Category Archives: Blog

Religious people are easily frightened

Posted on by

TGA reader Ben sent me this link. It’s from a Australian news site, and deals with the issue of having secular ethics as an option for primary school parents. Seems as though the staff and parents aren’t too pleased about it:

Research director Jenny Stokes said: “If you go there, where do you stop? What about witchcraft or Satanism? If you accredit humanism, then those things would have an equal claim to be taught in schools.”

I’m not a big expert on just what goes down under, so these stories generally baffle me. You would think trying to teach kids about ethics without a higher power was as dangerous as throwing a can of gasoline on an open flame. Last time I checked, everyone I knew who learned about civics in class didn’t end up being morally psychotic or wanting to sell his soul to Satan. Lighten

The Santa experiment

Posted on by

I don’t have any children, although like any young adult, I’ve often contemplated how I would raise my own. I never particularly liked Christmas, and I always felt it unwise and deceitful to teach my children the rather silly notion of Santa Claus. The big bearded guy stands for many of the values I do not believe in; mainly the capitalist, consumerist attitude I feel is quickly destroying our planet.

Recently, however, I’ve changed my mind about the guy. There is another purpose to Santa Claus, not to mention the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny: they are quite effective tools to teach our children how to seek out evidence of claims made by others about how the universe operates, and ultimately of the duplicity of adults. In their infancy, kids are gullible. They’ll believe whatever you tell them. You could say babies come from storks, that Santa Claus can tell if they have been naughty or nice, or there is a bearded andro-centric God who will send them to a fiery pit of hell if they misbehave or fail to believe in his unprovable existence. In the case of Santa, the dogma is normally something that persists only a few months of the year, around the time of Christmas. Although those months may be intense, with images of him everywhere (in stores, on television, and the Internet). From November to December, the fat guy is everywhere.

We reward children who are especially pleased with the idea of Santa. The more they are excited about him, the more we ham it up, and play into the fantasy. The child benefits from a reward system that re-enforces the notion and existence of Santa, in the shape of presents, candies, and food. For a child, the idea that Christmas is actually about the birth of a man some consider God is completely lost on them; it’s all about Santa, and about the presents he brings.

But like any myth, the story of Santa is riddled with inconsistencies and impossibilities. As children grow up, they begin to question the mythology. How can Santa deliver presents to billions of children all in one night? How can he come in the house if someone doesn’t have a chimney, or if the chimney is lit? Why is it that some children (particularly the poor ones) never receive any gifts, or people who aren’t Christians don’t get any either? Are they not both deserving? An inquiring child will begin to ask these questions, and even the most credulous one will be highly suspicious of his existence once all of the evidence is examined. Like any good parent, we see a child abandoning his fantasy world as just one development in the many stages of growing up.

The Santa experiment offers us a rather unique look at how children are able to reject claims made by adults about the world, despite their bombardment of self reinforcing imagery. This is due to several factors: (1) the mythology of Santa is generally not held dogmatically, nor is it considered a crucial part of a person’s belief system. (2) The rejection of the idea of Santa is seen as a positive development in the life of a child. Credulous belief in his existence is usually seen as a sign of immaturity, and other incredulous children often reinforce the idea that the belief is juvenile. (3) The ‘indoctrination’ of the imagery and story of Santa are only reinforced during limited times of the year. After the Christmas season is over, the influence of Santa as a cultural and mythological entity fades.

Although some might criticize me for drawing a parallel between the notion of Santa and gods, the fact remains that the ideas share a great deal in common. Like many religions, the legend of Santa Claus is based at least partially on a real person (St. Nicholas), which, over the span of time, has been exaggerated, mystified, and stylized. The main differences lie in the fact the mythologies of religions are far more sophisticated, as are their underlying themes. The idea of Santa Claus does not deal with complex moral issues, but is rather a quaint view of how human beings should act towards one another. Santa is like a proto-religion that never really took off. It’s easy to see if the legend had been taken more seriously, and a whole set of moral and ethical guidelines had been built around this legend, that ‘Clausism’ might have quite the following; after all, the values of giving, honesty, and goodness are important and popular values. Instead, Santa Clause has been assimilated by our culture and turned into a religion fit for children, and not adults.

It seems fitting most children realize Santa is a myth, but they maintain the illusion in order to try and manipulate the system to gain more presents. By doing so, they turn the tables on our little lie for their own self interest. I see nothing wrong with this; the notion of Santa is something we use to manipulate kids around the holidays. It’s poetic justice that the Bearded Fat one eventually becomes their tool for manipulation. Ah, truely, this is the true spirit of Christmas, is it not?

I knew it, Christmas IS evil!

Posted on by

More on the War on Christmas, and this time, it’s not coming from us filthy atheists. Anjem Choudary is a Muslim chairman for the Society of Muslim Lawyers, and preaches on the corrupt influence Christmas apparently has on Muslims. Now it’s one thing to dislike a holiday, but it’s another entirely to decree yuletide festivities are a ‘pathway to hellfire’.

You gotta love these brimstone and hellfire guys. They really love to rub hell in everyone’s face. Apparently, having a little bit of turkey on the 25th is something that Allah cannot tolerate. This is a God with an inferiority complex at the thought of anyone celebrating any other deity but him.

The thing that always gets me about the War on Christmas is just how sensitive all these religious people are. If I had a firm belief in the absolute truth of my God, I wouldn’t worry too much about other religions. Surely if I have the truth, my chosen Deity can fully intervene and show these infidels just who they are messing with. A little celebration, be it Christmas, Ramadan, or Yom Kippur certainly wouldn’t give me much pause; after all, I’m one of the chosen people, right?

What’s funny in all of this is Muslims actually believe in the historical Jesus. The only major difference is they believe he was a great prophet and not a God. Seems to me there’s no reason they couldn’t simply make a few of their own alterations to the celebration and not feel completely left out of all the fun. Because you know something; at the end of the day, celebrating the winter solstice with your friends, your neighbors, and your family is a pretty awesome thing. Not being able to participate because some asshole tells you that you’ll burn in hell forever puts a damper on things, doesn’t it?

Muslims condemn attacks, go on defensive

Posted on by

In case you were completely cut off from the whole world and haven’t heard, a group of Islamic terrorists executed 170 people in cold blood in Mumbai, India last week, and many religious leaders in the Muslim community have come out condemning the attacks, while also vehemently denying there is anything about their faith that may be causing these violent outbreaks. If Islam is such a peaceful religion, why is there so much violence and hatred?

Luckily, not everyone is blind to the impact terrorist attacks are having on the world perception of Islam. Al-Jenfawi, a columnist for a Kuwaiti newspaper, said this concerning the problem of perception:

Muslims and Arabs must confront the violence that is taking place in our name and in the name of our (Islamic) tenets. Unfortunately, we have yet to see a distinguished popular condemnation in the traditional Arab or Muslim communities that strongly rejects what is happening in the name of Islam or Arab nationalism

As far as I can tell, there’s no reason to believe this will happen anytime soon. The violent assaults we are witness to are only the beginning. The truth of the matter is the Muslim faith has done little to reform itself, and as a result, its dogma often reflects values and traditions that are incompatible with modern life. Although there are many moderate Muslims, they are generally considered corrupt, evil and infidels within other more orthodox traditions. Reformation seems impossible unless a majority of Muslims agree that there are elements of their faiths that must be expunged. I very much doubt anything of the sort will happen.

Tensions are going to continue to rise unless something drastic happens. How many Islamic terrorist attacks will occur before the public grows suspicious and mistrustful of any Muslim? I don’t defend judging an entire religion on the action of extremists, but why exactly is it so difficult for this religion to get some of its members under control? There is no denying there is a great deal of hatred in the Middle East, much of it directed against the West, and Jews in particular. If moderate and modern Muslims want to avoid being feared and mistrusted, they will need to do more than simply condemn the actions of their religious brethren. If, following the attacks, Muslim organizations had mobilized to bring help and assistance to the victims, it would have sent a clear message that it wasn’t a situation of them vs us. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like this is very likely, and the continued failure of Muslims to integrate Islamic faith in our modern world could well create a impenetrable cultural barrier.

Gazette Interview: Part 2

Posted on by

Some propose constructing a new language to be taught internationally, designed specifically to be easy to learn and understand, would you support such an idea?

The idea of creating a new language was tried many years ago, and it was a dismal failure. Esperanto is now considered to be a joke among philologists (people who study languages). Generally speaking, it would be unrealistic to assume that anyone would take the idea seriously enough to devote the time and resources necessary to do this. For the most part, human beings deal almost exclusively with people of their own country. Think of how seldom even the most cosmopolitan individual encounters impenetrable language barriers. It seems wiser to invest ourselves in teaching a multitude of languages to young children, who seem to have no real trouble in memorizing many simultaneously. If we each were trilingual, the odds of not finding a common language base would be rare indeed.

Rarely do children part from the religion they were raised in, and with all the different religions around the world there’s apparently never been much evidence that people will all reach the same answer with the right education. Considering 9/11 and the many other religiously motivated modern tragedies, can we afford to keep fighting it out, hoping that the truth will prevail?

You claim people rarely venture away from their faith, but there is no real way to measure faith in each human being. How can you differentiate between people who truly believe, and those who are culturally bound to their native religion? In other words, there may be a significant portion of individuals who identify themselves as religious only because they find it convenient to do so. I have many friends who call themselves Christians who don’t believe in a Triune God, and there is a long history of secular Jews who found comfort and solace in the traditions of their institution without the added religiosity.

It’s true that proper education may not dispel powerfully held superstitions; the perpetrators of 9/11 were almost all college graduates. A person can be taught to build a nuclear weapon without first being taught of the moral and ethical problems it entails. How long do students in high school and college study philosophy and civics? Can we honestly claim our education system is sophisticated enough to be producing rational, intelligent, and enlightened human beings? A significant proportion of American students leave High School with very low scores in reading comprehension. I would venture to say there is little being done in teaching children the proper fundamentals of morality, ethics, and philosophy. It is generally assumed that religion is enough to fulfill the role of making good citizens, but there is still more that can be done.

Most of the world is religious, and some of them see modern science as a rival to their spirituality. What do you say to the supporters of homeopathic medicine, who often see a lack of evidence to mean very little, or even to be a good thing?

There are many different individuals who are mistrustful of science, and some of these people regard spirituality and religion to have more objective truth. It would be impossible for me to try and make them doubt their belief, since they have already decided it is true regardless of any evidence. People who believe in homeopathic medicine have a great deal invested in the idea; some in manufacturing it, and others in distributing it. We practice skepticism every day of our lives without a second thought. If I was to buy a car and the dealer informed me one of his minivans could fly, I would demand that he produce evidence of this before I gave him any money. It wouldn’t matter how offended he might be that I questioned his assertion; the burden of proof is on his to prove his claim, not for me to disprove it. It’s just common sense. The idea that some things are immune from scrutiny seems to indicate they are very fragile indeed. I don’t know about you, but I typically like the things I believe in to have some degree of evidence to them, rather than have proof to the contrary.

The Internet is obviously a very important part of the world today, and you said our future lies in our ability to maintain neutrality of information, but does net-neutrality not infringe on the rights of private corporations to regulate the Internet in whichever way they want? Does the government have the right to step in and decide when it would be in our best interest to give up our freedom?

Consider how airwaves are managed; in order to be able to broadcast, a person must first pay a huge sum of money to gain a specific frequency. Even if they can afford the exorbitant sum, their content is constantly monitored and policed by the FCC. Radio is no longer a source of innovation precisely because the rules of the game have been engineered to make corporate interest the only viable way to have a radio station. Corporations can no more lay claim to radio waves than they can claim the distribution of information. Net neutrality ensures that no rights are infringed, since no one monopoly can control the distribution of content. This means that private interests of any size have the same access as everyone else. Imagine if highways were sectioned off, making most lanes only accessible to private enterprise, and limiting public access of the highway to only one lane. How could you ensure you can make a living if you cannot get to work on time due to huge traffic jams?

If a private company wanted the chance to run their own police stations rather than let the government handle this essential service, we would be right to be concerned about whether or not abuses in power may occur. This is because private corporations are liable only to shareholders, while police are liable to the public which they serve. We would not qualify government keeping certain services public as an infringement on the liberties of corporations. Net neutrality only ensures that service providers don’t preferentially distribute traffic in such a way as to limit the availability of bandwidth to others. While some may feel as though it should be their right to control the Internet, ensuring the internet is still a public domain is critical if we want to ensure the fair and equal distribution of information to all citizens.

Under certain extreme circumstances, you say comforting lies can be better than the truth, so why shouldn’t we all be blissfully ignorant, if there really is no hell to be punished in later, even if it means the end of the world?

Humans are inherently driven to seek the truth. This is why we have been probing the secrets of nature for all our lives. It’s what allowed us to manipulate and change our environments so drastically. I know of no one who would rather trade comfort with the truth, especially when our survival as a species is at stake. I do not need to believe in God to think that life is fighting for, and I certainly don’t think we should close our eyes and bury our heads in the sand. We tell white lies because we realize the truth is not always pleasant to hear, but it does not mean we continue to lie when the stake is something as serious as our survival as a species. You probably wouldn’t mind if your spouse lied to you about your weight, but it would be grossly negligent not to mention anything if your weight problem was suddenly causing massive health risks. The truth can hurt, but we cannot sacrifice the most important truths simply for the sake of blissful comfort.

Zoophiles claim that certain animals can consent to sexual relations with a human as much as a human can, pedophiles claim that the difference between a mature 17 year old and an immature 18 year old should be taken into account. Our current laws of consent sometimes are seen to be justified by their simplicity, even if they can be unfair, but is it not oppressive for a majority to ignore the potential damage they cause to minority groups by deciding their pain not worth the cost of fixing? Should a majority vote be able to remove the rights of a minority, such as the recent passing of Proposition 8 in California? Or should a government step in and overrule the majority, despite the people’s democratic ideals? What laws should restrict those who can engage in civil union? Homosexuality, polygamy, zoophilia, pedophilia, where should the line be drawn, and who gets to draw it?

It is insulting to compare homosexuality with zoophilia and pedophelia. A dog or a cat can no more consent to sex than can an infant. The laws created against these two sexual offences are based on the idea that animals should not be subject to sexual torture, and that although it is difficult to estimate the age in which a person can become an adult, they are only legally recognized as independent at the age of 18. This is not what is being debated with votes such as Proposition 8 in California. There is no significant difference between homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages apart from the fact that some people feel prejudicial about such unions.

If you ask me what I thought of government interfering with the rights of people to marry, my question would be: what if heterosexuals became a minority tomorrow? How would we feel if a majority vote had decided that we were no longer able marry people of opposite sex? Our argument would be the same as gays and lesbians fighting for the same rights straight people already have; that the tyranny of the majority cannot be allowed to rescind the rights of others, especially when those very same rights are already enjoyed by the majority. If any American feels that there are segments of the population who cannot enjoy the same rights and freedoms as they do, then I suggest perhaps they revise the Constitution. The idea that people have equal rights is not up for debate. The concept of marriage is not being radically changed here: the parties involved are still just two consenting adults, with the minor difference that they are the same sex.

The illusion of design

Posted on by

I mentioned before that many individuals believe in religion because of what they perceive to be logical reasons, and it is often based on the illusion of design, both here on earth, and in the cosmos in general. The universe, as far as we can observe, seems to be both extremely complex and mysterious at first glance. Here on earth, the complexity of life is staggering; in a handful of dirt, there are million of organisms, some working in symbiotic co-operation while others are parasitic. All of these organisms are engaged in a struggle to survive, both with other species and members of their own group. To remain competitive, every individual organism has become an expert at exploiting a specific niche. Whether or not their strategy will continue to work is uncertain. What is known is this constant fight for survival has many different battlegrounds, each one staggeringly beautiful and complex. It is this complexity that leads many to credit a God for its existence.

Human beings, by their very nature, are builders. Since the dawn of our species, we’ve created tools; weapons to hunt and kill our food, and clothes to keep warm. As our race progressed, and civilizations began, we constructed ever more complex cities, bureaucracies and governments to manage them. Each new level was seen as a considerable improvement over the last one. A civilization still in the Stone Age going up against one in the Iron, or even Bronze Age didn’t stand a change of surviving. Technology was imperative for the survival of civilizations as they competed for land, resources, or even ideologies. The victors were usually more advanced, and therefore generally more complex. Now, particularly in the West, we view technological progress as a sign of intelligence and superiority, and the complexity of modern civilization mimics some of the complexity of our biosphere. The fact our most sophisticated technology looks downright primitive compared to the intricacy of biological life seems to lend credence to the idea that it must have been designed by an intelligence far superior to our own. In other words, the power and complexity of biological life is inferred as being the product of design from a far more complex, and infinitely more powerful entity: God

The illusion of design, for many, is a required step for the belief in a higher power. It fulfills their desperate need for the intellectual necessity of their theological axioms. The Bible, even if it is taken allegorically, still clearly implies the universe is the product of a grand designer, no doubt the result of the simple observations of the varied authors of the book. During their lifetime, nothing but the supernatural could explain how the universe could have been originated, or how things would fall to the ground if thrown, and why hot things always burned. Laws were not of nature: they were of God. As science has evolved, however, the laws of the universe have been uncovered, and appear not to require the work of a supernatural force to make them work. This is true of all the forces we know, including evolution. Darwin’s insight shattered one of the most powerful mysteries about how the vast diversity of life originated without a designer. Everything operated as a function of selective pressure, and the only reason human beings exist was because we exploited a particular niche, and nothing else.

The majority of Christians believe in evolution, not because of theological reasons, but rather because they understand how accurate and logical it is. They do not need the inference of a designer to justify their religious beliefs. Of course, not every religious person takes this reasonable stance. Some Christians, particularly evangelical ones, necessitate a literal interpretation of the Bible, and in defense of their theology, they employ the illusion of design in their creationist explanation of the universe. This ‘theory’ has been dressed up in a cheap tuxedo and given the name Intelligent Design.

The idea of Intelligent Design is not especially new; most of our history we’ve been young earth creationists, believing the earth is only a few thousand years old. We did not possess the scientific gumption to think otherwise. Besides, our respective religions discouraged the type of curiosity that might undermine the exactitude of church doctrine. As far as we were concerned, all the answers had already been discovered, and the most important thing wasn’t this world, but rather the world of the hereafter. Certainly, if you think the universe consists of the earth, and 7 different layers or celestial object revolving around it, it’s not exactly an exciting enough place that needs much attention. But the universe isn’t small: it’s astoundingly huge, and human curiosity is far too powerful not to want to learn more about how it works.

Intelligent Design isn’t science. It is an attempt to undermine science in favor of theological appeasement. It is irrelevant that we are inclined to believe the elegance of nature is too incredible to be the result of only natural law; it does not change the fact the evidence is against a grand designer. We must abandon the idea of inferring intelligence to anything that is complex or powerful without evidence. It’s true it’s in our nature to feel the world obeys the same rules we’ve created for ourselves, but it does not make it so.

Faith healing and the manipulation of the desperate

Posted on by

On a normal day in February. Bernadette Soubirous, a 14 year old living in the small town of Lourdes in France, was gathering firewood with her sisters near a small grotto. She became aware of a presence, and claims a lady in a white robe with a golden rose on each foot appeared before her. Her sisters, who were present at the time, did not report seeing anything of the sort. Bernadette would return to the site another 17 times, and her visions were interpreted by the townspeople as being of divine origin. They all assumed the woman was the Virgin Mary, and in the 157 years since her ‘visions’, the site has become a pilgrimage for the sick and lame seeking for a miracle cure.

Every year, over 5,000,000 people visit the town, and the sight of so many ill and disabled people can be downright strange. There have supposedly been 67 inexplicable miracle cures since Bernadette’s visions, but in light of the droves of pious individuals making their journey to France, the numbers seem terribly low. There’s every reason to doubt the apparition story, especially since Bernadette had suffered from cholera as a child, which seemed to have made her simple.

If these visions had occurred today, Bernadette would have been hospitalized. They may have found her to suffer from schizophrenia, or perhaps was the victim of hallucinations caused by a poor diet. In any case, almost no one would have believed her sightings to be genuine. It seems, however, that she benefited from living in a much simpler time.

The droves wishing for a cure make the painful trek to Lourdes, but this is not the only example of ‘faith healing’. There are many different forms in a large variety of religious denominations. Many involve the imbibing of special and sacred liquids, or the presence of holy relics. Sometimes, it is actual living human beings who are thought to channel the power of healing. These ‘Faith Healers’ are most prevalent in America, where large numbers of indoctrinated individuals believe in their miraculous powers. Their piety and desperation reinforce one another, and the results are lucrative for those claiming to heal the sick.

In the 1980s Peter Popoff, a German born televangelist, made millions of dollars with his supposed abilities. He seemed to be able to name people’s names, addresses, and ailments. His clientele, which was comprised of desperate and sick people, were easy prey. The powerful tradition of faith they were part of, which teaches them miracles really do happen, made them prime targets for exploitation. But the technique Popoff used was so simple, anyone could easily duplicate it, and they often do. Popoff used a simple radio transceiver device operated by his wife, who would read out cue cards written in advance by the audience members. In 1987, he was exposed when James Randi recorded the audio he had intercepted. Although Popoff declared bankruptcy and vanished for a brief time, his ministry is still alive today. Dismantling the hopes of the faithful is much more difficult than can be imagined.

Some faith healers rely on far simpler and low tech techniques to convince the faithful they possess supernatural abilities, and these tricks are borrowed from mentalists and psychics. They use a tool called ‘cold reading’ to garner information about people while giving the impression that they are in fact revealing the information themselves. Most of the time it’s the simple act of using visual clues to make observations about an individual. For instance, a person with poor physical appearance would probably suffer from a lack of self confidence. A cold reader would therefore guess the person might have problems finding someone for a relationship or isn’t getting the promotion at work they want. In the case of faith healers, they can make snap judgments about ailments by the sight of a crutch, wheelchair, or bandages. His gullible victims are only too eager to give information about themselves if the visual clues are not present. All the faith healer needs to do then is speak loudly and suddenly, laying his hands (often on their foreheads) to send the audience member into a kind of trance. Often the exhilaration of the experience temporarily alleviates the symptoms, and this is interpreted as a cure. But once the show is over and the exhilaration fades, the symptoms return.

Some might think that a pilgrimage or dramatic laying on hands does no harm, but this is not the case at all. Often times, when these faith healers perform their ‘miracles’, their victims will often cease to seek proper medical treatment. One dramatic example involved a woman who had thrown off her braces and run on stage at the command of the faith healer. The woman suffered from cancer of the spine, and the next day, her backbone collapsed. She died 4 months later. Extensive investigations by doctors found that all attendees who have experienced cures during the performance often had worsened after their ‘cures’, due usually to the strain of the experience.

The practice of faith healing is popular precisely because of how lucrative it is. Lourdes’ tourist trap invariably provides a great deal of money for the town, and evangelical ministers often make millions of dollars going around the country collecting donations. The harmful effects have been heavily documented, and yet, we choose to continue to allow this fraudulent behavior. I can only assume it is because we place a higher value of faith than we do on life. Faith healing preys on the most desperate of human emotions; the need to live a life without suffering. Their practitioners exploit the fears and hopes of our fellow man to enrich themselves. This is unacceptable, and it must be stopped.

Homeopathy; a story of dilusion

Posted on by

I am often reminded one does not win popularity contests when attempting to shatter the delusions of others. I can certainly appreciate the fact no one wants to believe that they might be wrong, especially if this belief represents a form of comfort. It is then that I carefully remind people the truth is not a matter of popularity; we have plenty of examples in history of when popular beliefs have been held erroneously, often with tragic results. Perhaps, I argue, the old adage that “the truth shall set you free” applies to more than trying to avoid lying to others. Perhaps it also means we need to stop lying to ourselves, even if we find these lies comforting.

My particular rant, this day, concerns the rather archaic and antiquated practice known as alternative medicine. This ranges from a variety of activities from the laying on of hands to acupuncture; to the supposed healing energy of crystals and magnets, or evangelical ministers and their faith healing. They may differ in their respective rituals, but each one demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the human body and science in general. For them to be effective, those who engage in these activities must prescribe to a particular set of beliefs; either that a human being is capable of manipulating energy with their minds (and, subsequently, that energy is somehow responsible for healing), or a higher power has endowed an individual with miraculous powers. This is what makes these beliefs alternative, and they differ significantly from their orthodox counterparts, who use the rigorous double blind study and hard research to demonstrate their effectiveness. One does not need to believe in penicillin to benefit from its curative properties.

It is my belief it is primarily the lack of understanding about science which allows these myths to persist. I shall therefore try in earnest to educate as many people as possible, who themselves may be unaware of how traditional medicines work.

A relative or friend, when you are troubled by some ailment, may have at some time or another suggested to you the use of some alternative medicine to treat it. Homeopathy is perhaps the most popular alternative medicine, presumably because it is easy to obtain, and because the idea of ingesting a pill or liquid is so accepted in society. Homeopathic medicine is often available in pharmacies, which seems to legitimize their use. Somewhere, in your unconscious, you may have thought to yourself: well, perhaps there is something to this homeopathic treatment. After all, science doesn’t know everything, right?

It’s true, science doesn’t know everything. Science is a process which strives to understand the natural world, and it tests the validity all claims. Anything that is testable is fair ground. The notions of homeopathy are themselves testable, so they are not outside of the realm of science. So, you might wonder, how does homeopathy fare in the validity of their claims? Not well at all. To understand why, let us examine specifically what their claims are.

Homeopathy works on 3 very basic principles. The first, and most basic principle, is called the proof: essentially, any substance that causes a particular effect, (a particular plant, for instance, might cause swelling when eaten) will be noted for that effect. If a patient then displays symptoms that resemble the effect of that substance (like a swollen arm), then the homeopath would recommend the patient then ingest this material. This is the principle ‘like cures like’. The colloquialism one must fight fire with fire comes to mind. Does it really seem wise to give someone a substance that would only cause more swelling? Have no fear, for the second principle of homeopathy is that of dilution. If the same patient with the swollen arm were to consult a homeopath, he would ‘prescribe’ the same substance as before, but greatly diluted. Just what level of dilution makes the product safe for consumption? Well, enter the third, and presumably the most ridiculous principle of all (as though the first two weren’t silly enough); the greater the dilution, the more potent the medicine.

Yes, you read correctly. This is not a typo or slight from the author. Homeopaths actually believe increasing levels of dilution dramatically changes (for the better) the potency of their medicine. If you organized a party at your house, and were suddenly confronted with the crisis of your fruit punch running out, you certainly would consider watering it down to try and save the day. You would not, however, assume that somehow the punch had suddenly become more potent. If the punch contained alcohol, you would not suddenly warn everyone that the increased dilution would increase the deleterious effect of the liquor. You would certainly be considered quite the comedian for entertaining your guests with such a notion. But just how diluted can homeopathic medicine be?

On the back of most homeopathic remedies, unbeknown to most individuals, the actual potency of their medicine is printed clearly. A typical example may include caffeine (often, hilariously enough, in their sleeping pills) ranging with a concentration of 10-30X. This represents to which degree the ingredient has been diluted. This means, if we take the most modest example, that for every caffeine molecule, there are 10 (power of 30) (that’s 10 billion billion billion) molecules of something else, typically either water or, in the case of pills, wax. Some are so diluted, it would take a pill the size of the solar system in order to find at least one molecule of the active ingredient.

In order to circumvent this embarrassing oversight, homeopaths claim the molecules of the medium (in most cases, water or wax) still contain the ‘memory’ of whatever ingredient they purport to be using. This amounts to little more then magic. If every water molecule somehow ‘remembered’ the properties of other substances that it was once part of, then each one would certainly have the property of almost every substance known to man. Molecules are routinely recycled. Odds are you are imbibing a molecule or two that passed through the bladder of some ancient dinosaur. I would hesitate to claim Brontosaurus urine is good for your kidneys.

Is the world ready for the death of God?

Posted on by

There are casualties in the struggle to answer fundamental questions about the universe. For a long time, it has been powerful religious institutions that have burned, sliced, chopped, eviscerated, and snuffed opposing world views that undermined their own. Some may claim the Inquisition and Crusades were political in nature, but it cannot be denied the strength of the Church’s power and the continued desire to maintain its foothold were the real motives behind these political moves. Their most powerful tool was the use of fear; the terrifying prospect of a world without their order and their mandate was too frightening to imagine.

Nowadays, the hold of Christianity is waning. Without the political control they once possessed, the focus has now been placed on creating fear that without them humanity faces nihilism and dread. It’s been repeated so often that most Christians literally believe atheists are somehow immoral, corrupt and perverse. This notion permeates our reputation, and is a powerful way to keep the flock from investigating the possibility their religion may not be true.

Jesse Kilgore was a young man who struggled to figure out what to believe. After having read Richard Dawkin’s book, The God Delusion, he became depressed and morose. He believed laws and ethics were not sacred but rather products of societal convenience. Without the moral crutch of Christianity, he felt alone, isolated, and ultimately killed himself. His father, a highly religious man, feels it is atheism and Dawkins that are responsible for his death. Little does he understand, however, his entire belief system was a major component of why Jesse took his own life.

Christians like to keep the stakes of belief high. Fail to believe in God, and the whole world falls apart. If human beings are animals, they claim, then all things are permissible. But if this was true, why are atheists on average more law abiding than their religious counterparts? Surely if no law is sacred, then why obey them at all? This false choice is a common tactic to bash atheists. Laws and ethics do not need to be divine to be true, nor do human beings need the threat of Hell to ensure good behavior. What Jesse failed to realize was there is an instinctual need to cooperate, to have friendships, and to love others. His religious upbringing made him feel as though he had nothing to live for if his faith was gone. There was no voice of reason to tell him there is no need to feel nihilistic in the face of a godless universe.

Atheism isn’t a belief. It is simply the denial of god. What a person chooses to believe once a moral arbiter is removed is an individual decision. Most atheists choose to become humanists, trusting that human nature is cooperative and life is both precious and rare precisely BECAUSE it developed and flourished on its own in a universe that is hostile to organic life. Although it is true some atheists can become nihilists, it is a belief that is an entirely self destructive belief system.

It’s sad religious conservatives will use this death to continue to propose having no religion is somehow cancerous to the human mind. If they perpetually raise the stakes in this manner, they may notice their family and friends may be forced into such extremes the only way out may be drastic. I do not claim atheism makes you more or less moral. It is merely a conviction on the non existence of God. I can no more control this instinct than I can control my need to drink water when thirsty. What is certain is some human beings might be so shocked by this finding they may be unable to cope. I would venture to say the deep shock many highly religious people may face would be tempered if they realized ethics and morality are not bound by absolutes. They are the work of fallible men and women who wished only to make the human race more successful and peaceful, and despite what some religious people might tell you, I find this to be more beautiful and touching than any myth.

Am I being unfair to Christians?

Posted on by

There was a comment that appeared in one of my articles which I felt needed to be personally addressed, due mostly to the fact I’ve been asked similar questions before. These questions usually devolve into simply “why do you have to pick on MY religion”, and I thought it might be fair to answer it as candidly as I can, to avoid looking as though I may be unfairly picking on one specific religion. Here is the quote:

Why do you insist on bashing Christians? If you don’t believe in God that’s fine, but why insult those who believe? I don’t believe in insulting you for your belief, don’t insult mine. Christmas is a Christian holiday because we celebrate the birth of Christ! If you don’t believe in it why do you take off work for Christmas, all of you who don’t believe should work! We as a Country have compromised on so much that we have lost focus! A company named Tyson has dropped celebrating Labor day and recognized a Muslim holiday. Why is no one complaining about that? Labor day is a day to recognize the CHRISTIAN men and woman who built this Country, who LABORED hard for all of us. And one more thing, are you gay? Yes, it is unnatural to be with the same sex, take religion out of it if you want, but it’s still not right! I care about you as much as any one else and I hope the best for you! I pray you find truth in your journey here on earth! God bless

The anatomy of such questions is usually identical. They boil down to two propositions: 1) that Christianity (or any other religion) is being maliciously attacked without provocation, and 2) that I should be thankful they exist. From the perspective of a Christian, I can understand how it might seem as though I unfairly single them out. The fact I do is due is not to any specific prejudice, but because it is the dominant religion which exerts the most influence on my life and culture. It would be like asking a cheetah why he pursues the gazelle; there is no malice in his actions. The cheetah is driven by instinct, and also by the fact the gazelle is one of the few plentiful sources of food, and even the seemingly savage way in which he attacks his prey is only due to his need to survive.

Christians may occasionally feel as though they are being singled out, but in actuality, the cultural and political dominance they have secured makes any small assault bounce off their seemingly invincible armor coating. They seem frightened these attacks are personal, but pointing out the hypocrisy, cruelty, and sheer impossibility of the claims made by religion serves not to damage the individual believer, but the belief itself. It isn’t Christians I have a problem with; it’s Christianity. If that sounds a little weird, you’ve obviously never been vacationing in foreign country as an American. The hostility they encounter in foreign nations is not directed at them, but rather at the institution they represent. Much of the world hates America, but still love Americans.

As for the second point, I will go on record and state I am not grateful for Christianity. Part of me still resents when works of ancient philosophers and thinkers were almost entirely destroyed by the early Christian church, which chose to erase everything in the past which conflicted with their world view. Archimedes is said to have discovered the principles of calculus almost 2000 years before Newton, but his writings were erased and rebound as prayer books. The fact remains Christianity robbed the world of progress for almost 1700 years, and has been adamantly fighting progress ever since. Think of all the great minds through time that were extinguished in the hot flames of heretical punishment. Today, the fact stem cell research is still illegal is only a small demonstration of the Church’s increased insistence that progress and discovery are bad.

So why pick on Christians? Sure, the Muslim world may be a terrifying place for many people. It does not change the fact the Western world still has the religious leash of Christianity around its neck. If Islam became the dominant religion of the North America, you can bet I would be ‘picking’ on them more.

I do offer a question in response to your question, dear sir: If the conviction in your religion is so strong, why do you care what I say? If you are in the right and I am in the wrong, why should you feel oppressed by my apparent babbling? A part of you might be thinking the reason you care is your wish to have my soul saved, but surely that isn’t the only reason. Like most religious people, you seek a homogony of thought. You may secretly doubt even the least fantastic claims of your religion, and find comfort in the fact a vast majority of others feel as you do. It may appear shocking to you, but my belief is strong enough I would not change my mind even if every single human being thought differently than I. The conviction there is no God does not stem from the beliefs of my parents, friends, or neighbors. They are my own. Once a person comes to realize the universe is not controlled by a ‘parent’ in the sky but rather by simple natural laws, any other proposition to the contrary seems both childish and mundane. It would be akin to believing once more Santa is real.

I offer to you the idea it is the homogony of your beliefs that makes you secure, and not the inalienable truth of your religion. If you did believe Christianity was undeniably true, then there would be no need to worry about the likes of me. You will see with time, however, more and more human beings will come to doubt the incredible claims made by your holy book. It’s only a matter of time.

Worst economic theory…ever

Posted on by

Here’s a quote to stick on your fridge:

It has been my view that the steady secularizing and insistent effort at [sic] de-religioning America has been dangerous. That danger flashed red in the fall into subprime personal behavior by borrowers and bankers, who after all are just people. Northerners and atheists who vilify Southern evangelicals are throwing out nurturers of useful virtue with the bathwater of obnoxious political opinions.

The point for a healthy society of commerce and politics is not that religion saves, but that it keeps most of the players inside the chalk lines. We are erasing the chalk lines.

This is a fellow who would equate the supposed “War on Christmas” with the complete economic meltdown of his country. Blaming atheists on a crisis that was a direct consequence of the deregulation of very sensitive markets makes about as much sense as crediting the alignment of certain planets for the characteristics of human beings (more on that another day). This whole argument is baseless, ignorant, and shows a complete lack of any fundamental understanding of the economy. No, evangelical parishes having more power to influence people would not have saved America, sir.

I have a bit of a message to all the Christians getting up at arms and worried about their precious holiday losing ground in America: A lucky thing called the 1st amendment protects people from having YOUR religion shoved down their throats. That people choose to use Holidays instead of Christmas just demonstrates people are respectful of other cultures and traditions. Some of these same ‘oppressed’ Christians are the same people who vote to disallow gays from marrying or adopting kids. Yeah, not being able to say Merry Christmas really sucks compared to that, doesn’t it?

Finally, a religion you can get behind

Posted on by

Or on top; anything that gets you off really. That’s because the Madonna of Orgasm Church is a step closer to becoming officially recognized as a religion in Sweden.

This particular church actually worships the orgasm, which they consider to be God himself. Although I’ve heard his name being called out on occasion (I’m patting myself on the back as we speak), I never actually thought anyone would take that literally.

There are a few prudes who don’t like the idea of anyone worshiping orgasms, but this is one particular religion I have ZERO problems with. While most Christians consider the orgasm to somehow be sinful, these guys are gung-ho about it.

Before you pack your bags and move to Sweden, it’s my duty to remind you the group does not actually perform sex acts during their ceremonies. They try to use orgasms as a metaphor for their lives, and their ceremony involves tame shit like gorging themselves with fruit and juice. Of course, all the priests are female, and the only gospel they preach is the gospel of sex. So, who can’t get behind that?

Religion and the need for tradition

Posted on by

In today’s culture, things change rapidly. We almost seem to take it for granted that something you know today will be different tomorrow, maybe radically so. But human beings historically haven’t been accustomed to rapid change for very long. It used to be what your father knew, and what his father knew, wouldn’t be different from what you knew too. There were certain ways of doing things, and that’s all that you needed to be aware of. The process isn’t all that different from what happens in the rest of the animal kingdom; the young learn from imitating their parents (at least, that’s true for higher mammals that possess lager brains and more complicated social networks). We’ve been doing it for so long that those who got the most out of it, tended to have more offspring.

In a way, this appeal to tradition isn’t something that originated only in our various cultures; there was a real need to get busy learning from your elders. Naturally, the way most cultures developed centered around the idea that the ancient ways were always better ways of doing things. For a long time, the West was positively mystified by the wisdom and genius of the ancients. Medieval Europe could barely build two story structures, and yet the Roman Empire had built huge temples and palaces. Compared to them, the Romans seemed light years ahead of them – in art, architecture, and governance. The ancient Greeks were looked upon with reverence; their philosophers and thinkers were considered the leading authorities, even though they had been dead for nearly 1000 years.

In the old days, the best place for you to learn anything, to be entertained, and to be saved, was the church. Religion was your news program, your theater, and obviously, your direct line to God. And it wasn’t just yours. It was your father’s, and his father’s too, for as far back as anyone could remember. Even the priests, who knew how to read and had surely read a few books themselves, would have been totally clueless as to whether things had ever been vastly different from the way it was then. Religion was more than just a way of explaining how the world worked; it was a tradition, and like every other aspect of daily life, traditions were something important to keep, if not only for your immediate and long term survival.

Like any tradition, the way religion worked didn’t change very much with time. There was a particular way of preaching the sermons, of listening to confessions, and all the other humdrum of daily theological living. And like any tradition that exists for a very long time, it becomes particularly stylized, and very good at passing itself down. Tradition relies on mindless repetition; the more automated something can be, the better. It’s easier to pass down knowledge if it can be broken down into easy to repeat steps, especially in an age where textbooks on how to do things aren’t very accessible, or even non-existent.

An action repeated a hundred times is something well learned. An action performed a million times, by a million people, is a tradition, and our instinctual need for tradition creates a kind of automated complacency. It’s rare that any of us actually question long standing traditions, no matter how strange they might appear to others. How many of us truly think about the origins and purpose of a Christmas tree, compared with the amount of people who buy one anyway, and put them in their home? Surely, if your neighbor began a new tradition of hanging a dead horse in front of his garage every May 14th, we would be terribly curious as to the reason why he would do such a thing. But if his father, and his grandfather, as well as yours and thousands of others were doing this for countless generations, it wouldn’t be a big deal at all. In fact, you would probably be looking forward to May 14th, having carefully picked your horse well in advance. If you think my example seems strange and barbaric, consider that the Vikings, every nine years, would kill and hang every kind of animal they could upside down in pine trees around the winter solstice. The tradition of Christmas trees is at least partly influenced by this. We must remember as time rolls on, traditions themselves become stylized, and alter themselves according to our new needs and values.

Traditions becoming stylized do not necessarily mean changes happen frequently or quickly for that matter. They require consistency above anything else, or else they run the risk of altering themselves and becoming completely unrecognizable from generation to generation, something akin to a game of telephone. The appeal of religion is rooted in the need for consistency and predictability all traditions offer. It is far safer to go with what has been done before than to try something from scratch. Our ancestors survived for that very reason, and the desirability for such consistency is at least partly due to the major appeal of religion (especially in a world that seems to be constantly changing before out eyes).

If the stability of society lies in the creation of an institution that at least partly enforces moral behavior, religion would seem to be ideal way of ensuring moral traditions. Even though the punishment for immoral behavior may be a hypothetical punishment, the threat of hell felt very real to our ancestors (it still does for people living today). As such, the psychological tool of eternal damnation is an effective and relatively cheap way to ensure order is maintained, particularly if your society is repressive and life is somewhat miserable.

The religions that are popular today are not vastly different from the thousands of other religions that have sprung up and disappeared over the years, except perhaps in the continuity of traditions that have been able to maintain. Although Christianity or Islam may claim their moral guides are superior to others, the relative authoritative manuscripts they refer themselves to are not especially more sophisticated than any other ancient religion. Greek mythology is rich in moral homilies, and in some ways paint a far more accurate picture of human behavior, from vanity (with the story of Narcissus) to curiosity (Pandora’s Box). What is perhaps more unique of the “three great monotheistic religions” is the fact their moral homilies are codified into explicit rules of living, rather then simple storytelling. Christianity became the dominant religion, unsurprisingly, after Constantine reformed the book that was later to be known as the Bible during the Council of Nicaea. His efforts transformed Christianity from cult to bureaucratic institutions, all with specified beliefs and traditions. It would be these traditions that would dictate the fate of the Western world for the next 1800 years.

The Religious Corporation: Part 2

Posted on by

Yesterday, I argued the selective advantage of belief was too attractive for individuals in a community not to partake. But this advantage, as humans became more prosperous in the West, became increasingly marginal. In the 15th century, Europe began to experience newfound prosperity from the most unusual source: the aftermath of the Black Death.

Over a third of the population is estimated to have been killed, but at the beginning of the 1400s, it had tapered off. The wealth of those deceased went to surviving relatives, who suddenly found themselves with significantly more income. The population, now able to enjoy more than the daily toils of life, found solace and meaning in more than just religion. The strength of the Church was beginning to wane.

Like any modern corporation there was only one thing to do: change their marketing strategy. In order to afford to build lavish new monuments to the glory of God to impress the masses, the Church began to sell indulgences, which were tickets one had to purchase in order to pay their way our of current or future sins. They were the equivalent of ‘get out of jail’ cards for the soul. With the invention of the printing press in 1447 by Gutenberg, they were able to mass produce these, and as the economies of Europe flourished, so did the coffers of the Catholic Church. Although indulgences may seem to us to be useless pieces of paper, they were necessary devices for the Church to stay relevant, and more importantly, to give incentives for people to continue their belief. The Church, which had always frowned upon the idea of anything remotely amusing, saw its opportunity to grow from the rapidly rising bourgeoisie class. They establish for themselves a way of making money by satiating a desire they themselves had created. It’s no different from any modern corporation creating the image of success and desirability, while simultaneously offering a way to fulfill that image.

Take modern consumerism as an example. How many individuals are obsessed with the need to purchase expensive clothing? Where does this need come from? Obviously, the relative serviceability of clothing is fairly homogeneous; as long as they perform their intended function (to keep us warm), theoretically anything would suffice. But there is not much profit to be had if every article of clothing is priced similarly. As such, clothing has become a way of displaying one’s status within society, and is taken very seriously by many. This obsession, of course, can become quite costly, and since there are rival ways of displaying status, it’s in a company’s best interest to maintain our focus and attention on their product. They are lucky that society and the environment necessitates that we wear clothes, but certainly, that is not enough. They must create more of a demand if their profit margins are to remain healthy. As such, we are bombarded by advertising expressing the fact that to be beautiful, we must be beautifully clothed. Arbitrary rules of fashion are created to keep our attention focused on the matching of colors, fabrics, and designs rather than on more pressing matters. The clothing industry also utilizes our fears and insecurities about our attractiveness and acceptance as a tool against our better judgment. Should we spend money on improving our lives, or should we buy that pair of expensive shoes instead?

It would be unfair to single out the fashion industry as the only business to exploit our fears, desires, and most pressing concerns. Almost every industry does it. It’s such an effective tool, but it certainly is not a new one. The model for today’s most profitable corporations are taken directly out of the pages of religion. Consider how alike they are: both are a cooperative of like-minded individuals seeking to fulfill specific human needs and desires. Both function as tightly ordered hierarchies, with power being disseminated from the top leaders to the rank and file employees. Both utilize our fears, insecurities and desires to control the distribution of their products. A religious institution is no different from a large corporation; the difference isn’t so much the product they offer, but rather how long they’ve been doing it.

The Religious Corporation: Part 1

Posted on by

When trying to explain the origin of religion, we must answer the question of how it came together, since although human beings are social animals, the act of creating a stable institution is an extreme rarity. Consider how many cults come and go; obviously, even if there is a fundamental need to be religious, there must be some explanation as to why humans would continue to participate and develop their religious institutions.

Human beings are as cooperative, altruistic, and caring as they are selfish, disloyal, and uncooperative. If a system is to work, then it must function in such a way that each person operating within that system must agree to act in accordance to the benefit of the group, and not their own self interest. This is not easily achieved, since there may come a time when the self interest of an individual conflicts with the interests of the institution. How can a person blatantly ignore his own needs in favor of the group, particularly if this group is not his direct kin?

The simple answer is in a large group, not every operator needs to benefit from being a member of the group; only the majority needs to. We already have this sort of arrangement in our own society. Some benefit more than others, simply by the manner of their birth. Their parents may have more wealth, and as a consequence, have more opportunity than others to move ahead in life and reap the rewards from their privileged status. The reason we don’t rebel and displace such individuals is the majority of us still benefit from the system. There are big winners and big losers in this game, but generally, if you want social stability, the numbers of both (particularly the latter) must remain fairly low.

The complex answer is each human being, to some degree or another, has wants and needs that cannot be fulfilled alone. It is not important that perhaps living in a group, or following a religion may not fulfill those needs; it is only important they present themselves as the only way to do so. When Christians proclaim themselves the only way to live a fulfilled life, and torment, torture, and murder are the consequences of disbelieving, then the stakes are high enough for any rational person to want inclusion in the group. Independence and free thought is discouraged when the benefits to the individual require cohesion of belief from all involved. From a survival perspective (especially in early civilizations), any personal doubts regarding the authenticity of religious claims were less important than being part of a advantageous and beneficial institution.