Typical Creationist Pseudoscience, Part Five

I’ve heard a lot of foolishness from creationists who try their usual tactic of either misrepresenting science or demoting to their level of faith-based opinion.  Recently, however, I heard a great one:  Science is based on direct observation, and since no one was around to witness evolution, it can only be speculation.  (What a shock that this person would be a Christian who rejects evolution.)

First of all, the assertion that science is always based on direct observation is utterly absurd.  Because of chaff on TV like CSI, Americans know much more about forensic science than they did a decade ago.  There’s not always direct observation (i.e., a witness) of a crime, but using the evidence found at the scene, timelines, data crunching, and so forth, the events of the crime can be pieced together.  That’s science, and no direct observation is required.  Similarly, no one’s ever actually witnessed a neutron star, or a black hole, or, for that matter, an individual proton in the nucleus of an atom.  By this creationist rationale, I suppose the atomic theory of matter should be only speculation.

Secondly, the hypocrisy in a stance like this is stunning.  No one was around to witness the supposed dialogue between Eve and a talking snake, or a magic flood, or even God creating everything ex nihilo.  But not only are the Christians willing to accept these things as factual, they can’t even present any supporting evidence!  The historical evidence that evolution happened includes vestigial limbs and organs, transitional fossils, genetic similarities, the sequential nature of the fossil record, and structures in modern organisms that are clear improvements upon those of previous organisms.

Where’s the historical evidence fo rthe Great Flood?  Do Christians realize that there’s not enough water on the planet to cover earth’s higher elevations?  That a wooden ship of the Ark’s size is impossible?  That if the world was covered with water, the water vapor content of the air would be so high that Noah, his family, and the animlas woul dhave literally drowned by breathing?  Where’s the historical evidence for man being created?  Why haven’t geneticists found a bottleneck that would indicate every living human on earth today is descended from a single pair in the Garden of Eden?

Of course, at this point some creationists would say that it is only science that has to prove itself with evidence.  Faith, religion, magic, astrology – whatever – all get a special pass. Scientific matters have to be backed up with solid evidence, but questions about the most important issues of mankind can be discussed with what can only be described as opinion.  It’s amazing.  The creationists get to turn off the rules of logic, but they demand that their opponents stick to them.  That seems like a very convenient way to make sure that your idea can never be proven wrong or even challenged.

And yet, these are the same people who think creationism is the equal of a scientific idea like evolution, the same people who want “equal time” for a creation story in science classrooms.  What’s wrong with presenting another side, they ask?  Isn’t that fair?  Shouldn’t we treat every viewpoint as equal and let people make up their minds?

Those who want every viewpoint to be equal are those who have no evidence for their viewpoint.  Present whatever ideas you want, inculcate your kids with fairy tales, preach your hypocritical nonsense to the uninformed, but don’t try to pawn it off as science.  Retain at least an iota of intellectual legitimacy and call it what it is: blind faith.

Prison Story, Part Nine

I’ve been locked up for eleven years, and I’ve never even heard of a single case of rape among prisoners in the State of Washington.  Though the story may be different in other states, with “tougher” prisons, I doubt it.  The reason is something most people on the outside don’t consider.  Everyone knows how rapists and other sex offenders are viewed in prison, but they rarely realize that most prisoners have a similar attitude regardless of gender.  Rape is rape, whether the victim is a man or a woman.

I’ve heard critics of feminism try to use the male rape in prison as an argument, I’ve heard the jokes, I’ve seen the movies and television shows.  I’m reminded of one absurdity in pop culture: the Fox show Prison Break, in which a serial rapist (T-Bag) was supposedly the head honcho and “hardened con” that the others respected.  No way.  A serial rapist or child molester in prison will never be given social respect, no matter how tough he is, how many fights he wins, or even if he kills someone.

But it’s ironic that while most prisoners claim to despise sex offenders, many will unwittingly – sometimes in the same breath – state that women who dress in a certain way are “asking for it,” that it’s impossible for a man to rape his wife, or that women need to be “taught a lesson” with violent sex.  The last is by far the most common sentiment.

The abhorrence for rape is often relaxed when the woman in question is disliked because of her disposition.  One term I believe comes from prison vernacular is used when a woman’s attitude is not up to par; she is said to be in need of a “hate-fuck.”  A few prisoners can readily and quite seriously explain the “difference” between a hate-fuck and a rape.  I would go so far as to say the consensus among many male prisoners – even those who are very vocal against rapes – is that the cure for any undesirable attitude in a woman is for her to be humiliated sexually, to be shown her place.

You see the hypocrisy again in the discrimination against homosexuals.  A prisoner’s opinion in this matter often depends dramatically on whether the homosexual is dominant or submissive.  The submissive “punk” in a relationship between amle prisoners is always seen as weak and contemptible.  The “dad” may still be subject to homophobia, but in general, as long as he is acceptably masculine and willing to defend himself, he’ll do okay socially.  (That the term “dad” is commonly used to refer to a dominant sexual partner is rather a rather disturbing indication of the patriarchal roots of this attitude.  For the record, punks are also commonly referred to as the “kids” of their dominant partners.)

This type of hypocrisy is indicative of the lack of reason that I’m always talking about.  Many prisoners literally can’t see the contradiction in their words and actions, because they can’t look at the situation objectively.  They’re hampered by tradition, peer pressure, social acceptance, and pure ignorance.  They allow “common knowledge” and knee-jerk responses to overrride their reasoning.  This type of nonsense can be traced back to one thing: a deficiency in critical thinking skills.  This is the problem that must be addressed.  This is the root of faulty, destructive, and just plain stupid behavior and beliefs – and I dare say that it is not solely limited to convicted felons.

How an Atheist Convict Defines Morality, Part Three

What morality means to me – what I strive for – is that I can never rank the value of my life above that of anyone else’s life.  As a humanist, I think this is easy to do.  (Indeed, I think it’s the logical conclusion of rational mind.)  As a convicted murderer, I will forever be looking up.  I do believe that there are people out there who’re much worse than I am, and therefore their lives are less valuable than mine.  But this is only because they themselves have lowered the value of their lives through the victimization of others, not because I have elevated mine above theirs.  As someone who strives to be moral, I refuse to do that.

If I think that everyone’s life has equal (or more) value than my own, I cannot possibly justify victimizing anyone, ever, for any reason.  I will not claim to be selfless human being – but I willclaim as my moral goal to never base the value of another’s life on my own interests.

This does not, however, mean that I will abdicate moral responsibility and judgement.  I can’t do that and expect to be a moral person.  No moral human being can reserve judgement, or they would walk on by as a child gets beaten to death.  Anyone with the tiniest kernel of moral sense can make definitive judgements such as, “I’m better than that person.  I’ll fight him to put a stop to it.”

As a humanist who doesn’t think there is any divine moral standard, I’m still capable of absolute judgements about the value of human life.  For example, though I accept the evidence for the theory of evolution, this doesn’t mean I think there is anything moral about it.  We can’t look to natural selection for gauge of life’s value, because the only thing of value to natural selection is passing on one’s genes.  In this case, the mot valuable people would be the ones with the most children.  Sexual slavery and no birth control or abortion would be the hallmarks of a “moral” society (similar to life under Old Testament laws, ironically.)

The age-old and extremely common methods of valuation such as ethnicity, nationality, and skin color are simple prejudices.  They do not determine anything meaningful about the value of a human being’s life.  Indeed, they are the height of irrationality, since these concepts become meaningless if you trace humanity back far enough into it’s past.  Gender doesn’t work either.  One doesn’t have to be a radical feminist to understand that whether a person has a Y chromosome or not says nothing about their intrinsic value as a human being.

Productivity (how much a person produces in their life, in the form of goods or services for others) is also out.  It makes for a neat little synthesis of laissez-faire capitalism and evolutionary theory, but it obviously cannot be accepted as a moral standard.  A serial killer might be an extremely productive individual.  Indeed, perhaps his victims are people who refuse to produce anything.  Not only would he be a great producer himself, but he would be helping general productivity by removing those who only consume the work of others.  Besides, you can’t objectively measure someone’s potential productivity – a person might be unproductive their entire life, yet later produce a great product or service that eclipses many others.

None of these methods for measuring the moral value of human life are any good.  In fact, you can be pretty sure that if someone is using one of these methods, that person is a good example of what is not moral.

Why Convicts Should Lose Jesus, Part Three

The questions I continue to ask every day is:  Why do prisoners need Jesus?  I think this is an important question because of the commonly accepted idea that prisoners need to find Jesus to learn about morality and become better people.  It’s a cliche.  You see it on news interviews with prisoners, and it’s what any smart prisoner says to the parole board.  I heard even Paris Hilton found Jesus during her lengthy stay in County Jail.

I’ve said before that I see it as a needless crutch.  Making yourself a better person is about using reason.  It’s about getting rid of faulty thinking methods.  You don’t need the Bible to know that victimizing a human being is wrong.  Every single one of us sitting in prison knows the difference between right and wrong.  We were one-hundred-percent aware that the crime we committed to get here was wrong; the problem was that we were thinking irrationally enough to ignore that fact.

The Bible has some good moral lessons for prisoners, but it can teach you absolutely nothing about thinking rationally.  Indeed, blind faith in mythology and moral obedience is contrary to rationality.  It’s just one more faulty thinking method for inmates to add to their already impressive catalogue.

I’m not lashing out against Christianity here.  I honestly want to help.  If someone like me can completely turn my life (that is to say, my thought processes; the way I view the world and the people in it) around simply by learning how to think more rationally, then any of my peers in here can do it.  Every single day, without fail, several times a day even, I hear them falling victim to irrational thinking methods.  You name it, we got it: conspiracy theories, denial of responsibility, prejudice, stereotyping, perpetual victimhood, and so on.

I might even go so far as to say that the issue is not so much a moral one, but an intellectual one.  In other words, to rehabilitate prisoners, the focus should be more on teaching them how to think than teaching them how to be good.  I believe this starts with childhood; children should be taught how to think logically from their earliest years in school.  It is without a doubt the most important skill human beings can ever learn, how to think, an dyou won’t find any instruction for it in the Bible.

Evolution Irrationality

It’s difficult to imagine that in this day and age, with information so readily available, and with so many exquisite examples that continue to be uncovered, some evolution-denying Christians are still out there blithely saying, “Where are the transitional fossils?”

Even the most diehard anti-evolutionist out there has heard of Archaeopteryx and Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy).  They may not have heard of Acanthostega (a tetrapod with gills) or Tiktaalik (a fish with precursor elbow, shoulder, and finger joints) or Abulocetus natans (a transitional form between land mammals and whales) or Pikaia (an ancestor of early vertebrates).  They also may not know that in the fossil record, they earliest known tetrapods (four-limbed walking creatures) still had tail fins like fish, or that the earliest known limbs look like modified fins, or that the earliest known jaws look like modified gill arches.  They could be unaware of the dozens of fossils showing a clear evolutionary history of the elephant, each successively more like modern elephants.  they might not know our evolutionary past is stamped on our bodies in the form of duplicated genes and junk DNA, the appendix, the empty and useless yolk sac all human embryos develop, our faulty spines and knees, wisdom teeth, and even the wonderful gift of hemorrhoids.

Okay, I’m straying a bit from transitional fossils.  The problem is not that they don’t exist – the creationists can go look at all of them.  I’ve just named a few fairly well-known examples.  Despite the gaps in the fossil record, there are still plenty of clear-cut examples, examples so beautifully and obviously showing evolutionary change that the only real opposition is from fundamentalists.  The problem is that these fundamentalists simply don’t accept these examples as transitional.  They ask for traditional fossils, but when they’re presented, they say, “That’s just a separate species or a dead end.”  Of course, they have no evidentiary basis for such a claim.

But fair enough.  I challenge these people to put their money where their mouths are.  What exactly would qualify as a transitional fossil to you?  How do you define transitional?  Can you name on clear example of something that would convince you that possibly there was evolutionary change?  If you can’t answer these questions, you have no business even speaking about this subject in rational discourse.

If you can, let’s hear it.  Creatures like Acanthostega walked around on four legs yet still had gills.  The oldest amphibians in the fossil record still look a lot like fish, while the later ones look much more like modern amphibians.  If this is not transitional, what exactly would transitions between aquatic creatures and tetrapods look like?

Why the Fifth Commandment is Inadequate

“Honor thy father and thy mother: that they days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”

I think the most obvious problem with this commandment is that it’s exclusionary.  That is, the stone tablets didn’t include the logical and very moral inverse: Honor thy children.

There are parents out there in need of that lesson, parents who could have benefitedfrom such a commandment.  I’m not just talking about the parents who are guilty of neglect, abuse, and gross negligence.  More common yet are the parents who fail to teach their child responsibility, who ignore their child, who consistently put their own needs above their child’s, who treat their child as a disciplinary project, who indoctrinate their child into faulty or hateful beliefs, who deny their child opportunity and education, who belittle and insult their child, who discourage their child’s dreams, who teach their child to rely on authority rather than critical thought.

None of this honors a child; it likely harms him or her.  Kids with terrible parents must have the tools to recognize when their parents are terrible.  Blind obedience to a biblical law robs them of this tool.  How about we add a qualifying statement to the fifth commandment: “Honor thy father and mother as long as they honor you.” 

What’s more, the biblical lessons should have further defined what it means to honor a person.  Honor your parents because they love you, because they raised you from when you were helpless, because they care about your well-being, because they want to see you happy and successful, because they have invested their lives and resources into you, because they are trustworthy, because they will defend and love you even when youscrew up, because they will always listen to you, because they’re molding you into a responsible individual, because they’re teaching you valuable lessons about life and morality, because they’re teaching you to be strong and independent, because they believe in you and trust you.  Honor your parents because they are good people and all good people deserve to be honored.

That’s how parents honor their child, and how a child is likewise taught to honor a parent.  I haven’t found any of that in biblical verse, at least laid out with any specificity.  Instead, I invariably find adherence to rules and parental figures simply for the sake of patriarchy, as if having a traditional Christian household is all that is required for happiness and morality.

Where is the biblical lesson that teaches children what “honor” means?  Or exactly whythey should honor their parents at all?  Shouldn’t there be another commandment advising parents to not only honor their child – but also to instruct them how to do so?    Shouldn’t there be a lesson for children to understand when they are being victimized or abused by their parents (or any authority figure) and what they can do about it?  Children often lack these skills and so are helpless in this matter, particularly when the one doing the abusing is the one who is supposed to be protecting them from it.  Can’t the Bible – the supposed standard of morality – at least mention something to this end?

American Sheep

Some think that it’s cynical to claim that the vast majority of people have a “sheep” mentality.  Maybe so, but cynicism doesn’t automatically imply falsity.  My definition of sheep are people who seem perfectly content to sacrifice their values, their self-respect, their comfort, or even their lives to avoid upsetting the herd and/or drawing the ire of the shepherd.  Sheep conform rather than think.  Sheep trample a man to death at Wal-Mart over a new TV and absolve themselves of guild because “everyone was doing the same thing.”

I saw the most advanced species of sheep a couple years ago in that case in Kentucky where the teenage girl was working at McDonald’s and allowed herself to be sexually molested by two people claiming to be giving her surrogate orders from a police officer over the phone.  If there’s anything that can make you lose your faith in the strength of the human spirit, it’s that mind-bending story.

But just the other day, I heard about another airline stranding passengers on the tarmac for thirteen hours.  Thirteen hours in a metal tube with a bunch of other uncomfortable people, cramped bathrooms, and shrieking kids.  I think everyone can imagine the sheer torment of being in that situation (some have probably experienced it first-hand).  I have a question: Why?  Why did these people put up with it?

I’m a prisoner, and they don’t even treat us like that in here.  Even in the rare event when there’s a lockdown for security reasons, we can stretch our legs.  Meals are delivered to us.  We have our personal property and amenities in the cell with us.  And I dare to say that even a prison cell with a cellmate provides quite a bit more room and personal space than a seat in coach.

So why didn’t everyone on the plane stand up and leave?  Just walk off the plane?  Who’s going to stop them – the flight attendants?  A keystone cop or security guard in the terminal?  Honestly, why didn’t each and every person just say, “We’re not dealing with this shit anymore,” and march off the plane?

The flight attendants wouldn’t open the door?  So what?  Pull the freaking knob and do it yourself.  No airline employee is going to physically restrain a hundred (or even a dozen) determined people.  Make a point.  Stand your ground.  There’s no need to get violent with the airline employees or even to yell or call them names.  Just say, “We’re leaving right now no matter what you say or do,” and DO IT.  I guarantee that your life won’t be over – and you’ll feel a whole lot better about yourself.

What, are the cops going to arrest everyone?  Hell, at least you’ll be off the plane.  And if they do arrest you, do you honestly think your going to be charged with anything?  Imagine the headlines.  Imaging any DA in the country trying to charge a bunch of everyday folks for getting off a plane because they’d been forcibly held there for thirteen hours.  Try to picture any scenario in this freaking universe where a jury would find you guilty.

This is America, and that kind of treatment is absolutely untenable.  Everyone needs to stop being such a pussy and act like individuals with personal worth rather than sheep.

Megyn Kelly, Bill O’Reilly and Atheists

It’s difficult to argue with people who blur the line between what they want to be true and what is true.  Invariably, these are the same people who would rather feel than think, or be passionate rather than analytical.  You can’t find a better example on TV than Bill O’Reilly.  In dealing with this contentious atheist sign in the Washington State capitol building, O’Reilly seems to think that crossing his fingers, raising his voice, and wishing wth all his heart will change the law that allowing one religious display opens the door for every other one.

Further, as his frequent guest Megyn Kelly has pointed out, O’Reilly believes that Christine Gregiore or the government (or if all else fails, himself) should be the arbiter of what is appropriate and inappropriate to display.  Yes, apparently he can’t seem to understand that sort of the the whole point of America is that the government can never, ever make decisions like that.

But back to the original point: O’Reilly is someone who can’t separate the passionate from the analytical, and Megyn Kelly can.  Watching her shred O’Reilly’s “arguments” to pieces with just a few stated facts is like watching an instructional video on how to defeat logical fallacies.

O’Reilly: “It just isn’t decent behavior around Christmas.”  Kelly: “So what?  It’s the law.”

O’Reilly: “Governor Gregiore could have denied the atheist sign because it’s inappropriate.” Kelly: “No, the government is strictly forbidden from doing that.”

O’Reilly: “Atheism isn’t the same as a religion.”  Kelly: “The Supreme Court says otherwise.”

To be clear, I’m an atheist myself, and I also agree with O’Reilly’s point that the sign was a childish and inappropriate gesture.  But my personal opinion about the matter doesn’t change reality, it doesn’t change the law, and it doesn’t make Ms. Kelly any less correct.

Why can’t we see more discerning people like Megyn Kelly on TV?  It’s difficult to express how much I think we need more people like her, people who can cut through all the anti-intellectualism and populism of the talking heads.  The tragedy is that those like her are so rare – although I suppose that makes it more likely that we stop and listen when she speaks.

If I can try to make a larger point, it seems that most people, most of the time, would rather feel than think.  They’d rather be passionate than analytical.  And they distrust those who are more of the latter, because they equate having a soul with being passionate.  Being passionate is just as important as being analytical, but one should not be at the expense of the other.  The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive, as so many people seem to think.  There’s a time and a place for both.

Wishing and hoping are intrinsic and wonderful parts of being human.  But they don’t change reality.  Those like O’Reilly out there – the majority, as far as I can tell – should understand that shouting, emoting and being morally outraged doesn’t lend any weight to their position.  As rational beings, we should always attempt to explain objective reality, not futilely hope to change it.  Just listen to Megyn Kelly to get the hang of it.

Why Tyra Banks is a Misogynist, Part Three

Here’s what I want to see: an episode of Montel Williams (or any similar moronic talk show hosted by a man) in which the topic is pornography.  Specifically, the psychological effects performing porn has on the male actors, and the reason why they do it.  Obviously, we have to start with the a priori assumption that any man who makes the choice to act in adult films was molested as a child.  Or abused.  Or held too much.  Or bullied in school.  Obviously he has a self-esteem problem.  Obviously he has an Oedipal issue.  Why else would he sell his body for money, for the viewing pleasure of others?

Ridiculous, righ?  let’s say what most people are thinking: Male porn stars choose their profession because they have the greatest job in the world.  They get paid to have sex with hot chicks.  They’re not emotionally scarred, and they weren’t abused as kids.  They want to have sex, and they want money.  There’s nothing wrong – or at least nothing psychologically aberrant – about such motivations.

Then we have the double standard.  When it’s female porn stars, everyone suddenly becomes an expert in pop psychology.  Suddenly the women were all sexually abused as little girls.  They’re all drug addicts.  They’re not trulymaking an informed choice, these armchair experts claim, they’re emotionally damaged and don’t really know what they’re doing.  They need therapy, or Jesus, or rehab.  These Dr. Phil wannabes even find retired porn stars to warn their “uninformed” sisters that they’re being exploited and abused (apparently without even knowing it).

Witness Tyra Bansk when her guest was the adult film actress Sasha Grey.  Ms. Banks just coulnd’t seem to believe Ms. Grey hadn’t been sexually abused, that she wasn’t being exploited, that she was doing exactly what she wanted to do.  Like all the other condescending pseudo-psychologists out there, Ms. Banks had decided that her guest fit into a stereotype, so everything Ms. Grey said only reinforced the fiction.

Faced with this situation, I’d like to see a female porn star say, “Oh, I’m sorry – I had no idea you knew more about the inner workings of my mind than I did myself.  Since it’s useless to argue with someone who has telepathic powers, I’ll go ahead and say that you’re right about every assumption you make about me.”

When female porn stars say something like, “I freely choose to do porn because it’s fun and it’s good money,” people like Tyra Banks simply don’t believe them.  They always try to find a “deeper cause.”

Is anyone out ther elookin gfor a deeper cause within male porn stars?  Why is it considered abnormal and unbelievable when it’s a woman?  Should women be under some special set of restrictions concerning their sexuality?  Men and women are different; no argument there.  Men and women on the average approach sex differently.  But this does not warrant blanket stereotypes and baseless pop psychology.

To be fair, I’m sure Tyra Banks had what she thought were Sasha Grey’s best interests in mind.  But this is simple misogyny.  It’s insulting to all women.  It implies that they’re not responsible for their own choices.  That they’re fragile, frightened dolls who – if they don’t behave like Daddy’s little princess – must have emotional damage that suppressed their sense of female propriety.  You can think pornography degrades women if you want, but it’s certainly degrading to demote them to hapless victims bound by emotional weakness.

Atheist Nonsense in Washington State, Part Two

As an atheist, there’s something I find troubling about the way the Freedom From Religion Foundation is presenting their case with this “Winter Solstice” sign placed next to a nativity scent.  I’ve heard reps from the organization saying that Christians “stole” the celebration of Winter Solstice and added their tale of a resurrected carpenter to it, so now the atheists are just trying to get their rightful holiday back.

I don’t really care about the genesis of Christmas or Winter Solstice, and I don’t care that Christmas has pagan roots and rituals.  Nor do I give a damn about the legality in the case of these displays in the capitol building (other than the fact that the government should not be making decisions about what is decent or indecent).  The point here is that I’m starting to feel ashamed to be lumped in with these quasi-faithful atheists who seem to suffer from the political-correctness rot that is infecting this country.  I agree with everything their display says, but to pit it against Christmas is worthy of the anti-intellectualism rampant in the arguments of the very people they’re trying to refute.

It’s no wonder that Christians view atheism as merely some comepting ideology.  They see atheists pointlessly trumpeting a pretend holiday to replace Christmas and using their display to attack them.  But atheism is not supposed to be about combating Christianity or trying to find a non-religious analogue for Christmas; it’s supposed to be about using reason instead of faith.  We’re supposed to be rejecting the existence of a god for one reason only:  There’s no evidence for it.  If you’re an atheist solely because you don’t like Christianity, you’re not using reason, so you might as well go choose a faith.

Some of these atheists are actually bitching that a nativity scene is “offensive” because it injects the holiday with the idea that everyone besides Christians will go to hell.  Seriously?  Are you really offended by that?  This is what the faithful do, not the reasonable.  Do you really want to demote yourself to a group demanding special concessions for your “sacred belief?”  Honestly, are we next going to see atheists bringing lawsuits against evangelical churches for emotional damage?  I remember when a bunch of Muslim taxi drivers refused to pick up passengers with alcohol.  If I see something similar, such as atheist clerks refusing to sell Easter baskets, I swear to the “Winter Solstice” that I’m becoming a Catholic.

Needless to say, most Americans (whether they’re religious or not) don’t view Christmas as some reminder that the heathens will burn in hell.  It’s a time for being nice, stuffing your face, visiting your family, and making kids happy.  Why not have the debate about reason and faith in the proper format?  By using these puerile tactics to get attention, all you’re doing is reinforcing the notion to every faithful person our there that atheism is not based on reason or evidence, but on sacred beliefs that compete with their own.  In other words, you’re hurting the cause of reason.