Anti-Choicer’s Demeaning View of Women and Doctors

I was reading about the current Supreme Court case over Idaho’s abortion ban and the Federal Law requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortions.   Idaho’s ban only allows abortions to save the woman’s life and not to protect her health.  The issue is that this is not an easy nor clear cut call.  It is often a judgement call.  Further, letting a health issue go on can also result in the woman’s death.  Just maybe not at that moment. 

Reading this and considering the similar issue we had here in Texas in which the Texas Supreme Court supported a draconian understanding of the abortion ban, it struck me that the anti-choice people, in addition to having a poor knowledge of the medical side of abortions and why they might be needed, also have a very poor and unrealistic view of both women and doctors.   The way they try to strictly limit any decision making on the part of either also makes me think that they believe that abortion is popular with both.

For example, unlike in any other medical question, they try to take this judgement call totally out of the hands of the doctors and their patients.  During the time our Texas ban was being played out in court I saw several Anti-choicers say that the mother’s life was not in immediate danger and so she did not qualify for the exception.   Or that it was not certain that her life was in danger.  That the abortion should not be given until the mother’s end was certain and soon. 

From such things I get the impression that the Anti-Choicers believe that every woman actively wants to have an abortion.  They go out and get pregnant just so they can then get an abortion.  Some, the real thrill seekers, will wait until their eight month or so to get one.  After all, everyone knows how much fun being pregnant is.  And then the rush of having that abortion after carrying that child for 8 months!  After all, it’s my body and I’ll do what I want with it, and I think having an abortion would be fun!

Oh, and the doctors.  I get the impression that instead of trying to do what is best of the woman they think doctors just love to give abortions.  Oh dear Mrs. Watson.  You have a bad case of acne.  You need an abortion.  I’m guessing that they think doctors get frequent abortion points from the AMA.  Or that they have an oh, I need extra money to buy a new car, so let me find a pregnant woman to perform an abortion on.  Gotta find pregnant woman,  gotta find a pregnant woman. 

While probably not this consciously bad, the way they approach this in regards to the pregnant woman and the doctor displays a startling lack of trust and respect for both parties; treating both more like disobedient children who act without thought and without good reasons.

This becomes especially clear when the decision on getting an abortion is contrasted with any other medical condition, question or need.  This level of scrutiny is not present for heart surgeries, kidney transplants, tonsillectomies, knee surgeries, and any other medical procedure.  For all other medical issues the assumption is that the patient and doctors are acting in good faith and are capable of making good choices.  Not so for abortion though.   

In no other medical condition is there this level of disrespect, disregard, and distrust for both the patient and the doctor.  It is insulting to both.  Then add to that the bounty hunter provisions that so many of these laws have, actively looking for any who dare transgress what the Anti-Choicer believes. 

This coupled with their refusal to understand (it is not ignorance for many, but a refusal to see the clear implications and reality) the biology of pregnancy and abortion as well as impact on women in all aspects of their lives, is why their views and campaign based upon those views are so dangerous.  Both to the women who are pregnant and to society at large.  As we can see playing out now. 

There is the IVF controversy resulting from the Alabama Supreme Court ruling finding that embryo’s are people and deserving of the full protections of the law for people.  A ruling based upon those refusals to understand biological reality that so many of the Anti-Choice have.  And this from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.    

Black women are three times as likely, and Hispanic women twice as likely, to seek abortions than white women. And half of all women who get abortions live below the poverty line—many of them in states that limit or are seeking to limit abortions, explained Bell. 

Being denied an abortion comes with substantial health risks—especially for vulnerable groups. The risk of maternal death is 15 times higher for carrying a pregnancy to term than it is for abortion, and pregnancy-related complications are 2 to more than 25 times higher for pregnancies ending in birth compared to abortion, Bell explained.  “We have maternal mortality rates that are in some cases twice as high in restrictive states as they are in supportive abortion states,” said Bell—and those restrictions undermine the delivery of basic services, Bell added

And then there are the financial and social costs to the individuals, their families, their communities that abortion causes. 

All because a group of people with flawed views of biology have decided to totally disrespect both women and medical professionals.  And just as with similar flawed thinking with the COVID and vaccination deniers, nothing good is coming of this.  People are being hurt financially, in regards to their health, and even dying.

This is another example of how resolute ignorance always harms both individuals and society. We seem to be having more and more of such examples lately.

Read Full Post »

Society and the Historical Necessity of Religion

One of the many well-known sayings of Voltaire is “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”   The reason for this necessity – Voltaire believed that atheism weakened the “sacred bonds of society”.  He was not the only one to believe this.  John Locke also believed that atheism would harm society and the social order and would in the end lead to chaos. 

These two were far from the only great philosophers who believed religion essential to the functioning of society.  In fact, for almost all of human history such a belief was the norm.  And even today most still believe so, although the many of those who do believe this believe it in a manner different from our ancestors, even our relatively close ones. 

However, many today also reject the belief that religion is essential for the functioning of society.  For myself, I think it was indeed essential for not only the functioning of society but its creation too.  But it’s role is not as essential now as in the past. I would also add though that even though not as essential today, it still has a role to play.  A largely positive one on balance although a great deal of that depends upon the particular religion and society. 

Let me start to explain this by noting that although many think that religion provides values and ethics and is the source of such, it isn’t.  What it does do though is transmit the values and ethics of a particular society.  When the religious texts were written they were written from the view and moral outlook of that society, and meant to reinforce and transmit those values.  Once done though, as part of the law of unintended consequences, it can then not only reinforce those values, but also challenge them – as it did with slavery and civil rights. Or taking care of the poor. 

Part of that is because how those words are understood throughout time changes too as society and culture changes.  A Christian today, even the fundamentalist, literalist, evangelical one, understands the Bible and their religion differently in many significant ways than the Christian of 1000 CE. 

This role of transmitting a societies value is one reason why religion was so important, indeed critical, for society in the beginning and throughout most of human history. This role was not a conscious decision but rather unconscious.  The result of history and changing needs.

In lockstep with this transmitting of values, is the creation of an identity.  Religion was one of the main ways in which groups of differing families and histories started to form something larger.  They did so by providing these diverse groups with a shared set of beliefs and of practices. Rituals they all participated in, and believed in. By doing so they formed bonds, a common ground upon which trust can be built. 

Without this, there are no larger societies.  Or at least none that last for very long. 

I thought this study in Human Nature, a peer reviewed scientific journal, of interest for many reasons. This part though especially caught my eye: 

“Results indicate that the oldest trait of religion, present in the most recent common ancestor of present-day hunter-gatherers, was animism, in agreement with long-standing beliefs about the fundamental role of this trait. Belief in an afterlife emerged, followed by shamanism and ancestor worship. Ancestor spirits or high gods who are active in human affairs were absent in early humans, suggesting a deep history for the egalitarian nature of hunter-gatherer societies. There is a significant positive relationship between most characters investigated, but the trait “high gods” stands apart, suggesting that belief in a single creator deity can emerge in a society regardless of other aspects of its religion.”

I imagine many will point out that before belief in a higher god and religion as we know it now came about we lived in egalitarian societies and not hierarchical ones.  Which is correct.  However, the takeaway many will have from this will often be wrong – that religion is all about control.  It is, but in a necessary way, not in the oppressive way many have it. 

Consider the state of humanity around 10,000 years ago.  They lived as small groups of hunter gatherers.  Groups comprised and based upon family.  Kinship groups.  Being egalitarian is easier when you are related and small.  However, grow some, add some different people to the mix, and things become much more challenging. 

The advent of agriculture caused just that to happen. Instead of small groups of hunter gatherers larger groups became possible.  Often through natural increase, but also through merging of different groups.  The challenge faced by our ancestors then is how to control these larger groups.  How to prevent rivalries and vendettas based upon different family groups and beliefs from happening?  How to form a new identity for those who had separate ones so that they could work together.  And survive, for larger groups tended to last longer than small ones. Especially when in direct conflict.

Hence the growth of religion as a way to form a new identity, one larger than that of family.  And as a way to channel and control people.  Not only for grandiose projects but also for necessary ones.  Irrigation of crops, storage and then dispersal of surplus during famine, resolving disputes not only between individuals but between groups, the building of roads, and much more.     

A high god is one way to accomplish all of this.  And so were the various other aspects of religion that came about during this time.  Building upon the religious beliefs which were already there as small groups of hunter gatherers in ways to accommodate and support the new reality was a natural and needed consequence.  Without it we would not have any large society whatsoever. 

This, by the way, was not planned, not thought out.  It was like the evolution of our walking or our larger brains and intelligence.  It was not pre-planned.  It grew as the old met new challenges in its environment.  There was no Machiavellian force behind this, just social evolution.  And like our walking and intelligence are necessary to our survival, so too was religion necessary for the survival of larger societies.  And continued to be so for millennia. 

Today religion still serves many of its original roles – preserving and passing on the values of the culture it is part of, and also, paradoxically, often challenging it.  However, what has changed is that we have had complex, diverse and large societies for millennia now, and the edges on many of the differences – but far from all – have already been smoothed.  Enough so though that societies can survive without religion.  We have formed larger and more encompassing identities, and established other ways to pass on societal values.

Indeed, with the expansion of who constitutes “us” from being just family to being everyone, the creation of a larger more diverse identity, religion has often became a danger.  This was most especially true when a particular religion was combined with the state and both identified as being the same.  Then it becomes an impediment to the creation of larger and more functional societies. 

Which is why the separation of church and state not only works but is critical to support the functioning of democracies.  With that in place though, and given that the roots of religion reach deep both in societies and individuals and that they often perform needed functions, I don’t see religion going away.  Changing as time and societies grow, but not going away.  And, overall, I don’t see this as being necessarily bad in all, or even most, cases.   

Read Full Post »

Correlation is Not Causation: Atheism and Science

I have seen some Christians claim that without Christianity science would not have arisen and be possible.  I have seen similar claims made by some atheists on the part of science and atheism.  Since I have already written about the flaws with the claim that Christianity was needed for science (“On Christianity Being Essential for Science”) I plan to now discuss the flaws in the other. 

Let me start by saying that correlation is not causation. In this case I do not think that atheism was necessary for the rise of science.  Nor was science necessary for atheism.  Instead there were two separate processes going on at the same time that created each.  

However, let me just inject here that I am well aware of the issues specific religious beliefs and institutions have created for science and scientists over the years.  However, that is not the question here. The question is that did a rise in skepticism in regards to religious beliefs, a rise in atheism, spark science. The answer as shown by history is that it did not,  that atheism and science largely developed separately.  And truthfully, are still separate even today. 

Science

Science was created and furthered until very recently by people who were religious, and was often funded by religious institutions. Its earliest roots lie in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, and had significant contributions from China and India.  None of which had any significant atheistic or materialistic movements (and possibly none at all, especially not in the modern sense). Greeks too by and large believe in God or gods and set their inquiries within this context.  For example, Aristotle, widely considered to be the first true scientist, believed in a God who “imbues all things with order and purpose, both of which can be discovered and point to his (or its) divine existence” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Significant contributions from then came from Muslims such as Averroes, Avicenna, and Ibn al-Haytham as well as others. The creation of Medieval Universities, although initially created to promote religious thought, quickly came to provide invaluable aid in exploring and disseminating knowledge and science during Medieval Times.  Galileo was a Catholic with conventional beliefs in regards to religion.  Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican. Newton, although not a conventional Christian in that he did not believe in the Trinity, but he did believe in God. 

In fact, well into modern times, and even today, there are prominent and important scientists who are believers.  Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest as well as a theoretical physicist came up with the Big Bang theory.  Mendel known for his work on genetics was a friar and abbot.   Theodosius Dobzhansky, a devout Greek Orthodox believer was instrumental in developing the modern synthesis in evolutionary theory to account for genetics.  Lord Kelvin, Georg Cantor, Gerty Theresa Radnitz (third woman to win a Nobel Prize in science), Werner Heisenberg, Kurt Godel, and many others were also believers in God. 

In fact, for most of its history science has been conducted and furthered by believers and religious institutions.  In fact, a great many of these scientists and proto scientists were actually motivated in their scientific endeavors by their religious beliefs. Not what I would expect to see if atheism or skepticism about God were one of the primary forces in the development of science.

In other words, in the words of Edis in his paper “Atheism and the Rise of Science”, “Distrust in faith did not motivate the emerging science”. 

Atheism

I ended the part on science with a quote from Edis.  Let me start the one on atheism with a quote from his article too:  “What little  there was in the way of science did not much influence existing pockets of doubt.” 

In other words, atheism grew mainly due to developments within philosophy, and also out of moral concerns.  In Europe it grew out of skepticism of many aspects of the idea of an all powerful, all knowing, and moral God.  It did not grow out of scientific knowledge but, instead, out of philosophical and moral skepticism. 

Using myself as an example, I became an atheist not because of science but due to my reading of the Bible, specifically Moses and the Pharoah, and moral questions about what I was reading.  This was followed by becoming aware of the different philosophical problems involved in an all powerful and knowing God who was also moral and believed in free will. 

The only role science played was later, when I looked to see if there was any evidence or need for a God that would be strong enough to overcome these moral and philosophical problems.  As you might have guessed, there weren’t. 

Yes, there are many reasons why people become atheists.  Some are due to scientific knowledge contradicting a person’s religious beliefs.  However, historically, that was not true.  The history between atheism and science was more akin to my own personal one – independent and then linked up relatively late. 

Link Up

The link up of the two started during the Enlightenment and then took off in the late 19^th century as the developments of philosophy and that of science caused both to become increasingly independent of religious institutions.  And with the development of methodological naturalism as being firmly a part of modern science, atheists could fully embrace science as a reason to doubt.  Although, as I have mentioned, today many scientist are still believers. 

Although in this regards, something that Enid said in his article gave me pause, and is something that I have to consider. 

“Figuring out quantum mechanics changed our concept of science. Similarly, methods of doing science are also constantly subject to criticism and revision…After all, what methods will be successful depends on the nature of the world under investigation – if reading tea leaves produced reliable information, scientists would have to include tea leaves in their equipment.  Methods are not prior philosophical constraints setting limits on science but part of what we learn about the world.”

In other words, methodological naturalism is purely a pragmatic position, not a philosophical one.  It is why so many scientists, include leading ones, can be both a good scientist and strongly religious.  It is also a cautionary tale to atheists that yes, this is leaning our way for now.  But there is much more unknown about the universe than known, and that is subject to future change on the part of science. Science will and does work just fine without atheism.   

Read Full Post »

A Few Random Thoughts on Atheism

Just a few thoughts about various aspects of atheism that I don’t really have enough to say to make any of these a full blog – or at least don’t have the energy to do so.

Is Atheism a religion.  Many atheists get upset at atheism being called a religion.  They quite rightly point out that it has no dogma, no rituals, no established rites.  However, they are still wrong in saying it is not a religion.  It is a religion in the same way that Theism is, a belief about whether a god exists or not.   

Theism does not have any dogma, no rituals, no established rites. It is just the belief that there is a god of some sort.  Atheism and theism are two sides of the same religious belief.  It is the absolute broadest category when looking at religion.  From there the comparison goes to Catholicism vs Secular Humanism, or Alawite Muslims vs  Humanistic Jews. 

And yes, while not as well organized or structured as most theistic belief systems, atheism does have its own divisions and groupings. 

Atheism and Morality.  One of those divisions in atheism is the source of morality.  Some atheists believe that no standards for right and wrong actually exist.  Others that they are based solely upon society or are entirely situational.  Others believe that here is an objective basis for morality but that is it not God based or supernatural and, instead, arises from what we are.  My own belief is the last one – derived from what we are. 

Atheism and Spirituality  This can be another source of division within atheism.  While all atheists agree that there is no omnipresent, omniscient, benevolent personal being, what constitutes atheism can become a bit more murky after that. 

Many reject all forms of superstition and supernatural beings.  Even the idea of spirituality.  Some atheists though are more open to such things.  Especially spirituality, with spirituality being the idea that while God or gods do not exist there is a nebulous higher consciousness that does.  Most atheists do not believe in a higher consciousness, but many do. 

Along with this some atheists enjoy going to church and the rites of a particular religious belief.  Humanist Jews is one such example.  Some Christian ones are the same.  Another source of division. 

For myself, I am sympathetic to the spiritual atheists, and depending upon how spiritual is actually defined, might include myself among them.  Although not if it is defined solely as a belief in a higher consciousness.  In regard to attending religious services, was never much for that even when I was a Christian much less now. 

Atheism as cure for all that is wrong in the world.  I have seen some atheists claim that if it weren’t for religion the world would be much better off. That atheism by itself would make the world better.  Not paradise, but better.  However, I think this thinking flawed. 

First, it underestimates the good done by religion throughout the millennia.  In fact, I believe that overall religion has done a great deal more good than bad. 

Second, more importantly, it underestimates the amount of evil that can be done under atheism.  Much of atheism’s seemingly benign history lies in it rarely having access to the power of the state.  However, in the few times the government has embraced the belief that there is no God, evil things have and continue to happen. 

The French Revolution and the Cult or Reason.  The Khmer Rouge.  The USSR.  And today’s communist China.  You will find religious and ethnic intolerance and persecution, and massive deaths under each. This despite their embrace of atheism.  Just like the greatest damage done in the name of religion has been done when religion and state were merged.  

So, no, I’m not optimistic that atheism would be a panacea for the world’s ills.  And it could actually make things worse.  That is not to say it will, only that claiming it will only improve the world is too optimistic and ignores too much history. 

Atheism has no comfort for our coming death, for righting wrongs.  Atheism has no good comfort to give for a life after death for most. Except, maybe, for those who are in deep suffering or believed in Hell.  Atheism offers only dissolution.  And no, the idea that my wife’s atoms and molecules will continue on for eternity is no comfort.  My wife was not atoms and molecules.  She was a very specific arrangement of such, and that arrangement is now gone.  Sorry, at least for me, there is no comfort in atheism. 

Although strictly speaking there is nothing to prevent an atheist from believing in a life after death.  Just one that exists without a God. Some atheists do believe this.  For myself, I do not yet.  But I really hope I am wrong.  But, even if so, I do not see how that could wind up righting the many injustices and wrongs all of us suffer to varying degrees in life. 

And those are my few random thoughts about atheism.  Enjoy!

Read Full Post »

Religion At Its Most Dangerous

Many, perhaps most, people believe that religion and religious beliefs are dangerous things, often a threat to liberty and even life.  Most disagree on which religious belief though is the threat – atheism, Islam, Christianity, etc. – and believe that their particular religious view is the exception.  I slightly disagree with most though.  I think any and every religious view, including my own, atheism, can become dangerous. It depends greatly on the circumstances surrounding that religious belief.  The circumstance that most often, usually in fact, make a religion dangerous occurs when a government supports one particular religious view over all others.  Then religion, any religion becomes a very dangerous thing. 

This was brought home to me again by two particular news items. The first item is a new Pew Poll finding that “Religiously unaffiliated people face harassment in a growing number of countries”.  The other is the recent flare up of in hostilities between Israel and the Palestinian people, which has religion as one of its biggest root causes.  More specifically, a particular religion tied to, identified with, and supported by a government.

Unlike many atheists I do not view religious belief not supported by a government as being more dangerous than other beliefs. In other words, it can and often does cause problems on an individual level, and even across a society. But the damage is more limited and often transitory. Then there is the fact that religious beliefs are also often beneficial.  What matters more than the fact that it is religious is what particular type of religious belief it is in those cases.

However, when a government supports one religious view over another then religion becomes very dangerous indeed.  It doesn’t matter the religion, only that a government and a particular religious belief is merged. 

When a government explicitly supports and identifies as atheist you get the USSR and its actions against Christians, or China and its actions against Muslims and Christians.

When a government explicitly supports and identifies as Buddhist you get Burma and its actions against Muslims.   

When a government explicitly supports and identifies as Muslim you get Saudi Arabia and its actions against Christians. 

When a government explicitly supports and identifies as Protestant Christian you get Ireland against Catholics.  

Many more examples could be found all through history. 

The reason for this is twofold.  First a person’s religious belief, which includes how best to live a moral life and their and their loved ones fate after they die, is of high importance to most people in the world.  Witness the fact that even when a particular religious belief is persecuted people continue to hold that religious belief – Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhists, Atheists – even though it may lead to fines, imprisonment, or even death (both with and without torture beforehand). 

The second fold is that we need government.  Governments are a necessity for a given group’s survival.  In fact, government is necessary for the survival of our species overall.  Which means they have a great deal of power over its citizens. 

Separate each can do a great deal of good (and harm too).  Combine them though and only bad things result (with one possible exception, although I think that a more fragile one than most realize).

The reason for this is If a government identifies itself with a particular religious belief then there is usually favoritism in government policies and actions to that group. Which creates a sense of unfairness among the citizens who are not so favored.  Further, such inequalities on such an important personal issue can increase creates friction and conflict leading, often, to greater inequalities.  Causing those who hold different beliefs to becoming in effect, second class citizens.

What’s more, it becomes much easier to label those who are not members of that particular religious group to be viewed with suspicion and identified as enemies of the government.  Censorship, purges, discrimination, unequal justice, and persecution are the normal fruits of the mixing of the two, religion and government. 

You can see this some in many modern countries who identify as Christian today: Argentina, England, Denmark, etc.  This unfairness is ameliorated to some extent by the fact that their governing documents explicitly protect all religious beliefs and usually make exceptions to some religious requirements for those who doe not believe the same – for example, in some of these countries the tax money that goes to the favored church can, for those who are not member of that church,, go into the general fund instead.  It is ameliorated much more by the fact that they are often very secular societies. However, it still exists and can cause friction.  If you look at the Pew Report you will find that two countries that have increased levels of harassment of the religiously unaffiliated are Ireland and Iceland. 

However, Israel is an example of a country where this is going very wrong – and a possible object lesson for those other countries who have protections for freedom of religion in the constitution but still support a particular church. 

Israel was created for a particular people of a particular religious belief – Jews.  Because of this it had a strong bias for those who are Jewish (especially the more conservative Orthodox groups) over other religious beliefs.  It was created to be an expressly Jewish state. 

It was also created to be a democracy.  One respecting the rights of all its citizens.  Those two ideals conflict.

Even though it has written protections for all believers no matter their belief in its Basic Laws, they have also enacted laws and changes that make it even more biased in favor of Jews.   In fact, given its identity as a Jewish State it almost has to.  Taken from the 2019 Report on International Religious Freedom, and the Jewish Virtual Library:

• The state of Israel recognizes a limited number of religions with others having to apply for State recognition –the Ethiopian Orthodox, the Coptic Orthodox and the United Churches Council of Israel (an umbrella organization of Protestant churches in Israel) are currently pending approval. 
• Marriage and divorce are the exclusive jurisdiction of religious courts applying Jewish law whether the those involved are Jewish or not.
• There is a Ministry of Religious Affairs
• Religious education is financed out of state funds.

All of these and more is problematic, especially as the Israeli government becomes more conservative and religious and insisting upon a closer and closer identification with Judaism, especially of the Orthodox variety.  For example, their passage in 2018 of the Nation State Law that declared “the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People”, and in which the national flag of Israel is confirmed to be the Star of David, the national symbol of Israel the menorah, and the national anthem to be this:

As long as within our hearts

The Jewish soul sings,

As long as forward to the East

To Zion, looks the eye –

Our hope is not yet lost,

It is two thousand years old,

To be a free people in our land

The land of Zion and Jerusalem.”

Now, imagine if you are a non-observant Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, an atheist citizen of Israel.  Already you are marked as different and not truly an Isreali, or, at best, second class.  This is far from a theoretical possibility, it is a daily reality.

The US State Department report on Human Rights in Israel, while properly noting that it is much better in regards to human rights than the neighboring countries, noted several serious issues: institutional discrimination of the Arab citizens of Israel as well non-Orthodox Jews.  Other human rights reports point out that Israel’s Palestinian Bedouin citizens who live in so called “unrecognized” village in the Negev suffer home demolitions on the basis that their homes were built illegally, this despite the fact that these villages existed before the creation of the state of Israel.  Or on lands which Israel gave to its Bedouin Citizens.  And of course, there is the unlawful transfer of Jews settlers to occupied territory, and the taking away of those lands from the Arabs. This is occurring in the city of Jerusalem too.

Then there is the fact that Israel, if it wants to retain its Jewish identity, cannot absorb too many Muslims or other religions into its country as full citizens without losing that identity. 

Interesting and relevant fact here is that Israel does not have a Constitution as most countries do.  Instead they have a series of Basic Laws.  Netanyahu explained why this was when he said “We will keep ensuring civil rights in Israel’s democracy but the majority also has rights and the majority decides.” 

What happens then when the majority of citizens though are no longer Jews?  Or, more importantly, Orthodox Jews? 

This is why the question of the Palestinians is so intractable.  It is made worse by the fact that, due to the religious beliefs of the conservatives who now control the government, the land the Palestinians are living on now, should be Israel’s too. And so they continue to go further in occupying land the Palestinians live on and forcing them off. And because they are a Jewish State they cannot declare the occupied territory as being Israel and all its people citizens without getting rid of the Palestinians.  Otherwise, their democracy would wind up doing in their Jewish State. So, instead, their Jewish state is doing in democracy and rights for all of those who are not their particular type of Jew. 

And that is why the joining of religion and government is dangerous. 

This is also one reason why I like the United State Constitution – in addition to protecting the rights of all even against the will of the majority, it also explicitly separates religion from government.  Because of their long history of violence due to the unification of religion and state, the European countries have developed a more secular society that has put protections in place despite retaining an allegiance to a particular religious group.  Should that secular change though, those governments could go the way of Israel.

The US with its more religious society still often provides better protections because of its secular government.  Which is why those of us who live in the United States need to be pushing back very hard on those who want to change this, and who have made some inroads in doing so.  Religion plus government is dangerous.

Read Full Post »

Oh It’s a Simple Life for Me!

Life is too cluttered, too crowded, too busy, too changing.  That is why it’s a simple life for me! To plot my course and find my way I’ll hold fast to that one fact, that one study, that one belief, that one sentence to guide me through the shoals of life. They will be a star to guide me through the storms of confusion and doubt and into the harbor of certainty. 

It’s a simple life for me. No more thinking of facts that conflict, of ideas that confuse, or studies and evidence that obscure. All they do is create eddies and storms and pull you under in confusion. Or even worse, to change. So to hell with them.  I’ll ignore and deny them all.

Life is complicated, life is fearsome, life is confusing. So to cut through these I will hold on to that one fact, that one belief, and keep it simple. No more looking at and actually considering evidence that conflicts with what I wish but I will, instead, know that what I wish true is true.  And will hold fast to that one fact, that one study, that one belief, that one sentence to safely guide me through the words of those that would create storms. 

Oh, it’s the simple life for me!

trump lost.  The election was stolen.

• trump was ahead going to bed, and then he lost when I woke up?
• The rallies for trump were massive. Biden had no masses, only empty venues.
• Mail in ballots for trump were lost or ignored.  This was seen many times.
• Illegal immigrants voted.  The dead voted. Democrats often voted two and three times each. 
• Ballot boxes with votes for trump were not counted and lost. 

I will hold fast to these truths no matter that all were investigated several times over. Never mind that 62 of 63 lawsuits file failed. Never mind the Supreme Court turning trump away. Never mind all the recounts done which never changed the outcome. I will hold fast to these truths.  My guiding star allows me to dismiss and ignore and deny and twist and turn what cannot be done so to face the same direction as my guiding star.  Oh, it’s work, but it is simple work.  Worthy work. A simple life for me! 

January 6 was a justified and well deserved rising up of patriots concerned about the theft of the election.  It was normal political discourse. 

• The Republican national committee said so.
• Numerous Republicans said no.
• I saw videos and photos.  A guided tour even.

I will hold fast to these truths no matter what happens. Never mind the court cases and prosecutions.  Never mind the testimony and emails and texts. My guiding star allows me to know that all of this is a vast conspiracy out to get trump, and through him, me.  My guiding star allows me to dismiss and ignore and deny and twist and turn what cannot be done so to face the same direction as my guiding star.  Oh, it’s work, but it is simple work.  Worthy work. A simple life for me! 

The Russian investigation is a hoax created by Hillary to smear my man trump. I know because

• The Steele Dossier was the cause of the investigation and was bought and paid for by Hillary.
• They didn’t prosecute trump for collusion.  They said they couldn’t.
• They found evidence that trump was the target and was bugged. 

I will hold fast to these truths no matter what else is said or brought up. They will guide me safely through the supposed facts of the Mueller reporting stating it found “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign” and “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”  As well the fact that this report states that they did not have enough to charge criminal conspiracy only because the efforts were so disorganized and inept and the standards for such a charge so strict.  Also, the fact that other criminal charges could well be brought up after trump is no longer president.  As well, ignore the fact that five trump associates and campaign officials were convicted of felonies, as well as three others due to this probe. 

Holding fast to my truth and my simple statements and facts to support that simple truth I know that all of this is meaningless drivel. My guiding star allows me to know that all of this is a vast conspiracy out to get trump, and through him, me.  My guiding star allows me to dismiss and ignore and deny and twist and turn what cannot be done so to face the same direction as my guiding star.  Oh, it’s work, but it is simple work.  Worthy work. A simple life for me! 

The earth is flat, this I know because:

•  I can see it.
• People fall off round balls so the earth cannot be round.
• All the evidence for a round earth is hearsay, secondhand.  Not directly seen in ways that cannot be managed. 

I hold fast to the truth that I can see.  My guiding star allows me to dismiss and ignore and deny and twist and turn what cannot be done so to face the same direction as my guiding star.  Oh, it’s work, but it is simple work.  Worthy work. A simple life for me! 

Climate change, COVID, gas prices and economy, illegal immigration and more, all are so easy to understand once you pick your guiding star and decide upon a simple life.  But my guiding star allows me to dismiss and ignore and deny and twist and turn what cannot be done so to face the same direction as my guiding star.  Oh, it’s work, but it is simple work.  Worthy work. A simple life for me! 

Yo ho ho, oh, it’s a simple life for me! No more doubt, no more searching, no more thinking.  A very simple life for me! 

Read Full Post »

A Revelation of Heaven

The other day I was listening to a sermon on the radio.  I know that this sounds like a strange habit for an atheist but I often find these sermons very informative and thought provoking.  Which this one was.

The preacher was talking about heaven and what it is like, and about what we can expect on reaching heaven.  Included in this sermon he talked about the size of heaven.  Yes, the Bible includes the actual size of heaven. Something I had never realized before. 

One interesting take away from this is that God already knows how many people will wind up in heaven.  Or at least the maximum number because, after all, if it is too small and crowded that would be a strike against it being paradise. 

But this was not the most revelatory thing I received from this sermon.  The thing I found most enlightening is how the dimensions of heaven were given.  From the New International Version of the Bible, Revelation 21:16. 

“The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadiain length, and as wide and high as it is long.”

For those who somehow missed this in your school science classes,  12,000 stadia is 1,380 miles. Which makes heaven a fairly large place at 1,380 miles a side. But, the interesting thing to me, the truly revelatory aspect of this description is how many sides heaven has.  As described in this verse in Revelations, Heaven is 1,380  miles long, 1,380  miles wide, AND 1,380  miles high.  In other words, Heaven is not a square but a cube! 

This gave me my true revelation, one that helped explain so many questions I had had over the years about how Heaven worked.  Heaven is a Borg Cube Ship!!  Which means that God is the Borg Queen.

And this makes perfect sense.  One of my problems with the idea of Heaven as depicted in the Bible is that it is forever.  God takes those who believe in him… er her, and in his… dang it her (are there Borg Kings?) son Jesus into Heaven to live with…her.  However, given that her original creations got kicked out of Eden for not being able to obey all her commands, and even some of the angels rebelled and had to be cast out what was going to be different in heaven to prevent God/Borg Queen from casting them out again?  With thousands of more people living in Heaven than In Eden, that is just that many more acts of rebellion and lapses waiting to happen.  If it happened with Adam and Eve, and even among the Angels, how is Heaven going to be any different?

But now I understand. Dead people are assimilated into the collective!  Instead of a three in one God it will be a many thousands in one God.  No rebellion for ever and ever amen. Just as God intended. 

Read Full Post »

I Hear a Voice in my Head: A Wondering Path to Religion

I hear a voice in my head.  It is mine, and I know it is.  Knowing this though does not mean I do not wonder about it.

I wonder, can consciousness exist without words?  Yes, some animals have at least some level of consciousness.  Apes, dogs, elephants, dolphins and whales, and many others. However, is there a limit to how far consciousness can be developed without words?  I know that those born deaf also carry on internal conversations, but in sign and gestures, not with words created in sounds.  So, do animals have a consciousness that communicates with itself through smells, gestures of the trunk, jumps out of water?  And can such communication of the self to self be considered language?  I wonder if the development of this, our, level of consciousness, was dependent upon language?  Did language come first and then consciousness?  Or did one go this far and then the other hurried to catch up and then pushed the other further?

From there I wonder at this need to communicate with ourselves.  We are our body, we are our brain.  So, why the words as if in conversation with another?  Even to the extent that many of us of talk out loud to ourselves.  What does this mean?

And I wonder what it means when sometimes this inner voice wonders what decision I am about to make. I resolve to not get pizza to eat for lunch.  And then my voice sometimes wonders if I will have pizza or not, resolving the question with the words “We’ll see”.  This last wonder may be about something particular to me, this uncertainty about what I am going to do as if I were observing the behavior of another person and not myself.  But, I do not think so.  I think it applies to many.

Which then leads me to wonder, is this part of the reason why our ancestors believed in spirits and gods.  Every time I read the Iliad  I am struck by how often the gods take control of individuals.  Or consider the world wide practice of shamanism in which a special person can become possessed by a spirit, or can contact and talk with such.  Is did this conversation with ourselves, when combined with dreams, hallucinations, fear of not existing and desire to know and understand all, lead to the creation of the supernatural and gods?

And then I wonder, is this why religion came first?  Many atheists like to believe that if religion had not come about and a secular alternative had come about instead that humanity would be hundreds or even thousands of years ahead of where we are now.  Yet, to me, this seems just an empty what if.  Just as it is impossible for a group of light sensing cells to make a jump to the eye of an eagle in one generation, so too with developing secular socials structures before religious ones. Secular social structures that could do the job that religious ones did not and could not exist in our ancient history.  Such structures needed time to develop.  Instead, due to our evolved nature, religious structures came first.

Inevitably so I believe, for many reasons.  One of which is the voice in my head.

Read Full Post »

A Very Brief and Simplistic History of the Changing Role of Religion in Human Society

In the beginning, humanity hunted, humanity gathered, and they did so in family groups.  These groups were the earliest and most basic human social structure.

As time advanced, these groups grew larger through natural processes at work even today.  This natural increase was furthered and quickened by humanity’s growing knowledge and technology which allowed them to die less often and live longer.  And to support more people.

Larger groups had several advantages. With more people, some could be spared to become craftsmen or tradesmen – pottery, weaving, knapping, trade, etc.  This benefited the now enlarged family group.  Another important benefit is that having more people meant that it was harder for other, often competing, family groups to force you to move from favorable locations.  Or take away your resources and access to needed and important minerals and water.  Or, to just wipe you out.

And, being bigger meant that if felt it necessary, you could do that to them!

However, as primarily a hunting and gathering society, there were limits to how large your group could grow.  But, then along came agriculture.  Suddenly, those limits were gone.

But, as with most advances, there were problems too. Now a society could grow larger, but family groups could only grow so far and so fast. However, several family groups working together could grow quite quickly and with fewer limits.

But, you knew there was going to be another but, there was another problem.  How to hold these different family groups together when one family group became upset and mad at another. After all, their primary loyalty had been and was to their family.  Family feuds back then were often deadly.

The answer – Religion.  Well, really, the answer was to create a new identity that transcended  family loyalties so  that even when family groups got pissed at each other the society stayed whole and the conflict was largely worked out within the new, larger society instead of tearing it apart.  But, an essential part of that identity was religion.

This was a religion grown from the beliefs of these family groups but organized and made bigger.  And then used to create a new identity and to not only resolve potentially societal suicidal disputes, but to provide a means and motive to redistribute resources (even though abused, a necessity too – for example, irrigation).

For the most part I do not think this was consciously done, although at times I am sure that aspects of it were. But, rather, this was a natural growth.  Also, I would imagine that the attempt to create this new unity with religion failed often and the nascent society fell apart. But, some succeeded and when they did, well they were bigger with all the benefits mentioned above.  Further, they were more organized and able to have people do things not related to just providing food – arts, trades, trading, soldiers, etc

Religion was a success.  And nothing else worked as well.   It is why you never find an early civilization in which religion was not an essential part of its structure.  It had to be for such structures to exist.

Nothing human is static.  We change and grow and react in response to the non-static world around us. This holds true for religion too.  Religion started to move beyond largely societal commands and strictures and assume a more and more moral aspect to it. Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad and others are aspects of this changing nature.

One other aspect of this use of religion as national identity: those who were not of the same religion were then not a part of us, and thus dangerous and suspicious.  Reading the history of England as it switched from Church of England to Catholic and back again is an interesting read and an illustration of this truth.  It is why I say it is not so much religion that is the cause of so much violence, but its wedding to the state.

Which brings us to the gradual divorce of that married couple, once joined as one.  As humanity was more able to easily travel to other countries with other beliefs, and as humanity became better able to communicate about those other peoples – the printing press being the biggest boost to that – people within countries started to question their beliefs.  Which was a threat to the state – as mentioned earlier.

This warfare and violence though was abhorred by many good men, including some very religious believers.  And the idea started and grew and was developed that religion and state should be divorced, and then kept separated in order to control and lessen the violence and hatred.  Interestingly enough, the earliest proponent of a complete separation of religion and state was a Puritan theologian and founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams (he also founded the state of Rhode Island with that principle in mind).

A couple of hundred of years later a country was born in which the state and church were explicitly separate and forbidden to join together.   Note, by state I mean government.  And that is not the same as a society and culture.

Now, this was such a good idea that over the next two hundred years (a bit over actually) this idea spread and became the norm, or at least given lip service.  Secular non-religious institutions also grew that provided the same functions that only religion used to provide – education, healthcare, providing for the poor, etc. 

However, a bit over two hundred years is a very short period of time. I imagine the transition from family groups to cities with religions took considerably longer.  Which is why we still see the remnants of the older attitude of identifying the state with a specific religion rise up.  It is why Buddhists in Myanmar are persecuting and committing genocide upon Muslims there.   Or why Muslims in many Islamic countries do not allow conversions.  Or why religious people in communist and officially atheistic countries were persecuted (what is the issue here is the identification of one religious view with the state, no matter what that view might be).

And why we still see it rear its head here in the United States.

Immediately after 9/11, the city of Fort Worth decided to hold a grand meeting of city employees to allow a sense of grief to be shared and supported by our shared unity. However, this meeting or ceremony was decidedly Christian, complete with the police Chaplain giving a prayer in the name of Jesus Christ amen.

My wife, who is an atheist, and a Buddhist friend of hers  were left with a sense of betrayal, of being left out. Were they not Americans too?  Did they not feel shock and grieve?   Instead of unifying all Americans, it divided.

It was just after this that God Bless America became a traditional 7^th inning stretch song at baseball games.   A way to provide unity and show you were a true blue American. My wife and I, as atheist, refused to sing it, and even refused to stand for it because it came to symbolize the United States as a Christian nation.

Last Thursday was the National Day of Prayer, itself a relic of the old religion as national identity. Many presidents in the past have worked to offset that by trying to include other faiths in these prayers.  But, it still is a relic of the old identifying of the state with one religious view. 

More recently our government has been more and more influenced and pandering to one specific religious group. Towards that end, they are working to make it easier to use religion as a justification for discrimination and injustice

I mentioned culture and society earlier and how they are different than governments.  But, while they are different, they do influence it.  This is especially true in a democracy and cannot be any other way.  It creates a bit of tension at times a lot of tensions at others, and it provides a challenge in regards to politicians and government workers at times.  For the most part though, the government has managed to stay secular and maintain that wall of separation. However, I believe that we are now undergoing one of those times when that wall will be attacked, and will be cracked.  Not destroyed, but cracked.

What this shows though is that the replacement of religion as a glue holding people together, as a way of providing a national identity and unity still exists and is still a powerful force.  However the difference between today and the past is that the population is diverse whereas in the past is was largely homogeneous.  That means instead providing a national identity and unifying us, it provides an identity for some and serves to divide us.

I do not think that religion will ever disappear (after all, the family has not disappeared, that primal beginning of all human societies) – nor should that be our goal (very far from it). But, I do think that our secular government with its secular institutions needs to be protected.  It is a necessity for the continued growth of a more peaceful and just world.

Read Full Post »

We Are More Heart Than Mind: Why Religion Will Never Die

“I know everyone who gave their life that day, some of which were my best friends and my daughter. And I guarantee you, beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are dancing with Jesus today.”

 

The above quote from Pastor Frank Pomeroy of the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs Texas captures one of the reasons why religion will never die.  It may diminish some.  It will certainly continue to change greatly. But die, no.

This quote is from a sermon he preached on Sunday, Nov 12, 2017.  A week before this sermon a gunman had entered his church and murdered  26 members of his congregation, including his 14 year old daughter. He preached this sermon in a tent. At the front of the tent were the few remaining members of his congregation.

Many atheists say that religion will one day die out and be no more.  Some say it is already happening, that it is shrinking and will continue to do so until it no longer exists.   I believe that the number of atheists will continue to grow for awhile, but do not think it will ever become the dominant religious view of the planet. And by atheism, I mean the variety that does not believe in God or the supernatural.  Instead, I think some variety of religious belief, including in a God, will survive and still be the most common view.

The reason I think this is because I realize that humans are more heart than mind.  And, by the way, that is not a bad thing. While the heart can and has led to many evils, it is also the source of our morality and most of what is good too.  It is also an essential part of what gives our lives joy and happiness. Evidence, logic, reason all have an important role, but they are not the basis of what is good and right in our lives.

David Hume put it well when he said, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”

Many atheists may be surprised at this quote from Hume. After all, he is a one of the pre-eminent empirical and skeptical philosophers in history.  However, Hume realized that we do not use our reason to determine our morality and our goals, but rather, they are chosen through our passions and emotions. And reason is then used in aide of them (which can include modifying them to if needed) and, to justify them (unfortunately).

Consider, did you reason your way to loving your parents and siblings?  Did you use logic and evidence and rational thought when meeting people to determine your friends?  Did you reason your way to loving your children?

In moral decisions, do you use abstract moral principles and reason from them to determine if a given action that you have to make now is moral or not?  And do you use reason to determine whether to get angry or not when you see a man knock down an old woman and steal her purse, a woman slapping a child hard enough to mark them, a child tormenting a cat?

Reason has a role to play, but it is in aide and support of, not in substitution of.

Which is why religion will never die away.

What arouses more passion than both the idea and reality of death.  Not only our own death, but, often more importantly, the death of your loved ones – parents, spouse, friends.  Children.

            For most people, such losses need more than what reason and logic can provide.  I wrote a blog a few weeks ago, “There is No Immortality, But There Are Times I Chose to Believe Anyway”, about why I find traditional atheist platitudes on death unsatisfactory, and  why, on an emotional level, I find myself vested in the belief in the rainbow bridge and will continue to happily be so vested.

This is even though I have been an atheist for over 43 years now.  And this is despite my love of science, my commitment to rational thought, my being a member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry since its first day when its journal was called the Zetetic, and my highly analytical nature.

Consider Martin Gardner, one of the founders of the modern skeptic movement, and a founding member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (called Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal at first). Even though a skeptic of the first order, he believed in God and immortality, even though he knew there was no evidence and that such a belief was irrational.

We are not rational creatures. We can harness rationality and use it, but the great majority of our pleasures and desires and goals are not the result of rational thought.  I did not sit down and say and make a list of things that I might like, put reasons by each of them, and then made a conscious choice.  I like to write because I love to read. And my love of reading did not come about by rational reflection but from emotional response.

And there is nothing wrong with this. It is an essential part of what it means to be human. Change it, and you are dealing with something that is something else than human.

So, when I see what atheism has to offer for comfort and support – atoms returning to the universe to last as long as the universe within the hearts of stars or in enormous gas clouds, living on in the memories and lives of others we have touched, living on in our memories and being one of the ones touched by the deceased, and so forth – and compare that to my friends and loved ones “dancing with Jesus” and waiting for me to join in when I eventually die….well, I know which one resonates more strongly.

One final thought.  While I enjoy discussing and disagreeing about various ideas and issues relating to religion – and do feel there is much that deserves strong condemnation – the most important thing is not religious beliefs per se, but an individual’s views towards choices.  Pastor Frank Pomeroy said this well in his sermon too;

“Folks, we have the freedom to choose, and rather than choose darkness, as the one young man did that day, I say we choose life. “

Read Full Post »