Religion Doesn't Kill People, People Do

There is a very interesting article in HuffPost on Right Wing Atheists. Robert Wright discusses the new wave of publicly vocal atheists such as Richard Dawkins. He argues that they are generally more conservative and political issues than the majority of atheists who tend to do be quite progressive and liberal. He may have a point. I'm not in total agreement that the atheist talking heads we hear these days are all calling religion 'evil' as Mr. Wright contends, but there is a common argument from many atheists these days that religion is the source of many of the worlds problems. Mr. Wright contends that this is a not usually a causal relationship. That people are doing the horrible things they do for their own reasons. Religion is a convenient tool for justifying actions and unfortunately many terrorists, dictators and criminals have twisted religion to explain why they are justified. But I agree with Mr. Wright that removing religion would not stop such people. Other excuses are always forthcoming and people will find a way to rationalize whatever it is they want to do.


The problem with religion is that it is perhaps the most potent such rationalization since it accepts to argument or fact, at least in its traditional form. This is why I would encourage those who feel a religious connection to subject that religion to reasoned, scientific thought and to ask questions. A truly aware religious person can innoculate themself from imoral uses of their faith by those who seeks power or revenge. It is up to each person, whether they are religious or not to make thier own judgements about the motivations of others. If someone is trying to convince you to strap explosives to your chest you should be question him regardless if he invokes your god, your nation or any other emotional force.

The UN forum on Racism has passed a resolution condemning defamation of religions.

Not individuals right to their religious views mind you, defamation of the religion itself.  So saying something like "Scientology is a crackpot cult that just wants people's money", that's probably defamation.  Apparently this is no longer allowed. 

The representatives from Canada summarized the widespread complaints about this resolution best:

"It is individuals who have rights, not religions," Ottawa's representative told the body. "Canada believes that to extend (the notion of) defamation beyond its proper scope would jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression on religious subjects."

All individuals have the right to believe what they like.  One cannot discriminate against a believer because they are a Scientologist, just to pick an example, or incite hatred or violence towards them.  They are free people who can choose to believe in what they like, I can disagree with them but I cannot discriminate against them for those beliefs no more than they can discriminate against my Bayesian Catholic beliefs.  

But I also have the right to free speech which allows me to say their religion is stupid, its a sham made up by a science fiction writer on a bet and is just trying to get peoples money.  Similarly, the now very angry Scientologist could denounce my Church for many of its grevious views and horrible hypocrisy.  No problem.  There is no reason we can't allow people to discuss the pros and cons of different religions while still protecting the right to freedom of religion.  My discussing your religion openly, whatever religion it is, does not detract from your faith or diminish your rights.  

This is essentially the same discussion that arose after the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspapers.  Freedom of religion doesn't mean we don't talk about, critique, ridicule and analyze your religion.  It just means that no matter what we think of it, we don't interfere with you.  If someone can explain what is wrong with that line of thinking and why this defamation idea is good please do enlighten me.

Open letter to Pope Benedict XVI - Stop Dissing Condoms

The latest from the infallible Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.  He's not backing down on the Church's view that condoms would be bad for Africa.

His Holiness describes the situation in Africa where millions are dying from AIDS as

a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems

 
The first part is technically true, money alone is not enough. An enormous amount of will and work on the ground must also be done by NGOs and African governments to get people medical care, educate and change behaviour patterns.  Of course, most of that will and effort is already present.  His second point is totally wrong.  Condoms are the simplest, most effective single thing that could help Africa get a grip on this problem.  And the Catholic church provides the convenient excuse to every man refusing to use one that 'its a sin'. 

The church has an opportunity to save millions of lives by using their distribution network, their trusted network of nuns and missionaries and charities to distribute condoms and educate people about their importance. Instead, they continue to barrel on about abstinence as if millions of years of lack of evidence of lack of human restraint does not exist.  As if this evidence does not even exist within their own church of celibate priests.  Abistinence is against human nature, we are sexual beings.  We surely can say that anyone knowningly having sex once they are infected with AIDS is committing a grevious crime/sin.  But, that is not enough, that will not save people's lives.  That will not reduce the number of orphans or infected children.  That will not begin to heal Africa. 

Africa needs many things to heal, but one of them is most assuredly condoms and the removal of the roadblock of the Cathloic church to their more widespread usage.  As a Bayesian Catholic I am ashamed of my church for continuing this stance.  I am sure it is ashamed of me for many things but there are many of us modern Catholics out there who see the church's ban on passive contraceptives for what it is.  Cowardice and hypocrisy pure and simple. 

It says that the potential life is worth more than the real one.  It says that every sperm is sacred and the intent to stop conception is a sin, even if that conception is not certain and only passing of disease is certain.  It asks normal mortals, sinners all that we are, to behave as saints.  Meanwhile those who demand such purity cannot even attain it themselves and when they are found out cannot even face the responsibility for those they have hurt and betrayed.

This is why so many Catholics ignore their church.  We find the faith itself, the ceremony, the symbols as beautiful and deep messages to us.  But the church itself and its politics are mostly alien to us, stuck in the middle ages.  When will the church reform and fully accept the reality of the world? 

I don't mean the modern world, I mean the world. 

Disease, human sexuality, equality of men and women.  These are not cultural inventions of the twentieth century.  They are facts built upon science and centuries of human knowledge.  There is no shame in admitting you were wrong about them just as you were wrong about Gallileo's views on the Earth going around the Sun. 

No shame at all.  More than that, it is shameful not to.  If you believe God, or Jesus, or St. Peter will meet you in the end, do you think H/he'll praise you for sticking to your guns?  For staying true to St. Augustine and the bigotry of the middle ages?  Do you think you'll be rewarded for not changing even after you found out things about the world that all of your predecessor's could not have known or understood?  Would not God want you to use all of your body, soul and mind to bring more Love into the world? Isn't that the most important goal of the church? Why does the sexual behaviour of people have to do with saving lives and bring Love into the world?

If God does judge people in the end, I think its a very pragmatic test that takes account of everything you knew and everything you should have known.  You should know better, your Holiness, swallow your pride and change this policy.

Bb.

What's missing in the Design/Evolution Discussion is Math

I was just reading this article on NewScientist about the ongoing controversy over at the Royal Society about accomodating the desire to teach Creationism or Creation Science alongside Evolution.

One of the more reasonable pro-creation-science people said the following:

" It lies in the probability that such complexity arose out of undirected blind chance. Everything that we know about complexity outside of biology is that it arises from information, and that information arises from mind."


I had been reading for a while and could no longer contain myself, here's my reply:

Actually, thats not true. Complex products of human endeavour or of any lifeform may fit into that category, but there are many things in the universe that do not. The stars and galaxies are pretty complex, but the science explaining their behaviour and origin is much more detailed and precise than evolution and no mind is required. But there is an even better example. And the fact that it never comes up is evidence I think of why this discussion always goes round and round in circles. It has to do with Math. Have you ever seen the Manderbrot Set? Google it if you haven't. Its a mathematical construction based on a few very simple rules. Those rules don't require a mind to exist, they are just mathematical facts, and when applied to each other in a simple way you get this complicated and actually beautiful picture. And its not just complicated...its infinitely complicated. There are countless other fractal functions of this type. The point is, that a lot the people who accept natural selection as true don't do it because they've been duped or are being brainwashed. We accept it because its so obviously true to the mathematically inclined. The idea of natural selection itself isn't a theory, its a provably true algorithm for population given a few assumptions about that population. Now, biological evolution is a theory because in theory we can't never mathematically prove that natural selection is how life got where it is. But as long as the assumptions (about reproduction, inheritence of traits, and competition for scarce resources) apply its a very very plausible theory.



We'll have to get to more of this later. But interesting things are afoot in the jungle.

Why the Paranormal is Normal

About Spirituality
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Birth Control, Viagra Question Makes McCain Squirm (VIDEO)

About John McCain
It was definetly prudent for him...its always prudent to avoid answering a question when you don't know what your stance is, or what it should be given the latest polls and expectations from various voting blocks you are trying to court. Not exactly straight talking. When Americans are faced with a choice between someone who has clear beliefs and sticks to them and someone like McCain who is now willing to throw out even his most cherished issues (Vets) it would seems like an easy choice.



But given his recent track record of speaking off the cuff it was definetly prudent. I'm not sure it will convince voters though when they can't even figure out what he really believes.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Pre-christian stories of Christ

Very interesting story about a newly discovered stone tablet containing some stories that are very similar to events from the life of Jesus.  The thing is, the tablet was written a few decades before the birth of Jesus.  Ooops.  Now, this could be described as a very accurate prophecy but they are actually subtly different stories.  Its easier to imagine that the story of the real Jesus was elaborated along the lines of such contemporary literature than that its some huge coincidence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032642/The-ancient-scripts-predate--rewrite--Bible.html

This is not at all inconsistent with the writings of Tom Harpur who, in his later years, has discovered other similar evidence from Egyptian writings.  His belief is that Jesus may not have historically existed in the way we think but that the stories we know were reworked versions of many ancient spiritual stories floating around at the time.  If you are interested in that pick up Mr. Harpur's fantastic book "The Pagean Christ".  I'll write a blog about that soon, its a great book, a challenging one, but great.  

Ice on Mars: Good for the Jews?

I agree, fantastic article. As a scientifically minded spritual person who probably spends too much time worrying about existence and not being productive its great to hear this perspective. I definetly hope for such an interrupting announcement but I hadn't considered how useful it might be if it gets people thinking beyond the da to day who aren't naturally inclined to it.



As for the needles in the haystack Sebastian111, I agree the Earth should be the number one focus but the exploration is still very worthwhile. Unless we change our nature fundamentally we will eventually overrun this beautiful little planet. And as astronomers have long suspected and are beginning to find out, that haystack really seems to be literally full of needles. And there's no reason to think many of them will contain life.



Back to 2001, the swamp at the end is on the moon Europa which still is the second most likely place to find remnants of life (after mars) and probably the most likely to currently have life.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Separation of Church and State: Part II

This is such a good topic I have to visit it again.

Its in the news again, Rev. Wright is defending his church against all the criticism he percieves its getting. Perhaps this is partially true in some right wing quarters. There are white american christians who are offended by the emotional and angry elements in african-american churches. This reaction comes, I think, mostly from fear that they are hiding their own true nature. White americans like to either not think about racism or think the problem has largely been solved. As Dave Winer pointed out recently in an excellent writeup, there are lots of religion and cultures that have a story of slavery and struggle at their core. And some of them (such as Jews) have been retelling and living those stories for thousands of years. Why should we expect african americans to "get over" slavery and let go of that anger? Why should they ever let it go? As long as they can live in society at the same time, how they release this frustration and weave it into the story of their people is their business, and no one else's.

But I digress. I wanted to point out that this discussion of religion in American politics it fudamentally strange and even dangerous. Some people think that religion is its own political party in America, and that it influences the behaviour of those in the mainstream parties.

I wish even that were true.

But the fact of the matter if that you cannot get elected for any high office in America without being religious. So all parties are religious and atheists or those who think religion and politics should be independent are locked out. They need to hide and pretend they are more religious than they are. Its a really bad idea. Most other western countries would be outraged at any one of the religion stories that has come up in this election, let alone the entire religious tone of it. Remember that most wars through history have been justified by those claiming both political and religious authority. The ironic thing is that America has probably the strongest constitutional separate of church and state on Earth and yet they basically require all politicians to be religious. In Britain, where the church and state are inextricably linked through official support of one religion, no politician would dare talk about God for any kind of justification of policy. It just isn't done.

I'd love to hear from someone who believes religion is an important test for politicians to pass to explain why. Hopefully it doesn't just come down to the idea that you must be religious to be moral. Buts another post I think.

Thomas D'Arcy McGee

I'd like to suggest a book by David Wilson entitled "Thomas D'Arcy McGee: Passion,Reason and Politics". It sounds like an interesting biography of the ideas of McGee who was one of the founders of Canadian confederation and was the first Canadian politician to be assasinated.

His life and death (1825-1868) are fascinating and very relevant today for a world struggling through a time of religious turmoil. McGee was an Irish-Catholic which strong revoluntionary goals for the emmancipation of Ireland from Britian and the formation of an Irish Republic. He lived for a time in the United States and became frustrated with the discrimination against Catholics there and Irish-Catholics specifically. He eventually moved to Canada and become involved in politics and helped bring about the independence of Canada into Confederation in 1867.

McGee continued to hope for Irish independence all his life but sought to do so through peaceful, political means. He saw how Catholics and Protestants were able to compromise to form a balanced union in Canada. Because half the population of Canada was French-Catholic the laws and constitution of Canada struck a compromise between the two groups. Canada had publicy funded seperate schools for Catholics which was not possible in the US. Ontario still has 'seperate' schools boards for Catholics although anyone can attend them if they choose their taxes to be directed there and religious indoctrination is very moderate.

What cost McGee his life was that he chose to speak out against another group of Irish Republicans based in the the US called the Fenian Brotherhood. The Fenians were an offshoot of frustrated reform movements and violent rebellions in Ireland in the 1850s. Based on Boston the Fenian Brotherhood has as its goal the violent capture of Canada from Britian. Once in control of Canada the Fenians hoped to make a deal with Britian to trade Irish independence for control of Canada. Due to organization, partial and only intermittent support from the US government and a small force they were defeated by British/Canadian forces several times starting in 1866. McGee denounced these violent efforts and rather encouraged Irish people to immigrate to Canada to gain their freedom. On April 7, 1868 a Fenian supporter shot McGee in Ottawa.

These days it isn't Catholics and Protestants who are fighting each other for religious and national reasons its different sects of Islam against each other and Palestinian-Muslims with Israeli-Jews. Surely those groups can look at this example and take some advice from history. Violence isn't the answer. The Fenians failed but their approach caused much death and terror for years and influenced the struggles that continued in Ireland for another century until compromise and diplomacy eventually laid the struggle to rest.

Surely it would be better to spend 50 or even 100 years on diplomacy than a single year in war.