Skepticism vs. Cynicism

Just entering the word Cynicism in google presents me with a problem I see in society at large. A synonym of Cynicism is Skepticism in this narrow google definition, and although they have largely been viewed as similar by many, it is so important that we take a moment and iron out why one is not productive, and the other is the foundation of modern civilization.

Originating in the Greek Skepsis, meaning inquiry, Skepticism is an approach of learning using doubt and critical thinking skills as opposed to authority, faith, or anecdotal evidence. Greek thinkers, such as Pyrrho, Epicurus, and the stoic philosophers such as Zeno, Seneca, Hierocles, tried to work out the best way to learn about the natural world, and in the process, the figured out that people are not necessarily honest to themselves. Richard Feynman astutely noted that the easiest person to fool is one's self, thus we must try to doubt our experiences and what we think we know.

Using Skepticism, we can attempt to verify evidence for our beliefs objectively, by removing human error. Of course this is the basis of the Scientific Method, and remains today the most reliable method of determining truth from fiction.

If I told you there was a UFO in my garage, you would be skeptical, or the world would call you credulous, gullible, or naive without asking for evidence. This is skepticism and modern education at work.

Cynicism on the other hand, is defined as: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.
In other words, it is an attitude defined by negativity, one of ripping down walls, rather than constructing them. These two are often confused and a rational thinker's attempt to bring reason into a conversation is often perceived as being cynical. 

Let's try to differentiate the two and remember that when someone is skeptical of your position, we should receive it well. When someone is being cynical, we should ask them to ask them to either find the flaw in our logic, or propose a better idea.  We can be very positive skeptics in this world. As for me, I am an optimist, and a hardened skeptic. They are far from mutually exclusive. In fact, I would go so far as to say that skepticism has made me more eager for life, increasing my curiosity and passion for the world, knowing we can move forward together!

Please comment on your experienced between the two concepts. Ten points to who can name the philosopher we get the word Cynic from...

The Harm of Faith

Christopher Hitchens once called faith the most over-rated virtue. Voltaire described it as what is beyond the power of reason to believe. Personally, I find it to be one of the most destructive forces in the modern world, and yet so many consider it benign.

So what is faith? If all things can be broken down philosophically into beliefs, and knowledge being beliefs of considerable certitude, then where does faith lie? It would seem when one has a belief which is not justified by reason, logic, or evidence, then perhaps we call that faith. Still, there are so many beliefs which are adjusted, altered or dropped due to new evidence.

That is because Faith is a belief that one REFUSES to give up regardless of the evidence against it.  As Nietzsche put it: "Faith: not wanting to know what is true." Faith is the ultimate weapon of religions and is isolated to one thing - God.

You see, despite how loosely the word is used in our every day vernacular, most of those examples are misapplied. Faith and trust are two different things, and since trust relies on experience and evidence, it is most often what people mean. You do not have faith in your spouse, you have trust. The same goes, for that matter, for doctors, the military, technology, transportation, etc... These are all things you have had a lifetime of experience with, and have come to trust them.

If someone has faith in their love, but then the relationship goes wrong, one would be considered crazy to still pursue the relationship with the same vigor afterwards. We often use faith to describe a sense of optimism we might have, however it is not to be confused with the faith of religion.

In a world where we are pushing so hard to improve education, to increase critical thinking skills, we find ourselves shocked by some of the zanier aspects of society and what they are willing to believe, but that does not concern me as much as the troves of people in the US who are simultaneously encouraged to apply skepticism,critical thinking, and faith in god.

So long as society thinks it is OK to believe in something for no reason at all, we will continue to be plagued by ideas which hold us down from progress. Climate change denial, creationism, job-creators, traditions, avoiding vaccines due to paranoia, alternative medicines, trickle-down economics, and so many more are simply held in place because some think it is OK to believe something despite the lack of evidence, or because of a poor application of logic.

Aron Ra described faith as the ultimate test of gullibility, to see how much you are willing to believe with the slightest evidence. So the question is, on the topic of faith, why is there anything encouraged to be believed without sufficient reason?

The Nature of Offense

Offense is such a fascinating and vibrant tool

It defines limitations in interaction. It can be reciprocated. It can be created, taken, and given. It can be said to be not offered yet received regardless (No offense). Originating from the Latin offensus, meaning 'collision' or 'knock', the synonym is how I find it most often used.

Offense as a Defense

In the world of the indefensible, the ideas that are too complicated, not well thought out, or based on no evidential reason whatsoever, offense comes out surprisingly quickly. How many times have you asked someone to explain their position on something *cough*Chiropractic* and they respond with a very personal answer or perhaps by making it an attack on them personally or their judgement?

Similarly, religious people, or those with faith often tend to bind the notions of their existence with that of their faith and reproach those who question the belief itself as an attack on their identity.

It would seem that whenever you have a double standard in society, offense will make it's way in an effort to resist change. Be it war on Christmas, prayer in classrooms, or gay marriage, offense has always played a role. But let me make it very clear. Offense is a choice.

Offense is a choice

See, I made it clear. No matter the topic, offense is a choice of those who claim to be offended, not those supposedly offering offense. If I told you your shoes looked horrible with that suit, it would be entirely on your shoulders to take note of my intentions, tone, and relationship with you and evaluate whether or not you want to be offended. If you chose to be offended, it is your choice. Remember that.

So when I say many of the things I say in public regarding religion, many find it prudent to take offense perhaps in an attempt to silence me or make me look bad. For too long has this led to some of the most important topics being ignored or suppressed. The very nature of the passive Midwestern society we live in must be confronted head on in order to get over the anti-intellectual state of mind we have so often submitted to.

Offense must occur

So before civil rights showed the racists and bigots of the world, it was considered offensive to call whites and blacks equals. Before the LGBT movement opened the world's eyes, gay and lesbian relationships were considered to be offensive. It used to be offensive to question your elders, tell people not to smoke around you, and to interact with your teachers. All progress will cause some level of offense.

When I am told by the liberal religious and accommodationist atheists that I should not be offensive to the notions of faith and religion, I have to ask why? Why, for example, is it OK for those of faith to believe that atheists are heathens contributing to the downfall of civilization (something I do not take offense to), but not OK for me to suggest that faith is detrimental to society (something people often take offense to)?

Should I be taking offense to others? Would it make a difference? No to both, in my opinion. I understand my ideas are offensive to some, and I also understand that is a necessary offense for the sake of progress. I ask the people in the world not to take offense as a defense, but to engage in dialog so we may better understand our positions. Let's build a better world together without such vacuous responses or reactions.

The World We Live In

In Darwin's Pharmacy, Richard M. Doyle speak of the nature of dreams, of how dreams, aspirations, and hopes shape reality. If the role of human imagination is to conceive of all these delightful ideas, and grip fervently onto them in hopes they become reality, then I feel my dreams for the future of society are justified if I can simply convince another human being that it would be beneficial to enact them.

 I dream of a world where we can live side by side in a skeptical society which desires to better itself via critical thinking, corrections, and the humility of doubt.  In each of these is a recipe for the improvement of the world, but together they would offer a civilization capable of forward thinking and eventually transcendence of our Pale Blue Dot.

When I am corrected in my language, I swallow my pride and say 'Thank You'. When I am informed of my errors, I adjust accordingly and apologize. When my deeds have been shown to be harmful, I subject myself to penance.

So why am I treated with such hostility when I would like to hold my friends, my relatives, or my colleagues to these standards? Is there a legitimate reason why these standards are not good enough for the world around me? Perhaps am I merely striking a chord with society's personal bubble and probing into otherwise untouched insecurities?

I would like to hear from the readers: Have I placed an unfair expectation on the rest of society? Why should we not expect our fellow humans to indulge in self-improvement? Why should we not nudge people to embrace themselves and tackle their fears?

How many times have people been enabled in their insecurities, fears, and weaknesses because we were afraid to offend? As a community we must offer support, friendship, and compassion, but not enable the worst parts of people. We must embrace idiosyncrasies,  yet drive out biggotry and intolerance.

Above all, the objective verification of evidence and the avoidance of subjective truth is integral for this system as it creates a sense of humility in the experience of the individual and simultaneously builds empathy and reason.

That is the world I want to live in. Who is with me?

New Optimism

A new wave of optimism has struck the Fargo area, an area marred by corporate interests, national religious lobby groups, and a drastic misrepresentation of the masses.

Since my previous posts, the last being in May, the Secular Community has thrived, providing an opportunity for a taboo-free discussion and a weekly venting for so many like myself who are discouraged from expressing critical thinking during the course of the average day.

The last half year has been eventful, with awareness campaigns in the streets, helping to bring together student organizations, secular movie showings, and group efforts in engaging the local scientific and religious communities.

Last month, The Interfaith network, hosted by David Myers, had a panel discussion with four atheists of diverse background on Concordia Campus, including Trevor Nelson, and Jeffrey Eide from the F-M Secular Community. We were received very well by a public hungry for dialog on a topic they are told not to discuss.

Lastly, let me shout out a boisterous congratulations to the entire group who helped to put together and plan the Great Plains Atheists, although I am not sure if they want to be named just yet. In the coming articles and entries, I intend to lay out our greater plans and explain why I am inspired by the efforts of my friends and partners.

It is good to be back on the blogosphere, so by all means, please browse my previous entries, many of them from the last of my travel days, and comment as much as possible. I hope this can become a source of dialog for the area.

Short Break

Hello everyone, I have to apologize for the lack of entries recently, since I started my new full time job. Between the ridiculous amounts of volunteering and working, very little time is spent for working on blog entries. Until I figure out my new schedule, I will have to take a short break, but I WILL be back, as plans move forward to raise awareness in the Fargo area and help to spread a message of positive atheism and solidarity.

The Unbelievers!!!

I am anticipating the upcoming Dawkins/Krauss documentary: The Unbelievers!

Check out the trailer for the movie here, and a couple of interviews from CNN and Global News Canada.

On IMDB they show the full intellectual lineup, and it looks nice. I imagine the film will tickle people in all the right ways. As always, Dawkins does not exactly present the best public image for atheists during the interviews, and often fails to answer questions, but with Krauss by his side, things are going well.

It goes without saying that I wish there was always more time to express one's point of view, and to have my own voice in there as well, sometimes. Anyway, as the premier of the film gets underway, I will try to get it to come to the Fargo Theater!

Can't Wait!

Today Frans de Waal is presenting "The Bonobo and the Atheist: Morality, Religion, and Prosocial Primates" at the Fargo Theater. Excited and motivated, we are rallying the group to come and enjoy a good scientific presentation.

No doubt, there will be a number of people there who have a quarrel with the inclusion of Atheists. I expect many religious people will be there, entirely devoid of scientific understanding to push the idea of god as well.  I hope there is no quarrel but good discussions. If you are in the Fargo area, feel free to come join.

http://www.ndsu.edu/news/view/article/16928/

Why it is so important to not take topics of interest personally

Welcome back... After a much needed break to catch up on some lethargy, I have a new entry. Lately I have been in contact with some interesting people around Fargo, and in the process, seem to have made an unwarranted enemy.

To keep the subject of this entry concise, the topic of discussion will have to wait until later, but know this. A man who claims to be a scientist is quoted in saying that "creativity is more important than skepticism" in the scientific method. I drastically disagree with him on this subject, but more importantly, when his ideas were proposed, the web of conspiracy theory, ad hominem attacks, and personal defenses shot up immediately.

It is so important to understand that I respect people if they behave themselves, it is the IDEAS I am judging. A true scientist would revel in the opportunity to find skeptics and the possibility of being shown to be wrong. Dawkins often recants the tale of his influential professor who was quickly shown his lifework was ill founded and then thanked the man publicly for providing an answer.

You see, incredible ideas, extraordinary developments need to be supported by extraordinary amounts of evidence. Thus, when you present something that would shake the very foundations of our understanding of nature, then yes, I do expect extraordinary evidence.

When you do not have that, I do not care if you don't have the time or money to investigate. This is your problem, the possessor of the burden of proof. When you are not in possession of sufficient evidence, you should both not make any conclusions nor claims. Yet the claims have been made. More importantly, I, who should be your friend in this endeavor have been made into your foe because your desire to believe the idea is stronger than the evidence.

This man, who I used to call a gentleman,  has resorted to verbal attacks and physical threats to defend his ideas. He has made it personal. Not only is this ineffective at determining truth from fiction, it serves to create drama. Emotions have no place in this objective process. I ask this man, please, drop this personal attachment to his ideas and approach it honestly and with humility.

Brought a tear to my eye.

When you see people coming together to overcome bigotry, to stand united for the happiness of others, and to encourage love and compassion in the world, it is hard not to be moved. Yesterday in New Zealand, the Parliament legalized Gay Marriage and the resulting celebration was beautiful.

People watching from the public gallery, and some lawmakers immediately broke into song after the result was announced, singing the New Zealand love song "Pokarekare Ana" in the local Maori language.

What Can You Hope to Accomplish?

So every Wednesday, the only women's clinic in North Dakota capable of performing abortions opens for those in need of medical care, testing, immunization, surgery, and counselling. Downtown Fargo's streets are moderately busy and the sidewalks are filled with pedestrians, unlike most places in the city.

Along with those pedestrians, protesters line the sidewalk in front of the clinic, speaking against women's rights in favor of the sanctity of life. Dramatically misinformed by the pulpit, these religious voices use all kinds of dishonesty designed to make women feel uncomfortable. With doctored images on placards, messages of fear-based religiosity claiming demons, hell, and suffering, as well as shouting at, assaulting, and browbeating the clients at the women's clinic. This is their method to influence people who have already committed to professional help.

I guess I am not surprised, religions have used these tactics since the beginning to scare people into belief. But that is the end of it: belief. Their actions are dictated by their religion and the law does not reflect that; so they protest.

Many stand silently while praying. Others sprinkle holy water in front of the clinic. When put all together, all I have to ask is: What can you hope to accomplish??

Praying has not helped one iota, while harassing people has only created more animosity to Christians. Everyone driving by can see their motivations are religious and understand more and more every day that religion leads you to say and do horrible things.

Yet they continue. I asked many of them if they think their prayers are effective, and they seem to believe so. Every day I experience this delusion first hand, my passions have been rekindled to raise the alarm about religion. I hope you can see it too.

Familiarize yourself!

While discussing many topics with Christians in this country about topics like creationism,  I hear the same old arguments over and over again, obviously taken from other sources and accepted wholeheartedly without a grain of thought to them. 

Then again, what do you expect with a group of people who simply accept the Bible as the word of a deity. 

listen to a few examples!

The Importance of Skepticism

It seems that I can never tire of reinforcing critical thinking and skepticism in society, simply because in every direction I can look, there is, like the bat-signal, a need to apply them.

From pseudoscience to religion, from alternative medicine to quack psychologists, to slack in out intellectual integrity, to remove the pressure for scientific rigor is to fall into the dark ages of snake-oil salesmen and shamanism.

Please try your best not to invoke special pleading or move the goal posts, but to apply skepticism and critical thinking to every aspect of life as needed. TheraminTrees has, on YouTube  a new video explaining the need of skepticism and the imminent danger presented to our lives and our society without it.

Worth every second, a very informing video about the inner workings of quack science in the UK.

State Religion?

Headline: North Carolina May Declare Official Religion Under New Bill

A new state religion? Wow, I hope it's Islam! Conservative politics are all about reducing federal control and allowing the populations choose what's right for them based on popular vote. At the very core of it, what the Tea Party and conservatives are trying for is to remove all those federal bans of religion and state to allow the majority faith to be allowed to ram itself down everyone's throats.

When people point to how domesticated Christianity has become since the middle ages, I have to point out that it is not through it's own volition, but rather through being muzzled by secularism that it conforms, if only to survive. Naturally, like any muzzled beast, it is trying to cast off it's bonds and return to it's roots.

It's roots being the point at which it had ultimate control, the dark ages.

Of course, the country will return to civil war before it allows such things, and Texas will run as soon as it gets a chance as well! But we must do what is best for ALL the people, ensuring rights and religious freedom for the entire population, not merely the majority religion.

From North Dakota's abortion ban to North Carolina's requirement of god for a position of office, there is much work to do to ensure we stop oppressing each other in the public square. Even Bill O'Reilly knows only bible thumpers stand between homosexuals and gay marriage.

Dawkins Evolves

Richard Dawkins has always been the loudest of the 'New Atheists', and despite his magnificent advancements in our understanding of Evolutionary Biology, Dawkins has always been known as one who does not present himself as well as he might. It has been up to others, such as Krauss, Harris, or the late Hitchens to offer the more salient verbiage.

So when you hear Dawkins use the parlance of our times, it shocks you as much as your grandma might when she decides to slip out the occasional swear word. Please enjoy the following clip.

Should Britain Become Secular

Yes.


Oh, you wanted more? I enjoy listening to both sides of the argument, so I will attach this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EE-4wy8vsiQ

BBC One's debates are always enlightening, frustrating, and fair. We need to have such debates such as this in the USA. The Big Questions has weekly debates offering the public the views of multiple sides of any controversy. The question about should Britain become secular erodes into one side proclaiming that there should be no bias, united against any form of religious bigotry, and the side claiming that the state should infer god's existence and eventually fragments into their own disagreements on how this can be achieved or what god even is.

Other than the UK, the only other state with unelected religious representation is.... yes, Iran. It is patently absurd to have a majority non-religious state run in part by sinister virgins who proclaim to know precisely what a deity is and what he wants or doesn't want you to do. If they want a voice in government, they should run for parliament!

As the USA and France vie for the most secular state, both have highly different approaches. Now, that IS a good debate. Which system offers the most freedoms for people?

Reward For Disproving the Bible??

In another publicity stunt for Young Earth Creationists, Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, link here, has cast his word out, once again.

In what he calls the Life Science Prize, he offers $10,000 for anyone who can disprove the creation account in the bible. Seriously?? Sounds easy you say? Well go ahead and read what his requirements are.

In this Huffinton Post article, it also outlines someone who has tried to rise to the challenge, and at every step of the way, being told that evidence is not evidence, and claiming that the Professor on trial is not qualified.

Simply put, our Dr. Mastropaolo has no interest in discussing science, but simply to raise awareness for his ludicrous Young Earth Creationism, in which he says the world is about 6000 years old and events unfolded as is quoted in Genesis.

Refresh your account of Genesis chapter 1 here, and note that God did not create the sun or lights in the sky until the third day. I dare say, how could there be days without the sun? Well there you go, my $10,000  please, Mr. Joseph.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/joseph-mastropaolo-creationist-10000-disprove-genesis_n_2964801.html?utm_hp_ref=science

Religion does not OWN this!!

I am tired of listening to religious people claiming things that do not belong to religion.

When discussing with a religious person, I am confronted by the ignorance of someone who is so biased, they have no ability to analyze their own beliefs. As we run into Easter, Bill O'Reilly is moaning on about how atheists have a war on Easter, not understanding that "Easter" never belonged to Christianity. The Vernal Equinox has been celebrated by cultures long before and still around the Middle-east, Europe, and Asia.

Although the origin of the name is unknown, some sources claim the word is derived from Eostre, a teutonic goddess of spring and fertility. I need not go into the other Easter traditions, such as Rabbits and Eggs, as they obviously have nothing to do with religion.

The same goes for Christmas, in which every notion of the common holiday has it's origins in pagan society, mostly Germanic and Nordic in origin. From Eggnog to evergreen trees covered in lights, to mistletoe and yule logs. Even Santa himself.

I go down the list of ideas and traditions religions have conveniently absorbed into themselves to be more attractive to potential converts. Or simply because those who started the religions thought them to be normal.

Everything from meditation to marriage, afterlife to truth. Awe and wonder.

It was the last two I was most shocked to hear religious complaining about lately. PZ Myers recently brought this subject up quoting the guardian, a British newspaper.  The article, titled "Prof Brian Cox: Physicist or Priest?" claims that religion and only religion holds dominion over awe, wonder, amazement.  Once again, this only demonstrates how narrow of views some religious people have and their disdain for science.

The Language of Religion, as PZ points out, is "Dominion, Tribalism, Ignorance, and Fear"

DOMA

OH how attitudes have changed since Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law. A democratic president could little have imagined the current president, almost all of democratic congress, even the previous presidency, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, and so many others would voice their support for Gay Marriage.

Despite the squeaky wheel which is veering farther and farther to the right, despite the attack on women's rights here in North Dakota, the country is not more liberal than it has ever been.

Short term, conservative politics tends to impede progress, however it would seem history is reserved for the tolerant, the wise, and the compassionate. When Republican congressman Rob Portman voiced his support for Gay Marriage because of his gay son, we all saw this as the obvious. Republicans refuse to see issues until it is right in front of them.

The Supreme Court is now investigating the constitutionality of DOMA, and  experts put the likelihood at 80% that the supreme court will strike it down, forbidding states to make Gay Marriage legal. Let's be honest about this guys, this is religions last attempt to spit on homosexuals, and they are making sure to get their last throat clearing in.

Give it up at simply accept your religion is the reason you are hateful.

No Luxury...

It would seem that by and large, the majority of my generation who I meet in the States tend to be resting upon the fence of indifference when it comes to religion. On the plus side, there are so few believers remaining, and after the passing of the elderly, the US will be far less religious. On the other hand, there are daily encroachments on free society by religion, and when I open the paper, I see another reason to stand up and shout!

When in discussion, I get the opinion that most understand that the time will come, but at the moment, no need for an uprising. It truly baffles me how so many people can come to the conclusion that religion is untrue, and even harmful for society and yet sit back and not see the urgency to speak out about it.

In today's newspaper, the cover story is called "Battle of the Uterus", "A bunch of men decide the fate of women's reproductive rights."

The bill outlines unprecedented anti-choice legislation which prohibit abortion. People across the state are outrages, democrats and republicans alike. If not vetoed by the governor, these bills would:

1) Outlaw abortion for severe genetic abnormalities
2) Make abortion illegal after a detectable heartbeat
3) Declaring human life starts at conception
4) Deny exceptions to victims or rape, sexual abuse, or women who are under severe risk to their health
5) Forces doctors to break confidentiality agreements and punished doctors who do not comply
6) Now includes an amendment to stop sexual education funding to schools

Now I would love to believe the legislators were not religiously motivated, but there is no way around it. What does sexual education, an integral part of understanding and making informed decisions, have to do with abortion?? Certainly removing sexual education will increase the need for abortions and underage pregnancies. If you want to limit abortions, and I would say that is also my aim, education is the starting point. No one wants abortion, and regardless of your beliefs, it is a delicate debate. Apparently this debate is one ND legislators feel is not worth having.

One idea I have heard is the oil-rich state is purposely taking this challenge on because they can afford the forthcoming lawsuits until it gets to the supreme court.  Either way, religion has stepped on secular toes once again, and if this is not the time for our generation to voice itself, I do not know when that may be.

If you are in the Fargo/Moorhead area, please join the people on Monday, March 25th at 5:30 pm at the Fargo Civic center for the Stand Up For Women Rally, and wear white.

I hope to see you there!

Against Gay Marriage

Browsing the internet, you might come across some thought provoking ideas. I found one the other day which struck me as ironic.

A high school student had posted online, something I failed to find again, sorry for the lack of links, an assignment to take on a public debate. The teen student chose the topic of Gay Marriage only to learn that the teacher then instructed each student to argue the opposite position they feel about it. Since the student supported Gay Marriage, he was in a bind.

So his question was: I am lost in finding a reason against gay marriage which does not come from religion.

I pose the challenge to all of you, can you find any sound reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry?

Science Questions

So on Tuesday I was at a science conference at NDSU, featuring a biologist describing why creationist claims are not valid. I had great discussions before and after the meet, and met more of the creationist folk in the area. After the conference, a bible teacher, and who I presume was his student came up to me asking some questions about evolution.

I was happy to field such questions, but the very first thing I mentioned was that I am NOT a scientist. I am not a biologist, I am just interested in discussion science, nature, and religion. Sure, I have read extensively about biology and evolution, and a beautiful thing it is, but when people think it is an Atheists job to defend science, and if they cannot, then science fails, are simply looking for a straw-man.

This case, however, the younger guy asked me some pretty easy questions, so I felt comfortable to answer. The first question was: "How do we evolve if humans get old and die?"

So clearly his idea of evolution is WAYYY off, but if I am permitted to speculate, I would guess he thinks evolution is like Ray Comfort believes, transition from one life form to another, like a half duck, half crocodile. See Crocoduck!

No no, evolution occurs in gene pools, a competition between the genes in a population rather than individually. If North Koreans, isolated as they are, started artificially selecting only the tallest members of their society to breed, then the North Koreans of the future would be generally taller because some genes allowed some to breed, and others not to. Nature does this through selection pressures of survival.

Changes are extremely slow and occur over vast stretches of time. We are able to view this process in nature though, as environment changes, the species in them must change accordingly.

The second and last question was 'why humans evolved higher than others'. Again, a common misunderstanding among creationists, who tend to disseminate false information about evolution to confuse people. Evolution is not a ladder, nature is blind and has no direction. We are able to contemplate these issues because we evolved 'higher brain function', which just happened to work out for us quite well, but if put in a running match with a cheetah, a wrestling contest with a bear, or a swimming contest with a whale, we would not fare well. Humans have evolved the ability to communicate more efficiently than others, use tools, and shave off undesirable body hair. This, however, does not make us higher, or better than other animals, just better at those specific things.

This is a classic anthropocentric fallacy. If we see something from our point of view, it seems significant, of course. I will use the puddle analogy once again. If a puddle is amazed because the roads, the pothole, and the world around it have been designed for it, before it asks if it is possible for the shape of the puddle to have formed in the available environment, then it is being puddle-centric. Imagine if the puddle remarks about how inferior the human is for not being able to change shape. Imagine the giraffe making fun of the human who has to CLIMB trees. No, we are pretty good at doing what we need to do to survive and continue spreading our genes.

Here is my question though. WHY are so many people simply unable to read about evolution? In my previous post, I offered some suggestions of which books to start with about evolution. Why does it seem that people are so religious only when they refuse to read opinions outside their own beliefs?

Read a f*#$!ing book!

Why is Marijuana still a debate?

Let me ask this in the broader sense: Is there a reason Marijuana should be illegal? Please comment and join the conversation!

Science Refutes Religion

Does Science Refute Religion? Although I think it is fair to say this question might never entirely be answered, four people try to answer it. Please enjoy the Intelligence2 debates, as Lawrence Krauss and Michael Shermer debate Ian Huchinson and Dinesh D'sousa.

Just a teaser... the audience votes on the most compelling argument and the most swayed votes takes home the bacon.

Cardinal Says Pedophilia Not Crime

Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, Archbishop of Durban, South Africa has shown once again, people's love of religious authority outranks their own morality. After listening to this BBC Radio 5 program, I was shocked to hear Cardinal Napier say that Pedophiles should not and do not get punished for having sex with young children, suggesting that it should be treated as a mental condition, an illness.

The result of this would allow convicted pedophiles to simple be removed from children and nothing more. Why must there always be exceptions of the law to people who claim to have a godly position? Certainly I would put them in a more suspicious light.  Time after time, pedophiles, corrupt leaders, faith healers, con-men, and fraudsters walk away from conviction, prison, and repercussions because of the leadership positions they hold in religious organizations.

We tend to think lowly of those in the big banks, big pharma, or hypocritical politicians, so why should we give any exception to those who hold sway over others' hopes and dreams?

'A' Week!

Sorry folks, I had a full schedule this weekend, and limited time for coffee as well (gasp!)

Welcome to 'A' Week, a movement to show solidarity and support for the atheist movement. So far tens of thousands of people have shown on their online accounts the A for Atheism to raise awareness.

Why is this so important? One of the reasons minority groups become demonized is the perceived distance between people. Before homosexuality became accepted on a public level, people could have never imagined that 9-11% of all the people around them were homosexual. Then people encouraged each other to come out to family and friends, and like prominent GOP Rob Portman, who reversed his opinion about gay marriage upon learning his own son was gay.

In the same way, we want to encourage atheists to come out and show everyone that there are non-believers everywhere in the world, hidden often because of the fear of discrimination, hatred, bigotry, or being shunned by one's family.

Show your support!
http://www.aweek.biz

Hitchslaping from the Grave

Christopher Hitchens, a legendary journalist, raconteur  author, and contrarian, passed away in December of 2011, much to the dismay of many around the world. One of the loudest and most potent voices in New Atheism, Hitchens had an ability to put into words what most have not yet thought of. Personally, he was my favorite author, and a great motivation to read and write more.

Although he had made many enemies in his life-long career, only the petty tried attacking him, for the pen is truly mightier than the sword here. Therefor it surprises me to see someone has put out a new book, Unhitched: the trial of Christopher Hitchens, not only after his death, but with such vitriol, the author, a Richard Seymour, has stepped in it, and now reviews are coming from everywhere to point out his inaccuracies. The Daily Beast has a beautiful run down, as well as Spectator. I will leave my own conclusion until I read it myself.

What I find most compelling about this type of post mortem assassination is the irony of it. Christopher has always said:

"My Critics increasingly use the ad hominem in reply to me, and I regard that as a small moral victory."

There were the occasional topics which he brought up tastefully with a sense of honor which I may disagree with him on, but you need to get into each discussion as it comes, not slander the man with original thoughts.
You see, Mr. Seymour, now you brought up Hitchens again, his words will come back as well, and be shared to another round of people who have never heard them.

Please enjoy the YouTube clips
- The Best of Hitchslap - Part 1
- The Best of Hitchslap - Part 2
- Christopher Hitchens Debates Tony Blair
- Hitchens Submits to be Waterboarded
- Hitchslap Playlist

Clarifications and Comments

So I do get comments these days, however I wish they would be added to the blog for all to see, as they are full of great points! I would like to take the latest, from my best friend, ze German  For the sake of this blog, let's call him, uh, something Swedish, like Sven.

So 'Sven' started by reminding me how important it is to remain skeptical until the evidence of something is overwhelming, and to not be convinced by my personal biases. Exactly right. He started by saying:

I recently read your post. An interesting topic ! I want to add my 2 cents. I personally am convinced there is some sort of correlation of religiosity and development. Yet it is very complex. Just a reminder the observation of two issues behaving in some way  does not necessarily mean they are connected. 

So to start with, you are spot on here, Sven, and I should highlight for everyone that the information I gave in the previous post about development and religiosity is simply a CORRELATION, and not necessarily caused by each other.  This correlation, however, is quite strong, and it is important to ask many questions to try and find out why.

You rose the question of cause and result. Does religion cause low development, or does low development foster religion? Well, it looks established that even if religion and development do not have much to do with each other

Here is where we will have our first disagreement. When you say they do not have much to do with each other, I want to reiterate some ideas most organized religions proudly and loudly display in order to show you my point of view.

1) Most world religions encourage poverty, plain and simple. Buddhism teaches to avoid all earthly possessions, Hinduism teaches to keep one's head down avoid all luxury while remaining humble to the gods. Jesus reflected on the Sermon on the Mount that it is easier "for a camel to go through the eye of a needle to than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." If Jesus existed, his hatred of money and wealth was abundantly clear. Islam venerates the figures in history who have taken poverty upon themselves.

2) Not a single world religion encourages the empowerment of women, as I have previously noted, the single greatest cure for poverty.

3) Most religions encourage a form of subjective learning and the largest religions, especially the monotheisms, have gone out of their way in the past to discourage standardized education, or limiting education to the few who have wealth and power. "Eastern Solutions" are nothing but spiritualism which undermines objective learning and Human Rights.

4) Most religions I have come across in my travels strongly suggest, if not demand, procreation to the max. I met a woman yesterday who said she had 11 brothers and sisters. "Ahh catholics?" I asked, and got an affirmative. Muslim families in Europe are bragging about the low birth rate of the locals and declaring that Muslims have so many children, the countries will soon become Islamic states. People who have more children then they can afford to give medicine, education, and food will fall into poverty.

5) Denial of reality. When science is in doubt, you are undercutting the development of the future. The Dark Ages were caused by total control of the papacy. For over a thousand years, there has been very little development in the Middle east, apart from modern oil money. In the USA, the christian right denies evolution, global warming, and keeps trying to defund science programs.

Then you mentioned:

there were cases when religion influenced and interacted with existing knowledge. It is not all easy though. Here are some classic examples.  A bunch monks building a church in the middle of the jungle, will put (another) religion on the folks, yet they teach reading and writing. The likelihood of the literate to enter "developed" jobs is actually higher than the illiterate ones. Can we claim that secular schools accelerate the process?

Of course, as far back as we can go in human history, superstition has always played a part. I will not deny that for the development of society and social structure, religion and superstitions played a major role. They helped to define group morality, help to keep groups cohesive, and helped the people to understand the unknowns around them in a way they could comprehend. That time is long gone, however, and now those needs are met by more true, peaceful, and universal concepts.

When you discuss clerics of history, you are highlighting an important point, and although I can not remember which Greek philosopher said it, but the path to education comes through empty hands. As in, until the people had time on their hands and did not have the struggles of keeping food in their mouths, education never had a chance. The priests, monks, teachers, philosophers, and imams were the first to do this in their respective societies. Looking back, we can be grateful, however in the modern world we live in, it is superfluous.

"Can we claim that secular schools accelerate the process?" ---yes! An emphatic yes. If you want more of an answer, I will write about it next time.

There are examples where religion inspired to  push a discipline => architecture, building.How do they tie in? In some cultures priesthood (ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece) was an educated elite, that pushed their people into very developed cultures.

We must be careful throughout history to label something as a Christian accomplishment, or a Muslim accomplishment. In the same way find it unfair to label children as Hindu, or Jewish, we must learn to divide Muslim culture from Islam, and Christian culture/architecture/science from Christianity. The Atomic bomb is not the result of democracy, the Autobahn is not due to the tenets of national socialism, and mustaches do not make people into dictators, despite Hitler and Stalin.

Even the Sistine Chapel was the embodiment of art and architecture, from great minds as Pontelli and Michelangelo were representative of their time and the abilities they had. I admit, take religion away, and you have taken away these works of art, however we can not forget that the ancient Greeks invented cement and the Romans mastered reinforced masonry, yet these ideas were lost throughout the middle ages until the Industrial Revolution. The mass burnings of heretical materials might be the reason for this it is speculated.

Some officially secular countries are anything but developed. What are the factors limiting those? Did they just transfer the concept of religion to a leader ? Is that all?

There are many examples of this either way, and I find the most important detail is the attitudes of the people and the strength of the Leviathan, or the security and trust the people have in their government to solve disputes. One of my favorite topics to discuss, I think it is too long for this entry, but let me give you some examples. India is secular, and has a solid constitution to back it up, yet people are still being arrested for blasphemy and local officials refuse to touch any disputes involving religious tensions. There is such a strong admiration for faith, religion and traditions, that Human Rights, education, and safety falls to the wayside.

In Indonesia, officially a secular country, it is still punishable to offend religions, and explicitly illegal to have no religion. Where people feel free to speak out about religion, religion recedes from public view, and that means it is limited from influencing schools and government. Italy is secular, yet we all see how much influence the Vatican has on it. Turkey is secular but with a majority of Muslims, people are still oppressed within families. Somalia and Ethiopia are both secular, but it take more than a word on a document to cement this into place, it takes the understanding of an entire people. Not to mention, those two countries contribute the most to the more than 100 million women who have had mutilation of their genitalia.

The Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba etc. have an ideology that sometimes can be represented as a state religion, and sometimes as a political ideology which coincides with the lack of a religion. As Hitchens pointed out, Kim Il-Sung started his autocratic society the same year as the book Nineteen Eighty-Four came out, joking that it was a personal challenge to see if he could replicate the story in real life. Correlation is not causation, as you have pointed out.

The last part of the email, 'Sven' pointed me in the direction of a Pew Poll regarding the public's knowledge of religion. I read it with glee and plan to use to for a future post. for now though, I have already mumbled enough. I will finish with a quote from 'Sven':

Knowledge is power they say. I disagree with that one. I'd change it to: Knowledge empowers.

New Pope

For most people on the planet, the  news will come and go, irrelevant to their own lives. The Papacy, however, has had a strong recent history of influencing governments, even those with a minority of Catholics, of obstructing justice, and of the horribly obscene abuse and rape of children. 

SO who is the new hotline to God?? Pope Francis, or Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, from Argentina. A brief foray into his past displays he is on par for evil crap typical of the Vatican, and there are not high hopes for a further reformation. 

The new pope has spoken his thoughts on homosexuality, known to be so ironically rampant in the Catholic church, saying "it is a destructive pretension against the plan of god." and it is "a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

The future will show, that despite many allegations, the skeletons in his closet will emerge. Anyway, at the ripe old age of 76, perhaps he was chosen as a short term leader. Time will tell. 

Inverse Correlation between Religion and Development

We can spend all day talking about the finer points of theology, however since there is no reason to believe it to be correct, it seems irrelevant. Honestly what it comes down to is whether religion causes harm to society or not. This debate has been had many time, I might suggest the great debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens on the topic of "Is religion a force for good in the world?"

Despite the claims, religion does not support secular education, freedom of speech, or the freedom of belief until it is forced to. Take one example, the single greatest cure for poverty known to man. It has worked every time we have tried it, 100% success is not easy to find. It is called the empowerment of women, and without it, a society is destined to make very slow progress, if any. Name me one organized religion which supports the empowerment of women.

Putting that into perspective can be difficult, but I will attempt it. Using a meta analysis of polls over three years from the Gallup organization, we can see the religiosity of the worlds population in this map:

As well as in this one,

You can clearly see the increased religiosity from certain parts of the world, namely, Central and South America, Africa, The Middle East, and South East Asia. In the next map I have the world's Human Development Index, a composite statistic of "Life Expectancy, Education, and Income."

As you are browsing these images, please ask yourselves, which countries contribute to science the most, and to education, and to Human Rights? The most developed countries in the world are the most secular, and the least developed are the countries immersed in superstition and mythology. Countries like Japan and Norway, where religion is in the minority. Of course this is correlation, and I have to ask, what is the connection between religion and retarding the development of society? Perhaps it is the attacks on secular education, or perhaps the lack of critical thinking skills leads to a lack of ingenuity. It could be many things.

Let's take a look at the United States itself.

And based on this poll, where would you guess the highest poverty and the lowest development is?

Of course we can find areas that do not correlate so well, and perhaps the uneducated, poor find solace in religion. Either way we need to be asking these questions more often, because the religiosity of a population may be an indicator of poor education, and also tends to be an indicator of hatred and violence:

Islamic Dishonesty....Again...

I don't suppose you guys have been keeping up with the latest happenings in the Grand Old Battle? Once again, Islamic dishonesty has shocked people who desire to have an honest conversation, and once again, the main population of Muslims will not chide, deride, or blame those involved for being assholes. 

Devout Asshole Hamza Tzortzis, a particularly vile man who I find myself debunking all the time with Muslims  makes continuous and dishonest attacks on atheist figures in order to produce videos proclaiming he defeats them for his audience. The latest charade trumps all previous dishonesty, as he arranged for Physicist Lawrence Krauss, an outspoken atheist, to come and debate the topic of Islam vs. Atheism at the prestigious University College London.


Organized by the iERA - Islamic Education and Research Academy, they had previously disputed the possible segregation of the audience, where women would sit in the back, away from the men. Krauss warned them with an ultimatum, and they promised no segregation at the even. Of course when Krauss arrived, not only was there enforced segregation, they violently removed all who voiced opposition. 

On Ophelia Benson's blog, guest writer Abishek Phadnis has a wonderful description of the events and the evil shit Hamza has been known to stand for, such as criminalization of homosexuality, bringing the United Kingdom into the caliphate, and the amputation of limbs for minor crimes. 

Also please watch the video of Dr. Lawrence Krauss packing his bags at the sight of segregation, and listen to the majority Muslim audience (it was arranged) boo him. I just wish we could communicate on a level playing field, rather than have to deal with this level of dishonesty.

Lastly, if you can stomach it, this interviewer stalks Dr. Krauss along the streets and tried to interview him but never allows him to speak. Disgustingly, he titles the video "Proff. Lawrence Krauss get OWNED by MUSLIM!" Are there no depths they won't sink to?

Update: It has been concluded that UCL has banned all future events by iERA

Epicurean Paradox

Welcome to the Epicurean Paradox:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? 

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

Can you figure this great puzzle out?

Dominant Religions Don't Hide Their Animosity Towards Secularism

When you are the biggest boy on the block, you tend to have things your own way, and certainly don't appreciate intervening forces when trying to press others. There have always been and always will be those with more power and persuasion who are capable of more than those who have less.

I encourage a society where people earn those things they have, but when you talk about modern society  you have to acknowledge the one of the single greatest markers we tend to use to gauge development, Human Rights. When Secularism was first proposed in ancient Greece, in Rome, and numerous other times throughout history, it never stuck for long, and that is primarily because those who suggested it were never part of the majority opinion. In every example I can think of, they were the most educated of their time, surrounded by mythology and superstition.

Secularism never had in mind to do away with these things, but to simple to limit them to those who wanted it. Needless to say, without the political power of the majority, it never came about until a burgeoning little group of colonies banded together and the intellectual majority leadership, members of whom consisted of lawyers, professors, and scientists decided it was a good idea to protect the beliefs of all, not only the majority.

When I talk to Muslims from Muslim majority countries, or Christians from America, or Buddhists from Myanmar, or Hindus in India, I often hear unapologetic attacks on secularism as they see a political force trying to take away their freedom of religion.

TO THE CONTRARY, secularism ensures and guarantees your freedom of belief. It does not, however, allow the majority to pressure, to cajole, or to influence public society with those beliefs. Why is it so hard to understand that equality is important, and since being fair to all is not feasible or possible, the separation of religion and state is the easiest.

Here in Fargo, ND, there is an ongoing debate about the Ten Commandments on public property, outside the city hall. If you wanted to suggest this is a Christian community, then you can just read my previous entry. If you suggest we can be fair, then how would people react to if we put engravings from the Koran outside city hall as well? It would not stop there, as we would need a Buddha, a Shiva shrine, a Sikh statue, as well as monuments to every religion represented in the area! Or....get this idea....none!

Christians in the area want to hold on to it because they are allowed to ignorantly assert this is a Christian country because...because look! There are the Ten Commandments!  Likewise countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, most of North Africa and the Middle East arrogantly refuse to allow the freedom of belief because it threatens the power of the majority religion. In India, Muslims are protected under secularism despite the best attempts of the Hindustani nationalists. In the United States Muslims are protected from learning about Christianity at public schools because of secularism, and at every period throughout American history, Christians have tried to change this.

Let us point out the bullies of society and make sure they swallow secularism as a commitment to the freedom of belief they enjoy the support of. Not everyone will have the experience of being in a minority belief, so I feel the need to remind them. Hell, I might even enjoy doing it.

America Is NOT a Christian Nation

Let me be as clear as possible, The United States of America has never been founded with, based on, or intended to be associated with, Christianity. 

Within the last 60 years or so, there has been an ever growing fallacy coming out of the religious right, and just like so many religious claims, despite the evidence against the claim, people keep repeating themselves.

So when people say that 'Merica was founded as a religious country they are implying a few things. For starters, they imply the founding fathers were Christians, as well as imply the constitution was based on the bible, not to mention suggesting that there was an official Christian ideal from the beginning and recently the evil atheists took their membership away from them. If I am fighting a straw man, then please comment.

This comment is lifted from Mr. Lindgren's blog:

"...You both repeatedly demonstrate a real hard time accepting this country was founded by Christians with Christian principles. Recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Look at the words on our currency. America is not catering to the self righteous free thinkers that represent 2% of our population. It’s time smart folks like you that can’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance hit the road and leave your food stamps with your intellectual neighbor on your way out."

Without going in to too much detail, I will explain why these claims are wrong.

"founded by Christians with Christian principles..."

American Historian Richard B. Morris wrote a very insightful book about the attitudes of the time, Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries, in which he identified seven figures as the "key" founding fathers.

-George Washington

-James Madison

-John Jay

-Thomas Jefferson

-John Adams

-Benjamin Franklin

-Alexander Hamilton

From that list, there is only one who we can consider a Christian in any meaningful sense. John Jay was the only member to profess Christianity and had been known to invoke it in decision making, as he did on the 12th of October in 1816:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

This is what many revisionists have in mind when they refer to the founding fathers as Christians. To conclude this would to ignore most available evidence.  Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Hamilton were all outspoken deists, not affiliating with Christianity, from their own words:

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the biginning of the world until this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning, and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind" --Thomas Jefferson 1816

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstiion (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." --Thomas Jefferson 

 "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."--James Madison

 "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserves -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"--John Adams in a letter to Jefferson

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."--John Adams

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."--Benjamin Franklin

And so on with far too many to quote here. To say the founding fathers were Christian would be mostly wrong. As for the next claim, that we can find the Christian status in the pledge of allegiance is simply stupidity and willful ignorance.

A casual glance at the first two Google results show Wikipedia and UShistory.org, both demonstrating why this is erroneous. From the UShistory website I quote:

"The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.""

So Even the family of the original author objected to the usage of your deity in this national pledge. So on the the next utterance if idiocy, that we should look at our currency to see this is a Christian nation. I will completely ignore the fact that, by your argument,  this is a deist nation, with no mention of Christianity, because it is still an idiotic argument.

Again from Wikipedia, we can quickly see how he was in error. "In God we trust." was adopted at the United State's official motto in 1956, changing from "E Pluribus Unum". Similar to the pledge, it was pushed at a time of "red scare" demonstrating a rivalry for the evil atheist communists. Claim debunked. Even the coin usage, which started in 1864 was an attempt to show those pesky secessionists that god was actually on the side of the north, not the south, although both sides made this claim.

Please, religious people, adhere to skepticism and question what you already know, especially before you throw out blind statements with an arrogant certainty. That said, if I have made any inaccurate claims, please feel free to correct me.

The hardest part in dealing with these claims is that they keep coming up, without people learning their lesson. Just because you keep repeating it does not make it true!