A suggestion for the Pope

Ol’ Ratzi is quite upset at the Belgian raids on Catholic church offices — he’s calling them “deplorable”, a “moment of sadness”, and is calling in the Belgian ambassador to the Vatican for an angry dressing-down.

He’s doing everything all wrong. Here’s what he should be doing: he should be calling the actions of priestly sex abusers deplorable and wrong, and insisting that the church will do everything in its power to correct the deep problems that have led to these awful acts. Then he should announce that the church will cooperate fully with all legal secular actions — and the Belgian raids were fully authorized by the Belgian state — in getting down to the heart of the matter, and go even further, offering to open up all relevant records to inspection. Then I might be convinced that the church is sincere in its pursuit of justice for all, not just its priests, but also its parishioners.

But then, I’m an atheist. Ignore me. I’m kind of enjoying the spectacle of the Catholic church putting on the indignant act of a guilty criminal caught red-handed and insisting that the police shouldn’t be working so hard to catch them.

How Mormons will conquer the world

There’s a documentary coming out about how the Mormons influenced California’s Proposition 8, and Salon has an interview with the director, Reed Cowan. He makes the point that it wasn’t just that they raised buckets of money, but that they had willing volunteers.

Nobody does it better than the Mormons. Money is one thing. What outsiders don’t understand is the volunteer aspect: the “means and time” trigger language that comes from the temple, and how it literally played to their obedience.

Their greatest asset is the obedience of their people. They had people signed up to go street by street and house by house. They knew who to take with them and were extremely organized.


What is it about those two words, “time and means,” that triggers obedience?

You’re told in the temple that what you are about to do, your eternal salvation hinges on it. God will not be mocked. Then you see a character named Satan who basically threatens to take away your eternal salvation if you don’t live up to covenants you’re making. When they used the trigger language of the temple, most of the Mormon faithful got it. Your salvation and the salvation of humanity depends on it. It’s inferred that you will lose everything if you don’t obey.

If there’s one thing religion is good at, it’s using fear to make people conform and obey. The question is whether uniformity and mass action at the behest of a few authoritarians is good for humanity…and I think not. At least not the kind of humanity I want to live among.

Bravo, Belgium!

The Belgian police have raided offices of the Catholic church in search of evidence of the usual Catholic crime — raping children. (It’s funny: ask someone to name a Catholic crime, and what’s the first thing they think of? It’s the worst PR in the world.)

I’m hoping that they’re just warming up for the big one — I’d like to see a UN raid of the Vatican, with a whole line of shame-faced old men in dresses led out to the paddy wagons like a transvestite Mafia mob.

That’s not a shoehorn, it’s a sledgehammer

The apologetic gang at BioLogos is complaining again — Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins and I didn’t understand their recent piece by Daniel Harrell on Adam and Eve, and oh, it is so hard to be the ones in the middle of all those atheist and creationist extremists.

Note to BioLogos: squatting in between those on the side of reason and evidence and those worshipping superstition and myth is not a better place. It just means you’re halfway to crazy town.

The core of Falk’s article consists of complaining that we didn’t understand what they were talking about, and took their article out of context. Unfortunately, as Falk attempts to restate the original bogus argument, it becomes apparent that the only ones who were clueless and confused were the theistic evolutionists. What they were doing in the original article was distinguishing between two alternatives: #1, Adam and Eve were created literally as the Bible says, and #2, that Adam and Eve were historical figures who were chosen by God out of existing populations that had evolved as science explains. #1 is patently ridiculous, as they admit, and comically, they argue that #2 is eminently reasonable and supportable by science, and assume that therefore all our criticisms must have been made under the misapprehension that we thought BioLogos was endorsing #1. No! We can read, and we could see exactly what they were saying with their goofy dichotomy, and we’re saying the whole effort to reconcile science with the book of Genesis is a misbegotten waste of time — we were addressing #2, not #1. (Although Harrell also argues that #1 could be true, since his god can do anything).

#1 and #2 are both wrong, and there is also a #3. There was no Adam and Eve. There is no reason to believe there was; the authors of the book of Genesis had no source of information about prehistory, no authority to outline anything but their own recent history, which they were only able to do rather poorly and inaccurately, and the whole story was simply made up. Furthermore, this fable of a few unique individuals founding the whole human race is contradicted by the evidence: we are descended from populations with a pattern of continuous variation, grading over long ages from species to species to species. Not only is it irreconcilable with the Genesis myth, but there is no reason to expect it would be.

What they are attempting to do is shoehorn the evidence into their theological preconceptions. They need to face up to facts: it’s not a shoehorn in this case. When you’re reduced to using a hatchet and a sledgehammer to wedge the divine foot in, the shoe simply doesn’t fit.

Another outing

An infamously anti-gay Lutheran pastor, Tom Brock, has been outed as gay himself. Unfortunately, the outing is ethically compromised by the fact that the writer accomplished it by infiltrating a confidential 12-step program for gay men dealing with “chastity issues”. Basically, he had to violate a promise of confidentiality. This is a tough one; if the program were a sincere effort by these men to deal honestly with their sexual orientation, then this revelation violates trust and reduces the effectiveness of the program, and does actual harm to innocent participants. I can’t condone that.

However, by the account of this reporter, it sounds like the program is more of an exercise in maintaining contempt for gays as a tool to help control their urges. I suppose that’s one way to do it, and an exposé of the program would be appropriate — it seems to be the usual Catholic (Brock is Lutheran, but the program is non-denominationally religious and dominated by Catholics) hypocrisy.

After the first round, conversation continues, ranging from discussions about a particular homosexual rut one of the members was in, to financial worries, criticism of progay political efforts, and defenses of Catholicism. The term “gay” is eschewed in favor of words like “disorder” or “gender disorder.” However, very occasionally, unsquelched comments cropped up about homophobic bigotry, plus even grudging admiration for the tenacity of out gay men facing societal ridicule.

When Brock was in attendance, the conversation inevitably would turn political, focusing on gay and church issues, and beyond–not only during his first round, but also in his sharing time, and before the session commenced.

…

When the topic of same-sex marriage came up, Brock stated, “The world needs [heterosexual] marriage.”

Another person chimed in, calling same-sex marriage “a cult of mutual masturbation”—oblivious to the unintentional humor.

At one point, Brock became very intense in talking about some recent statistics that the percentage of HIV/AIDS cases caused by homosexual contact had increased. He was accurate, which is why safer-sex information should be widely available–something the group certainly would oppose.

Brock also comes across as a nasty piece of work.

When it was Brock’s turn to share, he related that he recently had been on “a preaching mission to Slovakia,” where he met with other clergy.

Then, Brock admitted, “I fell into temptation. I was weak. That place has this really, really weird, demonic energy. I just got weak, and I had been so good for a long time. Things had been going so well for a long time. There’s a lot of gypsies there.”

According to Brock, he confessed the foregoing to someone at Hope Lutheran Church.

Brock clearly was put off by the gypsy presence in Slovakia, continuing with a sense of revulsion in his voice, “They’re toothless, filthy; they smell, stink; and the gypsies are trained in how to pick your pocket.”

In his video series, Brock slams ELCA Bishop Mark Hanson for his call to “combat racism” at a New Orleans youth conference.

He’s also a smug misogynist.

Later in the session, Brock remarked that even though he is “against the ordination of women pastors,” he presented a workshop to female Lutheran pastors in Slovakia. But, in his words, “I didn’t tell these women that I actually don’t believe in women being pastors.” However, he learned that many women pastors there were “assistant pastors to their husband, who was the head pastor,” and that ultimately, “nature takes over, when they have children, and they then assume their role as mother and leave ministry behind.”

That very day, on The Pastor’s Study, in describing the plight of an abused wife, Brock asserted that one “is to suffer for Christ. Her husband was a stinker, but she stuck it out for the sake of Christ.” In the same episode, he also railed against ELCA’s GLBT tolerance.

If I were to be interviewed by John Townsend, the author of the piece, I wouldn’t trust any promise he might make to me, which is one lesson — he has sacrificed his integrity to make this story. I can’t be too irate, though; it sounds like no innocents were harmed by the revelation, and if the effectiveness of the program is diminished, that’s no loss.

And Tom Brock stands exposed as a hypocrite who betrays the principles of his church who should be shunned by his congregation (but probably won’t be—the deeply gullible are rarely discouraged by the dishonesty of their leaders), and who has earned even greater contempt from those who oppose his hateful agenda.

Louisiana gives up on the Gulf

How else to interpret this moronic inaction from the state?

While cleanup crews and technical teams continue efforts to stop crude gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana lawmakers are proposing a different approach: prayer.

State senators designated Sunday as a day for citizens to ask for God’s help dealing with the oil disaster.

“Thus far efforts made by mortals to try to solve the crisis have been to no avail,” state Sen. Robert Adley said in a statement released after last week’s unanimous vote for the day of prayer. “It is clearly time for a miracle for us.”

Senator Adley! There is no god. Pray all you want, it will avail you nothing. Instead of wasting your effort in making pleas to the nonexistent, go down to the beach with an eyedropper and a thimble, and pluck up a little globule of oil — and you will have accomplished more.

Aww, the Templeton Foundation felt the sting

Oh, no, says Scott Walter, the Templeton Foundation has no nefarious or dishonest aims in reconciling science and religion — they bravely encourage and support alternative viewpoints to theirs. Just to show that they really do have empirical evidence that they are seriously considering the issues, he gives an extensive short list of great laughable examples of Templeton bravery.

  • They sponsored a talk by Terry Eagleton, and he’s a Marxist! He may be a Marxist, but you will be hard-pressed to find a more incoherent simpering apologist for traditional religion than Eagleton.

  • One of their trustees is David Myers, who wrote What God Has Joined Together: The Christian Case for Gay Marriage. These guys really don’t get it: we’re not objecting to the conclusions of religion (necessarily), we’re saying that how they answer questions is invalid, and a guy using religion to justify liberal views is just as wrong as the guy using religion to argue that gays must be stoned to death.

  • This is the funniest defense: they have Chris Mooney’s support. What I said about Eagleton up there? Yeah, they found one. I am most amused, however, by the lead-in to the Mooney example: “Further corroborating evidence of Templeton’s good faith can be piled as high as the Tower of Babel.” Do these guys even read their holy book, or what they write? That is a metaphor that suggests that their efforts are both opposed by god and doomed to sow confusion.

  • This is almost as funny: another reason is that Richard Dawkins once spoke at their annual conference. Hint to the Templeton: atheists do not regard Dawkins as our infallible Pope, he will admit himself that he makes mistakes. And this was something that he does regard as a mistake, and has plainly said so. Which, of course, is also turned into evidence of persecution by the foundation.

The guy’s conclusion is ludicrous.

The empirical evidence is clear: The Templeton Foundation is not afraid to have religion and science debated in the same room; in fact, Templeton strains its utmost to achieve the finest and fairest discussions possible, while a few noisy scientists, possessed of all the dispassion of Savonarola, insist on standing outside the room and heckling.

This is simply not true. The Templeton only wants science and religion debated in a way that stacks the deck in favor of god — they want a debate because it gives them an appearance of fair-mindedness, but they also want to be sure that the result of the debate fits their preconceptions. Those heckling scientists are not complaining about the possibility of discussion, they are protesting because we do not trust an organization with evangelical Christian motives to be capable of fair discussion. I don’t think they even know what it means, given the weird examples listed above.

You want a fair discussion, check out the Edge topic on Templeton and the discussion that follows, which includes prominent scientists who favor the Templeton. That’s how you do it: not by dangling large sums of money in front of faith-friendly fellows while making it clear that opponents of accommodation will get diddly squat. The Templeton is an institution poisoned by two corrupting influences, money and religion; it’s a disease, not a cure.

For a similar problem, look at what AAAS has done: they sponsored a science/faith “dialog” that only included pious apologists for religion (Jerry and Ophelia and Russell have more). It never fails that those who are loudest in their praise for faith must always act in bad faith.

Mormons guilty of ethical failure

The good news, first: the Mormon church has been found guilty on 13 counts of lying about their involvement with California’s proposition 8. Mormonism is now officially a faith of convicted liars.

Now the bad news, or more accurately, the pathetic news. The church lied about spending only $2078 on campaigning in California, when they’d actually raised over $30 million, but admitted to spending $190,000, and certainly spent much more than that to influence the election. The penalty for this ethics violation was…

$5538.

The lesson learned, I’m sure, is that when evil religious masterminds are plotting to commit serious ethical violations, they should plan ahead and budget 0.02% of their investment to paying off slap-of-the-wrist penalties.

Weak tea in defense of Mary Midgley

Nick Matzke has taken exception to my criticism of Mary Midgley, and has posted a rebuttal. Well, maybe. Probably not.

Eh, I’ve read most of Midgley’s books and articles, I don’t think you [The Unpublishable Philosopher] or PZ getting her at all.

The short version of what she’s saying is that there is a lot more to life than simply scientifically assessing everything as if it was a hypothesis. The primary reason many people like their religion, despite its obvious problems from a scientific point of view, have to do with things like:

  • providing a sense of community

  • instilling values in children and in themselves

    (And whatever ranting and raving the New Atheists do about the evils in the Bible and the evils promoted by parts of modern religion, an actual fair, non-raving assessment simply has to acknowledge that a large part of religion throughout history, and especially in liberal democracies in the 20th century, has been about providing often-correct moral guidance to the parishioners. For every instance of child abuse or witch burning in history there are probably millions of instances of individuals finding good moral guidance in their religion. Of course there are a good number of cases of people finding poor moral guidance as well, but then you can say this about democracy, scientific leaders, atheist leaders, etc. as well. Religion works for many people much of the time.)

  • providing a hopeful view of their place in the grand scheme of things (the typical atheist alternative is pretty dour and depressing)

  • providing an organizational framework for social action, charity, and/or political action

In these and many other ways, there isn’t much that the atheists offer at the moment that can compare to what belonging to a church offers people. Some people feel fine without it, that’s great, but I wonder if it will ever become a common thing outside of certain professions like academia.

And pretending like these factors don’t exist and don’t matter and that it’s all just a simple matter of scientifically assessing religion based on the worst claims of its craziest proponents, or on the unsupported nature of some very fuzzy theological claims of moderates – which is basically what the atheist campaigners do – is a pretty silly thing to do. This is what Midgley is trying to point out.

The Unpublishable Philosopher and I were not providing a critique of the entirety of Midgley’s writings, but only of a specific article. It’s all well and good to claim that she’s written many smart and sensible things elsewhere, but what would convince me of that is if, say, someone actually cited something insightful from her. There seems to be an Ideal Mary Midgley floating somewhere in the æther that some of her privileged priesthood can reference, but which is inaccessible to the New Atheist rabble, who only get to see the Prosaic Mary Midgley, who is something of a twit.

True confession: Nick could be correct, because I have not read any of Midgley’s books. I’ve read many of her short articles, however, and from those I think it eminently reasonable to conclude that her longer works will be much more of the same, and not worth wasting time upon. I have also encountered many people who differ, though, and say that her books are excellent and interesting…curiously, none of them ever goes on to say why. It’s a very weird phenomenon.

Take a look at that list of thinks Nick says religion provides. How many of those require that we believe in space zombies, magic, or ghosts? Not one. Not one. Those are all social goods, and believe it or not, atheists recognize the reality of society and culture and community. In fact, you could even argue that one of the qualities of the New Atheism is that it provides greater emphasis on exactly the bullet points Nick has made. We’ve been working hard to reduce the stereotype of the atheist as the oddball loner who doesn’t get along well with others.

For an unintentionally amusing counterpoint, though, read this article by John Wilkins, about an atheist who was so annoyed by a Dawkins talk that he decided to call himself an agnostic. What did he discover when Richard Dawkins spoke that was so awful? Why, that these New Atheists were providing a sense of community, instilling values, and talking about beauty and truth in the natural world. He doesn’t cite the idea of providing a framework for social action, charity, and politics, but the Richard Dawkins Foundation is doing that, too. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.

I’ll also disagree that religion has been about providing moral guidance. It certainly has not. Religion has been about the enforcement of social conformity, which is then conflated with morality. A framework for belief that actually gave instruction in morality would be reducible to a few simple non-supernatural principles — the familiar “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and I’d add “think for yourself” — which would be consistently practiced. Most religions seem to about providing theological loopholes to get around those pesky moral principles, or in some cases, even endorsing morally pernicious practices (for example, the Bible clearly endorses slavery and misogyny — this is one case where religion’s propensity for looking for loopholes actually worked to people’s benefit).

If religion actually were the source of moral thinking, then religions would always be at the forefront of virtuous social change, and we’d actually see some consistency. Look at the civil rights movement, the women’s liberation movement, and gay rights. You can find some people of faith working for the cause of justice, and unfortunately, too often using it as an advertisement for the value of religion — the civil rights movement, for instance, has been retroactively annointed as the workings of liberal religion, when the religious establishment was diligently opposing it at the time. But most often, the majority of religious leaders are out to kill any advances in equality under the banner of ‘morality’.

I do agree that religion works for many people much of the time. It is not because religion is any good, though — it’s because I optimistically believe that most people are good, and you can give them a book full of self-contradictory gibberish and they’d generally work out some way to get along with each other out of it. It’s just too bad that that book of Abrahamic gibberish is most easily interpreted to mean that our strategy for getting along is tribalism and hierarchies of control.

We might as well claim that smallpox is good, because most people survived it, and because it gave them greater immunity to the disease afterwards. Religion is like cultural smallpox — something that most people muddle through, doing as best they can, while a minority have their lives ruined. And of course, as many atheists will tell you, the surest way to become immune to religion is to actually think about what it is saying.

Tired of the World Cup? Move to Somalia!

The mullahs just have to meddle. They can’t simply turn their televisions off, or not own a television — they have declared that anyone watching sports on television is un-Islamic, so now thugs wander about, beating up or killing anyone caught watching the World Cup.

Almost as crazy is the fact that some dedicated fans are still watching. I guess I can sympathize: what a world when watching football becomes an act of blasphemy. I know a few readers here are watching the games — it should give you a little more of a thrill to know that you are being blatantly un-Islamic to do so.

(via Science-ology)