Why do horrible things happen to faithful people?
The religious run a protection racket. The key thing about that is that no actual protection is offered, only threats.
Warning: anyone who tells that really, really stupid story about a man in a flood praying for rescue will be disemvoweled. It’s a stupid story that makes excuses for the inaction of their deity, and I’ve heard it a few hundred times too often.
(via Joe.My.God)
I really don’t, in any specific way—I have a general distrust of the waste of effort building temples anywhere, but I see nothing unusual or untoward about Muslims (who do live in New York, and may be citizens of this country) building a goofy ol’ religious building in downtown Manhattan…except, of course, with property values being so high there it seems like a poor investment. When I first heard right-wingers yammering about prohibiting the construction of Islamic buildings anywhere near the crater of the 9/11 terrorist act, my first thought was that would only be acceptable if they prohibited any religious structures anywhere near the place.
Jerry Coyne summarizes some of the views by Gnu Atheists — it turns out we don’t all speak with one voice on the matter, which isn’t surprising at all. However, I will turn to my other guru, Jeffrey Rowland, who has a cartoon summarizing the issue.
There’s been a lot of pointless bickering lately about a Mosque being built near where Nine Eleven happened. Exactly what is a “safe distance” to put a Mosque away from a place so that it doesn’t have some imaginary effect on it? I’d prefer a ban on ALL religious buildings being built within 1,000 miles of a place where ANY MEMBER of ANY SPECIFIC religious organization did some harm unto society.
This is the advantage of being a non-religious person. We just look at situations like this and scratch our heads, then we move on and try to figure out how to make life less terrible in ways that can actually help.
I like his ban. It would instantly free up a lot of real estate for productive use.
I also like his term for churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques: “Worshippin’ huts”. I may have to use that more often.
Australia is not a particularly religious nation, and they’ve got the same problems we all do—a sagging economy, and essential demands for social programs that ought to be met…but compromises have to be made. Here, though, is a compromise I can’t understand: the Labor government has decided to throw away huge sums of money on something ridiculous.
That something else is school chaplaincy. Last week the Gillard government pre-empted its own review and increased the program’s funding by more than a third. The total cost to the taxpayer now stands at $437 million.
What are these chaplains supposed to do? It seems to be a sinecure for god-wallopers, who get a privileged position in a school, and $20,000 per year for…it’s not clear.
The Government knows chaplains are evangelical Christians, not mental health experts. This is why departmental guidelines prohibit chaplains from counseling students. They also ban chaplains from providing educational and medical services, as well as from proselytising. All of which begs the question: what exactly are we paying chaplains $20,000 each to do?
I’m not the only one wondering. As a report on the program reveals, many chaplains are unclear about their role. A majority admits they do deal with student mental health and depression issues, student alcohol and drug use, physical/emotional abuse and neglect, and suicide and self-harming behaviours. What most don’t do is refer to appropriate professionals when out of their depth.
If you’ve got problems in the schools like the ones listed above, it seems to me that hiring someone incompetent and untrained will not solve them.
I don’t know why we should; he’s a delusional old man who uses fear to demand obedience to archaic dogmas. But Carla Powell tries to make the case for the Pope, and fails. Here’s her reason why we should be nice to the guy.
Though he has none of John Paul’s film-star charisma [Wait, what?], Benedict is a man with a message. He was the late pontiff’s closest friend, his intellectual soulmate and loyal colleague. In all his time in Rome as Pope, and on his travels around the world, he has argued against what he calls “the dictatorship of relativism”.
Moral relativism has become a kind of intellectual disease, weakening the vitality and self-confidence of Europe and the west. Left unchecked, it will destroy us, because it removes our power to resist the distortion of our values, erosion of our liberty and, ultimately, threats to our democratic way of life.
Well, you know that this kind of preaching of an absolute morality, usually backed up by nothing more than tradition and power and fear, isn’t unique to Catholicism. Powell’s words are clearly dogwhistles for the evil Muslim threat, but the thing is, they aren’t big on ‘relativism’ either — both Christianity and Islam seem to be in a competitive race for the title of most deranged patriarchal tyranny on the planet.
But OK, let’s play her game. Let’s admit that there are some things that really are wrong and even evil. I’ll start.
Raping children is wrong. Using the power of a wealthy institution to shelter people who rape children is wrong.
See? No relativism at all.
Now what was Ms. Powell saying about treating the papacy with the respect it deserves?
Muslims in Saudi Arabia are building a giant clock that resembles Big Ben, but is over six times larger. They want to replace Greenwich Mean Time with Mecca Time as the world standard.
As Mohammed al-Arkubi, manager of one of the hotels in the complex, put it: “Putting Mecca time in the face of Greenwich Mean Time. This is the goal.”
This is a beautiful example of cargo cult science. Big Ben has nothing to do with establishing GMT — it’s just a big clock in London. GMT is entirely about establishing a uniform standard reference time. It was set rather arbitrarily to the time at an observatory in England, because England was the leading maritime nation at the time and used solar observations relative to Greenwich to determine the longitude of ships at sea. Greenwich time has also been replaced since then by Coordinated Universal Time, which is based on measurements of a world-wide network of atomic clocks, which turn out to be more reliable than figuring out the position of the sun.
It’s an arbitrary standard, get it? Building a giant clock in the desert will not suddenly attract time to line up with it. Although it does sound like a perfectly kitschy and annoying clock, with bright lights that can be seen 18 miles away that will flash and blink in colors to let people know it is time to pray. I suspect they’re also trying to standardize the web back to 1995 html, too.
And of course there is more. There is a whole lot of freakish cargo cult science going on down there.
According to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian cleric known around the Muslim world for his popular television show “Sharia and Life”, Mecca has a greater claim to being the prime meridian because it is “in perfect alignment with the magnetic north.”
This claim that the holy city is a “zero magnetism zone” has won support from some Arab scientists like Abdel-Baset al-Sayyed of the Egyptian National Research Centre who says that there is no magnetic force in Mecca.
“That’s why if someone travels to Mecca or lives there, he lives longer, is healthier and is less affected by the earth’s gravity,” he said. “You get charged with energy.”
What does that even mean? The magnetic north pole is currently located somewhere near Ellesmere Island, in Canada, and it wobbles about a lot, by several miles each year. How can a city in Saudi Arabia be in perfect alignment with an island in Canada? Being at the magnetic north pole, or even aligned with it, doesn’t mean there is no magnetism there, it’s not going to change how gravity works, and it’s not going to zap you with energy.
What the Saudis clearly need to do is build a 2000 foot tall horseshoe-shaped magnet in Mecca, cover it with strobe lights and Allah’s name, and then pray for the earth’s core to rotate and drift in alignment with their little monument.
By the way, if you’re just laughing at those dumb Muslims, keep in mind that Christians look exactly the same to us atheists. Every one who thinks that the heavens proclaim their petty parochial deity’s glory…you’re just as wacky and blind as the desert misogynists throwing away their oil wealth on knick-knacks for Allah.
The latest Chick tract is a wonderful summary of modern fundamentalism. It’s got all the totally non-Biblical dogma: the anti-christ will be appointed pope, the Rapture, the weirdly fabulous Wedding of Jesus with his Church (everyone gets crowns!), Armageddon, the mark of the beast…it’s all in this one. Also, raging anti-Catholicism. Cute ending, too.
After reading everything that comes before, Delores’ “He’s nuts” is just perfect. If I were in a conversation with a fundy, and he suddenly vanished in a clap of thunder, I wouldn’t freak out, though: I’d applaud.
Harriet Baber is a philosopher, and I say that with the most sneeringly disparaging tone I can muster. I don’t normally dislike philosophy, but there are a lot of philosophers I detest, and Baber exemplifies why. She has a remarkable article in The Guardian in which she says a series of astonishing things — which is often one of the good things philosophers do, surprising me with weird ideas that make me think. In this case, though, she makes some stupid pronouncements, doesn’t explain why she thinks she’s making a good argument, and then thoroughly undercuts her own credibility.
She starts by announcing that she’s a Christian who arrived at that idea via Pascal’s Wager. I know Pascal was a brilliant fellow, but his wager is bollocks — it’s built on the premise of the unreliability of reason and the deficiencies of evidence, reducing our choices to desperate gambles, where we make decisions only on the basis of the desirability of outcomes — a strategy, by the way, that makes casinos rich and gamblers paupers. Accepting Pascal’s Wager is admitting the defeat of reason, a very peculiar position for a philosopher.
But then Baber says something really bizarre, that actually does explain why she falls for the Wager. She declares that the truth is overrated.
People in any case overestimate the value of truth and underestimate the difficulty of arriving at it. There are a great many truths in which I have abolutely no interest – truths about the lifecycle of Ctenocephalides felis, (the common cat flea) or the extensive body of truths about the condition of my teeth that my dentist imposes on me. I see no reason why I should bother with these truths or make a point of believing them.
This is actually a consistent position with her appreciation of Pascal’s Wager, but she’s also sawing off the limb she’s standing on. Why should I care what she says when she admits the truth is unimportant to her? The title of her article is “My faith is an informed choice” (I’ve chosen to retitle her article more accurately for this post) — what does “informed” mean when you’ve confessed that truth is irrelevant and information is not to be bothered with? And what kind of scholar dismisses curiosity about the world with such casual contempt?
Although she did get me wondering about one thing, which is a virtue of fools: I wonder how much misery and death has been caused by dental disease in human history? I suspect that it has been a significant player, but I don’t have any sources of information on that — but there must be a forensic anthropologist or two out there who has some idea.
Oh, wait, sorry — curiosity, an interest in the evidence and the truth, and an expectation that truths about the condition of people’s teeth actually matter assumes that the truth actually does matter. Forgive me.
(The gang at Ophelia Benson’s place are also discussing this strange article.)
I have to call shenanigans on this cartoon:
It left out Mormonism. And since Mormonism is halfway between $cientology and Christianity, given the principle that the right answer is always the one in the middle, she would have found the Mormons just right.
I think that’s right, anyway. People keep telling me that we have to flee from the extremes, i.e. Fundamentalism and that horrible rational evidence-based thinking, to find contentment in the median, i.e. soppy sloppy casual Jesusology. So how can the protagonist of this story actually find happiness in the flaming extremism of science-worshipping godlessness?
I blame Barbara Bradley Hagerty — or at least, she is the face of religious inanity at NPR. She has a new piece up titled Christian Academics Cite Hostility On Campus, and does she have any evidence for this claim? None at all. Actually, she has evidence contradicting the claim.
There are two parts to the story. The first is someone who is fast becoming a usual suspect, Elaine Howard Ecklund, the person who studied faith among academics and was surprisingly surprised to discover that, golly gee whiz, nearly half go to church! This is a fact that is only news if you’ve bought into the biased view that academics are a monolithic bunch who are not only all atheists, but are also all communists, hippies, and Democrats. How the fact that a very significant minority of academics are religious argues that Christianity is oppressed on campus is a mystery.
So she moves on to pointing out that most of the religious academics are quiet about it; there’s a serious shortage of proselytizing evangelicals on the faculty. This, too, is a mystery to Ecklund, but shouldn’t be. Academics tend to be smart people. Evangelical/Charismatic/Fundamentalist religions are stupid. Figure it out.
Ecklund is also annoying because she is constantly harping on her thesis that higher education doesn’t erode faith, when the proper way to look at her data is to notice that more than half are freethinkers.
If you thought that was feeble, wait until you see the second part. They had to go looking for an evangelical Christian who has suffered discrimination for his faith, and who did they get? Mike S. Adams. That’s the most horrendous example of religious discrimination they could find? A far right lunatic who was tenured at his university but failed in his attempt at promotion to full professor?
Come on. Once upon a time when Christians complained about persecution, it was because a few of their members were getting fed to bears or getting nailed upside down to a stick…and now they’re reduced to squeaking about a college professor not getting a promotion?
Am I the only one who sees “theidiocy” whenever I read or hear the term “theodicy”? Just curious.
Anyway, take a look at this lovely example of rationalizing the death of children.
The most merciful thing an omnicient God might do is end the life of a child whom he knows will never seek Him.
I’m going to have to remember that one. Since the death of seeming innocents is all for a cause visible to an omniscient deity, abortion must be God’s way of purging the population of little potential Hitlers, then. Makes a fellow wonder how he missed the original Hitler, though.
