State of Protest

Welcome to the 91st Edition of the Carnival of the Godless! This is my deflowering, so please don’t be too harsh! I’m fortunate to have hosted a selected article in an earlier Carnival, and I think the Carnival is one of the best things to happen to the rational community since the passing of the International Rationalist Rights Law.

What? There’s no International Rationalist Rights Law? Damnit, we gotta work on that.

Anyway, there is no particular order to the list that follows, and I’ve refrained from indicating the system of selection. I will let you know, however, that the majority of submissions that didn’t make it failed to meet the COTG guidelines (and I’m fairly flexible with those). The included articles are certainly an interesting and often informative read, and I hope you enjoy and give these authors (and their hosts, if different) a round of virtual applause for standing up for rationality and trying to spread the word through their writing.

Without further blabbering, let the Carnival begin!

The Theistic Me vs The Atheistic Me
The Chaplain from The Apostate’s Chapel questions the value of a theistic mindset.

What does the atheistic you miss, if anything, about the theistic you?
My initial, knee-jerk reaction to this question was, “Absolutely nothing.”

Prayer and Disc Golf
Jeremy from Endcycle compares prayer to social expression.

“Yeah, Jeremy, it’s harmless and pointless.. just like prayer, right?”

Oh.
I get it.
See, he’s making a jab at my pretty staunchly “screw your prayers” atheist position. I ranted at him a bit about how my yelling at a disc isn’t quite like people withholding medicines from a dying child and felt vaguely superior about myself for a moment or 3.

Moral Relativism and Why I do not Embrace it
Divided by Zero refuses to accept moral relativism. Find out why.

[H]istory has shown us that all moral values that we accept in the western society are the result of such processes. A merciless war of ideas where only the ones that were competitively superior could survive. I cannot bring myself to call this process objective for I truly do not see it as such.

Debunking Christianity 25: The Ignorance of Evil
Anath from The Antichristian Phenomenon examines the concept of Evil throughout time, from Plato to Nietzsche.

“[O]bedience”, “selflessness”, and “respect” are labeled as “good” while “violence,” “Anything Non-Christian,” and “nonconformists” are labeled “evil”.

SIWOTI: Someone is Wrong on the Internet
B.T. Murtagh from quarkscrew provides a concise rebuttal to the “Christian Nation” assertion.

Several insisted that the wall of separation between Church and State wasn’t intended to apply to Christianity - in one case while making a big point out of the fact that the phrase doesn’t actually appear in the Constitution. That’s true, if irrelevant: the phrase actually comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, praising the anti-Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment.

“Self Evidence”: Truth or Truthiness?
At Five Public Opinions, AV questions whether certain moral propositions need justification.

Frankly, I don’t like arguments from self-evidence, and I think we should be very careful with them. In logic they might be OK: “it is self-evident that all bachelors are unmarried,” and so forth. In ethics, appeals to self-evidence seem to me to constitute little more than arrogant presumptiousness on the part of those making them.

Frustration
DagoodS from Thoughts From a Sandwich criticizes a common double standard (hosted by The Barefoot Bum).

It is frustration borne out of deliberate embrace of willful refusal to inform oneself. Past experience has demonstrated these advocates have a complete lack of empathy for any argument that does not exactly conform to their own limited view of the world; therefore I do not expect them to understand the comparison. Perhaps a lurker would like to know.

John Hagee, The Roman Catholic Church, The Antichrist, Hitler, The Holocaust, (all on one convenient chart)
The Whited Sepulchre predicts further Christian sectarian strife as we near the 2008 presidential election.

I think Hagee and Jeremiah Wright will soon put together a vaudeville-style tour, where they’ll bring their theological wisdom to bear on the great issues of the day.

It’s true… God is not the Leading Cause of War
At Disillusioned Words, Jeffrey Stingerstein examines some pitfalls of faith.

I do not think that religions should be outlawed. And the religious should NOT be persecuted for their beliefs. But they only deserve the same respect that belief in Zeus is accorded in today’s society.

They Got Horse Racing in Heaven
The Ridger at The Greenbelt wonders why God killed Eight Belles.

God wanted her in his stable? God put her in the Derby, let her run well, and then killed her?

The Bible is Immoral. Let’s Move on.
At Disillusioned Words, Jeffrey Stingerstein researches client-patron relations and whether they offered some justification for the distinction between perceptions of scripture “then” and “now.”

I was recently told, after quoting Bible passages about infanticide and pillaging villages: “You are reading the text as if it were yesterday’s USA Today - as a 21st Century American. The ancient world was vastly different than the modern world….”

Demons Made my Daughter an Anorexic Lesbian
Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. uncovers “The hidden danger of narrow faith based mental health provision.”

There seems to be unwritten, or unspoken understanding that anything Christian is both homogenous in the way it will handle social justice and mental health situations and by default have the clients best interests as a priority.

God is Brain-Dead
No More Mr. Nice Guy sees dead people. Brain-dead people, that is.

Walk around any large city and you will see mentally disturbed street people hanging around, picking fights with imaginary companions, and what not. Suppose I told you of a man who spends hours every day standing at a wall, rocking back and forth repetitively, droning on and on in a monotone directed at some invisible person that no-one else can see. You would probably conclude that the man is deluded, at the very least obsessive-compulsive, and in need of treatment lest he harm himself and possibly others.

What Would Convince You That You Were Wrong? The Difference Between Secular and Religious Faith
Is Religious Faith Irrational?
[These two posts from the same site are actually a single article in two parts. I’ve included both for continuity and clarity. -Pro]
Greta Christina has a unique and interesting take on faith and its distinctions.

I’m irritated by the argument that, because atheists don’t have faith in God, we therefore don’t have faith in anything. And at the same time, I’m irritated by the argument that, because atheists do have faith in things and can take leaps of faith, therefore an atheist’s secular faith in love and whatnot isn’t really any different from religious belief.

The Limits of Respect
Seth Manapio at Whiskey Before Breakfast…The Blog recounts an insightful anecdote about tolerance and respect.

[A]pparently the ex-boss said that she “had to respect” the daughter’s beliefs.

“No,” I said. “She doesn’t.”

Immanentizing the Z-Eschaton
Masks of Eris justifiably fears literal biblical interpretations.

I do not think there is a God, any god. If I did, what would I do? Probably scream in terror, since what follows is the “best” scenario I can think of.

Conservation of Good & Bad
Barry Leiba at Staring at Empty Pages has an interesting theory about the power and casualties of prayer.

Suppose… just suppose… that God’s master plan involves some sort of balance of good things and bad things. And that maybe the plan doesn’t call for a one-for-one sort of thing, but just an overall kind of balance, on a large scale.

Aliens, Mummies, and The Visit
Ordinary Girl (Tales of Ordinary Girl) contemplates experimentation while dealing with her religious relatives.

It’s not just that religion was ingrained in me from birth. I think I have shed most religious indoctrination. But it’s more in the way I interact with the world. I still have that skin of acceptability which I hide behind. You know, be respectful of religion and religious leaders, don’t express disbelief or any kind of skepticism about religious beliefs, and especially don’t encourage anyone else to pursue their skepticism.

Christian Nation, Prison Nation
VJACK at Atheist Revolution correlates prison populations with Christian influence, and suggests causation.

I am intrigued that the people most likely to proclaim that the United States is a Christian nation also tend to be those most responsible for perpetuating our status as the world’s leading prison nation.

A Non-Believer in Church: St. Peter’s Episcopal at Oxford
Oliver at Mississippi Atheists recounts an expedition to an Episcopal church from his non-believing perspective.

Most of the service was foreign to me. The services began with a procession of people in white robes holding various holy relics like a Bible or a Cross. I did not understand a single action of the minister. He had a metal ball that produced smoke that he started swinging at a candle. There is a deeper symbolic reference here I’m sure, but I’ve read the Bible from cover to cover and must have missed the references to a metal ball, the smoke, and the candle.

I don’t Believe in People Who Don’t Believe in Me
Natasha at Homo Academicus critiques an interview with Chris Hedges, author of “I Don’t Believe in Atheists.”

By calling new atheism “fundamentalist” he is not-so-subtly describing it in religious terms, playing into that tired out debate that atheism is a religion too. If you want atheists to take your message seriously, as indeed he must by agreeing to be interviewed on a notoriously atheistic podcast, you can’t start out by insulting them.

The Trouble With Prayer
Aaron Ross Powell explains why prayer is not a suitable replacement for personal responsibility.

Evil people do terrible things. This fact is not in dispute. But why a wholly benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient god allows those terrible acts is a question that has plagued the faith of the religious since the time of the pre-Socratic Greeks. This is known as theodicy, or the problem of evil.

Questions of Morality
Lori at Between Us Girls asks some potent questions about our assumptions and our perceptions of morality.

Psst…I have a secret to tell you. You might find it quite shocking. Religion does not have a corner on the morality market.

Better Evangelism?
Anthroslug questions whether there is a better form of evangelism.

The basic problem that I have encountered with evangelism is that it tends to work from the premise that the person being evangelized needs to be “saved” – and condescension and insult naturally follows from there.

Vengeful Paths to Truth
Mark Koester, the Mystic Atheist, examines justice in light of retribution and forgiveness.

This is a paradox point to our social logic. Justice is about remembering and retribution. Forgiveness is about a kind of forgetting and a way of creating anew as sharing partners and joined story-tellers. Society must seek both, paradoxically.

Ayala to IDers – ‘God is the greatest abortionist’
SocraticGadfly recounts an influential concept that helped him achieve godlessness.

Francisco Ayala, one of the world’s greatest evolutionary biologists, AND one of the most renowned biological scientists openly defending the compatibility of evolution and religious belief, has been a busy man with the controversy over “Expelled.”

Thanks to all the contributors and submitters!

The next edition will be posted in two weeks, and will be held at [undisclosed location; top secret; interests of national security] (I’ll post it when I get it!).

Make Carnival of the Godless submissions!

Research Volunteers Needed!

We are preparing to run another fMRI study of belief and disbelief, and we need volunteers to help us refine our experimental stimuli. This promises to be the first study of religious faith at the level of the brain. By responding to the four surveys I have posted online, you can make an enormous contribution to this work.

Please answer as many of the surveys as you can. If you only have time to answer one, please choose at random (otherwise, we will have many more responses to the first than to the others).

Feel free to post this message to your blog or to forward the relevant links to your friends. We especially need Christians to respond, as one of the goals of these surveys is to design stimuli that a majority of Christians will find doctrinally sound.
http://www.samharris.org/

State of Protest will be hosting the Carnival of the Godless #91 on May 11, 2008. Please offer your submissions according to the guidelines below.

From Unscrewing the Inscrutable:

Carnival Of The Godless Guidelines

1. The post you send in must be from a godless perspective and address something such as godlessness, atheism, church/state separation, the evolution/creation debate, theodicy, philosophy of religion as it relates to godlessness, etc. There is a huge amount of wiggle room in the post subject and we will consider every submission carefully for inclusion.

2. You may only submit one post per carnival. More may be accepted at the host’s discretion. If you submit a post that you really think ought to be included from another blog, and the author of that blog also submits a post, we’ll use their post. This should be considered a great way to get one of your excellent, but (for whatever reason) unknown or underrated posts in front of a potentially huge audience. Grab the bull by the horns!

Time frame

The Carnival Of The Godless will be posted every two weeks on Sunday. The cutoff date for submissions will be the preceding Friday. If we get the submissions chosen and sorted out before Sunday, it will be posted earlier.

Submissions

Send your submissions to the COTG Submissions page at Blogcarnival.com. Make sure you include:

• The name of the blog where the post is from
• The post title.
• The post author’s name or handle.
• The post’s permanent link.
• A short description of the post.

Human beings seem to have a natural desire to want to be rewarded for their good deeds and punished for the bad (well, to see others punished, anyways).  The comforting concept of an end to all suffering after we die, of an infinite paradise, is simply not enough.  People want justice.  They want to know that all the rapists and murderers, the drunken fathers, the bullies that picked on them in school, the neighbors who have wild parties while they abstain, and of course the heathen unbelievers (especially them) are all going to have to someday pay.  Let’s take a look at some of the different ways in which people believe their fellow humans will eventually suffer. 

Judaism

Although Judaism does not have a specific doctrine regarding an afterlife, the Tanakh makes many references to Gehenna, or Sheol, which is believed to be a sort of purgatory for the dead, and there is a mystical tradition of describing it.  The word Gehenna was derived from the Valley of Hinnom outside of Jerusalem, which was where the ancient Israelites sacrificed children, and later it was used as a dump for burning garbage and had a terrible stench.  This fiery place became a metaphor for the entrance to Hell.¹  Gehenna is not considered to be a physical place, but rather a feeling of intense shame and awareness of one’s sins.  Some believe that the soul is purified in Gehenna, which allows the soul to ascend to Olam Ha-Ba, which can be compared to the Christian Heaven.²  Very few Jews believe that existence in Gehenna can be permanent, with most believing the longest stay possible is eleven months.  The Kabbalah describes Gehenna as a “waiting room.”

Christianity

The Christian concept of Hell stems from the apocalyptic sections of the New Testament.  Revelation 20: 11-15 describes a “great white throne” before which all the dead must stand to be judged on their actions in life.  Those who do not make the cut are thrown into a lake of fire to burn eternally.  Many portrayals of Hell depict demons who torture the damned.  Matthew 13: 42 states there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”  Many Christians believe Hell is located in the Earth’s core, since Ephesians 4: 9 mentions the “lower parts of the earth.”  Some actually believe that the screams of the tormented can be heard in erupting volcanoes.³  Satan is considered to be the ruler of Hell in most denominations, although some believe Saint Peter is Hell’s keeper.  Few denominations can come to a consensus on which sins make a person worthy of Hell’s fiery torture, but it is almost universally believed that anyone who is not a Christian will meet that fate. 

Islam

The Islamic concept of Hell is called Jahannam, and it is very similar to that of Christianity in that it is generally portrayed as hot and fiery.  However, Hell’s fate is not considered to be infinite but rather a basis for spiritual rectification, and the devil (shaitan) is not its ruler, just a tortured soul like the rest.⁴  Also, there are considered to be many levels of Hell depending on the degree of a person’s transgressions in life.  The lowest pit of Hell is called Hawiyah, and it is reserved for those who exhibit hypocrisy, which is considered to be the worst of all sins.  According to the Qur’an, anyone who claims to believe in Allah but denounces Him in his or her heart will end up in Hawiyah.  There is also one pit of Hell, called Zamhareer, which is not fiery but freezing.  The tree of Zaqqum is believed to bear thorny, bitter fruit, which the souls of the damned are compelled to eat, furthering their torment.⁵ 

Buddhism

Several different versions of Hell, or Naraka, are believed to exist in the major Buddhist schools of thought.  A person with enough negative karma can be reborn into one of these Narakas.  Existence in these realms is temporary, although beings are thought to be held there for vast stretches of time.  One of the most common schemes for describing the various torments is that of the Eight Cold Narakas and the Eight Hot Narakas.  The cold Narakas depict such tortures as being naked and alone in perpetual blizzards, shivering uncontrollably, forming blisters which burst open, and having the skin or even the entire body crack open, leaving one raw and bloody.  The hot Narakas include suffering such as being attacked with iron claws or fiery weapons, being sliced into pieces, being crushed into a bloody jelly by molten metal, being impaled on a fiery spear, and being roasted in a blazing oven.  Buddhists also believe that Hell can be a state of consciousness in which one suffers because of one’s actions.⁶ 

Hinduism

Hindu literature also speaks of Naraka (Neraka in Hinduism), although not in quite as gory detail as the Buddhist literature.  It is believed that at the time of death, souls who have sinned may be captured by the servants of Yama, the Lord of Justice.  Yama will deem the appropriate punishment for the sinner which, as in Buddhism, is temporary.  When the punishment is complete, Hindus believe the soul will be reborn on Earth in a human or animal body.  Some Hindus do not accept the existence of the Nerakas, or consider their descriptions to be metaphorical.⁷

1. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/g/gehenna.html [↩]
2. http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm [↩]
3. Haraldur Sigurdsson, Melting the Earth, The History of Ideas on Volcanic Eruptions, p. 73 [↩]
4. William C. Chittick, Imaginal Worlds: Ibn al-Arab and the Problem of Religious Diversity, 1994 [↩]
5. Qur’an 44.43-46 [↩]
6. http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?showtopic=32187 [↩]
7. http://vedabase.net/en1 [↩]

I’d like to add a bit of perspective to the commentary I read the other day by Roger Severino, a lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The article is divided into quote boxes, my comments follow.

Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches ¹

Apr 7, 2008 3:00 AM (1 day ago) by Roger Severino, The Examiner

WASHINGTON - After years of litigation and debate, the California and Connecticut supreme courts are about to decide the question of marriage. If, as some suspect, the courts redefine the institution to include same-sex couples, they will have entered a minefield of unintended consequences — especially with regard to religious liberty.

The experience of legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, and of civil unions elsewhere, cannot be ignored. It shows that, even with the best of intentions, legalizing same-sex marriage will seriously undermine the religious freedom citizens have enjoyed since the founding.

This hyperbole has become all too well known in arguments that appeal to tradition. This was the same argument used in the iconic Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia, where in the earlier trial, the trial judge stated:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”²

Apparently allowing races to mix in marriage would “seriously undermine the religious freedom citizens have enjoyed since the founding.”

Severino, continued:

Although the First Amendment protects dissenting houses of worship from being forced to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies against their will, that is not the end of the story — it is barely even the beginning.

Mr. Severino apparently ignores the fact that although there is an optional ceremonial and religious aspect to marriage, with regard to the state, it is a legal issue akin to a contract in the eyes of the state, covered by its laws, and that can be processed fully by a non-religious government entity such as a justice of the peace or someone else authorized to conduct a marriage. In other words, religious institutions are not required to perform marital ceremonies — these religious rituals are optional, based on the desires of the members of the respective churches.

Simply changing the definition of marriage opens the door to a flood of lawsuits against dissenting religious institutions based on state public accommodation and employment laws that prohibit marital status and sexual orientation discrimination.

Is what’s being asked for a simple change in definition of marriage, or is it a change in application of marriage? I think it’s the latter. The same way a black and white couple could live together as if married, prior to Loving v. Virginia, two men or two women could live together as if married. Loving allowed states to recognize the black and white couple as a union under law, afforded the same rights and privileges as other couples. Apply marriage more broadly and reject more tradition, and it would include same-gendered couples. As F.C. Decoste states, “Of course, if this be so — if the only arguments against same-sex marriage are sectarian — then opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage is invidious in a fashion no different from supporting anti-miscegenation laws: each is a fundamental assault on equality, and neither has any rhyme or reason beyond sectarian commitments which would foist one’s own diseased, personal morality on the whole of the polity.”³

Additionally, religious institutions that refuse to recognize a new state-imposed definition could be stripped of access to government programs, have their tax exemption denied and even lose the ability to solemnize civil marriages.

Here we embark on an interesting and, I’m sure, controversial issue — should religious institutions even have tax exemptions, or is that a violation of the First Amendment? And why should religious institutions be treated any differently than any other charitable organization that refuses to comply with government rules, and that ends up losing access to government programs? Is the adherence to religious tradition and homophobia important enough to religious institutions that the lesser of two evils is to reject government assistance?

We need only look at Massachusetts for a preview of what to expect. There, in 2004, justices of the peace who refused to solemnize same-sex unions due to religious objections were summarily fired.

And a doctor who refuses to perform a life-saving blood transfusion because it conflicts with his religious beliefs should be praised? If a person hired by a government entity has a personal problem performing an administrative task according to the rules and regulations of the government, then the person should not be an employee of the government.

It did not matter that other justices of the peace were available to do the job because, by Massachusetts law, same-sex unions were now entitled to equal treatment. A religious belief became a firing offense.

No, the belief did not become a firing offense. The manifestation of that belief by refusing to comply with a government mandate while being employed by that government became a firing offense.

It is but a small step for the state to impose this rationale on churches and other houses of worship and end legal recognition of religious marriage ceremonies that do not comply with the state’s expanded definition of marriage.

As has always been the case anyway. If a Church of Satan has a marriage ceremony, the government doesn’t have to recognize it if it doesn’t comply with state law. So, the rationale has always been imposed. Even a church recognized as an entity that can perform legal marriages doesn’t get a free pass if the person actually performing the marriage is not authorized to do so. Why should there be a special exemption for religion for anything violative of the law?

This is not the only example of what is to come. Massachusetts, like many other states, strictly regulates private adoption agencies through licensing. Historically, this has not posed any difficulties for religious institutions, but Massachusetts now demands that all licensed adoption agencies be willing to place children with legally married same-sex couples.

However, Catholic Charities, the largest private social service provider in the state, could not in good conscience place its orphan children into homosexual households. After a bitter struggle, Boston Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business because it refused to embrace the state’s new definition of marriage. The result was doubly tragic because both orphan children and religious liberty took the hit for this misguided attempt at equality.

It seems more like the orphan children took a hit because of Catholic homophobia and irrational adherence to tradition in not even considering the viability of a same-sex set of parents. Is it so important that the couple be man and woman that the next best option for Catholic Charities is to perpetuate the orphanhood of the children? Should the civil rights of couples be ignored for the sake of the homophobic?

Two more real-world examples illustrate the danger. In New Jersey, the city of Ocean Grove recently yanked a Methodist institution’s real estate tax exemption because it refused to perform civil unions in its outdoor wedding pavilion.

In Iowa, the Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local YMCA in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend “family membership” privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont.

Based on the ruling, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as “families” for membership purposes, or lose $102,000 in government support for the YMCA’s community programs. Equal provision of benefits to all couples was not enough — only the YMCA’s explicit adoption of the state’s new definition of family fulfilled the government’s requirements.

Again, governments are effectively giving taxpayer money to religious institutions in the form of exemptions because those institutions follow government regulation. When the institutions refuse to follow government regulation, the government stops the exemptions. Are the coffers so empty that churches cannot go private and run things the way they wish? Isn’t the Catholic church one of the most wealthy entities in the entire world? So wealthy that it could feasibly ignore the lack of tax exemption, and facilitate the finding of homes for orphans, or buy out the YMCA and privatize it?

This list barely mentions the avalanche of employment discrimination lawsuits religious institutions will face, if, for example, employees at religious institutions publicly enter same-sex unions in violation of the institution’s teachings and employment policies.

Likewise, religious colleges and universities would run afoul of housing discrimination laws if they were to offer housing benefits for husband-and-wife couples but decline to do so for married same-sex partners.

Yet again, government money (which is taxpayer money) for adhering to the law. Not adhering to the law results in no government money or enforcement of the law. If churches don’t like it, they can go private.

Are we better off as a community if religious charities are forced to close their doors because the state redefines what is and is not a marriage? Are we better off if, for example, the Salvation Army is forced to close because of employment lawsuits, or if Catholic adoption agencies are forced to shutter their offices? What would such a result say about tolerating diversity and respect for religious liberty?

Lawmakers and judges need to consider all the consequences, intended and unintended, before embarking on this path.

There are plenty of non-religious charities that would be happy to take on the tasks of former religious charities that are destroyed due to their own arrogance. Respecting religious liberty is not equivalent to allowing religious institutions to do whatever they want with taxpayer money without being accountable to the taxpayers or the government. As a society, we can respect or refuse to respect religions as beliefs, but that has nothing to do with accepting the behavior of religious institutions. However, the government, the entity that takes and redistributes our tax money, is held to a higher standard. Remember, Congress shall make no law respecting….

-Procrustes

1. http://www.examiner.com/a-1324540~Roger_Severino__Legalizing_gay_marriage_will_spark_lawsuits_against_churches.html [↩]
2. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) [↩]
3. The HalpernTransformation:
   Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Society, and the Limits of Liberal Law, F.C. Decoste, http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/decoste.pdf [↩]

When West African slaves were forcibly transported to the Caribbean and Central and South America to work the sugar plantations beginning in the 16^th century, they brought with them many religious traditions.  Despite being forced to convert to Christianity by their Roman Catholic masters, they were able to preserve many of their ancestral and traditional beliefs by fusing them with elements of Christian culture.  This religious tradition, specifically those beliefs and practices derived from the Lukumi religion of the Yoruba people of Nigeria, has evolved into what is now known as Santería (or, “the Way of the Saints”).¹  Santería was originally a derisive term the Spanish used to mock the African slaves’ apparent over-devotion to the Catholic saints.  Yet, what they perceived as devotion to the saints was actually a devotion to their own sacred orishas, spiritual beings who represent the forces of nature and are considered to be manifestations of the creator.  The Lukumi people disguised their orishas as Catholic saints in order to avoid persecution.²  

One has to be initiated into Santería before information about it is freely released.  However, we do know some things about their beliefs, rituals, and practices.  They believe in a supreme deity and creator of the universe, whom they refer to as Olofi, Olorun, or Olódùmarè (owner of heaven).³  They hold no specific belief in a devil.  Rather than viewing the universe in terms of good and evil, they see all things as having positive aspects (Iré) and negative aspects (Ibi).  Good character (Iwapele) is defined as doing what is right simply because it is right, rather than out of fear of retribution or hope of reward. 

All ceremonies and rituals of the Lukumi tradition begin by paying homage to one’s ancestors, called Ara Orun (People of Heaven).  The Ara Orun are held in high esteem and are referred to for moral guidance.  Animal sacrifice is a common practice during rituals, and this has caused some controversy among animal rights activists.  Chickens are the most common sacrifice, and followers of Santería claim their priests and priestesses are trained to perform these ritual sacrifices in safe and humane ways.  Only the blood of the chickens is offered to the orishas, while the meat is cooked and consumed by the community.  These sacrifices are believed to bring good luck, purification and forgiveness of sins.  Trees are also offered to the orishas.  Another controversial ritual involves sprinkling elemental mercury around the home, which vaporizes and can expose those who reside in the household.⁴  

The hierarchical structure of Santería is arranged according to priesthood level and authority.  The priests and priestesses who govern the Orisha temples are known as Babalorishas (fathers of Orisha) and Iyalorishas (mothers of Orisha).  They are also referred to as Santeros(as) and represent the second level in the hierarchical structure.  The top level is reserved for priests of Ifa, who are considered to be Orishas of prophecy, wisdom, and all knowledge.  Ifa priests are given titles such as Babalawo (father who knows the secrets) and Iyanifa (mother of destiny).  Initiates must train for several years in the oral traditions of the faith and undergo a period of solitude in order to become Santeros(as). They are taught the traditional drum music, songs and dances of their ancestors, which are considered forms of prayer to the orishas.  This music is said to induce trance-like states in the initiated Santeros(as), allowing them to channel the orishas, heal the sick, and transmit information to the community. 

The practice of Santería in Cuba was actively suppressed in the 1960s during the communist revolution, but its popularity exploded in the 1990s.  Most of today’s Cuban followers of Santería also consider themselves to be Catholics.  They often hold separate rituals to honor the saints and the orishas, even though the disguise of Catholicism is no longer needed.  Adherents are currently concentrated in Cuba and other Caribbean islands, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, France, the Netherlands, and the Hispanic populations of Florida, Puerto Rico, New Jersey, New York City and Los Angeles.  There are now Santerían stores in many of these areas, called Botanicas, which sell charms, herbs, potions, musical instruments, and other supplies used in the practice of Santería.  Estimates as to the number of adherents varies widely.⁵

1. http://www.santeriareligion101.com/ [↩]
2. Ernesto Pichardo, Santería in Contemporary Cuba: The individual life and condition of the priesthood [↩]
3. http://www.religioustolerance.org/santeri3.htm [↩]
4. Technical Report: Mercury in the Environment: Implications for Pediatricians [↩]
5. http://www.religioustolerance.org/santeri2.htm [↩]

If all the professional football teams in the US were to be challenged to a tournament by a tiny group of out of shape, drunk guys pushing 60, and the drunk guys wanted the event to be taken seriously, you’d have an idea about what the so-called “Controversy” of Evolution vs. Young-Earth Creationism looks like to rational people. Even better is that the drunk guys are always thinking that a legendary, invisible, all-powerful giant is on their team, and declare themselves the winners no matter what actually happens during the game.

It’s overstating matters to say that there is a great debate between Evolutionist Scientists and Creation Scientists. On the contrary, nearly all working scientists operate with the understanding that the earth is billions of years old and that life follows the patterns that are best explained with the Theory of Evolution. There is no real theory (in the scientific sense of the word) in creation science. While the supposedly scientific Discovery Institute purports to defend Creation Science/ Intelligent Design/ Judeo-Christian fundamentalism, there’s not much science there. There are a few deeply misunderstood and miscalculated notions of how Nature works, and most Scientists are frankly too busy curing diseases, developing new technologies and making fascinating discoveries in the tangible world to give these notions any attention at all. This isn’t even a debate between people who believe in a metaphysical higher power and rational atheists. It’s certainly possible to believe that religion answers the why of the universe while science answers the how. For the many people who do, there’s no problem, and what’s the big fuss about anyway? Unfortunately, the people who tend to toss around the words “bacterial flagellum”, “Second Law of Thermodynamics”, and “Irreducible Complexity” are out there, and they’re working very hard to convince non-scientists that ID is anything more than tarted up fundamentalism. They are quick to confuse the Theory of Evolution with Abiogenesis (they have nothing to do with each other), and insist on attempting to debunk a theory of Evolution that has in fact evolved since Darwin took it out of the cradle and taught it to walk. Now the theory is running, jumping, and making flu vaccines (you know, for those pesky evolving viruses). For those of us who are rationalists, but are not scientists, and would like some quick and dirty ways to debate the misguided individuals who would like to cripple scientific education with superstitious censorship, help is on the way.

There are a few relatively patient rationalists on Youtube who have taken the time to carefully debunk and explain precisely how the “Creation Scientists” get it wrong. Among these members is one of my favorite, a man going by the handle “Thunderf00t”, who has a series of such videos called “Why People Laugh at Creationists”. Yes, the title is a bit hostile, but the snark is snappy and the criticism well-deserved. Thunderf00t’s videos are informative and entertaining. Here, for example, is the latest in the series. In it he deals with the an oft-repeated assertion that if the earth were really billions of years old, then the moon should be doing something insane, like crashing into us, or have crashed into us, or be shot out into outerspace or something. It’s hard to keep up with the fallacious arguments. You’ll see what I mean:

You can find this and the rest of Thunderf00t’s excellent series here

Kabbalah is a set of esoteric teachings intended to reveal the mystical aspects of Judaism.  Followers of Kabbalah consider its teachings to be the true meaning of Judaism, whereas other Jews consider the doctrines of Kabbalah to be heretical.  Kabbalists believe Jewish mysticism originated in Eden, although historians have noted that virtually all Kabbalistic works falsely claim, or are ascribed, ancient authorship.  Kabbalists believe that over time, Jewish patriarchs, prophets, and sages interwove their knowledge into Jewish writings and culture through oral transmission, resulting in the current teachings and practices. 

Kabbalists believe that in ancient Israel in the 10^th century BCE, the teachings of Kabbalah were common knowledge and practiced by over one million people.  However, there is very little historical evidence to support this.¹  They believe that the Jewish spiritual leaders at that time (the Sanhedrin) were forced to hide these teachings, because foreign conquests posed a risk that the information might fall into the wrong hands.  The Sanhedrin also feared that Jews who were deported on conquest to other countries would be led to practice in incorrect and forbidden ways without proper supervision and guidance by the masters.  As a result, they believe the Kabbalah became secretive and forbidden for two and a half millennia.   

The Zohar, a mystical commentary on the Torah written in medieval Aramaic, is widely considered the most important work of Kabbalah.  Torah study is considered an inherent duty of observant Jews,² and the Zohar divides this study into four levels.  Peshat is the simple meaning of the text.  Remez refers to biblical allusion and allegory.  Derash is Rabbinic scriptural exegesis.  And finally, Sod is the secret inner meaning of the Torah, i.e. the kabbalah.³  Kabbalah teaches that there are hidden meanings contained in every Hebrew letter, word, number, and even the accent on words in the Hebrew Bible.  Kabbalists practice methods such as Gematria to attempt to ascertain these hidden meanings. 

Another famous work, and possibly the earliest extant book on Jewish esotericism, is the Sefer Yetzirah, which kabbalists claim dates back to the patriarch Abraham.  Also revered is astro-magical text the Sefer Raziel HaMalach which, according to kabbalists, was revealed to Adam by the angel Raziel.  Yet, the Sefer Raziel HaMalach draws heavily from the Sefer Yetzirah, and it cannot be shown to predate the 13^th century.  Skeptical scholars find attempts to date these works to the pre-Israelite Ancient Near East to be implausible.  Much of the central doctrine did not begin to develop seriously until the 12^th century CE, and it seems far-fetched to believe that this doctrine existed undocumented within Judaism from the time of the Assyrian empire (which, ironically, some scholars believe is the source of Jewish mysticism) until it “resurfaced” approximately 17 to 18 centuries later.⁴ 

Kabbalists can be defined as monistic panentheists.  They envision two aspects of God, (a) God Himself, whom they consider to be impersonal and unknowable, and (b) the revealed aspect of God that created the universe and interacts with mankind.  They believe God’s existence is beyond anything that can be expressed in the material world, yet they believe all things are linked to God in perfect unity.  Rather than viewing these two aspects as a paradox, Kabbalists believe that through divine emanations they can come to see how they complement one another. ⁵ 

Kabbalah teaches that there are ten attributes with which God created the universe and reveals Himself, called the Ten Sefirot (literally, the Ten Emanations).  Kabbalists believe that the differences between these levels are not changes in God but in mankind’s ability to perceive God.  The ten levels are: Keter (will), Chochmah (wisdom), Binah (understanding), Chesed (loving kindness), Din (judgment), Tiferet (harmony), Netzach (victory), Hod (glory), Yesod (foundation), and Malchut (sovereignty).⁶  

The Zohar teaches that there are three elements to the human soul: the nefesh, which is the lower “animal” part of the soul linked to instincts and bodily cravings, the ruach, the middle “spirit” soul containing moral virtues, and the neshamah, the higher “intellect” soul, which allows one to have awareness of God and to benefit from the afterlife.  The nefesh is said to enter the body at birth, whereas the ruach and neshamah are said to develop over time depending on the actions and beliefs of the individual.  Most Kabbalistic works assume a fundamental difference between Jewish and non-Jewish souls.  The Zohar posits that Gentile souls have an evil, demonic aspect to them that is not present in Jews.  Two additional parts of the soul, the chayyah (awareness of the divine life force) and yehidah (fullest union with God possible), are mentioned in the Raaya Meheimna, a section of teachings spread throughout the Zohar, but these higher levels of cognition are considered to be within the grasp of only a few chosen individuals. 

1. Aryeh Kaplan “Jewish Meditation: A Practical Guide” [↩]
2. The Written Law (The Torah) [↩]
3. Imbued with Holiness [↩]
4. Parpola S. (1993) “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy” Journal of Near Eastern Studies [↩]
5. JewishEncyclopedia.com - Bible Exegesis [↩]
6. http://www.newkabbalah.com/sefirot.html [↩]

This article is part of the series: Secrets of Christianity: Unearthed

God: the Evidence

Come again? What “evidence”?

In religion, man is assumed to be the most important thing in the “universe”, the special project of some deity. This has lead to religion ignoring observable facts and insisting that the earth is the “center” of the universe” and indeed that everything revolves around it. This baseless assumption defined how most religions and especially Christianity interacted with humanity and our world.

The heliocentric solar system was not unfamiliar to those in ancient times, or to those from other religions. Aristarchus of Samos wrote that he was furthering the theories of Heraclides Ponticus in the third century BC.¹ Muslim scholars did work to show that the earth rotates.² However, all of these early scientists were decried by contemporaries.³ How dare they say that the earth is not the center of the universe! This slowly started to change when instruments were developed to allow us to observe our world more accurately. Galileo saw the moons revolving around Jupiter.⁴ Copernicus came up with the data and formulas to demonstrate how we revolve.⁵ We then had to acknowledge that pretty stories meant nothing when reality was knocking on the door.

When Copernicus originally revealed his theories, they were met with interest but not yet aversion. However, they met opposition 3 years later when a Dominican monk denounced them in a work that indicated that the Bible was inerrant, the absolute truth of how the universe worked.⁶ Following that, Galileo dared to reveal that his telescope supported the heliocentric model. With such an “attack” against the infallibility of the Bible, and therefore Catholic Church, that which was acceptable as an idea became unacceptable as reality.⁷ Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for supporting Copernicus’ ideas and Galileo was convicted of heresy.⁸ Any heliocentric works were on the Vatican’s Index of Prohibited Books in 1616 and the specific books by Copernicus and Galileo were on that list until 1835.⁹

As you can see above, Copernicus did much to advance man’s knowledge of his world. In 1973, there was a celebration of the 500th anniversary of his birth.¹⁰ At this celebration, many scientific papers were presented by many of the preeminent scientists of that time. However, there was one paper presented that was not of this caliber. One of the articles in U.S. News and World Report’s special edition “Secrets of Christianity” mentions this one in its “God: the Evidence” article. One would assume that a magazine dedicated to pursuing the facts about things would have perhaps read this article over more closely, looking for facts to support the subject’s claims or making sure that questionable claims weren’t included. However, that is not the case.

This article begins with mentioning the august figures in attendance at that 1973 symposium. The author takes great pride in listing the names of Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, etc. However, it immediately insists that the “only” paper to be “remembered” from that conference was one by Brandon Carter, “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology.”¹¹ Now, I suspect that there were many papers that were remembered from that conference. One, “Large Scale Anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background” by R.B. Partridge,¹² did much for advancing Big Bang theories.

Dr. Carter’s idea was one that many apologists attempt to use today. The idea is that the universe, with its myriad laws and constants are “perfect” for human life, or as Dr. Carter put it, “[W]hat we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions for our presence as observers.” This has been claimed to “prove” that God exists, because there needs to be an “intelligence” that decided it wanted humans and it then created a universe to support those humans.

The article goes even further to claim that the theories based on observation of facts, such as evolutionary theory and the heliocentric fact, “explained the tone of despair and angst that came to characterize modern culture, the desperate feeling that humankind was along and without moorings, and above all, without God.” However, the article does nothing to show how this supposedly occurred. This is an excellent example of more baseless assumptions upon which religion builds its claims.

Baseless claims like this are rife throughout the article. It is claimed that “scientists began to notice a strange connection among a number of otherwise unexplained coincidences in physics.” This “connection” is supposedly the one “overriding fact”: “Such values had been necessary for the creation of life.” Now, a fact is a very specific thing, especially in the scientific world. A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality.¹³ Because we do not know exactly what is required for the creation of life — something that creationists are quite fond of reminding everyone — it cannot be claimed that it is known for a “fact” that the constants and laws of physics are indeed required for it. The article also does not cite who these “scientists” were, which is always a sign of a claim with no evidence to support it.

The article claims that the argument of “God did it” is a “simpler way of explaining” these constants and laws than the “exotic theories” of physicists. This could be a good assumption if one also believed that fairies made shoes for people in exchange for a bowl of milk rather than the “exotic theory” that cobblers make shoes.

Dr. Carter attempted to make his idea more scientifically palatable by attempting to claim that the “coincidences” that he claimed were too many to just be that, coincidences. However, there is no way to determine how many was “too many.” He also relied on an old idea about the universe. Once, it may have been considered simply “random” by 19th century thinkers, but no scientist thinks that the universe is totally random today nor is it likely that they did even back in 1973. Also, the author of the article has attempted to claim that “Darwin’s theory of “natural selection” could no longer be taken as an exhaustive explanation for the phenomenon of life. Again, these are common mistakes by apologists, using very outdated information and presenting half-truths, since evolutionary theory does not address abiogenesis as he attempts to call the “phenomenon of life.”

There are further attempts to claim that “20th century science is closer to in spirit to the vision of the Book of Genesis than anything offered since Copernicus.” Unless one takes it all completely as “metaphor” and shoehorns any definition one likes into it, it is not. If one does this, then what of the Bible is “metaphor” and what is literal? Why is one person’s “interpretation” better than another’s? The article also tries to claim that finding an origin to the universe is some kind of “scientific embarrassment” and it adds to this the lie that science agrees at all with this unsupported idea that the universe is “expressly designed for life.”

Unfortunately, this article is emblematic of many other Christian apologist arguments. They try to co-opt the terms and discoveries of science to make Christianity sound more plausible, which is especially ironic when “good Christians” didn’t believe any of this when the theories were new and had less evidence supporting them. The article attempts to say that the burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that “God did it.” However anyone knows that the person who proposes an idea is the one who must provide the proof that it is correct and none has been provided. Each scientific discovery pushes any deity farther and farther into the gaps that they try to exploit. Life is in the universe because that’s what those constants and laws just happen to allow to arise. If those constants and laws were different, we would either not be here or we would be here in a different form. The universe isn’t “perfect” for us at all. We are “perfect” for it.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_heliocentrism [↩]
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_heliocentrism [↩]
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair [↩]
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo [↩]
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus [↩]
6. Rosen, Edward (1995). Copernicus and his Successors. London: Hambledon Press. ISBN 1 85285 071 X [↩]
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair [↩]
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno [↩]
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum [↩]
10. http://siarchives.si.edu/findingaids/FARU0500.HTM [↩]
11. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974IAUS…63..291C [↩]
12. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974IAUS…63..157P [↩]
13. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact [↩]

Every year, the U.S. experiences as many as 850,000 teen pregnancies. Those under the age of 25 contract an average of about 9.1 million STDs. 70% of females and 62% of males lose their virginity by the age of 18.¹ In a study commissioned by Congress, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. concluded that abstinence-only programs have no effect on the age students first have sex and no effect on their number of sexual partners.²

Clearly, education is the key. When northern Virginia began requiring “family life education” as part of their public school curriculum in 1987, teen pregnancies dropped by fifty percent, and teen abortions went down sixty percent.³ Students receive instruction in “family living and community relationships, abstinence education, the value of postponing sexual activity, the benefits of adoption as a positive choice in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, human sexuality, human reproduction, dating violence, the characteristics of abusive relationships, steps to take to avoid sexual assault, and the availability of counseling and legal resources, and, in the event of such sexual assault, the importance of immediate medical attention and advice, as well as the requirements of the law and the etiology, prevention and effects of sexually transmitted diseases. “ Yet, an important aspect of sexual education has been missing from this curriculum, i.e. information on birth control.

Last Wednesday, February 6^th, the Virginia Senate rejected a bill, SB 155, which would have added to the curriculum the requirement for education on the various methods of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The Senate’s education and health committee cleared the bill with a 9-6 vote, but on the floor the bill narrowly missed passage with a vote of 17-22. It seems common sense that our children should be given proper information on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs, and a recent survey showed that 82% of parents in the U.S. support programs that would discuss these methods,⁴ so why was this bill rejected?

Republican lawmakers accused the FDA-approved list of contraception of being too broad and unreliable. “Quite frankly, this list is rather staggering in terms of its scope, and in terms of its relative effectiveness or ineffectiveness,” Sen. Mark D. Obenshain said, referring to a spermicide on the FDA list that is not supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The spermicide he was referring to does have a comparatively high failure rate,⁵ but that is exactly the reason we need to educate students on these methods. Does the Senator really believe that the potential failure rates would not be discussed alongside the benefits? That, of course, would be one of the most important aspects for students to learn about. The patron of the bill, Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Richmond, responded, “How better should our children be introduced to this laundry list? Should they go into the store, whether it’s the CVS or some other place, and guess at the efficacy of these products or guess how to use these products or guess as to whether these products are appropriate or not, or should they learn it in a classroom setting?”⁶

Sen. Edd Houck, D-Spotsylvania, one of two Democratic Senators who joined with Republicans to kill the bill, said he worried about Catholic students in public schools. “This was one of those efforts where the intent was right, but it could get in the way of families’ beliefs,” Houck said. This is a poor argument, as parents have always had the right to remove their children from the program if they feel it is inappropriate or conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The “Some Families” Foundation, while rallying for opposition to the bill, wrote in an action alert, “The bill…would replace current abstinence-based Family Life Education programs with a controversial contraception-only curriculum.”⁷ This is a blatant untruth! All the current teachings of the benefits of postponing sexual activity would remain in place. The education on contraception would merely be an addition to the existing criteria. In an action alert email, they stated, “This bill is the highest priority legislative initiative for Planned Parenthood. That pro-abortion group had close to 500 people here yesterday to argue for its passage. Some of their activists were still in high school. Are we going to let them go into our schools to recruit the next generation of pro-choicers without putting up a fight? These are our children, nieces and nephews, grandchildren and great grandchildren. No! We cannot let them win this critical battle. The education of our children is too important to trust to ineffective and dangerous contraception-based programs.” Ineffective and dangerous? Study after study confirms the inefficacy of abstinence-only education. Teenagers are going to have sex. To think that telling them “No” is going to somehow stop them from behaving contrary to their nature as human, sexual beings, is both naïve and the real danger to our students.

Based on the blaring inconsistencies in the opposition’s arguments and their willful ignorance of the hard evidence against them, could there be another, underlying reason for their vicious attack on this bill? In October 2007, Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine submitted plans to close a budget shortfall. One of the ways in which he accomplished his goal was to eliminate a $275,000 matching grant for a federal program which provided funds for fourteen nonprofit groups that taught abstinence only, making Virginia the fourteenth state to refuse to support abstinence-only education. Kaine’s communications director, Delacey Skinner, stated, “The governor supports abstinence-based education, but the governor wants to see us funding programs that are evidenced-based.” Kaine cited recent studies which have found that in order to truly protect teenagers against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, sex education programs must include information about contraceptives as well as abstinence.⁸ Social conservatives reacted very angrily to the Governor’s decision and accused him and Planned Parenthood of hiding the decision until after the November election. Their accusations were unjustified, as Kaine’s budget amendments had been public for six weeks prior. Considering the close timing between these two incidents, it seems highly likely that Republican’s residual anger over the Governor’s decision had a considerable impact on their decision to reject SB 155.

Statistics aside, studies aside, evidence aside, the bottom line is that we have a responsibility to provide accurate, useful information to our students at a time when they need it most. When students are well-informed, they can make well-informed decisions. Withholding that information is tantamount to lying to our children and can only cause confusion and detrimental consequences. Please take the time to write to our politicians and express your support for comprehensive sexual education for our students. We owe it to their futures.

1. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm [↩]
2. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf [↩]
3. (Sen. Barker, D-Fairfax) http://hamptonroads.com/2008/02/measure … nia-senate [↩]
4. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15603764/ [↩]
5. http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/babytabl.html [↩]
6. http://www.examiner.com/a-1206268~Contraceptive_education_bill_killed.html [↩]
7. http://www.vbdems.org/?p=2177 [↩]
8. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01716.html [↩]