This past Saturday, I attended a lecture (organized by SHIFT) by Austin Dacey entitled "Blasphemy: Hate Speech or Human Right."
Despite me sending Dr. Dacey off on a fifteen minute wild goose chase in search of a bathroom minutes before the lecture, he was extraordinarily well-spoken, eloquent and persuasive.
The thrust of Dr. Dacey's argument is that all people are deserving of equal respect and dignity, but that not all ideas are, and that a truly open society depends on the ability to criticize ideas. I couldn't agree with this more. With blasphemy laws spreading, such as the new one in Ireland and the various proposals put before the UN (the talks for which Dr. Dacey has participated in), this is an important distinction.
Following his lecture, Dr. Dacey was joined by Dr. Mark Hausam for a debate (really, more of a conversation) called "Is Morality Possible Without God?"
Dr. Hausam's position, of course, is that no, morality is not possible without God.
Hausam began by listing off several things that would be true in a Godless universe. I objected to very little of what he said here, I just don't view it as a problem. (e.g., the universe is so vast and expansive that in the grand scheme of things, we puny humans on our pale blue dot add up to very little, except in our own eyes.)
Then things got dicey. Hausam's contention, and I'll try not to strawman here, is that all human morality is "subjective" and therefore illusory. Only an observer outside of the Universe and truly "objective" can therefore be the source of true morality. (For no apparent reason, he also said this fact demonstrated God's existence... which was neither the topic of discussion nor true.)
Nearly everything Hausam said hinged on one or both of these assumptions being true. Yet he failed to substantiate either assumption. Furthermore, I think both of these can be deomstrated to not be true: human's can be moral without a god, and God (and let's not beat around the bush here, Hausam was talking about the God of the Bible) is neither "objective" nor consistently moral.
Human-based morality is not real morality?
Hausam played a little linguistic trick throughout his arguments. He was supposedly saying that morality cannot exist without God. But what he actually contended is that objective morality cannot. I got so tired of him invoking the word "objective" as if it gave him a free pass to say whatever he wanted.
Here's the deal: in a way, he's right: there is no universally accepted "objective" morality in humans. Things deemed anathema to one society wouldn't garner so much as a batted eyelash in others. We can come up with some approximations of "objective" morality: equal opportunity no matter one's gender, race, religion, or nation; rejection of murder and rape, and so on. But even those qualities are based on some assumptions (assumptions that I subscribe to), such as the inherent equality of all people. Indeed, without holy words in the picture, I'd contend that it may be easier to fashion something approaching an "objective" morality, as wouldn't be based around the capricious desires of beings that only speak through chosen "prophets."
So what if human morality is "subjective?" They're the result of evolution and social cohesion, primarily, which doesn't make them less applicable to human life, but more applicable than those based on the unintelligible motivations of a sky god, operating under the the simple moral rule of "whatever I say goes."
Hausam repeatedly stated that although he wouldn't act any differently in a godless universe, other people would. He doesn't have numbers to back this up of course, as atheists are the least well-represented in American prisons of any religious group, and the least religious nations in the world report the highest levels of overall happiness and stability (yes, there are many other factors playing in to those two statistics, but it does throw into question the idea that lacking belief in God = guiltless crime spree party).
God is objectively moral?
Hausam came out as a Calvinist during the debate, meaning he believes that every jot and tittle of our lives is specifically preordained by God, making EVERY HUMAN ACT EVER a moral act by his standards, as it was preordained by the perfect holder of "objective" morality. Torture? Moral. Rape? Moral. Murder? Moral. I doubt very much that Hausam truly believes those acts are okay, yet he's constructed a world in which there is no reconciliation -- save cognitive dissonance -- of these factors. If anything God does is moral, and god specifically preordains all human acts, then the 9/11 attacks, the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, and [insert horrific human act of choice here] are all moral acts.
Indeed, this is a much more troubling scenario than the one he proffered about we amoral atheists.
So how objective is God's morality? If we are talking about some inchoate, distant Deist god who is not concerned with human affairs one way or another, then fine: call it objective. But also call it meaningless. Of what use is "objective" morality if this being is not concerned with us and does not communicate with us?
If, instead, we're talking about the God of the Bible (and let's be clear: we are), then we most certainly are not talking about an objective being. God says so himself, in describing himself as variously jealous, loving, vengeful, pleased at the smell of burning animal flesh, and myriad other decidedly subjective dispositions towards humans and human acts.
Based on my own set of "subjective" morals, rape and genoocide (to pick two examples) are always wrong. The same can't be said for the God of the Bible. If whatever he says is moral is moral, then that means raping war orphans is not only sometimes morally acceptable, but morally obligatory. Same goes for murder, genocide, and on and on. These things aren't always okay. Just whenever God says they are. How is this objective? It sounds rather capricious, petty, and -- dare I say it? Yes, I dare -- immoral to me.
Furthermore, if we assume that Yahweh is an "objectively moral" being, then from whence comes this objectivity? This is a classic turtles all the way down problem: Who bestowed moral authority on God?
I wished there was a Q&A session afterward, as Austin Dacey only had a limited amount of time (and therefore, a limited scope) to respond to Hausam. I've touched little on Dacey's criticisms here, precisely because he answered them so persuasively that all I have left is the stuff Dacey was unable to address and I thought warranted more exploration.
_________________________________________________
If you read through all of that (and I don't blame you if you didn't), I'd be interested to your your thoughts in the comments below.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Monday, March 1, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Revisiting my "personal history" posts
In the early days of this blog, all the way back in the last decade, I did a little miniseries of posts about my personal history, particularly my relationship with religion. A recent thread on Skepchick has caused me to dig those posts up.
Rereading these, I'm surprised by my level of candor and the depth of my descriptions. I've been an atheist for a long time, but I wrote these as I was starting to find community in other people who felt likewise, and beginning my affiliation with rational skepticism.
I really like these posts. And I hope you do too:
Rereading these, I'm surprised by my level of candor and the depth of my descriptions. I've been an atheist for a long time, but I wrote these as I was starting to find community in other people who felt likewise, and beginning my affiliation with rational skepticism.
I really like these posts. And I hope you do too:
- Part 1 - Who I am now (well, who I was in 2008, which is mostly the same thing). Why I'm an atheist & a skeptic and what those terms mean to me.
- Part 2 - I grew up in a Mormon family and community, but my parents always encouraged critical thinking.
- Part 3 - As I became a teenager, I began reconciling my belief -- or lack thereof -- with a scientific viewpoint that increasingly edged-out religion.
- Part 4 - "Agnostic, leaning toward atheism"
Monday, September 14, 2009
Why I don't understand religious moderates and progressive Christians
I don't understand religious moderates. At all.
Let me start with the caveat that I *love* religious moderates and progressive Christians. Yay for religious moderates! I am glad that you are moderate, progressive and liberal. Religious fundamentalism and extremism pose significant threats, both to individual people (e.g, George Tiller) and to societies as a whole (e.g., generations of people in Africa condemned to die of AIDS because the Catholic church continues to lie about condoms and forbid their use). These are among the reasons our governmental structures need to be built on secular, religiously-neutral pillars. This is where the fight should be, and nontheists and moderates alike can strive for this...
But this post is not about fundamentalists. It's about moderates. It's about people I view as allies on nearly every issue I care about, but I simply do not understand why they are religious. And the issues here are at the core of why I'm an atheist. (Note: I talk here about Christianity, becuase that's the tradition I'm most familiar with, but the same goes for just about of the big "world religions.")
I touched on a lot of these same things last year in my review of For the Bible Tells Me So, the documentary about Christian families coming to terms with their homosexual children. I'll try not to reiterate TOO many points from that post. (You may want to read that post, as well.)
Okay, enough preamble. Let's do this:
Religious fundamentalists get a lot of criticism (and rightfully so) from nontheists, liberals, progressives, and religious moderates. Some particularly egregious examples (viz, Westboro Baptist Church) even get a fair dose of criticism from the right.
Many of these criticism take the form of "you're just reading the Bible the way you want! You're cherrypicking only the parts that back up your hateful views!" arguments.
These points are right on the money: Fred Phelps and friends (bizarrely) protest in front of soldier funerals that "God Hates Fags" but you never see him in front of Red Lobster saying "God Hates Crustaceans." They are cherrypicking the Bible. They are the just choosing the parts that back up their hateful views, and ignoring the "love thy enemy as thy self" parts.
But here's the thing: religious moderates are doing the same thing, just with different passages. They are cherrypicking the Bible (or whichever holy books they happen to be using), identifying with the passages that back up their already-held views of love and acceptance and charity, and ignore the parts advocating for murder and rape and avarice.
Homosexuality is perhaps the most currently pertinent case of this cherrypicking. I'll try not to rehash my points from my earlier post, but here's the thing: The Bible is pretty unequivocal about homosexuality, or at least male homosexual sex: The punishment is death. Period. People like Phelps say that every time homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, it's met with execution and/or revulsion. And you know what? They're right. And that goes for the supposedly-progressive New Testamant as well, which also includes the only explicit mention (and condemnation) of lesbianism.
In fact, the Bible makes the point again and again that RAPE, though nearly always viewed bad (except when "righteous" men order it as a punishment), is somehow far less bad if a man rapes a woman than if a man rapes another man. In fact, if a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, the only "punishment" is that she has to marry him and a small fee is paid to her father. That's horrid.
Let's look at a case in point: Do you know the Bible story of "the Levite?" In this charming little tale (itself a partial plagiarism from another part of the the Bible, the story of Sodom and Gommorah), a man and his concubine are traveling to Jerusalem and get caught on the wrong side of the tracks, so to speak. A man invites them to spend the night in his house, but things don't go as planned:
How is it that someone can look at this story, or countless other horrid "moral" lessons found in the Bible, and say that the book is a good document to use as one's moral code?
And it's not just an Old Testament/New Testament thing. It's often said that the Old Testament god is a being of jealousy and wrath and terror; while Jesus and the New Testament god is/are being(s) of love and peace and forgiveness... But that's not really true.
Now, on the whole, there's less to dislike in the NT than the OT, but it still doesn't come close to being a positive moral guide, if you ask me. Jesus DOES say to love your enemy, but he also says people (by which here, as most anywhere in the Bible, he means only men) should abandon their wife and chidren for a cool reward. The NT states explicitly numerous times that women are subordinate to men. Paul, who more-or-less founded Christianity, had many charming things to say about women and their place in the chruch.
Let's be clear: *I* am cherry picking here, too. I'm only picking out a few particularly ugly and abhorrent passages. There are many positive moral teachings and lessons in the Bible.
But for for every one of those, there are three or four truly abominable moral lessons. Those lessons are ignored by progressive Christians and religious moderates... And though I think that's a good thing, it's also my point:
If the Bible is such an unpredictable mixed-bag anyway, why use the it as a moral guide at all? Either the Bible is the word of God or it isn't, right? If you're a good person and you recognize the nastiness of the stories mentioned in this post, then clearly the Bible is not really your moral compass anyway. Why not embrace the qualities you cling to and live by, and reject the superstitious and hateful nonsense?
Again, I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of anyone who reads this. Positive, negative, whatever. Please post in the comments! :)
Also, in the course of writing this: Reed at Homosecular Gatheist put up an excellent post touching on similar themes. Go check it out as well.
Let me start with the caveat that I *love* religious moderates and progressive Christians. Yay for religious moderates! I am glad that you are moderate, progressive and liberal. Religious fundamentalism and extremism pose significant threats, both to individual people (e.g, George Tiller) and to societies as a whole (e.g., generations of people in Africa condemned to die of AIDS because the Catholic church continues to lie about condoms and forbid their use). These are among the reasons our governmental structures need to be built on secular, religiously-neutral pillars. This is where the fight should be, and nontheists and moderates alike can strive for this...
But this post is not about fundamentalists. It's about moderates. It's about people I view as allies on nearly every issue I care about, but I simply do not understand why they are religious. And the issues here are at the core of why I'm an atheist. (Note: I talk here about Christianity, becuase that's the tradition I'm most familiar with, but the same goes for just about of the big "world religions.")
I touched on a lot of these same things last year in my review of For the Bible Tells Me So, the documentary about Christian families coming to terms with their homosexual children. I'll try not to reiterate TOO many points from that post. (You may want to read that post, as well.)
Okay, enough preamble. Let's do this:
Religious fundamentalists get a lot of criticism (and rightfully so) from nontheists, liberals, progressives, and religious moderates. Some particularly egregious examples (viz, Westboro Baptist Church) even get a fair dose of criticism from the right.
Many of these criticism take the form of "you're just reading the Bible the way you want! You're cherrypicking only the parts that back up your hateful views!" arguments.
These points are right on the money: Fred Phelps and friends (bizarrely) protest in front of soldier funerals that "God Hates Fags" but you never see him in front of Red Lobster saying "God Hates Crustaceans." They are cherrypicking the Bible. They are the just choosing the parts that back up their hateful views, and ignoring the "love thy enemy as thy self" parts.
But here's the thing: religious moderates are doing the same thing, just with different passages. They are cherrypicking the Bible (or whichever holy books they happen to be using), identifying with the passages that back up their already-held views of love and acceptance and charity, and ignore the parts advocating for murder and rape and avarice.
Homosexuality is perhaps the most currently pertinent case of this cherrypicking. I'll try not to rehash my points from my earlier post, but here's the thing: The Bible is pretty unequivocal about homosexuality, or at least male homosexual sex: The punishment is death. Period. People like Phelps say that every time homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, it's met with execution and/or revulsion. And you know what? They're right. And that goes for the supposedly-progressive New Testamant as well, which also includes the only explicit mention (and condemnation) of lesbianism.
In fact, the Bible makes the point again and again that RAPE, though nearly always viewed bad (except when "righteous" men order it as a punishment), is somehow far less bad if a man rapes a woman than if a man rapes another man. In fact, if a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, the only "punishment" is that she has to marry him and a small fee is paid to her father. That's horrid.
Let's look at a case in point: Do you know the Bible story of "the Levite?" In this charming little tale (itself a partial plagiarism from another part of the the Bible, the story of Sodom and Gommorah), a man and his concubine are traveling to Jerusalem and get caught on the wrong side of the tracks, so to speak. A man invites them to spend the night in his house, but things don't go as planned:
Now, it's not the central lesson of this story (which, as it happens, was that you should never trust anyone who's not part of your own ethnic group), but one of the explicit lessons here is that it is far preferable for these men to rape the concubine and the virgin daughter than the man. Like I say, the rape is condemned regardless, but it is less bad to rape a woman. It's the same thing in the story of Sodom and Gommorah: Lott offers up his daughters to be raped, and when the Sodomites decline the offer, God destroys them and their city. What an asshole.22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."
23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."
25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.
27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.
How is it that someone can look at this story, or countless other horrid "moral" lessons found in the Bible, and say that the book is a good document to use as one's moral code?
And it's not just an Old Testament/New Testament thing. It's often said that the Old Testament god is a being of jealousy and wrath and terror; while Jesus and the New Testament god is/are being(s) of love and peace and forgiveness... But that's not really true.
Now, on the whole, there's less to dislike in the NT than the OT, but it still doesn't come close to being a positive moral guide, if you ask me. Jesus DOES say to love your enemy, but he also says people (by which here, as most anywhere in the Bible, he means only men) should abandon their wife and chidren for a cool reward. The NT states explicitly numerous times that women are subordinate to men. Paul, who more-or-less founded Christianity, had many charming things to say about women and their place in the chruch.
Let's be clear: *I* am cherry picking here, too. I'm only picking out a few particularly ugly and abhorrent passages. There are many positive moral teachings and lessons in the Bible.
But for for every one of those, there are three or four truly abominable moral lessons. Those lessons are ignored by progressive Christians and religious moderates... And though I think that's a good thing, it's also my point:
If the Bible is such an unpredictable mixed-bag anyway, why use the it as a moral guide at all? Either the Bible is the word of God or it isn't, right? If you're a good person and you recognize the nastiness of the stories mentioned in this post, then clearly the Bible is not really your moral compass anyway. Why not embrace the qualities you cling to and live by, and reject the superstitious and hateful nonsense?
Again, I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of anyone who reads this. Positive, negative, whatever. Please post in the comments! :)
Also, in the course of writing this: Reed at Homosecular Gatheist put up an excellent post touching on similar themes. Go check it out as well.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Surprise Debate @ the Farmer's Market
Last weekend, some friends and I went to the Salt Lake City Farmer's Market. After we'd browsed around for a bit, we grabbed some food and sat down in the shade to eat and relax.
The four of us were chatting about labels. You may have seen my post recently on the same topic. We were discussing the meaning and qualities people might assign to you if you labeled yourself, for instance, a secular humanist versus an atheist.
Out of nowhere, a guy laying on the grass about ten feet away decided to join our conversation, yelling over at our small group:
This guy shot into a long monologue about why atheists are bad and evil and we're all conspiring to destroy the world or something. At this point, two women on a nearby park bench stand up and leave. I can't say I blame them. Then I spoke up.
Did I make a mistake in engaging the guy? Possibly, but the discussion (which, needless to say, was fruitless) was such a shining example of the sorts of slurs and nonsense I hear hurled about against the nonreligious all the time right along utter falsehoods presented as facts.
Allow me to share some tidbits and quotes, as best as I can remember them. (I'll note that my text intercut here is probably a more fleshed-out discussion of the issues than I originally said, but his text should be fairly accurate.)
The four of us were chatting about labels. You may have seen my post recently on the same topic. We were discussing the meaning and qualities people might assign to you if you labeled yourself, for instance, a secular humanist versus an atheist.
Out of nowhere, a guy laying on the grass about ten feet away decided to join our conversation, yelling over at our small group:
Atheism is a religion like any other! Atheists are destroying this country and militantly trying to push their views on everyone else and [details lost in a haze of illogic]."Um. Okay. Who invited this guy to the conversation? We were having a rather abstract philosophical discussion on nature of words and categories, and I was using my religious identification as an example (which happens to be more or less shared by the three people I was with). This guy feels he has an obligation to set us straight on what, exactly, we believe.
This guy shot into a long monologue about why atheists are bad and evil and we're all conspiring to destroy the world or something. At this point, two women on a nearby park bench stand up and leave. I can't say I blame them. Then I spoke up.
Did I make a mistake in engaging the guy? Possibly, but the discussion (which, needless to say, was fruitless) was such a shining example of the sorts of slurs and nonsense I hear hurled about against the nonreligious all the time right along utter falsehoods presented as facts.
Allow me to share some tidbits and quotes, as best as I can remember them. (I'll note that my text intercut here is probably a more fleshed-out discussion of the issues than I originally said, but his text should be fairly accurate.)
Jerk: Atheists are trying to push their views on everyone! They're trying to prevent me from worshiping the way I want. Atheists are trying to infringe on my free speech!
Me: No they're not. Most atheists are for a secular government, but would be vehemently opposed to limiting anyone's religious freedoms. Are there atheists who want to ban all religion and prevent people from practicing as they choose? Probably. I've never met one, but there are extremists in every group.
Jerk: But they're infringing on how I choose to worship! A church in New York had to take down their cross. Some atheist sued them because the shadow of the cross hit public property.Of course, in the real world, Madison more vociferously opposed any religious intrusion into the government than maybe even Jefferson, and said so just about any time he opened his mouth. Lots of other awesome Madison quotes at that link.
Me: If that happened, which I doubt, then that is wrong. [As expected, that story appears to be bullshit.] Like I said there are extremists in every group. Everyone should be enabled to worship -- or not -- as they see fit. That's exactly why we need to keep our government secular: to protect your religious freedom!
Jerk: Well, this country was founded as a Christian nation.
Me: That couldn't be more false! Many of the founders weren't even Christian: Franklin, Jefferson, Madison--
Jerk: Madison was a strong Christian who believed in Christian principles in our government!!!
Jerk: If they didn't want it to be a Christian nation, why did the founders make "In God We Trust" our national motto.And it went on like this for a while. Eventually, the four of us stood up to walk away from this nonsense, and as we sauntered off, I murmered "Jesus Christ" to myself.
Me: Uhhh... They didn't! That became our national motto in the 1950s during the Red Scare. The founders were pretty strident secularists, even most of the religious ones.
Jerk: Show me where in the Constitution it says "separation of church and state."
Me: Yeah, those specific words don't appear, in the 1st amendment. But it's clear that was the intent, particualrly since that specific phrase, "separation of church and state," originate from Jefferson's explanation 1st ammendment. How about the first ever legal US government document that makes any mention of Christianity whatsoever, the Treaty of Tripoli, which was written by President Thomas Jefferson and ratified unanimously by the senate, which states that the "Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." That seems pretty unequivocal to me.
Jerk: Well, our laws are based on Christian laws.
Me: No they're not.
Jerk: Name one that isn't.
Me: Name one that is.
Jerk: Thou shalt not kill.
Me: Laws against murder long predate the Hebrew Bible and exist in every society. What about the Sumerians? The Code of Hammurabi?
Jerk: I don't know where you've been learning your history. Maybe you should go back to school.
Me: Um, my degree is in anthropology and I primarily studied Middle Eastern archaeology.
Jerk: Oh yeah! Well, I have a Ph.D!
Me: Um. Okay...
Jerk: How old are you?
Me: That's not important.
Jerk: No, really, how old are you?
Me: That's not important.
My friend: Actually, we were having a private conversation that didn't involve you. Why do you think you have the right to intrude into it.
Jerk: Because I live the United States and I have the right say whatever I want, a right atheists want to take away!
Jerk: PLEASE DON'T SAY THAT!
Me: Why? I thought we lived in the United States, where I'm free to say whatever I like! That's the difference I'm talking about: I think that everyone should be able to say what they like, and you think some people, like me, should be excluded.
Jerk: ... Well, at least I said please.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Rick Warren: lying lieface
[hat-tip to the Friendly Atheist]
Let me just preface this by saying that I absolutely hate pious hypocrisy and pious deception. I hate it when religious leaders think that because they are working for the Glory of God or whatever, they feel they have the right to lie.
Rick Warren, who you may remember from such films as I'm a Bigot, but Don't Tell Anyone! and Saddlebackin' is in the news again.
Warren was notoriously criticized by many for his anti-gay bigotry after being selected to give the invocation.
Last week, Warren claimed on the Larry King show that he had never endorsed Proposition 8. Specifically, he said:
Warren responded that this statement cannot be construed as an endorsement, as it was just a pastor takling to his flock. Umm.. What?
But wait! There's more!
Warren felt all picked on for being caught in an obvious lie, so he canceled an upcoming appearance on ABC's This Week.
And it gets even BETTER:
Warren attacked Beliefnet founder Steven Waldman, hardly a hostile interogator for Warren, for tricking him into equating gay marriage with pedophilia. Specifically, Warren said:
Now, in fairness, I will say that some of Warren's statement's in the full transcript of that interview are a hell of a lot less virulently anti-gay than what you hear from many religious leaders, but it really seems like he wants to have his cake and eat it to on the whole bigotry issue.
Let me just preface this by saying that I absolutely hate pious hypocrisy and pious deception. I hate it when religious leaders think that because they are working for the Glory of God or whatever, they feel they have the right to lie.
Rick Warren, who you may remember from such films as I'm a Bigot, but Don't Tell Anyone! and Saddlebackin' is in the news again.
Warren was notoriously criticized by many for his anti-gay bigotry after being selected to give the invocation.
Last week, Warren claimed on the Larry King show that he had never endorsed Proposition 8. Specifically, he said:
I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been, never will be.Of course, everyone knew this was a blatant lie, so people rushed to the intertubes and tracked down a video of Warren, speaking to his congregation saying:During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never — never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going. [emphasis added]
Now let me just say this really clearly. We support Proposition 8. And if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8.That sounds like about as unequivocal an endorsement as I can possibly imagine.
Warren responded that this statement cannot be construed as an endorsement, as it was just a pastor takling to his flock. Umm.. What?
But wait! There's more!
Warren felt all picked on for being caught in an obvious lie, so he canceled an upcoming appearance on ABC's This Week.
And it gets even BETTER:
Warren attacked Beliefnet founder Steven Waldman, hardly a hostile interogator for Warren, for tricking him into equating gay marriage with pedophilia. Specifically, Warren said:
I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest, which I absolutely do not believe.So, just how did he do that? Here's the passage Warren's talking about:
(Um... Has Rick Warren even read the Bible?)“WARREN: The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that [some partnership rights] as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?
[WARREN:] Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion - this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews — historically, marriage is a man and a woman.
Now, in fairness, I will say that some of Warren's statement's in the full transcript of that interview are a hell of a lot less virulently anti-gay than what you hear from many religious leaders, but it really seems like he wants to have his cake and eat it to on the whole bigotry issue.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Personal History part 1: Who I am now
See the entire "personal history" series of posts:
So, to placate the hordes of devoted fans clamoring to know all there is to know about me (that means you!), I wanted to take some time to relate some of the stories in my life that have helped shape who I am today, as well as define just who that is. This will be the first in a series of blog posts about my views about science, love, personal fulfillment and other weighty topics, as well as a personal history of how I came to be the person I am.
So, just who am I?
Where does one even start on such a question. I could begin how most people do: by describing my occupation. I really enjoy my job and I think I'm good at it, but I don't really think its helpful in conveying who I am as an individual. I'm 5'10" with red hair, zero children and a dog. I live in Salt Lake City, Utah.
I'm an atheist. I am an atheist in the sense that I do not believe that supernatural explanations are necessary to explain my existence or the workings of the universe. Is it possible that there is some sort of higher being out in the ether responsible for the creation of the universe? Sure, but whatever that being is is beyond our grasp or understanding to the point of irrelevancy. Natural (i.e., scientific) explanations have proven to be far better explanations for natural phenomena than supernatural ones. There is no reason for me to operate under the assumption that there is some greater supernatural power out there.
I do not believe in a new agey "god is everything" sort of god, as there is no explanatory power in doing so. It might make us feel good to think that we are cosmically linked to the water that flows through our rivers and through our veins, that we share a piece of soul with the hummingbird outside our window. But most assertions like this are untestable or irrelevant. Those that are testable have failed to demonstrate what they claim. The new age "god" (lowercase) is of the same ephemera of Intelligent Design: it may make people feel good and validates their opinions, but doesn't add an explanatory power to the human book of knowledge, and indeed can lead people to reject those theories that are borne out by the facts.
Furthermore, I definitely do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God, Brahma, Yaldabaoth, the Spectre or any other more conventional god: a superpowered individual. Any testable claims made by scriptures claiming to establish the existence of these superpowered individuals or other testable claims fail to hold up to scientific scrutiny.
I live in the United States of America, so the superpowered individuals I am most familiar with are the Christian trinity (Yahweh, Jesus, the "Holy Spirit"), Satan, angels and demons, but the same logic holds for any faith.
Aside: This is quite an extensive pantheon for a supposedly "monotheistic" religion.
The supposedly-inerrant Bible makes numerous testable claims about how the universe functions. Many of these claims are demonstrably untrue (grasshoppers have four legs, hares chew cud, humans were sculpted out of dirt and or ribs, two specimens of every single earth-bound animal species can fit in a single ship about 1/3 the length of a modern aircraft carrier) .
Furthermore I live in Utah and grew up at least nominally as a Latter-Day Saint, so that adds a whole new layer of testable assertions that are demonstrably untrue (this piece of papyrus was written by the Abraham in an ultra-condensed script relaying his entire life story in great detail). More on how the LDS faith fits into my personal history in a later post.
I find religious moderates to be FAR more congenial to hang around with than fundamentalists, but I also find religious moderates difficult to understand. The Bible, according to itself, is the inerrant word of God and must be taken literally and its rules followed strictly. To me, saying "Well, I believe in Jesus and the Bible, but that part about how you should forcibly shave women's heads if they dare to have their hair exposed in church is, you know optional," should cause ridiculous amounts of cognitive dissonance. It seems to be that if one accepts the fallibility of the Bible, what is the point of claiming to still believe in it? Where does one draw the line on what parts of the bible to accept and what parts to reject? [See my post "For the Bible Tells me So" for more thoughts on this.]
But enough on that for now.
I'm also a skeptic. Just as with religious claims, I believe that all claims should be subject to testing by the scientific method. If a claim is untestable, then it really isn't of much use and is by definition not science. If a claim is testable, then it is open to rigorous and ongoing scientific testing. If the claim fails to hold up to the testing, then it should be rejected.
This goes for mundane claims ("rebooting your computer will solve this problem") to claims that may shake the foundations of our understanding ("humans evolved from earlier primates through the process of natural selection"). The bigger the claim, the more evidence is required to cause me to accept the claim. As Carl Sagan put it, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
This perspective allows me to look critically at paranormal or pseudoscientific topics such as psychics, UFOs, homeopathy, ghosts, and Intelligent Design. I personally do not do much to verify the power of, for instance, a dowser. But it's not my job to that. The dowser must demonstrate that their claim holds up to controlled testing. It is true that I rely on experts to do much of this testing for me, as I am not an active scientist. but I don't rely on the work of any single scientist. The important component is the general consensus of those that perform science.
I'm a progressive liberal. More on this later...
I'll delve into some of my other beliefs, my past, and what events have have led me to where I am in future posts... But this post is getting kind of out of hand, so I'm going to give everyone a break and stop for now.
- Part 1 - Who I am now. why I'm an atheist, a skeptic, and a progressive liberal, and why I think that's a good thing.
- Part 2 - I grew up in a Mormon family and community, but my parents always encouraged critical thinking.
- Part 3 - As I became a teenager, I began having doubts about religion and the supernatural and began to reconcile that with a scientific viewpoint that increasingly edged out religion.
- Part 4 - "Agnostic, leaning toward atheism"
So, to placate the hordes of devoted fans clamoring to know all there is to know about me (that means you!), I wanted to take some time to relate some of the stories in my life that have helped shape who I am today, as well as define just who that is. This will be the first in a series of blog posts about my views about science, love, personal fulfillment and other weighty topics, as well as a personal history of how I came to be the person I am.
So, just who am I?
Where does one even start on such a question. I could begin how most people do: by describing my occupation. I really enjoy my job and I think I'm good at it, but I don't really think its helpful in conveying who I am as an individual. I'm 5'10" with red hair, zero children and a dog. I live in Salt Lake City, Utah.
I'm an atheist. I am an atheist in the sense that I do not believe that supernatural explanations are necessary to explain my existence or the workings of the universe. Is it possible that there is some sort of higher being out in the ether responsible for the creation of the universe? Sure, but whatever that being is is beyond our grasp or understanding to the point of irrelevancy. Natural (i.e., scientific) explanations have proven to be far better explanations for natural phenomena than supernatural ones. There is no reason for me to operate under the assumption that there is some greater supernatural power out there.
I do not believe in a new agey "god is everything" sort of god, as there is no explanatory power in doing so. It might make us feel good to think that we are cosmically linked to the water that flows through our rivers and through our veins, that we share a piece of soul with the hummingbird outside our window. But most assertions like this are untestable or irrelevant. Those that are testable have failed to demonstrate what they claim. The new age "god" (lowercase) is of the same ephemera of Intelligent Design: it may make people feel good and validates their opinions, but doesn't add an explanatory power to the human book of knowledge, and indeed can lead people to reject those theories that are borne out by the facts.
Furthermore, I definitely do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God, Brahma, Yaldabaoth, the Spectre or any other more conventional god: a superpowered individual. Any testable claims made by scriptures claiming to establish the existence of these superpowered individuals or other testable claims fail to hold up to scientific scrutiny.
I live in the United States of America, so the superpowered individuals I am most familiar with are the Christian trinity (Yahweh, Jesus, the "Holy Spirit"), Satan, angels and demons, but the same logic holds for any faith.
Aside: This is quite an extensive pantheon for a supposedly "monotheistic" religion.
The supposedly-inerrant Bible makes numerous testable claims about how the universe functions. Many of these claims are demonstrably untrue (grasshoppers have four legs, hares chew cud, humans were sculpted out of dirt and or ribs, two specimens of every single earth-bound animal species can fit in a single ship about 1/3 the length of a modern aircraft carrier) .
Furthermore I live in Utah and grew up at least nominally as a Latter-Day Saint, so that adds a whole new layer of testable assertions that are demonstrably untrue (this piece of papyrus was written by the Abraham in an ultra-condensed script relaying his entire life story in great detail). More on how the LDS faith fits into my personal history in a later post.
I find religious moderates to be FAR more congenial to hang around with than fundamentalists, but I also find religious moderates difficult to understand. The Bible, according to itself, is the inerrant word of God and must be taken literally and its rules followed strictly. To me, saying "Well, I believe in Jesus and the Bible, but that part about how you should forcibly shave women's heads if they dare to have their hair exposed in church is, you know optional," should cause ridiculous amounts of cognitive dissonance. It seems to be that if one accepts the fallibility of the Bible, what is the point of claiming to still believe in it? Where does one draw the line on what parts of the bible to accept and what parts to reject? [See my post "For the Bible Tells me So" for more thoughts on this.]
But enough on that for now.
I'm also a skeptic. Just as with religious claims, I believe that all claims should be subject to testing by the scientific method. If a claim is untestable, then it really isn't of much use and is by definition not science. If a claim is testable, then it is open to rigorous and ongoing scientific testing. If the claim fails to hold up to the testing, then it should be rejected.
This goes for mundane claims ("rebooting your computer will solve this problem") to claims that may shake the foundations of our understanding ("humans evolved from earlier primates through the process of natural selection"). The bigger the claim, the more evidence is required to cause me to accept the claim. As Carl Sagan put it, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
This perspective allows me to look critically at paranormal or pseudoscientific topics such as psychics, UFOs, homeopathy, ghosts, and Intelligent Design. I personally do not do much to verify the power of, for instance, a dowser. But it's not my job to that. The dowser must demonstrate that their claim holds up to controlled testing. It is true that I rely on experts to do much of this testing for me, as I am not an active scientist. but I don't rely on the work of any single scientist. The important component is the general consensus of those that perform science.
I'm a progressive liberal. More on this later...
I'll delve into some of my other beliefs, my past, and what events have have led me to where I am in future posts... But this post is getting kind of out of hand, so I'm going to give everyone a break and stop for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)