Reason & Compassion

The two keystone virtues of Humanism are reason and compassion. I've recently come to appreciate that on this blog, while I've emphasized the former thoroughly, I've somewhat neglected the latter. Since I believe this life is the only one we have, that we should make the most of it, and that we're happiest when we work with others to improve the world, my goal in writing should be to truly help others rather than simply entertain my readers by discussing the absurdity of religion.

It's easy enough to point out why a belief is false; it's more difficult, and more productive, to identify why it's believed and address a believer's deeper concerns. Let's look at an example. Modern science quickly and easily dismantles the creationist worldview as a matter of fact, but we need to realize the centrality of a creationist's belief that God is in total control of the universe and thus of their lives. We can, and we should, explain why their beliefs don't match reality, and we need not always be gentle in doing so, but we can't forget that creationists are humans just like ourselves who happen to have a mistaken viewpoint. If one is to make any progress in promoting any idea, it does no good to simply dismiss anyone who disagrees as stupid. We need to appreciate that creationists don't cling to a non-scientific view of the universe because they're truly convinced by the evidence that it's correct; they cling to it because they're afraid of what it means if it's wrong. It's important to explain, therefore, how evolution has provided us with an instinctive morality and the ability to reason, and that the sciences have given us a greater understanding and control of our lives than religion ever did. It's important to make them understand that accepting evolution doesn't equate with descent into moral anarchy. Laughing at believers can be fun, but it has only entertainment value and should never be the majority of my religious commentary because it serves only ourselves. Showing believers they don't need to believe in the supernatural in order to be happy, on the other hand, is a work of both reason and compassion.

The non-religious generally understand the practical impossibility of truly hating the sin while also truly loving the sinner, but I have failed to realize that in hating religious belief, I end up hating the religious believer. It's unacceptable, however, to have greater concern for an idea, whether that idea be religious or secular, true or false, than for humankind. Since my innate tendency is to do otherwise, I must focus more on loving the irrational person than hating their irrationality. None of this should at all imply that I should ever back down from communicating or defending my disbelief, simply that I shouldn't let winning every argument and pointing out every logical error forever trump all other concerns. Perhaps the most frustrating experience in life is attempting to have a conversation on a particular topic with a person who has adopted an irrational stance toward it, but that doesn't excuse me for becoming upset when I should anticipate the probable reaction from the beginning. It is irrational, and thus hypocritical, of me to expect others to be rational. I shouldn't even respond in kind to those who antagonize me. There is little virtue in treating people well who return the favor; there is, however, much in rising above pettiness and treating others with the compassion they have not earned.

Being Positive

Yesterday I finished taking my first set of finals in law school. I studied more for those four exams than I did combined over the course of six years pursuing two undergraduate degrees, when I found studying for tests mostly superfluous. I've also moved into a new apartment with my wife in a different part of the city. I mention all of this to explain my lack of activity on this blog in the past few months. Not only have I had very little time to actually write, but I've been so busy with my education, my marriage and our new dwelling that I haven't given religion much thought except where it happens to intersect with my daily life.

At some point, however, it seems there's really nothing more for me to say about humanity's innate tendency to think and act irrationally. I really tire of being so critical and negative, even when I think the target in question is fully worthy of all the disdain I could ever muster. I don't even know whether there's really something positive to promote in Humanism. Its ideals are so high-level as to be practically useless for daily living, and the non-religious tend to be so individualistic that we have difficulty organizing and building real communities. I intend to concentrate on developing my own personal virtue without reference to any ideology or philosophy.

Worshiping a Monster

Yesterday there was an entry at Daylight Atheism on the subject of the atrocity of Passover. One of the comments suggested modern Jews recognize the suffering entailed in the divine slaughter of the first-born Egyptians and mourn for the dead. This seems something like moral progress, but the fact remains they still worship a deity who alleged killed thousands upon thousands of innocent children! There's not even the tiniest sliver of justification for it. At Passover, Jews thus thank a mass murderer for sparing them and praise him for his moral perfection. In the same entry, there were other comments about the importance of the symbolism of the story, but even as an allegory, it fails miserably to communicate any worthwhile or respectable message.

Christians hold an even worse moral position. Although they don't celebrate Passover, they revere the same vile story. What's worse is that they believe this monster tortures unrepentant sinners in a lake of fire for all of eternity, making him infinitely more evil and despicable, all the while constantly extolling his love and mercy. It could hardly be any more absurd.

Humanist Communities

There has been some recent discussion in the media and in the blogosphere about building Humanist communities, and I'd like to indicate my support for the idea and explain some of my thoughts.

The first question commonly asked is why Humanists don't just join a group of Unitarian Universalists. Some certainly do. As for me, though I have a positive opinion of UUs, I really prefer a group of people who generally share my beliefs, not simply a group of people who welcome me regardless of my beliefs. UUs emphasize love, peace and acceptance of all people, but not necessarily the critical thinking and intellectual rigor that I personally value so strongly. They use religious language and rituals in a non-dogmatic manner and they fully welcome atheists, but I much prefer to jettison anything from religion that suggests superstition and retain only the most humanistic elements of religious practice relating to the promotion of virtue and building of communities. These include such things as a recognizable name and symbol, meetings at least once per week, discussions of various topics, social activities, and small group interaction.

Here in Jacksonville, we have the First Coast Freethought Society, but I've only attended a couple of meetings. They only meet once a month on Monday nights, and the group consists almost entirely of senior citizens. I'm less than halfway to being a senior citizen and my wife is less than a third of the way there, so I have a more difficult time making social connections in such a group. There is also an atheist Meet-Up group with plenty of young members, and I've attended a number of their meetings, but the focus is almost exclusively on views of religion. Now I enjoy the criticism of religion more than almost anyone except perhaps some other bloggers, but sometimes I want to move beyond the inherent negativity in criticism and on to something more positive.

Since I've gotten married, my desire for such a community has noticeably weakened. An important part of that desire was to meet a young woman who shares my worldview, and now I have exactly that. I'm also much busier than previously with a wife and law school, so my life is rather full and I'd encounter difficulty in finding time to attend any meetings. I've already had to go on hiatus from improv comedy for several months, and if I find any extra time, it will be spent pursuing that first. If something new arises in the area, however, I hope to lend it whatever support I can manage.

Nothing New Under the Sun

I've grown weary of discussing the statements and actions of religionists in this blog. A couple of years ago I adopted a policy of monitoring the opinion section of my local newspaper in order to provide a source of regular material to address. Since then, I've written dozens of blog entries about perhaps a hundred letters and editorials. Although I've found a brand-new local violation of church-state separation, I've chosen to ignore it and to officially revoke the policy altogether. Believers have nothing new to say, and I have nothing new to say in response. It's the same idiocy over and over again. The average person in the area can't reason their way out of a wet paper bag, and I'm tired of arguing with a brick wall. This is not at all to say that I won't discuss the stupidity of religion, just that I won't feel obligated to myself to mention every example of stupidity that finds its way into the pages of the local newspaper.

Nothing to Fear

This opinion column by Terry Dickson was published in the life section under the title, “Righteous ‘fear’ has its place.” I found most of it unremarkable except for a few choice selections.

The slide in religious affiliation [in New England] may be because of a lack of fear.

Perhaps this is correct. Maybe more people are increasingly realizing they have nothing to fear from non-existent deities and their imaginary torture chambers.

I like what the Rev. Tommy Nelson, senior pastor at Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas, sometimes says. He'll be reading along in the Bible and do a little interpretation. “In the original Greek,” he'll say, “the word fear means fear. Be afraid.”

I suppose he didn't get the memo from liberal theologians and apologists that Christianity is supposed to be a religion of love and peace, and he actually read Jesus' intolerant and exclusivist message in the bible!

“I'm prophesying we'll become more religious with this economic downturn,” [Rev. Jay Hanson] said. FDR famously said during the Great Depression, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

How utterly ironic! Dickson laments modern society's lack of fear of God throughout the entire column and then at the end suggests with this quotation that we have nothing to fear and should not be afraid of anything except irrational fear! Be not afraid, indeed!

Foolish Wager

I love waking up in the morning and being threatened with hell as I eat breakfast. This letter by Joyce Bates was published today under the heading, “Atheism: Price of being wrong.”

I am mystified by the belligerence of atheists. Do they really believe their "sincerity" is more important than truth? I'm not trying to persuade them, I just want them to stop trying to persuade me. Why does my belief bother them so much? If I'm wrong, I lose nothing and gain everything. If they're wrong, they lose everything and gain nothing. Looks like a no-brainer to me.

First, I don't know which alleged belligerence she's referring to. She really needed to be more specific. Second, I've never heard any atheist claim that sincerity is more important than truth. Third, I have no idea how atheists are trying to persuade her. We don't have churches, schools, universities, television channels, or radio stations. There are a few local television and radio shows around the country and some podcasts, but those are almost never about deconverting theists. There are atheist books and bookstores, but nothing compared to the number of Christian books and bookstores. I've heard of atheist street preachers and tracts online, but I've never encountered them in person and I would bet neither has the author. I've never even heard of a door-to-door proselytizer. Fourth, her belief bothers some of us because it's irrational and dangerous. It adversely affects political and social life. Fifth, if she actually thinks Pascal's wager is a valid argument for belief, then “no-brainer” a very apt description of her. She claims not to want to persuade us and then she threatens us with eternal torture. This is why religion is evil.

Evolution as God's Work

This letter by Julia Delegal was published today under the heading, “Evolution: Respect boundaries of religion.”

During college, I used to chuckle that Jacksonville was still debating whether the public schools should teach evolution. That was 20 years ago. Now our state senator, Steve Wise, wants intelligent design taught as an "alternative" to evolution in my children's schools. I am no longer chuckling. Instead, I want to scream. I'm no atheist; I'm a believer. My understanding of evolutionary principles in no way threatens my faith in God. Rather, I marvel that a series of events as extraordinary as human evolution could have been orchestrated by a Creator who works through all contingencies. The choice about whether to believe in God, in light of evolutionary science or in spite of it, however, is irrelevant to the question of whether intelligent design is a scientific theory. It is not. It is a belief built on faith-based assumptions - not on empirically proven phenomena that are explainable via theory. A George W. Bush-appointed federal judge, who decided the 2005 Kitzmiller case, agrees: intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist and thus religious, antecedents." Our Deist forefathers descended from those who fled religious tyranny. They knew that investing religious groups with governmental power would interfere with the freedom of individuals to pursue their own spiritual quests. Wise received hate mail in reaction to a related bill that failed last year. Those letter writers should ask themselves if they would appreciate their own children being proselytized by someone of a religion different from their own. They should treat others as they wish to be treated. On this issue, the First Amendment to the Constitution demands no less. Denying or denigrating science in the name of religion won't inoculate children from atheism. But insisting, disingenuously, that religion is science risks driving them to a wholesale rejection of faith. Conjuring "alternatives" to evolutionary theory is not God's work; it's political fodder. Winning the hearts and minds of our young people necessitates that we honor their minds, especially if we believe those minds to be God-given. I challenge local religious leaders to demand that Wise withdraw the intelligent design bill, and get on with this year's real work: funding education.

My reaction to liberal religion is always mixed. In this case, I'm happy to see support for the teaching of evolution and sad to see an unwillingness to abandon faith after it's been rendered meaningless. It strikes me as very odd to “marvel that a series of events as extraordinary as human evolution could have been orchestrated by a Creator” when that series of events resulted in the extinction of more than ninety-nine percent of all species and a very imperfect design for our own bodies. And I certainly don't want to “inoculate” children from atheism or discourage a “wholesale rejection of faith”! Nevertheless, if fundamentalist believers adopted this author's viewpoint, science education and society as a whole would no doubt improve.

IDiocy

This letter by David Ramseur was published today under the heading, “Intelligent Design: Give children the facts.”

This is in response to letters regarding Sen. Steve Wise's proposed bill to require teachers who teach evolution to also be open to discuss intelligent design. It is so easy to see intelligent design in the laws that govern these mysterious forces of our universe. The great scientists of the past built their studies on the fact that intelligent design was evident in their successfully tested experiments and not products left to chance. Even the famous British atheist scientist, Richard Dawkins (as stated in the Expelled movie), believes in the possibility that there is an intelligent designer somewhere. Moreover, the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the classroom is the same as actually teaching the religion of atheism, which violates the First Amendment. Finally, in the 1925 Scopes monkey trial, attorney Clarence Darrow, who represented the teacher, rightly stated that we should teach all ideas about origins and let the children decide for themselves.

First, according to article referenced by this letter, the bill doesn't just allow the discussion of intelligent design, it requires it. Second, science doesn't advance by assuming intelligent design, it advances by assuming the opposite through methodological naturalism. Third, I have no idea what Dawkins said in Expelled, but it's irrelevant. Fourth, atheism is not in any sense a religion and teaching how life changes without any reference to the supernatural is not in any sense atheistic. Fifth, you can teach children any and all ideas at school, but non-scientific ideas should not be taught in science class. We're not denying children any facts because intelligent design has no facts, just a fear of finding its god irrelevant.

UPDATES:

This letter by Richard Bohler was published on February 21st under the heading, “The faith of atheists.”

Atheists who hyperventilate over intelligent design should first consider themselves. It takes great faith to espouse the belief that there is no God, when there is absolutely no evidence to support that contention. Indeed, the idea of the necessity of a first cause must be a real conundrum to them. Intelligent Design simply presents the logical idea that an intelligence must have started the whole ball rolling. Evolution of life forms in no way conflicts with the designs of the Prime Mover; it could simply be part of the plan.

First, only strong atheists believe that no gods exist. Second, it's no less reasonable to believe that gods don't exist than to believe that that leprechauns don't exist. Third, if he thinks atheists are at all troubled by the cosmological argument, he's obviously never talked to an atheist. Fourth, the idea that an eternal, omnipresent, disembodied intelligence is necessary for the genesis and evolution of single-cell organisms over billions of years is not at all logical; it's completely absurd.

This letter by Julia Braza was published on February 23rd under the heading, “Intelligent design: Present the debate.”

I am responding to a recent letter that was critical of Sen. Steve Wise's proposal to introduce the teaching of intelligent design. It is important to remember that intelligent design is not creationism, nor does it contradict evolution. If intelligent design were taught in the classroom, the teacher would not read the book of Genesis aloud and then say "end of discussion." The theory of intelligent design merely states that there is an intelligent force behind certain aspects and patterns of the universe, as opposed to complete randomness. The idea could be presented to students in such a way as to say that many in the scientific community believe that evolution and natural selection are undirected processes, while others in the scientific community believe that there is an intelligent force directing or instigating these processes. Presenting the idea of intelligent design is not teaching religion to students any more than presenting the fundamental tenants [sic] of Islam; it's simply making them aware of different beliefs and outlooks in our world. If we become so afraid of mentioning God (or even an "intelligent force") under the false auspices of not wanting to push our religion on anyone, then we have in effect pushed atheism on everyone. Let's keep the discussion open-ended instead. I think our kids can handle it.

First, intelligent design most certainly is a form of creationism and most certainly does contradict evolution. It claims that an intelligence created life because it's too complex to have evolved, and the only way to teach it is to criticize evolutionary theory. Contrary to the author's assertion, it's not about some mystical force directing events throughout the universe. Second, there's no dispute in the scientific community, so the idea shouldn't be introduced into science class. Third, the example of teaching the basic tenets of Islam is awkward since the author probably wouldn't want them taught in science class, just like I don't want intelligent design taught in science class. Fourth, neutrality toward religion does not equate with promoting atheism. Would the author argue that math class promotes atheism because it doesn't mention gods in the discussion of the processes of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division?

This letter by John Campbell was published on February 23rd under the heading, “Intelligent design: Science as dogma.”

I find it interesting that Sen. Steve Wise is criticized for trying to inject his religion into the science classroom. The real story is that evolution is the chief doctrine of the secular humanists, a religion as defined by the U. S. Supreme Court. They want no competition of ideas in this area and certainly don't want things like irreducible complexity or the evolution of the eye openly discussed in the classroom. And they certainly don't want students to ask the whereabouts of all those billions and billions of transitional species fossils that don't exist. No, the real religious dogma is coming from the secular humanists, not Wise.

First, secular humanism has not been defined as a religion by SCOTUS. It was mentioned in a non-authoritative footnote of Torcaso v. Watkins as the functional equivalent of a non-theistic religion. Second, even if it were a chief doctrine of a religion, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach it; if something is supported by evidence, we should teach it, and evolution is supported by literally mountains of evidence. Third, I suspect the author has never taken a class on evolution because they most certainly do talk about the eye and how it's evolved many separate times, and they show plenty of transitional fossils. Fourth, the competition of ideas should happen in scientific research, not in scientific eduction. No, we don't want the absurdly false propaganda of creationists in science classrooms.

Know Thy Enemy

Contrary to the claims of some detractors of the “New Atheists,” it's not necessary to understand the intricacies of a religious doctrine in order reject it as absurd or unsubstantiated. It is, however, necessary to understand the basic definition in order to articulate a meaningful critique. In particular, I've seen a number of arguments on blogs and forums against Catholic dogmas which fail simply because the author misconstrues them out of pure ignorance. I'll address two of these errors in the hope that my readers will avoid them and advance a more effective criticism of religion.

The first is the dogma of transubstantiation. This is the belief that during the consecration in mass, the bread and wine become Jesus' body and blood without changing their physical nature whatsoever. It's said that the invisible, spiritual, immaterial “substance” changes without the visible, physical, material “form” or “accidents” changing. This means that what still looks exactly like bread and wine are believed to be literally Jesus' flesh and blood distributed as communion. There is considerable confusion about this idea even among Catholics, partly because it makes a nonsensical distinction and partly because the wrong word is often used to define it. I've seen even moderately sophisticated authors define transubstantiate with transform even though transubstantiation was coined precisely to distinguish it from transformation. With that said, if one wishes to attack the dogma, then it's an error to simply point out that it still looks like bread and wine given that such is happily acknowledged. Challenges to examine it under a microscope or after a communicant has received it fall into the category of error, for it's not claimed that the form changes at any point in space or time. It's supposedly an absolutely undetectable miracle, making it from a skeptic's perspective an absolutely worthless miracle claim with respect to possible evidence for the supernatural. Proper criticism of the doctrine would focus on the absurdity of the distinction between matter and spirit, the importance of falsifiability, the moral repugnancy of cannibalizing one's deity, or any other topic consistent with its true definition.

The second is the dogma of papal infallibility. This is the belief that the pope cannot err when speaking authoritatively for the entire church – ex cathedra or “from the chair” – on matters of faith and morals. The scope is extraordinarily narrow, and while there is some disagreement among scholars about precisely which statements qualify, the vast majority of papal statements which one finds in the news are certainly not considered ex cathedra. It's an error, therefore, if your goal is to argue against infallibility, to point out that the pope apparently contradicted something he himself or one of his predecessors said unless both were said under very special circumstances. In addition, the doctrine clearly doesn't concern papal actions and shouldn't be confused with impeccability, the inability to sin. Pointing out the sins of the current or past popes is irrelevant with respect to infallibility, especially given that recent popes have very publicly acknowledged some of the papacy's historical wrongs. Proper criticism would focus on contradictions between recognized ex cathedra statements and the inherent fallibility in determining whether another person is infallible.

The mixing up of two more dogmas is more easily resolved and doesn't itself cause bad argumentation, but I would like to clarify them anyway. The “Immaculate Conception” refers to the conception of Mary by her parents without imputing her with original sin, not the conception of Jesus by Mary without a sexual act, which is known as the “Incarnation.” Both dogmas are vulnerable to criticism, but the first step is use the correct terminology.

I've been attacked for indicating that an atheist was arguing against a straw man and accused of “towing [sic] the [church's] party line,” but such criticism is severely misdirected. I consider religious dogma my enemy and the best way to fight is “to know thy enemy.” Telling your comrades that they're firing blanks is a service to your cause, not to the other side. Advancing the anti-theistic equivalents of the creationist claim that evolution is false because there are still monkeys is quite ineffective.

Unwise Proposal

My local State Senator Stephen Wise recently introduced a bill which would require science teachers who teach evolution to also discuss intelligent design in their classes. I learned of it through a couple atheist and scientific blogs, but today I saw some local reaction in the newspaper.

• This letter by Jon Dehner was published today under the heading, “Evolution: Why stop there?”
  
• This letter by Robert M. Nied was published today under the heading, “Evolution: A burden on schools.”

I'd like to see Wise kicked out of office by the voters next election cycle, but I don't think that will happen. Wise represents a predominantly credulous and overwhelmingly Republican district and there's no good chance of someone even marginally more progressive being elected in the foreseeable future.

UPDATES:

• This letter by Patrick Nolan was published on February 16th under the heading, “Evolution: Going backward.”
  
• This letter by Deborah Courtney was published on February 18th under the heading, “Intelligent Design: Waste of time.”
  
• This letter by Bob Awtrey was published on February 20th under the heading, “Evolution: Not a religious matter.”
  
• This letter by Paul Cottle was published on February 23rd under the heading, “Intelligent design: Proposed bill misses mark.”

Buckle Up With Jesus

Yesterday I saw a decorative license plate on the front of a truck which read, “Buckle Up with Jesus.” While I support a reminder to take safety precautions before driving, the addition of religion into the picture struck me as very odd. I suppose the idea is that you're supposed to trust Jesus to keep you safe, but if he could do that, why would you need a seat belt? If one truly has an omnimax deity with him at all times, then one has absolutely nothing to fear in any situation. Promoting the rational use of seat belts is thus tacit acknowledgment that their best friend is imaginary, but pretending they have a magical sky daddy watching out over them must make them feel better. If they kept their delusions to themselves, we could just chuckle at their irrationality and not worry about anything more serious, but of course we all know that doesn't always happen.

I have recently noticed a number of the new alternate Florida license plates which replace the state's nickname, “Sunshine State,” with the state's official motto, “In God We Trust.” (That's right, Florida doesn't have a unique motto different from the national one!) I think they're available upon request for no additional charge, unlike the more than a hundred specialty tags which require a special fee. The legislators who approved the new design must have no worries that it could be found unconstitutional given that it's insulated by two layers of tradition. I don't care so much that it's an alternative. I'm just afraid that it will eventually replace the standard design, forcing me to switch to a specialty tag, assuming those aren't also infected by theocracy. I would probably consider the Imagine tag and scribble on “no religion” with a marker. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but you never know.

It's time for some deity replacement therapy: Buckle up with Apollo!

Why I Would Never Be Elected to Public Office

Although I have no intention of ever running for public office, the thought occasionally crosses my mind that I would have no chance as someone who has publicly acknowledged his atheism. The problem would be compounded if my otherwise anonymous blog were connected with my name and the media presented some particularly damning quotes as sound bites. As an intellectual curiosity, I have gathered a selection of the most anti-theistic quotes from Secular Planet and present them here in reverse chronological order.

Today is Blasphemy Day International!

If Yahweh, Jesus, or Allah really existed, as portrayed in their respective scriptures, they would be absolutely evil and worthy of every ounce of contempt and derision we could muster toward them.

Foolish Wager

This is why religion is evil.

Know Thy Enemy

I consider religious dogma my enemy...

Buckle Up With Jesus

[T]heir best friend is imaginary, but pretending they have a magical sky daddy watching over them must make them feel better.

Atheism as Medicine

Religion is indeed a mental disease...

Why Religious Belief Matters

Religion gives bigots moral cover...

Reverse Stupidity

All of this suggests the devil is highly incompetent and poses no threat to anyone with half a brain, but I suppose that's not the church's target audience.

The Importance of Religious Literalism

[T]he message of the bible is essentially tyrannical and barbaric...

Perpetual Adoration

As is typical with religion, it's just absurdity upon absurdity.

Hell: The Evilest Doctrine

Whenever I hear Jesus referred to as loving or merciful, I wince. While the gospels do contain some benevolent teachings, these are completely overshadowed by Jesus' recurrent threat of unending torture for anyone who fails to accept his message. One cannot expect praise for preaching love while simultaneously executing divine blackmail.

No Sacred Cows

Most people think the message [of the gospel] is love and forgiveness whereas it's actually, “Believe or fry!”

The Necessity of Doubt

I simply cannot respect anyone who claims to have never doubted their beliefs.

Religious Justification for Bigotry

[A]s is often the case, it's primarily religion that's hindering social progress. Whether religion actually creates bigotry or simply provides hypocritical justification for it, irrational belief is the enemy of human advancement.

Not Following Jesus

The key to understanding this divergence is to realize that Jesus' ministry as portrayed in the Gospels was essentially an apocalyptic cult.

Scrupulosity, OCD and the Doctrine of Hell

The Christian God was a monster in my eyes whom I grew to fear and despise more and more over the years.

Religion and My Life

[R]eligion is the principal virus of irrationality in our world, affecting the majority of people around the globe and in my own country. This irrationality often leads to poor decisions, injustice and misery...

Why I'm No Longer A Catholic

The Bible is full of stories of violent injustice of all types committed by God, commanded by God, rewarded by God, or looked favorably upon by God: wars of conquest, slaughter of innocent men, women, and children, divine plagues, looting, slavery, death penalty for minor infractions, and a worldwide flood.

The Bible is full of material which suggests it is the work of humans and not of God: contradictions, failed prophecies, scientific errors, religious intolerance, misogyny, racism, sexual perversion, and blatant absurdities.

Eventually, however, I mustered the courage to say to myself, “If there exists a deity who will punish me forever for rejecting something as absurd, implausible, and disgusting as Christianity, then so be it.”

Experiences of an Apostate

God was never my friend and I didn't mourn his passing.

Reflections on Two Years Without God

Nevertheless, I celebrate my atheism for liberating me from the chains of religion and granting me the freedom to truly live in the light of reason.

The Muslim Immunity to Irony

I have since learned that Islamic scriptures are no less violent, intolerant, and hypocritical, simply more tedious and disorganized.

Rental Capsules vs. Neutral Spaces

Religion is the disease and secularism is the cure.

Three Church Signs

I believe every religion is false...

Of course, there are several other reasons why I wouldn't run or have any chance of being elected, but it was still interesting compiling this list. I know most atheist blogs have more virulent criticism than mine, but I consciously avoid being inflammatory for its own sake and I still end up disqualifying myself as a political candidate many times over simply be discussing what I believe in a relatively measured manner. Such is life in the United States.

Deity Replacement Therapy

I don't remember where I first encountered the idea of replacing God and Jesus in your mind with other names whenever you encounter them spoken or written by believers in order to remove any associated emotional baggage and to remind yourself how absurd religion sounds from the outside, but I would like to present my own list of common expressions having done exactly that. I have selected Zeus and Apollo as the father and son deities to replace God and Jesus, not because their mythology most closely matches Christian mythology – Osiris and Horus are probably the best fit – but because Zeus is the probably the best known pagan god and the name Apollo sounds better to my ears and can't be confused with the homophonic name Horace.

God » Zeus

• Zeus bless you.
• Zeus bless America.
• Zeus is love.
• Zeus works in mysterious ways.
  
• Zeus doesn't believe in atheists.
  
• With Zeus, all things are possible.
  
• In Zeus we trust.

Jesus » Apollo

• Apollo loves you.
  
• Apollo saves.
• Apollo is lord.
  
• Apollo is the answer.
  
• Real men love Apollo.
  
• You've got a friend in Apollo.
• No Apollo, no peace. Know Apollo, know peace.
• What would Apollo do?

I find it remarkable that a similar yet distinct effect results if you simply use the somewhat more proper but less familiar names Yahweh and Yeshua. The former brings a very abstract concept back to its origins as a historically provincial deity and the latter reminds you that Jesus was not the sanitized, westernized version many people imagine as their best friend.

If you think of any common expressions containing references to either God or Jesus, please leave me a comment and I'll consider adding them to the list. Thank you!

Theocracy vs. Liberty

This letter by Marcia Holliday was published on December 16th under the heading, “Nativity: No respect.”

I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I turned on a program and saw a piece about Willie Nelson mocking the Nativity with a song about bringing "pot" to the baby Jesus. And what was sadder is to see that people thought it was funny to mock our Lord's birth. Why do we forget that our country was founded on a belief in God and His divine protection? Forgive us, Lord. We need you more now than ever.

Ms. Holliday has the right to express her disapproval of the broadcast, but no more than Willie Nelson has the right to sing any song he pleases or anyone else to listen to any song they please. This nation certainly wasn't founded on theism; it was founded on individual liberty! I find her prayer within the letter rather presumptuous.

Goals & Accomplishments

Throughout most of this decade, I've approached the new year with a certain amount of dread. It seemed I had made another trip around the sun without doing anything important, without taking any steps to making my dreams come true. This year is quite different as I've chosen a new, promising career path and found the love of my life, so it seems especially appropriate to reflect on what has happened and what is yet to happen.

Here are my major accomplishments of 2008 (in chronological order):

• got accepted to law school
  
• got married
• moved out of old apartment

Here are my goals for 2009 (in chronological order):

• begin law school and study hard
• help wife obtain green card
  
• find new apartment

Happy New Year 2009!

Newspaper Problems

Two years ago, I started checking the opinion section of the local newspaper, The Florida Times-Union, daily for editorials and letters about religion and irreligion and responding to each of them here. It's been many months since my last entry of this type, and it appears it may be even more until my next. I don't subscribe to or otherwise purchase the paper version of the publication, so I'm dependent upon the online version, but the opinion section of the website hasn't been updated since December 4th. I've sent the newspaper multiple e-mails and received multiple responses, but it's still not updating. I know The Florida Times-Union, like all newspapers, has been struggling in recent years – they've resorted to the dangerous practice of having people stand in the medians of busy intersections selling copies to commuters stopped at red lights – and has been forced to cut back their staff, and I suspect this may be the issue. I know there have been numerous interesting pieces over the past month due to the annual discussion about Christmas, and I intend to write about them when they finally become available.

UPDATE: The issue has been resolved. It seems that the newspaper re-designed their website without re-directing the old addresses, so my bookmark was taking me to the old section which is no longer updated.

Happy Festivus!

I would like to wish all of my readers a Happy Festivus! For the rest of us! A donation has been made in your name to the Human Fund (“Money for People”). Please note that I display a Festivus pole year-round on this blog between the menu and the main text. If you want to air your grievances against the author, please leave a comment!

Ask the Author

This is your chance to pose a direct question to the author of Secular Planet outside of the framework of the regular blog entries and reasonably expect a direct response! I'd like especially to encourage questions on philosophical, theological or political topics, but I intend to answer all questions provided they're not too personal, revealing or absurd. If I decline to respond to a query, I'll explain why and at least acknowledge its receipt. In some cases, I may even choose to respond in a new blog entry devoted to your question. Anonymous questions are welcome!

My Mother Thinks I'm Going to Hell

Since my deconversion over four years ago, my Catholic family has never given me any trouble about my atheism. Outside of one occasion a long time ago during which my mother asked me a few simple, polite questions about what I believe now, they never even raise the topic of religion with me. They do talk about church activities around me, but it has nothing to do with my presence. They also pray before meals, but they've done that forever and I've never considered objecting, especially since it's quick and they're giving me free food! They never give me any flack whatsoever and never treat me any differently than they ever have, so the following episode surprised and hurt me.

A few weeks ago, my mother told me a story about my niece. My older sister regularly babysits two children of her neighbors who happen to be Buddhist. One day one of the neighbor kids heard something about Jesus and asked, "Who's Jesus?" My four-year-old niece told her, "You'd better know who Jesus is or you're not going to heaven!" My mother told me this story somehow thinking I would be amused, but I didn't laugh at all. I struggled to tell her I found it disturbing a little child has been taught to divide the world up into us versus them and tell people they're going to hell. She didn't seem to understand my viewpoint as she just thought it was funny a child would say something so adult-like. We talked and my mother expressed the (heretical from a Catholic perspective) opinion that it doesn't matter what religion you believed since they all lead to God. I asked her about the rest of the people and reminded her about me. She didn't say anything at first and said my beliefs are my own business.

So in the end, my mother who loves me very much and would do absolutely anything for me thinks I'll be damned to hell by her god who is supposedly all-loving for simply disbelieving in extraordinary claims without any evidence. In her view, it apparently doesn't matter what religious belief you have or why you believe it, you're still better than someone who looks at religion critically and decides it's simply not true. The dissonance between her belief and actions is remarkable. I thought about writing her a letter to express my thoughts, but I haven't done so. I see no need to risk adversely affecting our relationship over this evil belief which she doesn't talk about or act upon. It just bothers me that my family could possibly think I truly deserve to be roasted alive for all eternity. It makes me even more grateful for my new godfree wife whose love for me isn't obscured by systematic irrationality.

Home for Solstice

With the winter solstice approaching, I have a few choices of holidays to celebrate this year. Living in the United States and having a Catholic family, I will of course celebrate Christmas by visiting and exchanging gifts with my relatives on December 25th. While my family is rather religious, they have never asked me to accompany them to church since my deconversion and my own celebration will be entirely secular with the exception of listening to some carols which explicitly refer to Jesus. The rest of the traditions I observe have either secular or pagan origins, and I never bother decorate my home with a tree, wreath or lights because it's simply not worth the trouble to me.

Last year I wrote about my personal celebration of Humanlight, the relatively new Humanist winter holiday honoring reason, compassion and hope, but this year I don't feel as interested. I don't have any newfound objections to artificial holidays or to adding more around the winter solstice – I say the more, the merrier – but I've come appreciate that they can't be properly celebrated in isolation; they require some sort of community. As I'm not currently involved with any Humanist or freethought groups and I don't have any friends who've even heard about Humanlight, I'm going to forget about it this time around the sun and see what happens next year. My new wife shares my Humanist values, but we've never talked about Humanism explicitly, and this is her first year celebrating even a secular Christmas, so there's no need to overwhelm her with anything else simply to accommodate me.

I've also considered celebrating the winter solstice itself as it's the purely natural event which prompts or anchors all the other celebrations, but I realize that I'm already essentially observing it through them and I don't need to add any new practices. Let's all celebrate this time of year, whether we call Christmas, Yule, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, Humanlight or Festivus!

Influx of Readers

This blog has enjoyed an usually high number of readers over the past week and I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why. I haven't done anything to promote it in a rather long time and I don't suppose any of my previous efforts have just now shown such remarkable results. If you don't mind, please consider leaving me a comment telling me how you came here. Thank you!

UPDATE: Since multiple readers have commented they have found me through StumbleUpon, I have added a button for it and other bookmarking services to the end of each post to encourage more ratings and reviews.

Who is a Christian?

As my criticism of Christianity often focuses on the belief in a place of eternal punishment for nonbelievers and other sinners, sometimes I receive the response that not all Christians believe in hell. Since they cannot deny that in the gospels Jesus frequently spoke of hell and threatened his listeners with damnation for failure to follow him, they offer various explanations of these texts: he never said anyone will actually be damned, he was speaking metaphorically, he just meant you have to be a good person, he just meant you have to believe in something, he didn't really say this, he never really existed or even God doesn't exist! (Most often, however, they offer no explanation whatsoever and simply ignore the question completely, giving it no thought at all.) We find each of these views held by self-identified Christians, but how can one label apply to people with such disparate opinions and still retain any useful meaning? I'm well aware of the danger of falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy, but it seems we need to draw the line somewhere. There are perhaps as many different Christianities as there Christians in the world, but as for me, whenever I present criticism of the religion in this blog, I implicitly refer to the basic theology shared by Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism unless otherwise stated. I'm arguing against a specific collection and system of beliefs, not the label “Christian,” which can be and has been applied indiscriminately to almost anything. If I criticize a belief which you yourself don't hold, then you can ignore it and move on.

Levels of Control: Christianity vs. Atheism

I recently removed the Obama bumper sticker from the back of my car since the election is over and I decided that I don't want to give people controlling very heavy equipment at very high speeds an extra reason to feel any antagonism toward me on top of their general disdain for humanity. Despite this, earlier today I was pondering what the theoretical reaction might be to a sticker which read, “Smile! There is no hell!” I think the response would be less negative than to most anti-theistic messages, but I'm sure some people would think it's an evil lie intended to deceive people and lead them into hell although its actual purpose is quite the opposite: to help people free themselves from the control of manipulative institutions teaching an evil untruth! This led me to ponder the stark contrast between religion and irreligion with respect to control, and I've complied a short list of differences between Christianity and atheism on this matter:

Christianity

• We demand ten percent of your money.
  
• We demand at least one hour per week of your time.
  
• We demand total allegiance.
  
• Don't think for yourself.
  
• Obey all of our rules, even if they're absurd or evil.
  
• Only vote for candidates of whom we approve.
  
• If you disagree with us, you will be roasted in the flames of hell for all eternity.
  
• People on the other side are either knowing or unknowing agents of the devil.
  

Atheism

• We don't want your money.
  
• We don't want your time.
  
• We don't want your allegiance.
  
• Think for yourself.
  
• Live as you see fit.
  
• Vote for whomever you want.
  
• If you disagree with us, nothing bad will happen to you.
  
• Most people on the other side are good people who are simply mistaken. 
  

I used Christianity as an example since I know it better than any other religion, but most of the points could apply to the majority of religions with little to no adaptation. Atheism offers us freedom from religious tyranny, but it's our responsibility to use it wisely.

Atheism as Medicine

Although I have strong reservations about the Freedom from Religion Foundation's choice of venues for posting that “religion is but myth and superstition which hardens the heart and enslaves the mind,” I certainly can't disagree with the message itself. Religion is indeed a mental disease, and one which in my case was literally almost fatal. Critics of atheism often argue that it doesn't offer anything inherently positive or constructive and that it only tears down religion. They're correct, of course, but they're entirely missing the point. If religion is a disease, atheism is the medicine. It doesn't offer anything beyond canceling out superstition in exactly the same way that most medicine doesn't offer anything beyond canceling out sickness. We don't dismiss chemotherapy for just treating cancer but not offering any benefit to those who are already healthy! It may even be argued that I'm missing the point because atheism doesn't need to offer us anything whatsoever in order to be true.