Religious hang ups

In the past while I’ve been off at conferences, I’ve had you ask me various questions for blog filler. I figured this time we’ll do the opposite – I’ll ask you guys questions, and you can feel free to discuss in the comments while I’m away. So, here we go with the first question of the week:

For those of you who are no longer a part of the religion you were raised of, do you still have some religious hang ups that you just can’t shake? Things that make you feel guilty even though you rationally know you shouldn’t?

And for those of you who weren’t raised with religion (like me!), do you have any religious hang ups from being raised in a religious society/having religious friends/etc?

What a Christian university course on Logic looks like

A friend of mine decided to take his required Logic class through a school other than Purdue for various time-related reasons. It was offered at a Christian school, and he’s an atheist. But that wasn’t the most interesting part: It frequently used supernatural Christian ideas as examples in class. And I mean proving them to be true, not debunking them. Yeah, excellent use of logic.

While we took a bit of glee out of his frequent brain-explosions during the semester, he was nice enough to share more information about the class now that his grade is safe. You can see a whole pdf of the class syllabus here.

Attached is the syllabus from my silly Philosophy class. You can read the introduction, its pretty funny. The rest of the course is boring except for Lesson 13, which is where he uses the resurrection of Jesus Christ to explain how to logically evaluate arguments. It’s [from page 14 to 17]. The whole course is pretty much about indoctrination — I guess by teaching these poor kids everything they know through religious lenses they have no capacity to think without it involving religion. Take away religion — and you’ve taken away their college education.

I took the course through Taylor University. They have this “life together covenant” thing where it outlines behavior for their students, both on and off campus. It’s hilarious. “Prohibited Behaviors: Certain behaviors are expressly prohibited in Scripture and therefore are to be avoided by all members of the community. They include theft, lying, dishonesty, gossip, slander, backbiting, profanity, vulgarity, crude language, sexual immorality (including adultery, homosexual behavior, premarital sex and involvement with pornography in any form), drunkenness, immodesty of dress and occult practice.”

I’m glad they never found me out because I would have been kicked out for doing probably all of them… in one Thursday night!

I’m kind of surprised a public, secular university accepted transfer credit from a place that is obviously more concerned with religious indoctrination than education. Just to give you a taste of their “logical evaluation” of the resurrection of Jesus:

3. We must look at explanations as sets. All of our explanations occur within total world views; every explanation carries many implications and prerequisites. Facts occur in context with other facts. Even if a single idea might be a potentially great explanation for an event, the baggage that comes with the idea might be too great for it to be acceptable.

Here we come, of course, to the liability involved in using the idea of a supernatural resurrection as an explanation for the empty tomb. In order for this explanation to be acceptable, we also need to be clear on the following:

a. there is a God;
b. this God is involved in human history;
c. miracles are possible;
d. miracles are knowable;
e. miracles are knowable from history;
f. the New Testament is historically accurate;
g. it is possible to get reliable information from historical sources;
and various other implications.

These and other issues are all resolvable in a positive way. However, a Christian needs to be aware of the many layers of relevant concerns and not be surprised that simple arguments are oftentimes rejected by non-Christians, not because they cannot explain the data, but because of their implications for a theistic, supernaturalistic world view.

Oh, yeah, none of those things are problems at all. …If you want to read the whole argument, go here and start half way down page 114. I’m sure the document has other gems, but I’m not inclined to sift through it. Post any fun ones you find in the comments!

Piano bar win

Last night I went to the piano bar at the Neon Cactus, our local popular drinking/dancing venue for college students. If you’re from Purdue, you know this is probably the most popular Thursday night tradition. It was my last night since I’m moving in a week, so a ton of my friends were there.

Bruce (the piano man) quickly pointed out that the Jesus camp people were here – namely two tables full of counselors from Camp Tecumseh. The first hour was filled with many lighthearted Christian/Jesus jokes, including Bruce feigning guilt whenever he swore or said something sexual and apologizing to the “Jesus table.”

Being a group of atheists, we couldn’t resist. We pooled our money and bought “Don’t Stop Believing” with the note “From the atheist table to the Jesus table.” The best part? They laughed and sang along with us.

Kudos to religious people with a sense of humor!

Nevada Tea Party candidate opposes abortion because rape is part of God’s plan

Sharron Angle is the Tea Party candidate running as a Republican in the Nevada senate race. Oh, and she’s a misogynistic godwalloping asshole:

MANDERS: I too am pro-life, but I’m also pro-choice. Do you understand what I say when I mean that?

ANGLE: Well, I’m pro responsible choice. There’s choice to abstain, choice to use contraceptives … there’s all kinds of good choice…

MANDERS: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

ANGLE: Not in my book.

MANDERS: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

ANGLE: You know, I’m a Christian, and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

I really don’t understand why Christians would want to promote the idea that God is a sadistic dick who’s making you get raped for your own good, but hey, feel free to continue your bad PR. What I do have a problem with is when you illogical fairy tales are going to hurt people and become public policy. The fact that people support this woman is terrifying.

Religious accommodationism at Evolution 2010

Amongst evolutionary biologists, there are differing opinions on how to communicate science to the public and increase acceptance of evolution. One of these opinions is religious accommodationism, which attracts much ire from more outspoken activists such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne. While I happen to agree with them, I do understand not everyone does. There are those who believe science and religion are totally compatible, that theistic evolution is good enough, and that we need to mince our words lest we offend liberal theists who could be on our side.
However, I was surprised to find a whole 2 hour symposium at the Evolution 2010 conference devoted to accommodationism. It was the Communicating Science Symposium, which started with a talk by Robert T. Pennock on Communication Evolution, focusing on audience and message. You all know my love for evolution and communicating it to others, so I was initially very excited for this talk. It definitely had good parts, especially about carefully choosing our wording as to not confuse others (Don’t say you “believe” in evolution, don’t call it “Darwinism,” don’t say you have “faith” in science, etc).

But it quickly went downhill. Much of the talk was about distancing support of evolution with atheistic views – that we need to stress that religion and science is compatible so people in the “middle” can still accept theistic evolution. That people are more willing to accept evolution if they hear it from their pastor. He lauded Francis Collins and the BioLogos foundation for being pro-evolution…even though BioLogos just had a piece trying to reconcile Biblical Adam and Eve with evolution.

That’s why there’s a problem with accommodationism. It’s more about winning numbers for your cause than truly communicating and educating people about evolution. Are people truly supporters of evolution if they’re not accepting it as a natural process? Do people really understand natural selection if they think God is zapping in mutations or had a plan for humans to eventually evolve? Why is it that our tactic involves people preserving their religious beliefs (which are based on faith), but molding science (which is based on facts) to fit their world view? If anything, it should be the other way around. Religion should have to accommodate science.

The reason why people feel compelled to do this is because religion holds a special status in our society where it can’t be criticized, even when it’s blatantly wrong. This really came out in the second part of the symposium, which was by a woman from AAAS (I unfortunately missed her name). She said there’s no use in including creationists or atheists in the discussion because we’re extremists who won’t change our minds.

Yep – we don’t want to potentially alienate theistic allies, but it’s totally okay to ignore those atheist extremists. Why is theism worth accommodation, but secular opinions are not? I commented on this in the Q&A, saying if they’re accommodating religion they should also accommodate secular opinions, but all I received was an awkward “Okay” and the Q&A ended – where every other question got a long reply.

I guess it’s just disappointing seeing such a one sided representation of “communication” at a large conference. Should have spent my morning going to the research based talks.

I am such a REBEL, YEAAAAHHH!

I get crazy email sometimes, but this person seemed to have my best interests at heart. How about I share it with you guys, and see what you all think?

My name is Eric [redacted] and I have read much on what you have had to say on various subjects.

Religion
prochoice/prolife
Gay rights

You have a rebelious nature. You are about the same age as my children, and I see a lot of immaturity in you.
You enjoy attacking people to much.
You demand your right to be heard and then are rude to those who disagree with you.

All of the various subjects that you believe so strongly in are all tied together under one real subject. Your desire to buck the system.

Most people do believe in God…. you do not and you consider anyone who does an uneducated backwards fool.

You believe in Gay rights….. Yet HIV/AIDS has shown that nature itself has cursed this life style.

You would fight for the right of a serial killer to be saved from the electric chair and later that day fight for a woman to have the right to kill an innocent unborn child.

I would ask a feminist this: If women are intelligent why is abortion even needed? Today we have so many different forms of birth control abortion should no longer even be needed.

Could it simply be that women are not using birth control and then saying they do not want children? If you want men to take the responsibility can a woman not say ” not until you put that condom on”>??????

Maybe what your belief system is really all about is being able to do whatever you want anytime you want with anyone you want and their being no consequences to any of your actions….

We use to call people that thought like that children….. maybe it’s time to grow up

My new email address is: [redacted]

I wish you good luck

You know, I feel it’s only fair to respond to people with the level of respect that their thoughtful arguments have earned. Which is why, Eric, I feel compelled to say this:

Lolololololololol.

Hey, if there’s anything maturity has taught me, it’s to not waste my time responding to the insane judgemental ramblings of random internet strangers. Each sentence he wrote could get it’s own novel-length rebuttal, but what does it matter if it’s flying in one ear and out the other? The only reason I’m posting this is that I think it’s unfair to keep all this merriment to myself. Or so you could facepalm at the stupidity and develop your own counterarguments. Whatever floats your boat.

Though I do have to point out one thing: If I really wanted to rebel against my parents, I would have become a fundamentalist Christian Republican Sarah-Palin loving housewife. I think just typing that made my dad feel a disturbance in the Force.

Sexual strategies predict religiosity and attitude toward drug use

A new study from the University of Pennsylvania has indicated that your sexual attitudes help cause not only your attitude toward drugs, but your religiosity. It was previously commonly believed that religiosity and/or political beliefs were the primary causative agents, but it appears to be the other way around. Here’s an excerpt from the paper explaining this in more detail:

Moreover, the relationship between sex and drugs tended to mediate items that, from the perspective of canonical views in political science, might have been thought to be driving views on drugs. For instance, while it is true, as one might have expected, that people who are more religious and those who are more politically conservative tend to oppose recreational drugs, in both our samples, the predictive power of these religious and ideological items was reduced nearly to zero by controlling for items tracking attitudes toward sexual promiscuity.

These reductions are difficult to reconcile with a model in which abstract political views are the underlying causal variables driving attitudes toward drugs. They are, however, consistent with the model we propose, in which individuals’ sexual strategies drive views on recreational drugs.

It is also plausible given our results that abstract commitments drive sexual attitudes and sexual attitudes drive drug attitudes. In both models, sexual attitudes directly influence drug attitudes, with the difference being that our model views sexual strategy as a major causal influence in determining abstract commitments, while the other model takes the opposite causal position, viewing items like religiosity and ideology as major influences in determining sexual attitudes. We note that recent work with regard to religiosity shows substantial evidence that the causal arrow runs at least in significant part from sexual lifestyles and attitudes to religious commitments (McCullough et al. 2005; Weeden et al. 2008; Li et al.
2009).

The authors rightfully note that sexual attitudes don’t account for all variance, but they do account for a significant amount. This is obviously a complex issue, so I would like to see more research, but it’s still interesting. If it is true, I think it has profound implications for religion. There’s a difference between “Divine mandate says we must be monogamous, therefore I am” and “I’m monogamous, so I feel comfortable in a belief system that affirms my opinion.” Moral judgments sort of fall flat when they’re based on arbitrary personal opinion. Although, this concept isn’t too shocking to atheists.

Of course, if there’s one hole in this study, it’s all the religious fundamentalists who keep popping up in the news for their inability to keep their pants on. You think they would all be sex-crazed liberals.

(Via Carnal Nation)

“Touchdown Jesus” to be resurrected

He won’t be coming back in three days, but the gaudy statue will be rebuilt, says Solid Rock Church. It’s bad enough they wasted $500,000 to build the thing to begin with – now they’re going to drop even more money to put it back up. I hope they’re insured; at least then they’ll be getting back money they already spent.The idea of spending over a million dollars on a ugly Jesus statue seems decidedly un-Christian to me. Couldn’t that money be better spent, you know, helping the poor or feeding the hungry? Just a thought.

But of course, that’s not the point of this sculpture. This is just another example of arrogance – of religious people who think their particular fairy tale is so awesome that they want to show it off. Not all religious people are like this: If everyone actually kept religion a personal issue like so many claim to do, we’d have a lot less problems in the world. But whenever someone feels the need to put up a 62-foot Jesus on the side of the highway, that’s just so they can show off.

I also find it amusing that religious people often attribute natural disasters to God’s will, but when it hurts them instead of homosexuals or pro-choicers, it was simply bad luck. Ah, isn’t cherry-picking your religious beliefs to make them conform to your political ones so nice? Hurricane Katrina? Totally God saying he hates gays. Lightning striking your giant idol that’s making Christians look bad? Totally explained by physics. Of course, at least one of my commenters from last night was being consistent:

wow.. so many different views.. but I keep thinking, that once again God has sent Jesus to protect us. I live only a few miles from Solid Rock Church. There are also all kinds of hotels, and hospitals surrounding the area. Jesus took the beating so his people wouldn’t have to…. once again. Praise God.

Yep, because God couldn’t send that lightning bolt to hit a tree. Now the church will have to waste even more money putting up their giant idol, instead of helping their congregation or community. Man, God is kind of a dick.

Touchdown Jesus is on fire!

A lot of storms have been moving through the Midwest today, and apparently the infamous Touchdown Jesus in Ohio hasn’t been spared God’s wrath.

The “King of Kings” statue in Monroe was struck by lightning on Monday and engulfed in flames, according to various reports. The statue of Jesus in Monroe, dubbed the King of Kings by the Solid Rock Church where it resides, was struck by lightning during the severe storms on Monday.

It was engulfed in flames.

Fire crews are on the scene now, and are attempting to put out the fire. The is made out of wood and Styrofoam, covered over a steel framework anchored in concrete. This is covered with a fiberglass mat and resin exterior. It is 62 feet high and weighs 16,000 pounds.

Part of me feels bad – I mean, I wouldn’t want my $500,000 property to be destroyed. On the other hand, there’s a certain amount of schadenfreude when a giant Jesus gets struck by lightning and destroyed. I mean, how many times have atheists suggested that God strike them with lightning if he was real, but he’s never delivered? I guess he’s annoyed by gaudy Christian art more than godless heathens.

…That being said, the first person to find a photo wins a million internet points. EDIT: Found!

(Hat tip to Mike)

Relationship advice from Pat Robertson

What do you get when you ask Pat Robertson for relationship advice? Misogynistic bullshit, of course!

TERRY MEEUWSEN (co-host): Pat, this is from Anne who says, “My husband has always been a flirt and loves to talk with other women he finds attractive. He says he would never cheat on me but his actions are starting to get to me. What should I do?

ROBERTSON: Anne, first thing is you need to make yourself as attractive as possible and don’t hassle him about it. And why is he doing this? Well, he’s doing it because he wants affirmation that he is still a man, that he is attractive — and he gets an affirmation of himself. That means he’s got an inferiority complex that’s coming out. And he’s not gonna cheat on you. He’s just playing.

But you need to not drive him away or start hassling and hounding on him, but make yourself as beautiful as you can, as fun as you can, and say let’s go out here, let’s go there, let’s go to the other thing. So — and Terry disagrees.

MEEUWSEN: That’s a lot more grace than I do, Anne. Let me just say we’d be having a serious conversation.

ROBERTSON: Affirmation. Affirmation, dear heart.

Why do husbands flirt and cheat? Because you’re fugly. Go put on some makeup, already.

I would love to see Pat’s reaction if this was a man writing about his flirting wife. I have a feeling he wouldn’t be promoting “affirmation.”

(Via Slog)