The Future of Skepticism

I was listening to an old podcast - Episode 231 - of the SGU yesterday, and a listener asked a question about the future of skepticism.

So first, have we gotten more skeptical?

Jay thinks we have, overall. Our science has progressed a great deal. And our ability to get information with the internet is so much more profound now. But the number of people who believe in woo hasn't gone down.

Rebecca is very optimistic. It's not necessarily about the number of people who believe in weird things, but that we are neutering superstitions and myths and turning them from something dangerous into something that is just a pastime for the wealthy.

There's still a tremendous amount of work to go when it comes to dangerous pseudoscience and superstition, but in general we're doing OK. Our scientific knowledge is growing, and will continue to grow into the forseeable future.

Bob can see it going either way. Skepticism has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 20 years or so, but irrational beliefs have also grown. We'll never get rid of superstitious belief, but in the future it could be marginalized to a degree we haven't seen. But it could also totally go nuts, totally descending into superstition. As science gets more and more complicated and technological, I could see people just giving up on it, and treating it like a religion, that it's so complicated that you have your "techno-priests" that nobody can understand. Who knows if they're telling the truth.

Count the Logical Fallacies!

There's an e-mail making the rounds that I saw this morning, which gave me quite a chuckle. So of course I have to share it with you.

Spot the logical fallacies! I've included in parentheses the most blatant logical fallacy, but please feel free to comment with others. I left the original in all caps so that you can appreciate it in all its glory.

IN CHEMISTRY, HE TURNED WATER TO WINE. ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan – this applies to many in the list, but I'll just state it once. If something goes against the laws of nature and physics, you're going to need more evidence than just an apocryphal tale. This is also anecdotal evidence.)

IN BIOLOGY, HE WAS BORN WITHOUT THE NORMAL CONCEPTION. (ditto to the above)

IN PHYSICS, HE DISPROVED THE LAW OF GRAVITY WHEN HE WALKED ON WATER AND THEN LATER, ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN. (ditto to the above)

IN ECONOMICS, HE DISPROVED THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURN BY FEEDING 5000 MEN WITH 2 FISHES & 5 LOAVES OF BREAD. (once again, ditto to the above)

IN MEDICINE, HE CURED THE SICK AND THE BLIND WITHOUT ADMINISTERING A SINGLE DOSE OF DRUGS. (ditto again. In this case, if this story is accurate, Jesus was one of three things; a magician – common at the time, taking advantage of the placebo effect, or a scam artist in which 'healee' was a plant.)

IN HISTORY, HE IS THE BEGINNING AND THE END. (Meaningless statement)

IN GOVERNMENT, HE SAID THAT HE SHALL BE CALLED WONDERFUL COUNSELOR, PRINCE OF PEACE. (Again, meaningless statement and irrelevant)

IN RELIGION, HE SAID NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH HIM; (ditto to the above)

SO, WHO IS HE?
HE IS JESUS!

JOIN ME AND LET'S CELEBRATE HIM; HE IS WORTHY.

THE EYES BEHOLDING THIS MESSAGE SHALL NOT BEHOLD EVIL. (Baseless claim, easily disproved)

THE HAND THAT WILL SEND THIS MESSAGE TO EVERYBODY SHALL NOT LABOR IN VAIN. (ditto to the above)

AND THE MOUTH SAYING AMEN TO THIS PRAYER SHALL SMILE FOREVER. (ditto to the above)


REMAIN IN GOD AND SEEK HIS FACE ALWAYS. AMEN. (How can anyone remain in God and his face always, when there is no evidence of his existence?)

IN GOD, I'VE FOUND EVERYTHING! (Even your keys? Baseless claim, easily disproved)

The Greatest Man in History Jesus had no servants, yet they called Him Master. (Appeal to the masses – meaningless)

Had no degree, yet they called Him Teacher. (Irrelevant – there were no colleges back then.)

Had no medicines, yet they called Him Healer. (No one had medicines back then.)

He had no army, yet kings feared Him. (Any rabble-rouser was feared, so Jesus is not special in this sense.)

He won no military battles, yet He conquered the world. (In a sense this is true. Just look at the number of Christians in the world today, as well as in history for the last 2000 years. Not to mention the Dark Ages.)

He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him. (Jesus was a political dissident and rabble-rouser. The Romans had no tolerance for such problem makers.)

He was buried in a tomb, yet He lives today. (Baseless, unfounded claim. Anecdotal evidence. Apocryphal tale.)

I feel honored to serve such a Leader who loves us! If you believe in God and in Jesus Christ His
Son, you may wish to send it on.... If not, just ignore it.

If you ignore it, just remember that Jesus said. 'If you deny me before man, I will deny you before my Father in Heaven. (Open threat, also completely baseless.)

Spiritual Apathy

I read this article in USAToday about the "spiritually apathetic" which I wanted to share with you.

There are many people who would label themselves as spiritually apathetic. They don't care one whit about the mysteries of the Universe, if God exists, or what will happen to them after they die.

My husband and I were both in this group. Friends, family, work, play, finances, what was for dinner,  all meant much more than such intangible and unanswerable questions.

I suppose some people just aren't deep thinkers and will never care, which is perfectly fine. For people like my husband and I, we lost our apathy and became atheist activists after 9-11 when the government got really heavy-handed and it was obvious that even if we didn't care about religion, many did, and those people voted according to their morals first and foremost, and made it clear they wanted to shove their theocratic lifestyle onto the rest of us.

Back to the article, I wanted to bring up some things from it:

The Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, Episcopal Bishop of Washington D.C., [said] "We live in a society today where it is acceptable now to say that they have no spiritual curiosity. At almost any other time in history, that would have been unacceptable."

She finds this "very sad because the whole purpose of faith is to be a source of guidance, strength and perspective in difficult times. To be human is to have a sense of purpose, an awareness that our life is an utterly unique expression of creation and we want to live it with meaning, grace and beauty."

What I find fascinating, as a skeptical atheist, is that people can actually get anything useful out of faith, which gives you nothing substantial, honest or real. I'm like Carl Sagan, I'd rather have the hard truth rather than the comforting lie.

Also, yes, as humans we create our own purpose. To just read a book from 2,000 years ago and take the purpose from that is very sad indeed. We are not created by a flawed god who had to keep trying to fix all of his mistakes through barbaric means.

We are amazing, though, products of 4 billion years of evolution, and over 14 billion years of our atoms bouncing around the Universe.

Again, as Carl Sagan says, we are how the Universe can know itself, because we are conscious. To bow and scrape to an imaginary father figure who spent his early years thirstily demanding murder and blind obedience seems to me such a waste.

Irony in the Obits - Pragmatic vs Delusional

My friend Jenny sent me two obituaries from her local California paper today. I've never had to write an obit, but I am pretty sure they charge by the line.

Here is the first one at the top of the page:

I've never seen an obit that was so brief. It makes you think the paper charges by the word, not just the line. 

Now, here is the second one, with my highlights of the interesting parts. How ironic that these were right next to each other! It makes me think the obit editor had a sense of humor and wanted to show the play of irony:

At a Winter Solstice party on Saturday, we all toasted to Christopher Hitchens with some Johnny Walker Black. One of my friends commented that we should have toasted to him when he was alive instead, and I agree, except I think most of us did celebrate Hitchens the whole time we knew him. And I think it's appropriate to be sad when someone we love dies. There's no reason we can't do both.

Do you think Mrs. Luisa Ruiz Naranjo was loved more than Lillian Hobson? There's no way to know now, I guess. Does paying more for an elaborate obit mean you're more loved? I doubt it.

Anyway, I've never seen obits like either of these before. The first doesn't say anything (was the price by the letter?) and the second is a novelette.

Blaspheming Against the Holy Spirit

Yesterday on Facebook, I had 2 Catholics preaching to me. One told me she has been praying for me for awhile, and that I must accept that fact. So? I told her if she wanted to waste her time, it was her business. (What was she hoping for here?)

Logical fallacies abounded. Apologetics was tossed about wantonly. It was mind-numbing in its banality. 

I was even told, by the same woman, that I am more Christian than other people she knows, and that Christ acts through me. Which I find to be offensively condescending and meaningless at the same time.

I'm good simply because it's the right thing to do. I don't need a god that I can't experience in any meaningful way to work through me to do good. I do it all on my own. If anything works through me to do good, of course we all know it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster, May You All Be Touched By His Noodly Appendage. Or maybe it's the dragon in my garage (if I had a garage, this would probably be the case!)

Not to mention, if Christ acts through me, she is implying that I have no free will, that I am just a puppet of Jesus. Isn't free will very important to Christians? Another blatant contradiction.

I felt like they were proselytizing to me. One of them is a friend of the other, not even of me. So I informed them that I've denied the Holy Ghost, which is the unforgivable sin. It's a one way ticket to Hell. 

Then of course they nitpicked the bible and said that it has to be interpreted properly, and soon fell back on saying that only special magic priests in the Catholic church are connected enough to the Almighty to be able to interpret such things (and change them arbitrarily, such as Limbo for babies). 

By this time, I had completely lost interest. What's the point of arguing with people like this? They wanted to nitpick interpretations of their holy book. They wanted to explain why their view of things was Right and why I couldn't understand because I hadn't read all the catholic dogma and I was just a godless heathen with my back turned to God.

I admit I got a bit snippy and told them that I didn't care to nitpick the details of their delusional belief system based on an old collection of historical and fictional rantings of desert goat herders from the Bronze Age.

In other words, if the books aren't divinely inspired, which I'm pretty sure they aren't, then what's the point of reading Catholic canon and old apologetic ramblings?

Anyway, it got me thinking of the passages of the bible that I had quoted to these people. Here they are: (NIV)

Rapture Time, Again!

Remember back on May 21st when the Rapture happened? No? Well, that's because it  was spiritual, not physical. And the real Rapture/Judgment Day is actually happening TODAY!

I can't believe I forgot about it! I still have money in my bank account, room left on my credit cards, and I haven't cheated on my husband with every person within grabbing distance. And I haven't killed anyone yet!

Most importantly I haven't fallen to my knees to beg for mercy and salvation from my lord and savior (the Flying Spaghetti Monster.. who were you thinking of?).

It's still only 6:30 pm on the West Coast where Harold Camping lives, so maybe there's still a chance, but the day is marching on. It looks like his math was wrong yet again.

Did anyone believe him this time? Will he just fade into the distance after wrongly predicting the Rapture 3 times? What will his excuse be tomorrow? I can't wait to find out how he'll twist things around to keep himself firmly ensconced in his sad little delusion.

I hear that his Family Radio bank account still has $70 million dollars in it, by the way. Just one last question. Why didn't he spend all that money doing something useful if he knew he and the rest of the sheep would be raptured today? It sure looks like even Camping doesn't trust his own predictions!

US Law and the 10 Commandments

The following information was offered by my awesome husband Butch to a friend on Facebook (we'll call him Enoch), regarding the 10 commandments. This is what Enoch said:

Why is it when a political candidate is openly religious, people bring up the "separation of church and state?". Read the words. It doesn't say that you can't have a picture of Jesus in a school or the ten commandments in a courthouse. It just says that there will be no government sponsored religion (read Henry VIII establishing the church of england because the Pope wouldn't let him get a divorce). It just means the government can't make you go to a particular church, or any for that matter.

Butch replied:

But putting religious symbols on government property equates to governmental endorsement of that religion.What if the phrase "In God We Trust" on our money, or "Under God" in the Pledge were replaced by "Allah Akbar?" Would you be OK with that? Would you be OK with Naqibs being part of a school's uniforms? Or, if they displayed every religious symbol with equal time & space, would you be OK with an islamic flag & a star of David flying above a cross?

Enoch said:

This country was (partly) founded on the basis of religious freedom. The ability of the individual to worship as they see fit, or not at all. I don't believe that these symbols are an endorsement of religion. You can make the argument that the ten commandments are the basis in one way or another of all of our laws (and the placement of a copy of the ten commandments in a courthouse could be considered an endorsement of judaism, since they are found in the old testament of the bible, which is an interpretation of the jewish torah). True muslim teachings believe that christians and jews are people of the same god, that jesus was just one of the series of prophets like those in the old testament, and that Mohammed was a prophet that followed Jesus. Christians and jews are only infidels because they have not followed the teachings from God handed down through Mohammed. And no, I would not be ok with the replacement of in God we trust or under god (which was added to the original text of the pledge). But a display of multiple religious symbols being given equal time/space I would not have a problem with. The point I was trying to make, however, is that we should be able to look past a political candidates openly displayed choice of religion and look at the greater issues involved. The constitution states that you won't be forced to worship one way or another. We are a country of many faiths, christian, jew, islam, buddhism, etc. And for the argument that it will start I will even state that atheists are people of faith, for they wholeheartedly believe that there is no God. That is an even greater faith than any religion, for even believers can have a lapse of faith while atheists never will.

Egads! Let's see how Butch retorts:

I don't really have a problem with any religious candidate, what I DO have a HUGE problem with is a candidate who even hints that US law should be brought into line with their particular interpretation of biblical law. I feel that once they say that, even if caught accidentally in a private conversation, they should IMMEDIATELY be disqualified from holding any kind of elected office. Again, would you want your Representative or Congressional delegate to be a mullah? I wouldn't. As for the 10 commandments being the basis for the laws in this country, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Regarde: 1)No other gods before me: There is no law anywhere that says you shall have no other gods before the god of the OT. Quite the opposite, in fact, as it's the First Amendment. 2) No graven images: No laws against Idolatry, either. 3) Don't take the lord's name in vain: No law anywhere forbidding using the lord's name in vain. Once again the 1st Amendment. 4) Keep the sabbath holy: No law requiring the honoring of the sabbath either. 5) Honor your father and mother: No law requiring you to honor your parents. 6) Don't kill: Laws against murder predate the OT. It's illegal in non-JudeoChristian countries as well. 7) No adultery: No laws against adultery, otherwise there'd be no porn & 95% of Congress & the Senate would be in prison. 8) Don't steal: Refer to #6 9) Don't bear false witness: The only time it's illegal to lie is when you're giving testimony in a court of law, otherwise refer to #7. 10) Don't covet: Our entire economy is in direct conflict with this one. The entire marketing industry is based on peoples' desire for "better" things. Lastly, saying atheists have faith is wrong. There are too many different types (I'm a skeptic, personally, which means any claim presented to me needs solid evidence as proof) to lump them all together.

I will write about what atheism is and is not next, because this is a common myth.

It's Official! I'm a Pastafarian Minister!

As of September 17, 2011, I was officially ordained as a minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If I fill out an application in my county, I will be able to perform Pastafarian weddings. Pretty cool, huh? Now I'm a Pastafarian! ARRRR!

May You Be Touched By His Noodly Appendage!

Here is where you go to get your official ordination.

I guess I should get my picture taken for my license with a pasta strainer on my head, next.

How the Other Side Thinks

I don't like the idea of 'taking sides', but the following five quotes from my cousin's Facebook status disturbed me to the point that I can't help but see that we are in different universes, never mind on a different page. When I talk to her I try to find the common ground, and I seek to understand where she's coming from and her worldview. And in person we really don't talk about religion. But her view of Christianity, God and Jesus is, well, tell me what you think.

Here are the five most recent quotes.

"God disciplines us because he loves us too much to let us continue down a destructive path." -- loving my God and Savior because he brought me back on a path that glorifies Him first.

"Distress that drives us to God does that. It turns us around. It gets us back in the way of salvation. We never regret that kind of pain." - Touche, 2 Corinthians 7.

"You will not find My peace by engaging in excessive planning; attempting to control what will happen to you in the future." ... (Proverbs 16:9)

You keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on you, because he trusts in you. Trust in the Lord forever, for the Lord God is an everlasting rock. -- Isaiah 26:3-4 ... taking comfort and rejoicing in knowing that God's plans for me are greater than any I have ever had for myself.

Praying constantly with the help of Galatians 5 today. 'It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.' - Galatians 5:1

I didn't leave any comments to these. My cousin is 18 and has shown a lot of respect to me regarding my atheism. So we are mutually courteous. It's hard to read such things from such a smart, wonderful person. What do you think of what she is saying?

My Pareidolia Has Produced a Miracle!

Recently, I shared my blessing with you of Jesus showing himself to me in a picture in my dining room of pond scum on a creek. I was amazed at your lack of Faith. No one else saw Jesus but me. But that did not deter me! I knew I had a Genuine Miracle in my presence. So I prayed and waited for the Blessings to start rolling in. (and by pray, I mean I sarcastically blogged about it and then promptly forgot about it)

Well here's a big one! My dear husband Butch got a job! He had one but he was offered a better one. Which means he was able to quit the old one that he hated. God always provides!

Of course, my confirmation bias sees the recent pareidolia from August 31 and Butch being offered a job a week later as being magically related. And of course, I have (conveniently) forgotten that Butch had just applied for the job (his mundane, human actions), that he had been looking for a job for quite a few months, and that he had the requisite skills gleaned over many years of hard work to attract the new employer.

In other words, Butch took all the boring, time consuming steps needed to get hired. But I don't have to think about his intelligence, technical skills, people skills and persistence. No, of course not. I just know that Jesus provided through my Faith and Devotion.

Ugh, I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. First, it's incredibly insulting to Butch to ignore all of  his efforts to pin all the accolades on Jesus, an invisible, evidence-free friend who gets all the glory when things go well, and never gets blamed when bad stuff happens.

That is really the evil genius of religion. Whoever first came up with that slick bit of mind-twisting psychology obviously skyrocketed to the top of the game. Heads Jesus wins; Tails you lose. But Jesus loves you and will give you rewards after you are dead. Of course, you'll be dead so you will never know if you wasted your life in servitude for a bucket of lies.  Oh, and don't forget, if you don't love Jesus, he will make you burn in hell forever and ever. How can you pass this deal up?

Oh, you need evidence. I see. That's against the rules. God says you have to have faith. See how I move the goalposts so it always goes my way? Pretty sneaky, aren't I? It's evil genius, playing off of our human weaknesses. Brilliant!

The Harm of Religion

"Hey, let's do something to appease our Lord. We need to rid ourselves of sin."

"I know, let's baptize ourselves. I hear the Lord likes that sort of thing."

"We live in Siberia. It's January, and a bit nippy out."

"Well, then let's chop through the ice, in the shape of a cross of course, then dip our naked children in there. It will take away all of their sins."

"We don't have to take off our coats, do we?"

"No, don't be silly! Just the little children."

"Yes, I hear it's all the rage. I'll get my axe. You get the baby."

And I said, WTF? This is religion at work. In Communist Russia, religion was banned, driven underground. But since the fall of Communism, there has been a resurgence.



All it takes are liberal doses of ignorance and superstition with a dash of confirmation bias, a pinch of cognitive dissonance, and an authoritarian dogma to serve extra portions of indoctrination. And voila! You have people taking their children as young as newborns and dipping them in ice water in January in Siberia.

It's truly barbaric. And it's also dangerous. It can literally shock the heart enough to make it stop, and can cause hypothermia.

There is a popular belief that diving into an ice hole 3 times on Epiphany will erase your sins. But what sins do newborns or small children have? Supposedly, this belief is not endorsed officially by the Orthodox Church.

This has become popular since the 1990's, so it's not an old ritual. Father Yakov Krotov, an Orthodox priest of Moscow said,"This is not going back to our traditions - no, this is just an attempt [by the masses] to create some kind of great past." Whether Father Krotov agrees with it or not, it appears in the video an in other pictures online that there are officials (dressed quite warmly) officiating the abusive treatment.

While my imaginary conversation mentions only children, adults do it too. If they want to freeze their bits off and damage their hearts, that's their business. But it's abusive to make a child do this against their will, or under coercion and indoctrination.

Not to mention, does this give these people license to "sin" throughout the year, knowing all they have to do is get baptized in January to wipe the slate clean? I don't know, but I would think human nature would easily rationalize such behavior.

Epiphany, or Theophany, takes place on January 19 and commemorates Jesus' baptism in the river Jordan. Supposedly the waters are holy on this day.

BBC News

I've Been Blessed With a Miracle!

So I was sitting at my dining room table at 8:42 pm on Wednesday, August 31, 2011 when I looked up at a photograph I have had hanging there for about 5 years. And LO! Jesus appeared before me in all his Heavenly Glory! I took a picture to share this Blessing with you:

Can you see Him? It's much more obvious in person than it is in this humble picture. I was struck by His holy presence and stopped to pray to him in all his Glory. Ok, actually I didn't actually pray. But I sort of chuckled at the pareidolia.

Since He's being coy in this image, I have slightly enhanced the natural image just for the sake of helping you see this Divine Miracle:

Now, can you see him?! I thought so! What an amazing blessing! I mean, here I am, a blasphemous godless heathen, and I see Jesus in a picture that I've looked at for 5 years. By the way my husband's cousin gave us this photograph which is his original work. It's a picture of pond scum on a creek. How apropos!

Ok, I was just playing with the second image, but I did see him in the photograph. I've talked about pareidolia on HDC in the past, so you should be familiar with the phenomena, which is extremely common: it is the imagined perception of a pattern or meaning where it does not actually exist.

What I found very interesting was that when I first looked up the other day and saw the face, I immediately thought it looked like Jesus. But that made me think, how the hell does anyone today think they know what Jesus looked like? Why do we all see him as looking like a surfer dude out of the Renaissance, with sandy blond, long hair, a full beard, etc?

Wouldn't Jesus actually look Arabic, with dark features and black hair? And why do we always see the same basic vague head and shoulders shape as Mary? How many countless millions or billions of Middle Eastern women, or nuns, have worn the same type of cloak? Only every woman in a burka. And every nun in a habit. But for some reason we all have this idealized idea of what this woman looked like and that affects how we perceive patterns in random noise.

But, now that I've seen him, I can't unsee him. The recognition of a human face in the random pattern of pond scum in the picture is stuck in my head as the classically accepted face of Jesus Christ, Son of God.

And this brings up the most important issue. That of miracles. We all know when images of Jesus or Mary appear, the Miracles start to happen around them. So I figure I had better keep an eye out for them. I think that they start once the image is recognized by one special person (who has their patternicity turned up). That makes sense, right? I mean, maybe the image of Jesus wasn't even in the picture all these years, and now that he has imbued the pond scum with his presence, I think I can expect some good changes in my life.

Do I get three wishes? Do I have to create a shrine? I really don't have the space for a shrine and I hate incense. I will be sure to let you know when the miracles start.

I suppose the first one would be that I should turn into a True Believer. But I'd prefer cash, if I get to put in for my three wishes.

All Suffering Soon to End!

Recently the Jehovah's Witnesses gave Skeptics with a K's Mike Hall a tract that was titled All Suffering Soon to End. It basically claimed that suffering is increasing because this is an experiment by God to see if we can be better off on our own, or if we were better off under God's rule.

You can listen to episode 51 of their podcast. It basically starts at 26:50. I highly recommend it as they make a lot of excellent points.

Of course, suffering was introduced because Adam and Eve ate the apple which was because God gave us free will. According to the tract, suffering is increasing lately, but is soon to end. This is what it said regarding the past century:

• the worst suffering ever


• millions murdered during the haulocaust


• over 100 million slaughered in wars (Mike adds that most of those were religious)


• crime and violence are rampant


• drug abuse is epidemic


• STDs continue to spread


• tens of millions die each year of hunger and disease


• family life and moral values have broken down everywhere


• no human government has the answers to these problems. not one of them has overcome aging, sickness and death

Of course they have no data to back up these bold assertions.

The tract then says,  "All the evidence shows us that we are nearing the end of man's tragic experiment in independence from God. It has been clearly demonstrated that rulership from humans apart from God can never succeed. Only God's rulership can bring peace, happiness, perfect health and everlasting life."

47:56 - But there was a study published in the Journal of Religion and Society in 2005 titled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in Prosperous Democracies" by Gregory S. Paul.

Here are some highlights:

• positive correlation between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable


• lifespans tend to decrease as religiosity rises


• rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain 3-600 times higher in the US than in less theistic pro-evolution secular developed democracies


• increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief, and negative correlation with increasing nontheism and acceptance of evolution. Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates are therefore contradicted by quantitative data


• in general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in prosperous democracies


• none of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high level of measurable societal dysfunction

Gregory S. Paul stated in the paper that it is "not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health".

He authored  a followup paper in 2009 titled "The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions" in the Evolutionary Psychology Journal. (pdf) which found "high religiosity is not universal to human populations, and it is actually inversely related to a wide range of socio-economic indicators representing the health of modern democracies."

Here is one result from the paper: "The uniquely low cumulative PRVSS score for the U.S. of 0.9 demonstrates that it is the least secular nation among those sampled, with Ireland the next most religious. At the other end of the scale some nations approach and exceed a score of 9. For the purposes of this comparative investigation the U.S. is characterized as religious, the rest of the 1st world nations as secular to varying degrees. Creationist opinion correlates strongly positively with the overall level of religiosity when the U.S. is excluded and even more so when it is included."

Recently I posted on HDC's Facebook page that Pope John Paul's blood was sent to Mexico so that people could venerate it and hopefully end the violent crime that has increased over there. This 2009 report addresses the issue of violent crime, specifically murders. It finds that the US, which as stated above is the most religious 1st world nation, has extremely high murder rates. The lowest murder rate levels are found among the most secular democracies. Mexico wasn't included in the study but is a highly religious nation, I believe one of the most Catholic in the world. And its level of crime and violence is also very high.

Phil Zuckerman wrote Society without God in 2009. Pippa Norris and Ronald Ingelhart wrote Sacred and Secular in 2004. Both had similar conclusions.

I can't remember where I saw it, but I read awhile ago that what it looks like is that with uncertainty comes superstitious thinking. So if you feel out of control you get more superstitious behavior. This is correlated with higher religiosity, which is why the US is so odd. It is highly religious but prosperous while most other prosperous 1st world countries are more secular. But the US seems to have a high level of uncertainty for people. It doesn't give people a sense of stability. If I can remember where I saw the studies that showed this I will add them here. If you know of them, please do leave a comment with links.

Where do you live in the world? How secular is your nation? How prosperous?

I'm in the Wrong Business

Every once in awhile I think about how people like me are just trying to get by when churches are raking in the dough from willing sheep. Sometimes I even tell my husband that we should do something with our statuses as official reverends. Yes, I'm actually a reverend and have been for about 13 years. I don't do anything with it though, because, as you know, I'm also a godless heathen.

While atheists are usually somewhere in the middle to upper class, we certainly aren't on par with the churches in terms of wealth and power. So sometimes I think I should see about starting my own heathen church. Imagine the good we could do while cashing in on those faith-based initiatives.

Money.co.uk wrote an article recently called The Business of Religion which I wanted to share with you.

Here are some highlights:

The Catholic Church

• Worth hundreds of billions worldwide


• 1.81 billion followers worldwide


• Notorious for Pope Ratz saying condoms actually help the spread of AIDs and for many cases of abusing innocent children.


• Fortune comes from priceless works of art. The catholic church was implicated in the disappearance of Nazi gold, discovered in a shrine in Fatima in which the church admitted to having in 2000. They also make money from tourism to the vatican.


• They are one of the largest providers of humanitarian care and relief in the world. (but it's a vehicle to spread their indoctrination and increase their numbers)

The Church of England

• Worth billions


• 25 million baptized members (but I believe babies are baptized so the number is misleading, as people don't necessarily stay in the church once they grow up)


• Fortune comes from $320 million in cash donations from congregations, $400 million in legacies, events and services and $320 million in Gift-Aid donations. They used to be the biggest landowner in Britain but they sold it off to fund a multi-billion dollar investment portfolio which earns $255 million or more a year.


• Spends their money on pensions, salaries and maintaining 16,000 ancient buildings. They have 43 cathedrals which need constant care.

Scientology

• Worth unknown but definitely in the hundreds of millions, probably in the billions


• They claim to have over 8 million followers worldwide (3.5 million in the US alone), but a 2008 survey showed just 20,000 Americans identified themselves as scientologists.


• Notorious for their ridiculous beliefs and extortionist fees for spiritual growth (plus their brutal way of dealing with people who disagree with them or speak out against them)


• Fortune comes from fees incurred when someone wants to advance in the church and get "clear". It costs over $272,ooo to reach Operating Thetan VIII which is the highest rank in the church. They are basically a fee-based operation and members are encouraged to even take out loans if they can't afford the courses.


• Some of the things they have spent their money on: $114 million to forever preserve L. Ron Hubbard's writings. A cruise ship called Freewinds was $15.2 million. They spent $6 million in an ad campaign to try to neutralize the expose' of Time magazine. $3 million in gold bullion.

Televangelism

• Combined worth somewhere around $2.4 billion


• No official figures on the number of followers. It's an American phenomenon, but televises worldwide.


• Notorious for their "prosperity gospel" which states that "Jesus blesses believers with riches". Of course you have to show your belief by sending in money. They call it "seed money". Some speak in tongues, some pretend to heal the sick.


• Fortune comes from donations, ads, selling merchandise to followers and other commercial activities.


• Televangelists don't seem to mind living the life of luxury while bilking money out of desperate poor and old people. They have multi-million dollar homes, fly in private jets, and have international 'crusades' at $3,000 a night.

Preying on the Weak

Yesterday I was 'blessed' to receive the following letter. Lucky for me (and you!) I opened it.

Of note on the front of the envelope:

• Postage states this is a nonprophet organization (pun intended)


• A 'very old church' - ooh.. must be hundreds of years old, maybe even going all the way back to Jesus' time!


• Vague message. What does it mean to be blessed, anyway?


• My home first! I'm so blessed!


• Someone went super crazy with the red highlighter. Calm down and step away from the office supplies, Jesus Christ!

The back of the envelope is really trying to get my attention, if the front wasn't enough.

Of note on the back of the envelope:

• Very smart. They give me web addresses I can go to.


• More red underlining. Ok, Jesus. Calm the feck down.


• Oh! the letter is blessed! Awesome!


• Very vague

The two websites are similar. They have a lot of bible verses, text in bold, and text in red. They say if you send in your prayer to them, they will pray 5 times a day for you.

BiblicalPrayer.com offers a free gift, a Blessed Cross,  "one of the most beautiful crosses in the world" which looks cheap even in the pictures. It seems like you can get it for free. In the envelope they have for you to print out to send in your request, there's nothing in there about a donation. Even the postage is paid for you.

Apparently, this church started in 1951. That's not what I'd call "very old". They say on the one site that they used to have revivals where up to 20,000 church members would come. Now, for some reason instead of continuing with those, they are mainly by mail. The sentence sort of just ends at the bottom of the page so they don't explain.

Ok, on to the letter that came in the envelope!

Reasons Given For Believing in God

I was reading The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer the other evening and came across a study that Shermer did that pretty much sums up belief in God. But it's really even more telling than that. I'll let him explain in his own words:

Page 264, kindle location ~5280)

My colleague Frank Sulloway and I discovered another form of attribution bias ¹ in a research project that we conducted several years ago. Frank and I wanted to know why people believe in God, so we polled ten thousand random Americans. In addition to exploring various demographic and sociological variables, we also directly asked subjects in an essay question why they believed in God.

The top two reasons that people gave for why they believed in God were "the good design of the universe" and "the experience of God in everyday life." Interestingly and tellingly, when subjects were asked why they thought other people believed in God, these two answers dropped to sixth and third place, respectively, and the two most common reasons given were that belief is "comforting" and "fear of death".

These answers revealed a sharp distinction between an intellectual attribution bias, in which people consider their own beliefs as being rationally motivated, and an emotional attribution bias, in which people see the beliefs of others as being emotionally driven.

... The attribution bias of perceiving intellectual reasons for belief as superior to emotional reasons appears to be a manifestation of a broader form of self-serving bias through which people slant their perceptions of the world, especially the social world, in their favor.

That is very telling, isn't it? What does it mean? Do people overestimate their own reasons, by making them out to be rational? Or do they accurately portray their reasons and view others less favorably as having beliefs for less practical reasons?

How would you even tease that out? I can't think of how you would, since you can only find out why people believe anything by asking them. So we just have to go on their word.

In my experience talking with religious people, I've heard quite a few say they just can't imagine or bear to think that we just end when we die. That's the one I've heard the most, personally. I've also heard the one along the lines of that they can't believe everything just evolved and came from nothing, etc.

But now I want to ask people why they think others believe in God.

1. attribution bias: the tendency to attribute different causes for our own beliefs and actions than that of others.

A Vivid Reminder

As you may remember, my parents visited recently.  My mom brought me a piece of my childhood that I wanted to share with you. Here it is:

My bible from childhood. I guess I doodled on it. This is from 30 years ago, when I was 12.

~

Jesus Saves! Love is GOD!
(interesting that I said it that way. Don't people normally say "God is love?")

An Evening With Heathens

Sunday evening my group, Morgantown Atheists, had an evening at the local UU church to talk about heaven and hell around the world throughout time. We had a good turnout, including a Christian and a WVU professor of history, both of whom had never been there before. We all thought it was rather funny that the heater had been turned on in the church sometime before, so it was 99°. At least it was a dry heat. So we were sort of practicing in case we were wrong.

One of our regular members, Jason, brought his wife, Alise, who is a Christian. I actually met Alise in the blogosphere when she wrote that excellent article awhile ago called Surviving a Conversation With An Atheist, about what stereotypical assumptions not to make when you talk to one of us. So it was really neat to meet her in person then go out to dinner afterward with everyone and talk a bit more.

Unfortunately we didn't do much more than scratch the surface of what Alise believes, but my main goal was to make sure she was welcome and that she had an opportunity to at least share what her church teaches. (I should also note, Alise is extremely well spoken and seemed perfectly capable of handling her own!) But sometime over coffee I'd love to know more about what Alise believes herself, which she says is "complicated".

Anyway, she sent me a message this morning saying that she had blogged about her evening out with us heathens and it was so well-written I wanted to share it with you. Here it is, in its entirety:

Heaven and Hell with Atheists
by Alise Write

I've been meaning to attend a meeting of the local atheist group with Jason for a while now, but I've been unable to make it work due to conflicting schedules. When he told me that the group was going to be discussing heaven and hell this week and in light of some of the reading I've been doing recently, I thought it would be interesting to go and see what these folks had to say (the 99 degree temperature in the church where we met was cause for much mirth throughout the evening!).

The Bible Should Be Banned

So many worthwhile books have been banned over the years. The Grapes of Wrath was banned especially in California because it was partially set there and made the residents look bad. Thomas Paine's Rights of Man was banned in the UK and Paine was charged with treason for supporting the French Revolution. It was also banned in Tsarist Russia. Uncle Tom's Cabin was banned in the southern US during the Civil War, then in Russia. (full list here)

The following list of great books have all been challenged somewhere in the US in the 1990's: Nineteen-Eighty-Four (1984), the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, The Catcher in the Rye, Brave New World, Cat's Cradle, Catch-22, The Handmaid's Tale, Harry Potter (series), James and the Giant Peach, Lord of the Flies, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Slaughterhouse-Five. (see full list here)

Different books are banned for different reasons. Many due to their political nature or implications that threaten the current government, many others for obscenity or for being objectionable in one way or another.

Well, I have a couple of books that should be banned. How about the bible and the quran for inciting violence against homosexuals, women, and anyone who doesn't believe the given book, for inciting hate, for glorifying murder, rape and incest. You get the point. It's immoral, unjust, violent and hateful.

Recently, a man stoned another man who he thought might be gay because the bible told him to.

It was at the hospital where Seidman met and befriended Thomas, according to neighbors. The young man and Seidman were often seen together grocery shopping and going to church.

Seidman was 70 and he made Thomas, 28, the executor and sole beneficiary of his will.

"I killed a man," Thomas allegedly told the witness. He then described how he placed batteries and rocks in a sock, and hit Seidman in the head at least 10 times. Thomas then returned to Seidman's apartment several days later and called police, saying he had discovered the body, according to court documents.

When police interviewed Thomas on Wednesday he said Seidman had been making advances toward him over a period of time. Thomas said he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned in certain situations.

The bible really does say to kill homosexuals in Leviticus 20:13:

• New International Version: “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


• New Living Translation: “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.


• English Standard Version: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.


• New American Standard Bible: If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act;they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.


• GOD’S WORD® Translation: When a man has sexual intercourse with another man as with a woman, both men are doing something disgusting and must be put to death. They deserve to die.


• King James Bible: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.


• American King James Version: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them.


• American Standard Version: And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


• Douay-​Rheims Bible: If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.


• English Revised Version: And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


• Webster’s Bible Translation: If a man also shall lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


• World English Bible: “‘If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


• Young’s Literal Translation: And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them.

See also Romans 1:26-32.

There's so much more in the bible that is murderous and despicable. If any book should be banned, it should be this one. And the quran should be banned as well, which I admit I haven't read as much as I have the bible, but what I have read is pretty hateful.

Of course, I don't really believe in banning books. I don't think information should be censored. Maybe the bible and the quran should just have warning labels on them. And they should definitely be in the fiction section!

Just a Thought

Awhile ago I did a post about Terror Management Theory and then a follow up to it. This led me to scribble a note late one night as I was about to fall asleep. I just found the note and it still made sense! So I wanted to share it with you.

~

Often, atheists feel that religious people, new agers, etc., need to rid themselves of their religion completely. While I don't believe accommodationism is an appropriate goal, I think asking people to start over with nothing but a vacuum (not an accurate description, but how it would be perceived) is unrealistic and will almost always be rejected.

Instead, what about getting rid of just the worst influences? For instance, a recipe calls for lard and bacon fat. Get rid of the lard and replace it with something healthy and equally satisfying. Then later get rid of the bacon fat and replace it with something healthy and satisfying.

Let the people understand that it's a healthy replacement and that their worldview is not threatened, just improved.

This is how I did it, in stages.  Baby steps. Instead of threatening and attacking, perhaps use humor and thoughtful Socratic questioning . Maybe it could work?

Definitely add Critical Thinking to the recipe first! :)

~

What do you think? What would you take out first from the recipe? What would you replace it with?