed by these movies but they can also be taught how to behave in situations of fear. So if by some chance your child gets to see a scary movie, I would take it as an opportunity to teach the child about fear. Everyone feels fear but how we react to it is what makes the difference in the long term.

In the religious context the behavior that’s taught in response to fear is religion specific. Thus it’s the behavior that’s the end-goal and fear is a means to that end. Parents don’t only have the ability to instill fear in their children but they also teach the ensuing behavioral rules. For example, a deer will teach its fawn to run when sensing danger. A fawn raised in captivity without learning how to positively employ fear will most probably not survive amongst predators.

So fear in itself has served us good, but as humans we’ve also learned how to employ it to serve less rational and less noble purposes. Despite having the luxury of reason (and ever- increasing science knowledge) to explain certain phenomena to us, we still teach our children to obey through fear. As a kid I was told that if I didn’t behave the boogeyman would get me. When at a very young age I said there was no boogeyman (my folk were laughing too hard during their boogeyman threat so it wasn’t believable to me), I was told the gypsies would take me away. In the religious household the threat takes on religious connotations and it continues to be religious even at an age where the child can understand reason, facts, science.

What’s paradoxical about the attempt of religious folk to control their kids through religious threats is that, “you have to work hard to get kids to believe nonsense. If you’re not desperately selling lies, the work is a lot easier” (Penn Jillette, Parenting Beyond Belief). Jillette’s advice is to “tell your kids the truth as you see it and let the marketplace of ideas work as they grow up.”

That sounds too simple to be that simple. So what do you tell your kid when his friend asked, “Did your grandpa go to heaven when he died?” Julia Sweeney’s answer is, “No we don’t believe in that.”

Before I express my disagreement with Sweeney’s answer, let me tie in another point about culture and its implications in the context of religious fearmongery. Religion, families and cultures are closely connected. From questions of how do I continue belonging to my family after I leave their faith behind, to how will we function as a family if husband and wife have different belief systems, to how the next generation should be educated, all depend on navigating the outside teachings vs. internal reason divide. How do I balance what I’m taught versus what I should believe as an independent rational being?

Some of us want to stick with what we’re taught, regardless of what the world teaches. It is very comforting to think grandpa went to heaven, and it might seem the best way to soothe a child who just lost grandpa. Sweeney chose to give the blunt answer, ” we don’t believe in that.”

Here is where I disagree. Culture is a beautiful thing that keeps us human and connected. There is nothing wrong with telling the child, “some people believe grandpa went to heaven because he was a good man, I do not think he did because there is no heaven. But how you remember grandpa is more important than where he went.” And that’s because I believe family is about the history we share, the experiences we share and the love we share, all that is real between people, not some fabricated fantasy. Saying “we don’t believe in heaven” is assuming the child knows what he believes in, and it’s the same as saying “we believe in heaven” and assuming the child believes.

In conclusion, I believe fearmongery for religious goals is unacceptable, particularly when teaching the impressive minds of children. It’s not fear itself that’s the cause of concern but its psychological and behavioral aftermath can be damaging. There is nothing wrong with navigating fear through cultural conversations but it is very important to not lie to our children, and to give them rational information that they can put to use on their own.

I don’t believe my grandpa is in heaven or hell or anywhere, but he is with me, because he is part of my family, my culture and he made sure I learned science. I don’t think my parents were abusive for letting me watch Michael Jackson’s Thriller, the short movie, which to this day haunts me (mostly because of what Michael Jackson became later in life). I stopped being scared at night by memories of scary movies since that first 1989 night when machine guns were roaring outside our apartment during the Romanian revolution (coup d’etat, or whatever is called today). I learned to fear abuse of power then, and scaring children through purposefully developed religious hell-tales meant to inflict obedience to religious entities is one of those examples of abuse of power.

TechTags Plugin [ religion | atheism | hell | society ]

In the past few years an increasingly vocal group of activists and soldiers have spoken out to dispel the myth that “there are no atheists in foxholes.” Meant to imply that non-belief disappears in the face of adversity to be replaced with religiosity, the concept was used this past summer by Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, who said, Agnostics, atheists and bigots suddenly lose all that when their life is on the line.” The National Guard later clarified Blum’s statement to say the statement was meant to emphasize camaraderie between soldiers of different belief.

During the modern day’s debate which heavily started with a 2005 Good Morning America segment (in which Bill Weih use the expression), atheist military personal came out to say their superiors had made it clear they would not tolerate atheism amidst their ranks. However, officially, atheist, agnostic or no religious preference are all belief options for new recruits for their dog-tag identifications.

Regardless of the inclusiveness of the US Military, does the expression, “there are no atheists in foxholes” stand?

According to professor Ken Pargament (Bowling Green State University), a professor specializing in the psychology of religion and coping, says (as quoted by Newsweek): “If someone is a committed atheist, they’re likely to stay a committed atheist.”