More Factor Whining About Atheism, Part Two

In part one of this post, I accused Gretchen Carlson of making the unfounded generalization that people are drawn to atheism because it means they don’t have to face ultimate consequences.  (I mocked her for claiming to know the mental state of millions of nonbelievers.)  In response, Ian Campbell pointed out that although I was probably correct, I was guilty of the same thing because I made two unfounded generalizations myself in claiming to know what men think in general about the ethics of infidelity, and about the reasoning why most atheists choose their position.

I humbly admit that Mr. Campbell is correct.  I was taking a few anecdotal cases and making larger points with them, and I should know better.  Anecdotes do not make science.  In particular, the statement I made about people denying Christianity (that most who reject it do so because they think it’s inadequate in it explanatory power) was probably more of a reflection of my hope than anything else.  Ideally, I’d like to see atheists rejecting religion solely on evidentiary grounds and not due to any preconceived ideology (or as a friend of mine once put it, atheism should be like Switzerland).

As far as men considering worldly or divine consequences for their actions, I should have limited the statement.  I’ll rephrase:  In my experience, practically everyone engaging in unethical behavior takes into account worldly consequences; divine consequences (if considered at all) are insignificant.

My experience is this: I’ve been incarcerated since 1997.  During this time, I’ve had the opportunity to converse with or listen to hundreds (if not several thousand) of my peers about not only their current crime, but many other stories of criminal behavior.  This is not to say that I’ve conducted a scientific investigation, not at all, but prison does present a unique environment.  Almost every con talks about their crimes and relates stories, an new guys come in and out of here continuously.  So if you listen, you accumulate a veritable library of information.

When the question is how people struggle with ethical decisions, convicts make good case studies.  So far as I’ve seen, God does not scare criminals, not in the least.  If anything scares them, if anything causes them to rethink their position, it is worldly consequences for their actions (loss of freedom, destruction of families, alienation of loved ones, tough sentencing laws, genuine remorse, etc.).  Though recidivism is extremely high in here, a great  many convicts try to be good.  And invariably, this is so they can have a stable life, a family, leisure time, and freedom.  Put another way, criminals refrain from crimes so they can avoid prison, not so they can avoid hell (I’ll skip the obvious cliched similarities).

Creationist Liars

I recently saw an issue of a magazine called Answers.  It’s a Christian creationist magazine aimed at anyone who’s naive enough to think a few anecdotes and appeals to biblical authority make a science.  Personally, I found it depressing that rational adults take this stuff seriously.

The publishers are young-earth creationists, people who interpret Genesis literally and think that God made the earth a few thousand years ago, that every “kind” of animal was created, and that the Great Flood explains the fossil record.  It’s amazing how these people can simply ignore evidence.  Don’t worry about radiometric dating, the distance of stars from us, the absence of shorter-lived radioactive elements on earth, cosmology, astrophysics, biology, and genetics; don’t worry about the sequential and gradual nature of the fossil record; don’t worry about the utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for a creator god, miracles, creation events, etc.  Most of all, don’t worry about the nonsense in Genesis that no rational person can possibly reconcile with reality: Plants were created before the sun, birds before land animals, etc.  Just turn your brain off and have faith.

And let’s not forget about the Great Flood.  No matter that a wooden ship the size of the Ark is impossible to build, or that on a flood-covered earth the water vapor content of the air would make it impossible to breathe, or that a single male and female of a species can’t repopulate it.  What about the fossil record?  It’s laid out in the exact order evolution predicts: Oldest and/or simplest organisms in the oldest layers, and newer and/or more complex organisms in successively younger layers.  Is this a problem for the YECs?  No way.  With straight faces, they claim that the sequential order of the fossil record is explained by a worldwide flood because – wait for it – simpler animals would have drowned and sank to the bottom first, while more complex ones would have survived the flood longer and thus be found in the top layers.

No dumb, slow cow died early and got stuck with swifter dinosaurs.  No speedy or lucky plesiosaur made it up to higher levels with whales and dolphins.  Somehow torpid mammal species like sloths survived the flood for just as long as cheetahs.  Somehow none of those ancient fishes – not one species, not even a single example – could make it up to the level with modern fishes.  No modern animal, regardless of how slow, stupid, or unfortunate, ever shows up in the lower levels, and vice versa.  Flowering plants, which don’t appear in the fossil record until relatively recently, are never found in earlier layers – why?  Shouldn’t they be spread throughout all the layers with other fossilized vegetation?  After the flood, how did that huge diversity of marsupials – even the very slow ones – make it to Australia in a few thousand years when many other faster and more adaptable mammals didn’t?

One can’t argue with faith.  Creationists can claim God’s magic solves every problem.  The tragedy is that these people honestly think theirs is a scientifically sound argument.

What made me angry about this magazine, however, was the children’s section.  Here they crossed the line from delusional do-gooders to plain liars.  Here they tried to inculcate kids with the notion that science supports the idea of a young earth and created species.  Needless to say, this is certainly news to scientists the world over – and the young-earth creationists know it.

More Factor Whining about Atheism

The other day O’Reilly ran another segment about how atheism is growing in influence in America and as a result, the moral influence of Christianity is decreasing.  I hear something similar from a Jehovah’s Witness I know.  He believes that the end is coming soon, and like others, points to the “turmoil” in the world today as a sign of the prophecies coming true.

First of all, whatever bad things are happening in the world (and there are plenty), you have to take them in context.  I was just reading about the illusion of this end-of-time mindset.  There are fewer wars now than at any other time in history.  A higher percentage of people have access to medicine and clean water than ever before.  A bigger percentage of people are being lifted out of poverty.  We’re living longer, less people die from violence, and more and more countries are feeling the influence of a free, democratic society.  If these are not indicators of the “direction” mankind is going, what are?  It seems to me that we’re at least stumbling forward, however slowly and fitfully.

What I find funny, however, is people like O’Reilly and his guest Gretchen Carlson, blame “the media” for teaching kids that they don’t need faith.  First of all, what exactly do they mean by “the media?”  On the segment, two of the clips O’Reilly played were of Lewis Black and Bill Maher making jokes about Christianity.  Two comedians making jokes.  Do you get that, O’Reilly?  They’re comedians making jokes.  What news correspondent is out there supporting the benefits of leaving faith out of your life?  Where are hardcore atheists of any consequence represented in the media?  Bill Maher is the only example I can think of.

Gretchen Carlson, showing her amazing expertise at divining the mental states of millions of nonbelievers, even hypothesized that people are drawn to atheism because it means they don’t have to face consequences for what they do.  How insulting.  How incredibly arrogant.  Couldn’t it be, Ms. Carlson, that they simply don’t find any adequate evidence?

Besides, this notion that atheism leads to a “no consequences” attitude is preposterous.  Every human being on this planet takes into account worldly consequences.  When a guy is tempted to cheat on his wife, he thinks, “My wife will kill me, my kids will hate me, my family will be destroyed, my life will be in shambles.”  He might even think, “I don’t want to cheat on my spouse because I love her and don’t want to hurt her and don’t want anyone else but her.”  What he does not do is think, “I better not do this or God will be mad at me.”

I’m tired of hearing this complain and blame game.  It’s Christianity’s responsibility to make itself desirable.  Most people who reject it do so because they think it’s inadequate in its explanatory power; not because they think atheism is some sort of ticket to party without a hangover.  If Christians like O’Reilly and Ms. Carlson want to stop the growth of nonbelievers, give people a reason to believe.  And really, it shouldn’t be difficult.  You’re offering salvation, paradise, and eternal life, and you’re still complaining about not being able to sell it?

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?

Why Bill O’Reilly is Right About Radical Liberals

Foremost among the irrationality of the radical left is the conspiracy theory about 9/11.  This is an utterly unsurprising movement if you consider that millions of Americans also subscribe to notions such as alien abductions, power crystals, astrology, and the prattling of hucksters like Sylvia Browne and John Edward.  We had the grassy knoll, Area 51, and Pearl Harbor – this is just the latest installment of America’s fascination with being gullible, and yet another example of how walking the road of nonsense is vastly easier than using your brain.

To answer this foolishness about 9/11, don’t believe any authority figure, don’t listen to Rosie O’Donnell or Willie Nelson, don’t accept it because you hate George Bush – just look at the evidence.  It’s non-negotiable and it isn’t colored by ideology or bias.  Evidence is only evidence.  Yes, you’re right, burning jet fuel isn’t hot enough to melt steel.  It is, however, hot enough to weaken it significantly.  Really, it looked to you like a controlled demolition brought the buildings down?  Then why did they start collapsing from the exact points where the planes hit them?  Yes, there really was wreckage at the Pentagon and yes, there really was a great deal of structural damage to Building Seven.  (For an impressive array of evidence debunking this garbage, I suggest the 2006 Vol. 12, No. 4 issue of Skeptic magazine.)

Was there incompetence leading up to 9/11?  Were there simple things that could have been done to prevent it?  Were warning signs ignored?  Most definitely.  But you can say the same for every tragedy that happens.  Hindsight is much better than twenty-twenty.

The Bush-hating rolls right from the 9/11 conspiracy nuts.  Fine, George Bush is a horrible president, he led us into a war for the wrong reason, he has discredited America on the world stage, he has spent money like crazy and raised the national debt, he condones water-boarding, the PATRIOT Act has taken away some of our liberty.  Those are all valid points.  Argue them and elect a Democrat if that’s what you want.

But please, for the sake of rationality, stop the nonsense.  None of that makes Bush evil or diabolical, or a power-mad dictator trying to turn this country into a totalitarian state.  He’ll be gone in a few months with no more money or power than he had when he was first inaugurated.  Barack Obama will be sitting in his place, and then what will you have to whine about?  Other than a quasi-socialist nanny state, that is?

The liberal ideologues who are convinced of their holiness rank pretty high on the irrationality scale.  These are the people who can’t seem to cede a point or accept an explanations if it comes from the mouth of a conservative.  They can do nothing but discredit them, insult them, and leap on any opportunity to call them racist or bigoted in some other way.  Conservatives are Americans, and just because you disagree with their ideology doesn’t mean they’re automatically wrong in everything they say.  Again: Evidence are only evidence.  It doesn’t matter if it’s presented by a conservative or a liberal, a Republican or a Democrat, Bill O’Reilly or Bill Moyers.

Regardless, conservatives have every right to their opinions.  Ann Coulter may be cruel for saying that 9/11 widows are enjoying their husband’s deaths, but she doesn’t deserve to be shouted down or hit with pies.  You might no agree with Rush Limbaugh’s opinions, but you should be defending his right to express them.  Sean Hannity may be a hypocritical demagogue for claiming he’d turn down the Nobel Peace Prize because it had been given to a terrorist like Yassir Arafat and then twenty seconds later saying it should be given to the US troops, but that doesn’t make him a liar. 

Here’s a crazy idea:  If you disagree with these people, argue with them.  Meet them in debate.  If they’re half the liars and idiots you say they are, it should be simple to expose them, right?

Why Suicide Bombers are Really Cowards

I don’t want to call terrorists cowards because they target innocent people.  For that, I would call them murderous, unjust, evil, dishonorable, and contemptible.  Likewise, I don’t think the 9/11 hijackers are cowards simply because their targets were helpless civilians who had nothing to do with their “cause,” and I don’t necessarily call Osama bin Laden a coward because he hides in caves and kills little kids.

In my view, they’re cowards for a bigger reason.  Some people like to say that these suicide bombers are brave for choosing death to further their cause, but how is it bravery if you’re given an eternal reward?  Where’s the sacrifice?  They’re dying to attain paradise and a bevy of virgins.  They’re materialists.  Their highest aspiration is a beautiful place to love and indiscriminate sex.  They want what they’re too “pious” to attain in real life.  They’re ashamed of their earthly lust, but somehow it becomes okay to own seventy-two prostitutes if the price you pay is your life.  (I’ve always wondered: What exactly do the seventy-two virgins get out of the deal?)

They’re worse than the American materialists that they constantly shriek about.  At least us Americans only want material things in thislife.  Even the silliest Christians aren’t under any illusions about heaven being full of gold mansions and pliable maidens.  These terrorist “martyrs” want divine paradise because it justifies the humanity they openly despise  Is divine materialism somehow nobler than earthly materialism.  I think not.  I’m a de facto atheist and I still understand that tainting the divine this way is a travesty.  If your spirituality consists of behavior to earn an award that you aren’t allowed to pursue on earth, what’s the point?

I’ll give you an example of real bravery, realy martyrdom.  How about dying for a cause here on earth when you know oblivion waits for you?  How about defying an unjust God and gladly facing damnation for your conviction?  That’s courage.  When you get nothing out of the deal but the knowledge that your death helped accomplish whatever goal or point you deem so important.  A father who willingly goes to his death to save his child isn’t thinking about what awaits him, is he?  He doesn’t care about being a martyr, or pleasing God, or all the virgins he gets to deflower in heaven.

That’s courage.  That’s a hero.  That’s what makes a martyr: caring about something or someone else more than you care about yourself.  If you get a wondrous eternal reward out of the deal, doesn’t that kind of defeat the whole purpose?