S.E. Cupp is exactly the kind of atheist I cannot identify with at all.

More in a moment.

The conversation was somewhat interesting — not interesting meaning “stimulating,” of course, but interesting meaning “amazing what some people believe.” For example, they told me that Catholics aren’t real Christians. While for some definitions of “real Christians,” they may have a point — the Pope is as different from Christ as humanly possible — absolutely all Catholics consider themselves true Christians.

Anyway, the youngest of the group is, if nothing, a good arguer and convinced me that I could not write off the book he was handing me, Answers to the 4 BIG Questions, simply because Ken Ham was a co-author. (“Ken Ham!?” I exclaimed, thinking of his laughable position on evolution. “That guy is a joke!” Our street-preaching friend noted correctly that my perceptions of Ham did not necessarily merit outright rejection of the book. But it turns out, my hunch was quite correct.)

This book goes off the tracks at step one: Picking four big questions. Without even going into the answers, here are my critiques of the questions themselves:

Question 1. “But doesn’t evolution explain our existence?”

No. No, it doesn’t, and no scientist would say that evolution by itself “explains our existence.” As Car Sagan famously noted, if one really wanted to make an apple pie from scratch, one would first have to create a universe, fill it with atoms, etc., etc. Evolution is part of “how we got here” but does not and could not explain the whole universe. (Any believers reading should take note that most atheists are — at least intellectually! — fine knowing that science has not explained why the universe exists at all. We don’t feel the need to pretend to know that a mythical being created it.)

Bad question.

Question 2. “How did different ‘races’ arise?”

If that is one of the four biggest questions on your mind, I can only assume you are racist. But Biblical literalists always surprise me, and apparently if God created exactly two people — Adam and Eve — then we should not expect to see so many races, especially without evolution, making Africans, Asians, Native Americans, Europeans and the like a direct challenge to your notion of God.

I remember seeing a question regarding skin color in a science museum as a child. I understand that melanin causes skin pigmentation and is important in resisting sun damage, so with a rudimentary understanding of evolution we might expect populations living in areas with a lot of sun — e.g. Africa, not so much England — to have darker skin.

Not a very perplexing question.

Question 3. “Cain’s wife–who could she have been?”

This is the part where I start laughing. If one takes Genesis as a parable or myth, it’s a pointless question.

But to Biblical literalists, it’s significant. This book actually states that one of Adam and Eve’s other children became Cain’s wife. Of course, this leaves the assumption that one of the first, few humans on the face of the earth decided to run away with the murderer of her own brother to start a thriving family. Then again, the Old Testament is almost always that messed up.

Question 4. Does God exist?

Probably the only question in the book that is legitimately one of the big ones.

Of course, my answer to this question is “depends on how you define God.” The Christian God is a contradiction in terms and probably cannot exists. Some god could possibly exist, but I have not seen proof of this and remain unconvinced. Fair enough, right?

In general — terrible book, terrible questions, and as always, atrocious pseudo-science from the Answers in Genesis people.

Before I even respond to her piece, I need to point out that I could never consider it moral to be an active Catholic — one’s donations, in part, are used to pay the families of abuse victims to be quiet, keeping the truth under the rug and the youth in danger.

The question has come my way several times in the past week: “How do you maintain your faith in light of news stories that bring light to the dark places that exist within your church?”

Interesting phrasing; she seems to be quite fond of light/dark imagery. Anyway:

When have darkness and light been anything but co-existent? How do we recognize either without the other?

Ah, that explains the word choice.

It’s a poor analogy and a shameful argument.

Elizabeth seems to be making the argument that we could not recognize how brilliantly great most of the Catholic church is if we didn’t have a few pedophiliac child-rapists with black collars.

I wonder if she would like to explain this reasoning to the victims. I can’t imagine the family from the documentary Deliver Us from Evil Goons would find any comfort here.

Seriously, Ms. Scalia. Stop thinking in metaphors.

I remain within, and love, the Catholic Church because it is a church that has lived and wrestled within the mystery of the shadow lands ever since an innocent man was arrested, sentenced and crucified, while the keeper of “the keys” denied him, and his first priests ran away.

I approve of slavery because it has been practiced at least somewhere in the world ever since a supposedly innocent man was said to have been arrested, sentenced and crucified؟ (Yes, that’s the irony mark, perfect for sarcasm.)

This is your reasoning, Elizabeth? It’s a non-sequitur. The longevity of an organization does not affect the morality of being a member!

Through 2,000 imperfect — sometimes glorious, sometimes heinous — years, the church has contemplated and manifested the truth that dark and light, innocence and guilt, justice and injustice all share a kinship, one that waves back and forth like wind-stirred wheat in a field, churning toward something — as yet — unknowable.

Does this mean anything? To anyone? If anything, it sounds more Taoist than Catholic to me. Again, we have no argument, no reason, and no morality.

The darkness within my church is real, and it has too often gone unaddressed.

This is the core complaint the outside world has with the ranks of the Roman Catholic Church (and other religious organizations with recent sex abuse scandals). It’s not that some church members did horrible things. To err is human, after all. It’s not even that supposedly trustworthy authority figures abused their super-human images (doubt it? Catholic priests use magic to turn wine into blood and sin into absolution!) to the detriment of children. It’s that over and over the people highest up in the church did nothing to stop these crimes from being committed again!

So it seems Elizabeth, too, is aware of the evil of inaction at the top of her Church. Right? Let’s continue:

The light within my church is also real, and has too often gone unappreciated.

Too often for whom?

What real harm came from this supposed inattention?

A small minority has sinned, gravely, against too many. Another minority has assisted or saved the lives of millions.

Elizabeth is now arguing that the net effect of the Church is positive. As an atheist, I would tend to disagree — cough, Galileo; cough, the Crusades; cough, Nazi complicity; cough Northern Ireland — but the claim bears investigation. After all, there are those who work under the umbrella of the Church to do good works.

Like Mother Theresa, right? Except that she didn’t really help people — she was primarily an anti-contraception activist and self-promoter who caused more poverty and misery than she ever solved.

But surely the other missionaries Elizabeth alludes to have bettered mankind? Valerie Tarico has written a fantastic examination of this claim. It’s not so clear-cut as many would think. Missionaries’ main goal isn’t to help in this world. It’s to convert followers, which they do by tying aid to religion (the modern way) or killing those who don’t convert (the old way). Forced conversion. A direct violation of human rights.

Wouldn’t it be more ethical to give money to a secular aid organization? You know, one that doesn’t have a long history of forced conversions and child abuse cover-ups?

So now, Elizabeth has only successfully argued for trading in a Roman Catholic rosary for a Red Cross receipt.

But then, my country is the most generous and compassionate nation on Earth; it is also the only country that has ever deployed nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

Debatable! Ah, the arrogant patriotism of a U.S. citizen.

And does she really mean to say that we must support warlike activities if we want to be compassionate? Does she truly believe sending one’s taxes to a government that doesn’t bomb civilians to be no more moral than the alternative?

My government is founded upon a singular appreciation of personal liberty; some of those founders owned slaves.

And look at the progress we’ve made. She doesn’t have much of a point here, if we consider than any good of the Catholic church (e.g. aid) can be had without the huge negatives (e.g. child rape). And it can.

The rest of her piece is no better. She talks more about child abuse.

But she completely misses the point.

Until the cover-ups stop, it’s unethical to be a Catholic.

That actually depends on how you define Christianity.

The select few who call themselves Christians without subscribing to core modern Christian beliefs (the divinity of Jesus, virgin birth, triune God-head, vicarious redemption), taking the Bible as a collection of myths and advice, could have be Christians for rational reasons. Following the Jesus character’s advice regarding how to treat one’s neighbor is a worthy goal. I don’t see any reason why this “Christianity” would be necessarily irrational.

However, anyone who believes in the same God most Christians do — a miracle-working slacker who loves and damns everyone — has a logically impossible belief-set. Heck, I used those core beliefs to prove such a god would be evil. None of it makes any sense. That kind of religion can never be rational.

“Nonsense,” said Father Doyle, who has served as an expert witness in sexual abuse lawsuits. “Pope Benedict is a micromanager. He’s the old style. Anything like that would necessarily have been brought to his attention. Tell the vicar general to find a better line. What he’s trying to do, obviously, is protect the pope.”

It gets better, too: The super-conservative Catholic church is idiotically maintaining that its mandatory celibacy for priesthood has no influence on child abuse & child rape (AP).

I feel so ashamed that so much of my extended family places their trust, faith, and money in the hands of this evil, corrupt institution!

More here on the New York Times, which is where today’s quotes are to be found. Hat tip to @vjack for first covering this.

The most obvious response is to point out that religion hurts people besides the believer:

1. War. Obviously.

2. Intolerance.

3. Child abuse.

4. Terrorism.

   On May 21, 2005, LaRose haunted by what appears to be a sad and hard life began drinking heavily. Depressed over her father’s recent death, LaRose in an attempt to take her life, swallowed eight to 10 prescription muscle relaxers. Failing to kill herself, Colleen LaRose was now at a crossroads in her life. After months of receiving counseling for depression and alcoholism, LaRose apparently found spiritual rebirth in the form of Islam. Unfortunately, the brand of Islam that gave her purpose to live was a brand that advocated death to America, the West and Israel.

   – When looks can kill: The Story of Jihad Jane AKA Colleen Renee LaRose

5. Et cetera.

More subtly, but just as valid, is the observation that religion doesn’t even necessarily make the believer happier.

1. While the most common “benefit” of belief is “coping with death,” studies have shown religious types actually have the hardest time coping with their own death.

   Case closed!

   But if that didn’t convince you, read on.

2. People I know in real life have been very much hurt by their religion. A family member, for example, is incapable with dealing with human sexuality in any but the most conservative context, to the detriment of this person’s personal life.

3. A number of friends of mine have broken up with significant others because they found they loved them “more than they loved Jesus.” (This kind of blows my mind, since that means their closest relationship is with an imaginary friend who wants to send most people to hell and who speaks Aramaic.)

4. As recounted in The God Virus, religion can even make priests miserable. The author of the God Virus tells of a priest so overcome with Catholic-inspired guilt over his occasional masturbation — that he ends up hating himself for it, unable to think of much else.

If you haven’t seen the documentary Deliver Us From Evil Goons, do so. It makes the abuses of the Catholic leadership personal, as it documents, in particular, the effects paedophile priests have had on one family.

The following is an excerpt from Vatican heaps insult on injury for Irish abuse victims from the National Secular Society.

The Ryan Report found the Catholic Church and Irish government covered up almost four decades of sexual abuse and beatings by priests and nuns on thousands of children in State care. And the Murphy Report unveiled a catalogue of cover-ups by the Catholic hierarchy in Dublin to protect the Church. But in a Vatican statement, the Pope specifically failed to acknowledge the cover-up or formally apologise for the abuse. The Pope also failed to sack under-fire Bishop of Galway Martin Drennan – or even formally accept the resignations of other bishops, who were criticised in the Murphy Report for their mishandling of cases of sexual abuse. We understand no bishop or higher-ranking Catholic prelate has ever been laicised (sacked) for active or administrative misconduct over child abuse.

Ratzinger also ignored the failure of the Papal Nuncio to co-operate with the Murphy Commission’s investigation into abuse in Dublin.

[The] Pope had told the bishops the sexual abuse of children and young people was not only a heinous crime, but also a “grave sin that offends God and wounds the dignity of the human person created in his image”.

The … Pope had also told bishops that the “weakening of faith” was a significant contributing factor in the phenomenon of the sexual abuse of minors.

Maeve Lewis, of support group One in Four, said the Pope’s response was inadequate. “It is deeply insulting to survivors to suggest they were abused due to failures of faith, rather than because sex offending priests were moved from parish to parish, and those in authority looked away while further children were sexually abused,” she said.

Update: See also [p2p type="tag" value="pope-benedict-xvi-more-closely-tied-with-sex-abuse"]

• I appreciate the holiday season, as I do Thanksgiving, for the way it brings families together, especially extended families.
• I tend to resent the forced gift-giving materialism aspect of it, naturally.
• I object to the efforts of some to try to make the holiday Christ-centric. It’s common knowledge the solstice was chosen as the date for Christ’s birth to ease the (forced) conversion of new Christians.

So what does an atheist like myself do?

• I celebrate “the holidays” with minimal, practical or thoughtful gift-giving.
• I wish friends a happy holiday.
• I don’t freak out or correct anyone who innocently wishes me a “merry Christmas,” not because I am afraid to offend, but because I don’t want to make anyone sorry for the kind act of attempting to spread some cheer! And of course, Christmas is fairly secular for a lot of people, so it’s not like they just wished me a “merry feast day of Our Lady” or some such completely, overtly faith-based thing.

Happy holidays, and make the best of 2010!

Troubling is how Lt. Governor Andre Bauer busts out the tired “liberal activist judges” trope that the lunatic GOP fringe is so fond of:

[The ruling] once again shows how liberal judges are not just interpreting the law but making legislation.

Of the donations supporting the anti-gay Yes on 1 measure in Maine, 89% ($3 million) came from churches, Christian organizations, and their employees. The Catholic Church alone directly contributed $553,608.27.

Ah yes, Christian charitable giving. Warms the cockles of the heart.

Does anyone care to explain why Catholics think preventing gay couples from happy commitment is worth half a million dollars?

I’ll take a stab at it: Because the Catholics are all about creating guilt for, and instilling control over, the sexual and reproductive nature of, well, everyone. Their dogma is that sex (which they define to include masturbation and oral sex) is only appropriate for married couples attempting to procreate. Gay sex — indeed, homosexuality itself — is a direct challenge to that idea; for if God made men who have sex with men, procreation can hardly be the only purpose of sex, can it?

And then where will the Catholic babies come from, if Catholic couples no longer fear damnation if they use birth control?

Disgusting.

Letter: The toddler Jesus

John Coutts Tuesday, 30 December 1997

The toddler Jesus

Sir: Glad tidings! Miles Kington has taken up New Testament studies (16 December). But he is way off-target in suggesting that Mary’s Boy Child would have made grown-up remarks at the age of six months. Luke’s Gospel (2:46,52) makes it quite clear that Jesus was a normal child who “grew both in body and wisdom” and asked questions rather than giving answers.

JOHN COUTTS

Gravesend, Kent

The passage in question recounts the story of Jesus going to the temple as a young boy/man and simultaneously learning and debating Jewish theology in an extraordinarily gifted manner. This is weird, because where is that skill coming from? The fact he is God? Then why does he need to learn anything at all?

That is a reason that a baby Jesus is absurd. What was God thinking as he waved his little hands and soiled himself?

Here is the problem, as I see it, with “blind faith.” If someone came to me and said I must buy a house, I must live in this house for my whole life, but I can’t look it over too hard, and I can’t fix anything that is wrong with it, I just have to have “faith” that it is a sound house, that I can live with the things that are wrong with it – I would say “no way.” I’m going to have this thing inspected, I’m going to look in the basement, check out the roof, and if there are things wrong with it, I’m going to fix it. I would never buy a house on blind faith; I would expect proof that it was a good deal. Yet I am expected to give over my life and soul to some god based on faith, with no proof that he was really there. Sorry, no way.