The Gallant Skeptic

Religion Uses Suffering as a Recruitment Tool

2012-02-13T09:51:00.000-08:00

In a recent post in the Telegraph's religion page, Christina Odone says that secularists should leave Christians alone because no one else will feed the poor or take care of the sick if not for Christians. She says this as if these religious institutions provide these services for free.

This is something often touted by the religious as a defense of religiosity. But the truth is none of these services are provided for free. Altruistic endeavors on the part of religious organizations are, without exception, recruiting outposts. Churches don't build homeless shelters to help the poor; they build them to swell their recruitment; they build them to convince us they are non-profit organizations; and they build them for photo-ops with their clergy.

Moreover, this system is built into the ideology of religious conservatism. In America, right-wing Christian fundamentalists would love nothing more than for thousands of people to be denied assistance from the government in order that they would have no choice but to go to one of their religious charities at which they would be forced to listen to religious proselytizing. For example, recently the Daily Kos caught presidential hopeful Rick Santorum talking about why he thinks it's good for children to suffer by being denied assistance from the government. It is pretty clear why religious leaders want to force unwanted pregnancies on women and deny seniors medicare and social security. They want them relying on the church.

Shouldn't a philosophy major recognize the fallacious argument from authority?

2012-02-04T23:18:00.000-08:00

De Botton: One Point of Accord

2012-02-01T13:01:00.000-08:00

Alain de Botton has presented some rather controversial ideas regarding atheism and religion. De Botton seems to be advocating a need for an atheist church. Recently, I've had many discussions with humanists and secularists regarding the lack of community and social fulfillment within the secular community, but it seems to me that most of the needs of those secularists in search of a religious style community are satisfied by organizations such as the Unitarian church, which is comprised of many humanists and atheists; therefore, I see little need to create yet another religion.

There is one aspect of religion, however, that I have advocated that the the secular community adopt, and that is the practice of sending "missionaries" to developing parts of the world. If one considers that groups such as the Mormons are recruiting vigorously around the world, I think it is imperative that humanists answer in kind. More than ever, the humanist community needs people willing to go to remote parts of the world to teach people critical thinking, the value of skepticism, and the importance of the scientific method, as well as ethical and moral systems that are based on science and reason, rather than superstition, myths and religious dogma.

FYI Newt Gingrich: Your heroes are atheists

2012-01-31T22:16:00.000-08:00

During the Florida primary this past week, I've heard Newt Gingrich say that his interest in extra-planetary exploration is due to the influence of Isaac Asimov's Foundation books, and if given a choice of an actor by whom he would like to be portrayed, he would choose none other than Brad Pitt.

Considering Gingrich is a thoroughly indoctrinated right-wing Christian, albeit of the Roman Catholic variety, I find his choice of heroes rather ironic. First, Isaac Asimov did write "grandiose" novels about space exploration, but more importantly, he was a humanist and an outspoken atheist. Moreover, he wasn't just a garden variety humanist; he was the president of the American Humanist Association.

Furthermore, the same goes for Brad Pitt, who is among the few actors who have publicly admitted to their atheism.

All I can say is that it's too bad Gingrich doesn't make a greater effort to follow the examples of those he professes to admire. I'm pretty certain that we would all benefit greatly if Gingrich would acquire a dose of Asimov's skepticism and rational thinking.

Why are so many Roman Catholics courting the evangelical vote?

2012-01-30T23:41:00.000-08:00

Am I the only one who thinks it's a little odd that the two candidates that seem to be the most focused on the evangelical vote, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, are not evangelicals? Once upon a time, a Roman Catholic had about as much chance of getting an evangelical Christian's vote as an atheist does today. Remember the controversy around the election of John Kennedy because of his Catholicism?

Newt Gingrich: There is a War on Religion:

During a recent appearance on Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, Newt Gingrich explained why he thinks he's getting more popular among evangelical voters despite being a Catholic, a serial adulterer, and divorced. It's because he more than any other candidate understands that there is a "war on religion" out there and he's willing to do battle on evangelicals' behalf.

Read Full Post

Newt Gingrich: There is a War on Religion originally appeared on About.com Agnosticism / Atheism on Sunday, January 29th, 2012 at 12:00:17.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

A Little Morning Misanthropy

2012-01-28T10:32:00.000-08:00

Mother Jones recently published this article that outlines the evolution (no pun intended) of climate denialism. Incidentally, it occurred to me that I'm not quite certain for whom I have the least respect: The climate deniers, creationists, or anti-abortion activists. Then I realized if I just think of them collectively as the anti-science crowd, it simplifies things greatly.

Republicans Who Live in Glass Houses . . .

2012-01-26T22:17:00.000-08:00

I think Gingrich and Romney learned a thing or two about throwing rocks when one lives in a glass house. These two really should give up politics and create a comedy act. They're a little like the Odd Couple.

All hilarity aside, however, Romney actually states in this debate that 1) he doesn't know what ads he's running (not even the ones that say "My name is Mitt Romney, and I endorse this message") and 2) he doesn't know what investments he owns because he doesn't make his own investments. Nevertheless, he expects the American people to trust him with running the country. It sounds from this debate like he can't even run his own checkbook.

BBC News - Republicans clash over investments:

'via Blog this'

Skepticblog » Science TV “network decay”

2012-01-25T22:58:00.000-08:00

Skepticblog did a nice piece on the decline of cable TV. It's more or less a demonstration of how, over time, capitalism eats away at the quality and integrity of everything. It does this by promoting a business plan that persistently reduces everything to the lowest common denominator in order to maximize profits, and nowhere is it more evident than in our cable TV channels. Regarding the case of cable TV, and particularly those channels that are supposed to be focused on "science," one can either conclude they have been ruined by the free market system, or the 18-23 year-old male demographic is to blame.

Skepticblog » Science TV “network decay”:

'via Blog this'

The GOP achieved one thing at tonight's State of the Union address...

2012-01-24T23:55:00.000-08:00

They managed to appear as spiteful, dogmatic, contrary, and childish as humanly possible. Anytime the camera panned over Paul Ryan, he looked as though he couldn't even be bothered to stand. Moreover, I thought Boehner was going to burst a blood vessel. I didn't know it was possible to applaud so sanctimoniously.

'Weighty' Lord's Prayer issue to be heard in court | The Daily Times | delmarvanow.com

2012-01-24T12:33:00.000-08:00

Things like this make one wish that Moses had considered intellectual honesty to be important enough to include on those stone tablets that every Christian wants to impose on people the world over, yet none of whom seem capable of reciting.

'Weighty' Lord's Prayer issue to be heard in court | The Daily Times | delmarvanow.com:

'via Blog this'

Pot Calling the Kettle Black

2012-01-21T21:31:00.000-08:00

Christians maintain the most vitriolic disdain towards homosexuals, atheists, women, and members of opposing religions, yet they feel that the world discriminates against them. There truly are no limits to the delusions of which religion is capable.

Indiana Is Reaping What It Has Sown For Reproductive Rights

2011-11-02T11:42:00.000-07:00

MSNBC recently reported that Police in Indiana recently arrested two girls working as exotic dancers for child neglect because they were caught leaving their children unattended at home. Apparently one of the children, a three year old, was seen wandering around in the street in 34 degree weather.

Incidentally, it seems to me that if conservatives in Indiana weren't so preoccupied with defunding reproductive services, such as Planned Parenthood, perhaps these women would have realized what an egregious choice it is to have a child as a single parent without means in an already overpopulated world.

As it stands now, these two unwanted children will doubtlessly suffer as a result of their mothers' decision. Moreover, it is likely that these two children will ultimately end up becoming a further burden to the people of Indiana, either as wards of the state or as a result of bad behavior that results from inadequate upbringing and education. However, that is the price the citizens of Indiana must pay for their willfully ignorant position towards reproductive rights, and I can't say that I pity them for it.

Ray Bradbury Prophesied The NeoCon Incorporation of Religion

2011-10-29T11:09:00.000-07:00

"I often wonder if God recognizes His own son the way they've dressed him up, or is it dressed him down? He's a regular peppermint stick now, all sugar-crystal and saccharine when he isn't making veiled references to certain commercial products that every worshiper absolutely needs." - 1951 Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

Professor Alan Dershowitz on the Non-Christian Motivations of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers

2011-10-26T15:30:00.000-07:00

This is an excellent talk given by Alan Dershowitz on the non-Christian motivations of the founding father's of the United States. While I don't agree with Professor Dershowitz concerning all of his political stances regarding religion in society, I learned a great deal from this talk about the deistic nature of the founding fathers, particularly regarding Thomas Jefferson and his criticisms of Christianity.

Stephen Hawking on the Improbability of a God

2011-10-23T15:20:00.000-07:00

FYI To The GOP: Abortion Or Taxes? Which Is It Going To Be?

2011-10-07T05:40:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul: Greater Access To Birth Control Makes A ‘Mockery’ Of Christians | ThinkProgress:

'via Blog this'

Republicans say they don't like to be taxed in order to pay for social services, yet they seem to want women to give birth every time they have sex. A position that will only lead to a society that will require far more revenue for social services and thus more taxes, even if those services come in the forms of prisons, hospitals, and environmental repair.

In a recent of issue of the economist, researchers discussed how they are finding that the legalization of abortion has decreased the crime rate in America. Now imagine what American crime statistics would look like today if we not only hadn't legalized abortion, but also refused contraceptive pills and other reproductive health rights to women.

So if the conservative theocrats in this country don't like to pay taxes, they need to stop their misogynistic practice of obstructing women's access to reproductive health care, or they need to divvy up with the tax money and shut up about it. They can't have it both ways.

Furthermore, if conservatives think they can just go on abusing the poor while promoting policies that create more and more poor people, they would do well to remember: He who has nothing also has nothing to lose.

Humanists Cannot Afford To Be Passive Spectators

2011-10-01T12:27:00.000-07:00

Mormon church to expand to Colombia, Africa - US news - Faith - msnbc.com

MSNBC reported today that the Mormon church is expanding into Columbia and Africa. If this doesn't seem important to you, then I suggest you consider the fact that the Church of Latter Day Saints is a religious cult that promotes American exceptionalism, bigotry, and the worst kind of misogyny, and they are among the most aggressive proselytizers the world has ever seen. Because of this, Harold Bloom predicted in his book, The American Religion, that Mormons would eventually become the dominant religion of America and capture the White House. Moreover, that prediction is dangerously close to being fulfilled by Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

It is terrifying to speculate that a group of people so deluded and mentally brainwashed that they believe in things such as "magic underwear" could possibly be in control of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and they think America is a chosen nation by their "God." While American exceptionalism is a belief that is passively prescribed to by almost all evangelical Christians, it is actually written into the doctrine of this virulent and poisonous religious doctrine.

As secularists, we have a responsibility to confront and oppose the efforts of religious brainwashers such as the Latter Day Saints before it is too late. They are travelling the world converting the gullible and unenlightened to their absurd belief system, and humanists need to answer in kind. This is precisely why I argue that at no time in history has the world needed secular and humanistic missionaries, who might inoculate people in other parts of the world against these religious snake oil salesman, more so than now.

They Must Be Looking In The Mirror When They Say This . . .

2011-09-29T10:20:00.000-07:00

The Independent reported recently that the Jehovah's Witnesses' publication, The Watchtower, has taken to branding apostates of the religion as "mentally diseased." The Independent reports:

An article published in July's edition of The Watchtower warns followers to stay clear of "false teachers" who are condemned as being "mentally diseased" apostates who should be avoided at all costs. "Suppose that a doctor told you to avoid contact with someone who is infected with a contagious, deadly disease," the article reads. "You would know what the doctor means, and you would strictly heed his warning. Well, apostates are 'mentally diseased', and they seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings."

The irony of anyone related to Charles T. Russell's cult accusing ANYONE else of being "mentally diseased" is almost too good to be true. Keep in mind, this is the same organization that repeatedly prophecies the end of the world, only to have to repeatedly move the date further ahead when the "end" fails to come. Isn't there an expression we use for people who persistently fail at an activity, yet keep doing the same thing expecting different results? Oh, right, "mentally diseased."

Faith Makes You Gullible

2011-09-29T09:24:00.000-07:00

On September 28th, The Los Angeles Times reported:

"A San Fernando Valley doctor and evangelical minister who federal prosecutors said used bogus herbal medications to offer false hope to dozens of people suffering from diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer's was found guilty Tuesday of nearly a dozen federal charges."

Later the article goes on to explain how Christine Daniel stole money from evangelical cancer patients by claiming to have an herbal cure for cancer, even going so far as to tell one patient she had been cured of her terminal breast cancer. That patient died several months later. According to the Times, Daniels used the Trinity Broadcasting Network, an evangelical Christian broadcaster, to find her prey.

Reportedly, Daniels charged her "patients" anywhere from $4,270 to $150,000 dollars for the fraudulent treatments. Moreover, patients were taken to low income hotels where they were given placebo ointments and medications. The Times goes on to say that Daniels instructed her clients to report their payments as donations in order to help her avoid corporate taxes.

The religious make easy prey for criminals like this because they have already demonstrated their willingness to believe any kind of nonsense without a shred of evidence. While evangelical Christians obstinately deny realities such as evolution and climate science, two phenomena for which their is an overabundance of scientific facts and evidence, they wholeheartedly chase after quackery like this. In a sense, this is the price they pay for closing their minds to facts and evidence in order to cling to their dogmatic religious ideologies that are based on nothing more than quaint legends and myths. In fact, scams like that which Daniels pedaled are no different than the remedies offered by their religious clergy when they tell their congregations that prayer or some supernatural cosmic daddy will cure them or make them rich.

Ultimately, religious believers set themselves up for this kind of abuse by their willingness to believe anything that makes them feel good, with no regard for evidence or science.

A Humanist Perspective on Criminal Justice

2011-09-28T14:59:00.000-07:00

In a recent post on his blog, It's Only Natural, John Shook brought up some important points regarding shortcomings of the American justice system, and while I don't completely agree with his conclusion that opposition to the death penalty is the only clear humanistic viewpoint on the death penalty, many of his criticisms of American justice are spot on.

In the article, John says:

"The pro-death side behaves as if some people’s value is higher than others, the rights of the victim outweigh the rights of the accused, the desire for retribution should dictate just punishment, and that the government needn’t defend everyone equally."

Here he has touched on something that is symptomatic of a more globally flawed philosophy of justice that is practiced in the American legal system, and that is the philosophy of justice as revenge. Americans treat incarceration as a means of retribution rather than rehabilitation. One can easily see this sentiment in commonly used idioms, such as "He needs to pay his debt to society."

But is retribution the ultimate aim of a criminal justice system? As a humanist, I should certainly hope not. It seems to me that the ultimate function of any kind of criminal justice is to protect the public and to prevent people from breaking our laws, and this is where the practice of incarceration enters the picture. Why do we incarcerate people to begin with? We should incarcerate people when they are harmful to the public. Hence, it seems only rational that it would be beneficial to all parties to rehabilitate those criminals that need to be incarcerated in order to reintegrate them into society as functional and contributing members thereby relieving the public from its obligation to provide for said criminals. This is only logical thinking for any humanist who is interested in minimizing the suffering of humans and animals.

Unfortunately, the philosophy behind much of the policy driving the current practices of American justice has little in common with this philosophy. Instead, the American system of incarceration is driven by a desire for vengeance. The American public is more interested in an individual "paying for what he has done" than in rehabilitating them. And it's expensive.

Moreover, the problem is getting worse. In his book, Crime and Punishment in America, Elliot Currie wrote:

In 1971 there were fewer than 200,000 inmates in our state and federal prisons. By the end of 1996 we were approaching 1.2 million. The prison population, in short, has nearly sextupled in the course of twenty-five years. Adding in local jails brings the total to nearly 1.7 million. To put the figure of 1.7 million into perspective, consider that it is roughly equal to the population of Houston Texas, the fourth-largest city in the nation, and more than twice that of San Francisco. Our overall national population has grown, too, of course, but the prison population has grown much faster: as a proportion of the American population, the number behind bars has more than quadrupled. During the entire period from the end of World War II to the early 1970s, the nation's prison incarceration rate--the number of inmates in state and federal prisons per 100,000 population--fluctuated in a narrow band between a low of 93 (in 1972) and a high of 119 (in 1961). By 1996 it had reached 427 per 100,000.

And the sad consequence of this mentality is that our nation is going broke for it, because revenge is expensive. Every time we send a man to prison for life, we are essentially saying that the taxpayers will feed, house, and provide medical care for that person for the rest of his life. Furthermore, by focusing on the punitive effects of incarceration rather than possible rehabilitative solutions, we are not only wasting tax money, but also ruining the lives and causing unnecessary suffering. In fact, not only are we not rehabilitating inmates, but our prisons are actually making them worse.

Ultimately, in an age in which America is faced with difficult fiscal decisions such as whether to fund education for our children, provide health care for the elderly, or rebuild infrastructure, can we really afford a prison system that is this flawed?

Jesus: The First Communist?

2011-09-22T12:16:00.000-07:00

In a recent article from the blog, "On Faith," Gregory Paul wrote a piece explaining the incongruities that arise from the marriage of fundamentalist Christianity and free-market capitalism.

Gregory Paul points out that much of the Christian bible actually promotes a kind of socialism in which all of the congregation live in shared communities because they were supposed to be more concerned with riches in an afterlife for which they strove. Paul goes on to suggest that Marx likely took inspiration from bible verses.

What Gregory Paul neglected to point out, however, is that not only do Christians have to "cherry pick" those portions of the Christian bible that lend support to their own oddly objectivist inclinations, but they have to cherry pick quotes from Paul in opposition to Jesus!

For example, Jesus said:

On taxation:
Mark 12:17 "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."

On the virtuosity of the rich:
Mathew 19:24 "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

On the redistribution of wealth:
Matthew 19:21: "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."

Luke 12:33: "Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth."

On the pursuit of material wealth:
Matthew 6:19-20: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal."

Matthew 6:24 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

But American evangelical Christians aren't interested in any of that. Instead, they would rather think about what St. Paul said in II Thessalonians, an epistle about which there is speculation concerning the authenticity of the authorship:

II Thessalonians 3:10: "if any would not work, neither should he eat."

An FYI For The Anglican Archbishop: Argumentum Ad Hominem Does Not A Refutation Make

2011-09-21T10:50:00.000-07:00

Archbishop Rowan Williams of the Anglican church recently criticized modern atheists for being attracted to the cause of atheism because of some kind of "coolness" or "trendiness" factor. Hence, the archbishop conveniently sidestepped dealing with a real discussion that might address the many arguments atheists, such as Dawkins, have directed towards the Christian church. Rather than taking the opportunity to present an alternative argument to that presented by atheism in books such as The God Delusion, the Archbishop chose, instead, to belittle those who have challenged the Church's doctrine. By saying that modern atheists have somehow been persuaded by the philosophy's "coolness," the Archbishop is condescendingly saying that atheists are superficial and gullible individuals that are easily persuaded by fashionable ideologies. Furthermore, this is insulting to the highest degree, even more so when one considers the fact that atheists are, by and large, more educated than the average member of the Christian church.

The Archbishop's aversion to a genuine discussion concerning the truth regarding the doctrine of his church, however, is not surprising at all. When one is defending an extraordinary position for which there is not a shred of evidence, there is little else one can do but try to distract the jury's attention with diversionary tactics such as ad hominem attacks.

We Need to Find a New Title For the Poor

2011-09-17T12:54:00.000-07:00

Progressives need to stop referring to the population of people that are persistently getting railroaded by Wall Street as "the poor." Why? Because the moniker,"the poor," carries such a negative connotation that no one regards him or herself as such; therefore, many of the people who are being victimized are oblivious to the phenomenon.

The human psyche never allows itself to be grouped amongst others who are viewed negatively. The same way no one thinks he is a bigot, miser, or gossip. We think of these groups as those "other" people; a person thinks, "I couldn't possibly belong to such a despicable group," and we rationalize away any observable similarities.

To test this, go and ask any friend who earns an income that places him below the poverty line, and ask him if he is poor; then wait for the litany of explanations about how he is simply laid off, down on his luck, or "going through a transition."

This wouldn't be significant in anyway except that every time a progressive stands up and gives a speech about what is happening to the poor people stop caring, even those people who ARE poor. A person hears "the poor," and he visualizes some other group of people with whom he holds no sympathy.

Obama: Better Than the Alternative

2011-09-07T12:31:00.000-07:00

Liberals, of late, seem to have gotten on some kind of self-sabotage bandwagon where it seems to have become the "thing" to do to bash Obama for not living up to his campaign promises. Are progressives really so naive and gullible that they really thought that Obama was going to live up to all of his campaign promises? Even the fiscal ones?! Is it not startlingly clear that Democrats only differ from Republicans in the respect that they pretend to oppose Wall Street, whereas the Republicans outspokenly do so? How else might one explain why Democrats procrastinated and willfully obstructed passing a budget just long enough for the Republican congress to get voted into office. Or why Obama instantly extended the Bush tax cuts, as though he'd been holding his breath.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats only vote liberally on social issues, never when it comes to Wall Street. If we're talking about abortion, gay marriage, or some other issue that does not affect corporate America, they are more than happy to push liberal agendas. That is until one these issues conflicts with corporate interests, i.e. climate change. Additionally, it's quite possible that Democrats intentionally cherry pick those issues that provide the right-wing with the greatest sounding boards for their right-wing propaganda, essentially enabling the right-wing voting block.

With all of that being said, however, progressive voters are still either hopelessly idealistic or negligibly ignorant of political process if they are actually considering throwing away an incumbent presidency. Nothing would make the Republicans happier than for Democrats to turn their back on a sitting president, effectively giving Republicans a fifty percent shot at a White House they shouldn't have had a chance in hell of capturing. Moreover, every time a Democrat talks about an alternative Democratic contender, they are playing into the hands of the right, every bit as manipulated as those "useful idiots," the Tea Party.

And ultimately, as far as Democratic presidencies are concerned, Obama's not "that" bad. A look at Politifact.org shows that most of his campaign promises have either been kept or are in the works. After all, Bill Clinton was not a perfect progressive either.

More importantly, however, liberals need to consider the alternatives to Obama on the other side. Would anyone with good mental health care to consider the ramifications of a Perry, Bachmann, or Palin presidency? Think of George W. with consequences magnified exponentially. Can the economy, our reputation, or the environment take another four to eight years of some Wall Street, Republican goon running us into the ground fort the profits of a few wealthy oilmen or defense contractors?

The bottom line is that it's no secret that the Democrats are really Republicans in sheep's clothing, but in today's political environment they're the lesser of the two evils. A party that has to at least pretend to be liberal, even if only on a superficial level, is still superior to a party that has no progressive image-constraints with which to contend. The best a true progressive can hope for in this day and age is that the Republicans continue down their path of extremism, further alienating the independent and moderate voters until they are unelectable. At that point, progressives will be able to reframe the Democrats as the new Republicans, and then maybe a truly progressive party can rise up and fill the vacuum.

A Reminder

2011-08-06T13:06:00.000-07:00

In light of the recent credit downgrade, I thought it appropriate to remind everyone of the GOP strategy to create as much chaos as possible regarding the debt ceiling.