Faith Versus Atheism

Sometimes I feel as if there’s a huge disconnect between people when they’re talking about belief in God or a lack thereof.  A lot of times I’ll get in discussions with people and when they hear that I’m an atheist, they immediately want to make the topic about Christian morality.  They make assertions about my lack of moral standard, then often state some version of, “Without a god, everyone would just run around crazy, doing anything they want.”  Eat, drink, and be merry, so to speak.  Or they’ll say something about how comforting their faith in Jesus is, or how it’s better to be safe than sorry and simply pray to God even if He might not be real, or that faith in Jesus helps mankind.

All the standard arguments, all of which are either flawed or bankrupt.  But more to the point, they completely miss the issue.  I try to operate on reality, not on hopes and dreams.  I might wish with all my heart that my loved ones weren’t going to die one day, for example.  Wishing may be nice, and hope gives us strength, but neither one is going to change reality.

God either exists or He doesn’t.  Our feelings about the matter don’t make a bit of difference.  I’m an atheist because I think the evidence is lacking.  That’s it, there’s nothing more to it.  It doesn’t matter whether this reality fits my hopes and drams, whether it’s morally a good thing, or whether my fear of death might be alleviated.  I’m not going to pick up a belief – especially one this important – because I want it to be true.

I find the idea of intelligent alien life in our galaxy fascinating.  It would be great if we could discover something else out there.  But there’s no evidence yet, so I’m not going to make a statement of belief.

This is what it all comes down to; this is where it should all begin.  Before the Christians start in with their ideas of morality, whether religion is good for mankind, whether it gives people hope, and so on, they need to address the primary issue:  Where’s the evidence for it?  Even if we find that faith in Jesus is the most wonderful, satisfying, life-affirming emotion known to man, that’s imply an argument for why you should have faith.  It says absolutely nothing about whether Jesus was the son of God.

In other words, I don’t really care if your belief is useful.  I want to know whether it’s true.  Explaining to me all the myriad of ways that it’s useful doesn’t get us any closer to the truth.

Why Kids Should Read Fight Club in School

I once heard Bill O’Reilly make an asinine statement about the novel Fight Club, saying that it was “about fighting” and promotes violence among kids.  Apparently, O’Reilly thinks that Palahniuk’s novel glorifies underground fighting clubs.

As for me, I’ve called Fight Club the greatest American novel ever written, and I’ve even said that kids should  read it in school rather than Huckleberry Finn.

It seems clear that if O’Reilly even bothered to “read” the book, he skimmed over it and took what he wanted out of it.  His point is bogus, and anyone who thinks Fight Club is about fighting needs to read the novel and actually try to understand it.  It doesn’t glorify underground fighting clubs, any more than Lord of the Flies glorifies barbarism among kids or Huckleberry Finn glorifies calling African Americans “niggers.”

It’s more descriptive so say that the book glorifies individualism and strength.  It showcases the disillusionment of a generation against the consumer-based materialism that’s killing their souls.  The fighting – which was only one rather small part of how the young men responded – was not a typical gathering of brutal thugs trying to beat the hell out of each other.  The whole point was that they were everyday average individuals: accountants, middle-aged fathers, office employees, mail men.  They were normally timid and passive men, men who had no outlet and no voice, men who had lost all confidence in the power of themselves to accomplish anything meaningful.

The fight club changed that.  They didn’t fight to win, to hurt others, or even to have fun; they fought to prove it to themselves that they weren’t dead, that they could conquer their fear.  I’m not saying that violence is the best way to help someone do that – I’m just saying that the point is a good one.  The cause is noble.  And yes, the overall message is a good one for kids to learn.

I find it difficult to look at today’s youth without thinking that individualism and independent thought are being sacrificed for adherence to trend.  Where is the personal strength, were is any devotion to values?  Almost a generation ago, Kurt Cobain wrote: “All the kids will eat it up / If it’s packaged properly … Not an ode just a fact / Where our world is nowadays.  An idea is what we lack / Doesn’t matter anyway.”

I agree with everything but the last line.  It does matter.  For me, Fight Club was a rejection of nihilism as much as it is a rejection of a popularity-based culture.  It almost reads like a self-help novel for disillusioned young men.  A kid who reads Fight Club and thinks it’s a statement about how fighting is cool is the one who could benefit the most from the book’s actual message.

Getting Paid for Good Grades

In a couple days, I saw two different programs on TV that presented the new experiment of giving money to kids for grads.  One was The Colbert Report where a Harvard professor was talking about how it’s our “responsibility” to do this for the kids if it helps.  The other was Newt Gingrich and his daughter talking about a similar case in Florida.

First of all, I think it’s great if a program like this works.  From what I understand, the preliminary numbers are good.  It’s being tested in districts that are doing poorly (where the dropout rate is high, for example).  Kids who had no interest in school and were failing are now getting As for the first time in their lives.  And why?  Because they get fifty bucks for every A.  Classic positive reinforcement.  This is a pretty clear-cut example of how incentives work:  Reward a behavior, and you get more of it.

Here’s what I think is interesting.  Failing kids are suddenly getting As because they get a monetary reward.  They’re not being given better teachers, more school equipment, smaller class sizes, tutors, self-esteem tutorials, books delivered to their homes, after-school programs, field trips, or computers.  No, they’re given money, which they can spend on video games, clothes and iPods if they want.

So the problem becomes this:  The kids could have gotten straight As all along.  The smashing success of these programs is that they point out the striking but perhaps uncomfortable truth:  There’s not as much wrong with the public school system as we thought.  The problem lies with the kids being motivated.  The responsibility lies completely with the kids and their parents.  The schools don’t need more money; the kids just need to get their asses kicked (or better yet, perhaps the parents need to get their asses kicked).

Furthermore, depending on the sweep of the success of these programs, this is a clear indication that the problem is not lack of opportunity.  So many liberal social crusaders would have us believe that many kids don’t have the same opportunities as others, that they’re the victims of under-funded schools, social dysfunction, and even discrimination.  Certainly those things are present, but as these pay-for-grades experiments show, they don’t tell the whole story.

These kids are perfectly capable of excelling.  The opportunity is there.  The opportunity is not the problem.  That Harvard professor spoke of “responsibility.”  Perhaps he should look a little deeper and discover what this program seems to have revealed about responsibility.

Darwinian Capitalism, Part Two

I was extremely impressed by the comments wingnut left on the first part of this post.  A self-proclaimed “Christian Socialist,” he shared a wealth of stunning revelations.  I’d never even considered this, but can you believe that capitalism is a scam concocted by the Illuminati?  You want evidence?  They pyramid on the back of the dollar bill is a “Columbian freemason symbol” and the United States government is located in … the District of Columbia!

Wingnut, I hate to be rude, but you need some tough love.  If you spare the rod, you spoil the child, after all.  You need to stop surfing the internet all day and picking up bits and pieces of convoluted conspiracy theories.  You need to stop reading Dan Brown novels.  If you’re going to spout this nonsense, can’t you at least come up with something original, rather than just parroting urban legends and pseudo-intellectual chatter?  You might also want to check out a book on formal logic so you can learn how to use that gray matter between your ears.

You asked if I saw anything illegal, immoral, or just plain sick in this “pyramid of servitude,” this “felony of extortion” done to eighteen-year-olds, how the “kids on the bottom always get hurt from the weight of the world’s knees in their backs.”

You know, it takes a whiner to be a socialist, but to be outraged at the idea that eighteen-year-olds should get a job to pay their own way in the world – that is the position of an infant.  A literal infant.  What I find “just plain sick” are the snivelers in this world who’d prefer to complain about hard-working and successful people rather than become hard-working and successful themselves.

One more thing:  You seem preoccupied with demonizing money, as if our society is focused on valuing the dollar above all else.  But you’re painting the dollar in some abstract sense, which is ignorant in reality.  Money is nothing more than a convenient and speedy method of exchanging goods and services.  That’s it.  Just as a rocket is a more powerful version of a cart and horse, money is a more powerful version of trading a goat for a bushel of wheat.

And if I may quote Ayn Rand: “It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred for money – and he has good reason to hate it.”

Pelosi’s Legacy, Part Two

In the first part of this post, I quoted Gordon Gekko’s infamous defense of greed.  I was a bit confused by the comments left by spiritualway.  You said that greed only introduces corruption and individuals of the Pelosi type into our economic system, and that the only competition you ever saw created by greed was ruinous, short-term competition.

I think we should define what we mean by the word “greed.”  If you mean greed in the sense that the person is willing to do whatever it takes to make a buck (steal, cheat, scam, break the rules), then I agree with you.  As much as I applaud Gekko’s “Greed is Good” speech, he was still a crook.  He broke the rules, he cheated.

I’m using the word “greed” to mean a guy trying to make the most amount of profit as possible – without cheating or scamming anyone.  Plenty of people might call a ruthless corporate raider trying to become a billionaire greedy, but I don’t necessarily think that’s a pejorative term.  Plenty of people call Wal-Mart executives greedy, but look at the wealth and jobs they’ve created and the low-price products they offer.  I dare to say that they always try to get the most bang for their buck.  Is that greed?

But the point of my previous article was that greed is good, but greed mixed with political power is bad.  The politicians are creating problems in the free market with their sweetheart deals.  A greedy businessman may be a jerk to some people, but he doesn’t have the power of a Barney Frank (for example) to pass laws that help his corruption.

Spiritualway, I think I remember you saying you’d been in the pharmaceutical industry.  I’ve heard that the smaller companies can’t get their foot in the door (even though their products are of comparable quality and for a lower price) because of politicians and lobbyists who shuffle their regulatory requirements to the bottom of the pile (often until the copyright runs out and most of the profits have been made).  This is manifestly unfair and a product of the “bad” version of greed – but this isn’t a problem of capitalism, is it?  This is because of government intervention that shouldn’t be there at all.

Also, you said that speculation serves no useful purpose economically.  I admit that I’m not very knowledgeable on this topic, but I thought that it was a matter of Economics 101 that speculation creates liquidity (and thus stability) in the market?  If there were no speculation, there wouldn’t be guarantees, and wouldn’t that result in wild market swings for certain commodities, for example?  That would adversely affect many people.

Ann Coulter, Apemen, and Evolution

In my post Why Ann Coulter Thinks Evolution is False, Part Nine, I was making the point that pseudo-scientific creationists like Ann Coulter are quick to leap to hoaxes such as Piltdown Man while ignoring the literal deluge of legitimate hominid fossils.  Gunner Sykes left a comment asking, “So, what evidence do you have that Australopithecine fossils are our ancestors?”

Let’s ask a couple questions in a similar vein.  What evidence do we have that the background microwave radiation in space is leftover from the Big Bang?  What evidence do we have that the time dilation observed in accelerated subatomic particles is the result of relativity?

You’re missing the forest for the trees, Gunner.  The theory of evolution says that man descended from apelike ancestors.  If that’s true, we should expect to find species that appear transitional between apelike creatures and man.  Behold, we find the many hominids of the Australopithecus and Homo genus.  Not only are they more human-like than apes, but they grow progressively more and more like modern humans as they get more recent.  If this is not evidence of transition, then what would be transitional between an ape and human?  This is exactly what evolution predicts should be found.  This is how theories are validated; this is the heart of science.  The theory makes predictions, the predictions are tested, and if they pan out, the theory reaches the rarefied air of relativity, quantum theory, and yes, evolution.

Of course, a theory as powerful as evolution is not built on a few anecdotal snippets like this.  A couple of fossils are not going to prove the theory incorrect or correct.  The presence of transitional species between man and apelike ancestors is one little piece of the story of human evolution.  If the theory of evolution is true, we should also find other sorts of evidence of man’s evolutionary past.

How about genetic evidence?  Chimpanzees (and our other primate relatives) have twenty-four pairs of chromosomes.  Humans have twenty-three.  If evolution is true and we share common ancestry with modern apes, this means that sometime in the history of Homo sapiens, two of our chromosomes must have combined (folded) together.  If this folded chromosome couldn’t be found, then the current idea of human evolution would be completely destroyed forever.  But it was found, exactly as was predicted by theory.

Or vestigial evidence?  Humans have a coccyx (the remnants of a tail), an appendix (useful for herbivores but not so much for the omnivores we’ve become), yolk sacs when we are embryos (empty yolk sacs since as placental mammals, we don’t need them) and muscles in our head that once were used to move our ears.  Human infants – like chimpanzee infants – have the grasp reflex.  We have wisdom teeth, which cause so many people trouble because they are left over from when our jaws were larger and used for grinding more plant matter.  We also have innate lower back and knee problems – indicative of a species that has only recently began walking upright.  Human childbirth is the most dangerous and painful of all the mammals because our cranial size has increased so quickly and our awkward narrow pelvises are needed for upright locomotion.  Hemorrhoids, a uniquely human experience and a consequence of walking upright, are another example of the shoddy “design” and tradeoffs the theory of evolution predicts.

The evidence is all there for anyone to see.  It’s not shoddy, it’s not iffy, and there is definitely not a lack of it.

Prison Story, Part Fifteen

I keep talking about how so many of these group-think people in prison are communists.  I’m not exaggerating; I think they’re really communists.  Not in the political sense, but their whole approach to companionship is based on a communal sense of what’s owed, deserved, and earned.

Recently I watched one particular guys stand in the bathrooom and beg – there’s no other word for it – another guy for candy.  Imagine a grown man, a convict with tattoos and a violent beef, begging another man for a piece of hard candy.  “Come on, kick in.  Let me get some.  I know you’re holding back.  I know you got some.  Come on, I want some.”  I stood there listening to this as I used the urinal, then I washed my hands and walked away, and he was still begging.  It’s hard to imagine anything so pathetic.

But the incessant pleading gets even worse.  See, we’re talking about communists here.  If you don’t give them what they want, they guilt-trip you into thinking that your shirking your duty.  If you’re white, solid, and even remotely on friendly terms with another such person, that’s what they expect.  They call you “Jewish” if you refuse.  If you turn them down, they pretend to be offended.  They sulk.  They say, “Oh, I see how it is” or “You’re gonna treat me like a punk, huh?”  They try to turn it around and pretend that you’re the one doing something wrong.

Sometimes this gets so bad that the reverse is even true.  If one of the communists offers you something and you refuse, you’re also treating them badly!  Of course, in most cases it’s not genuine kindness on their part – they simply want their points as being “one of the fellas.”  If you take their charity and later have something they want, they can use it as leverage against you.  Okay, so maybe I’m a bit cynical.

Most of the time, their friendship is based on this ideal of shared income.  People get to know your name so they can bum coffee from you.  They get on speaking terms with you so they can ask you for things.  IF you call them on it, you’re suddenly treating them like a child molester.  How dare you insinuate that they’re a mooch?  How dare you insinuate that they’re anything but a “solid” guy?  You may as well call them a punk.

To put this prison-politics garbage in Randian terms, if it’s a solid move to give to your brothers, shouldn’t it be a punk move to take from your brothers?

Hannity’s Theocracy

It’s so funny watching Hannity, in his zeal to bust Obama on anything he possibly can, go after him for saying (on foreign soil) that America isn’t a Christian nation.  I understand Hannity’s point; it almost sounds like Obama is bending over backwards to accommodate everyone (or perhaps bending over forward, when it comes to Muslim kings).

This “Christian nation” thing is ridiculous, though.  If you mean that America is  Christian nation in the sense that most of its citizens are Christians, that it has a long and deep Christian tradition, that its birth and history are steeped in Christianity, and that its legal and moral ideas have their roots in Judeo-Christian values, then okay.  No problem so far.  That’s just the truth.

But if you mean America is a Christian nation in the sense that it’s a theocratic country whose laws come from the Bible, you’re just plain delusional.  I couldn’t believe my ears when Hannity started mentioning Thomas Jefferson (!) to support his notion of a Christian nation.  Jefferson, the staunch deist and secularist who said, “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” 

I could be wrong, but I thought the entire point of the creation of America was to give the People moral authority.  The People, not God.  The Constitution does not mention God once, and the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence speak only of a “Creator.”  A Creator, not Jesus or Yahweh.  This was intentional.  The United States is a secular nation.  Our government was something radical, something the world had never seen before, something that grants the individual more freedom than any other nation before it.  And we did it by leaving God out of government.

People like Hannity can continue to say that “our rights as Americans were endowed by our creator,” but I don’t know which creator they’re talking about.  Certainly not the God of the Bible.  Let’s see, the first three commandments directly contradict the First Amendment.  God does not grant us freedom of religion, speech, or expression; on the contrary, in the Bible He makes it clear where He stands on those issues.

For all the stink Hannity is raising about what Obama said overseas, perhaps he should be reminded of a little something a guy named George Washington said: “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Clueless Republicans

Lately all I seem to hear from Republicans is that they lost the White House and Congress because they’ve “gotten away from their basic principles.”  People like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Laura Ingraham are constantly claiming that the way to make Republicans politically attractive again is to present candidates who are more conservative.

They mock the idea that their problem is that they’re not mainstream and moderate enough to attract large voting blocks.  They point out that John McCain was a perfect specimen of a moderate Republican, a candidate who reached across the aisle, a candidate liked on all sides, a candidate who even supported green policy, decried torture, and tried to give amnesty to illegal aliens.  If McCain couldn’t get elected, they day, then obviously trying to be more moderate is not a good idea; therefore they conclude that being less moderate is.

Of course, this is a classic example of the either-or logical fallacy.  They’re creating the false dichotomy that what’s needed to get their party back on track is a trend toward either the right or left.  Really?  Why can’t it be something else?

I think the real question to ask is not how John McCain did in the election.  The real question is this:  How would a more conservative candidate have fared?  Suppose Romney, Huckabee, or Duncan Hunter had been the GOP’s candidate.  This is easy: The proverbial snowball in Hell would have been more successful.  Did Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, and their ilk ever stop to think that perhaps John McCain was the best shot they had?  That only a moderate, well-liked guy like McCain had the slightest chance of winning whatsoever?  McCain lost, but Romney would have been creamed.

I guess we’ll see come 2012, and again in 2016, but it seems pretty clear to me.  Do they really think America is going to elect a Bobby Jindal or a Sarah Palin just because they get out there and talk about “good small-town American values?”  This is a colossal joke.  The only way that’s going to happen is if President Obama continues to purloin the free market and makes some huge foreign policy blunders – which is certainly possible.

The Gay Burden of Proof

The other day Tammy Bruce was arguing for gay marriage against Mike Huckabee, and the former governor said something I thought was interesting.  Like most conservatives, he pointed out that traditional marriage had existed for five thousand years, and there’s a reason: It works.  Therefore, Huckabee said to Ms. Bruce, the “burden of proof” lies with those who want to change this 5000-year-old tradition.

Nice try, Huckabee, but you’re still not addresssing the central question:  How is allowing gays to get married going to end this tradition?  Are straight people going to no longer feel the need to get married if they see gays do it?  Are people going to feel a greater need to get divorced when they see two men or two women walk down the aisle?  As Ms. Bruce said, allowing gay marriage wouldn’t end this tradition, it would simply add to it.

Huckabee wants to talk about burden of proof, and that’s great.  Because I think – and this is just the way I see it – that proof is the big Achilles’ Heel of  the anti-gay marriage crowd.  They don’t have proof (as in proof that gay marriage is going to somehow harm traditional marriage).  They don’t have a historical reference.  They don’t even have an argument.  All they have is an opinion; that’s it.  An opinion that because they don’t agree with gay marriage, they should be able to prevent people from doing it.

I think Governor Huckabee has it backwards.  The burden of proof is on those who would be so audacious – so presumptuous – as to think they have any say in whether strangers should be able to get married.  They burden of proof is on people like Mike Huckabee to give a legitimate, rational, and testable reason why they think they can meddle in what consenting adults do in their private life.

I’m sorry, but “Because it’s tradition” is not good enough by any measure.