In the past month, two members of our community died only a few weeks apart and we should take a moment to remember them fondly.
First, there was Tina Lovine Missildine from Marrero, age 48, who died on January 21. Tina had attended our first NOSHA banquet in 2009 with Percy Prestenbach and had been a long time member. Next there was Scott Major who died on February 3 after a brief illness. Many of you met Scott (who also attended our first NOSHA banquet with his girlfriend, Renee Gunnells) when he could make it to our monthly meetings over the past year. He was a regular on our Google Group generally stirring up passions and keeping the conversation lively. Both Scott and Tina were parents, had interests they enjoyed and were one of our many non-believing friends.
It's been several years since one of our closely tethered group passed away. Serena Bodellini passed away in October 2009 and was a member of the NOSHA board of directors. One thing that all three of these lovely people have in common is that they each had events celebrating their lives with no mention of worshipping a deity or other overly religious element involved. This is a refreshing trend in the 21st century and one that all of us should consider in depth - how we see the end of our lives unfolding for our friends and family. I always say to myself that I will get my will written and write a few ideas down "officially" for my "end of life" ceremony, but since I don't have kids or a major desire to deal with my death realistically, it's on the list where it stays.
Scott Major's untimely death forced me to accept that the luxury of waiting may not always be there for me or anyone I hold dear in my life. Like all of us, one day he was walking down the street enjoying his morning and the next thing he knew, he's being taken into emergency surgery to repair his dissected aorta, the defective organ that he never knew he had. From that moment on, his life, had he been able to recover slowly, would have consisted of caution and concern. And the awareness that things can change for you in a minute, just like my mother always told me they could. Unfortunately, bad things happen to good people and that's happened here.
At times like this, I'm very sensitive to why having a religious belief is a comfort to people who haven't explored the possibility that it may be a fairy tale. I wanted to pray for Scott, to talk to a god about how this time he needs to step in, make this right and save our friend. What could possibly be fair about striking down this 40-something man? I wanted to pray for Scott the way I wanted to pray for my brother and mother who've died in the past few years, but, you know, I couldn't. Not believing in a god is a very lonely place to be when you realize that all of us may simply just be lucky: to not get that disease, to not be strolling down that street, to not find ourselves in that ill body.
And I think that's why I'm not too puzzled by my anger. I'm very angry about what happened to Scott. That he didn't have more time to stabelize and get back to his life, to visit with friends and family a little longer, to eat some favorite food, to go on one last trip, maybe. To do all of the things we take for granted. I'm sure he, Tina and Serena would tell me that this is the one thing about dying that none of us can prepare for easily. Serena said to me that one disappointment for her was just when NOSHA seemed to have more activities and was starting take off since Katrina, she simply couldn't depend on her body to let her participate. She was always fighting a serious condition that made her extremely tired. Truly, the spirit was willing but the flesh was weak.
When my father found out he had lung cancer, he was home recovering from surgery one December many years ago while I was on holiday from college. I remember sitting with him and he still seemed vibrant and healthy to me, even if neither of us realized he was at the beginning of a slow decline. That I could be with him daily pretending that somehow this was going to turn out differently were some of my fondest memories, because if it hadn't been for his illness, he would have been at work and I wouldn't have had a chance for this time with him. Ironic. But still being able to process how lucky we felt, if only for the moment, gave me the time to start understanding what was to come.
Some of us don't get the chance to pretend that life will be different, to pretend that maybe we'll be lucky this time. I will always wish that Scott Major did.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
The Next Thirty Years?
In October 2010, I attended my first ever major non-believers conference, “Setting the Agenda: Secular Humanism’s Next 30 Years,” which was sponsored as a subscribers’ conference for the magazine, Free Inquiry. Since I’ve been a subscriber for at least 15 years, this seemed like a good fit for me. I was eager because there was a remarkable list of secular celebrities on the program and it was touted as a definitive event.
To give you one humorous glimpse into the conference, Mark Oppenheimer with The New York Times observed, “The largely white and male crowd—imagine a Star Trek convention, but older…” My main goal here is to report every unique moment from my trip.
Depending on who you ask, it was a complete “sell out” with anywhere from 325 to 370 people at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel in attendance. It seemed that since the CFI (Center for Inquiry) had to schedule this conference back in Fall 2008, at the beginning of the recession, they were forced to organize for a smaller number rather than risk not having enough people to fill the next level of hotel space. I think they could have easily had 100 or even 200 more attendees, but the economy dictated a more prudent choice back then. Amazingly enough, I found a friendly face in the crowd, Douglas King, a NOSHA member who resides in Baton Rouge and who attended our banquet featuring Ellen Johnson in August. The weekend was looking up!
The first plenary I attended on Friday was appropriately called “The First 30 Years” and boasted some of the heavier hitters in the secular movement: James “The Amazing” Randi, whose book Flim-Flam is regarded as a skeptical classic; Tom Flynn, current editor of Free Inquiry; Ed Buckner, past president of American Atheists; and Paul Kurtz, founder of Free Inquiry, the Council for Secular Humanism and CFI.
Randi was predictably charming and entertaining with his story of appearing on “The Johnny Carson Show” to debunk the faith healing preacher, Peter Popoff, back in the 1980’s. Randi’s technical investigation revealed that “…God is a woman and she sounds remarkably like Popoff’s wife, Elizabeth!” He told us that later that he got a delightful note from someone watching that night who said “I’m so glad that you exposed Rev. Popoff. Now I’m giving all of my money to Rev. So and So.” He found that very sweet and offered this thought to the audience that “…we are part of the remedy for ignorance. No one wants to come forward to say how stupid they are!” I discovered first hand how very spry and delightful Randi is when he chatted with me while I was buying books prior to this panel starting, before it hit me just exactly who this old man was. My luck.
However, sweetness gave way to more acerbic matters when the case was made by Kurtz that atheists are “bad” if they don’t support humanism out right. Clearly, there was a mentality of “us vs. them” being sown by the adherents for both points of view that continued throughout the weekend. Kurtz related an “untapped sentiment in society” back in 1980 that precipitated his pursuit and creation of CFI; there is something more that “mere atheism simply cannot address.” An example of the division at the national level was Flynn’s explanation of his push for promoting National Blasphemy Day, a move that Kurtz adamantly opposed, but nonetheless couldn’t prevent. A few resolute atheists challenged Kurtz that they are no less moral or good than a person who self identifies as a secularist.
In fact, one woman felt that Kurtz was not taking the “cultural wars” as seriously as he should that some of us must wage in parts of the country (where it is not as conciliatory for non-believers). His most memorable statement to me was his describing why he feels so strongly: “It is not enough to destroy, we must provide alternatives.” I happen to agree with this even as I feel we must not shrink from confrontations when they are necessary. The New York Times probably hit upon the best explanation of this divisiveness: “The disagreement was not, then, between atheism and humanism. It was about making the atheist/humanist case in America. A central question was, “How publicly scornful of religion should we be?’”
The next major panel was “Science and Religion: Confrontation or Accommodation?” which was by far the most lively in forcing the issue of how differently each perspective views the conflicts of science and religion in society. Science writer Chris Mooney (and the son of former NOSHA board member, Sally Mooney) admitted that his viewpoint falls more in line with accommodating the potential allies of non-believers, moderate or liberal Christians, and he bases his choice on the latest research into the attitudes of belief. Christians “are rejecting science because of a perceived conflict with moral values.” Like Kurtz, who believes that “the core of humanism is ethics and values” that are relevant to our lives, Mooney argued that “atheists should be mindful of this perception.”
Since believers resist science and the teaching of evolution in public schools because they fear that it will lead to a rejection of morals, this is a huge piece of evidence that cannot be totally dismissed out of hand. He suggests that atheists “should reassure Christians that their faith is compatible with modern science.” As conciliatory as Mooney was (considering that he has been taken to task this past year by the second speaker), noted biologist and well-known combative blogger, P.Z. Myers, wasn’t pulling any punches and is a “confrontationalist” with a capital “C.”
I found it especially refreshing to hear someone suggest that anger is a valid emotion when dealing with the way religion attempts to thwart scientific and social progress in our modern society and one that he feels shouldn’t be denigrated by our more passive supporters. Myers understands why “the new atheists are fed up with fighting the symptoms and want to take on the disease—religion.” Truth is the new atheist’s real value, he said.
Eugenie Scott, also a panelist and the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, was a disappointment for me simply because she seemed like she had so little to offer on this topic when her professional position should obviously demand otherwise. Clearly, she didn’t want to take a side and by that, I assumed, she is a deliberate “accommodationist.” That was a bit of surprise and left me concerned that she is in charge of the very organization that is so often fighting for science education in our schools. How can someone with such a decidedly unmotivated stance defend science against more aggressive and louder opponents? As likeable as she is, she didn’t care to express her opinion either for or against anything Mooney and Myers proposed. And isn’t that why she was invited to this conference? Strange.
Victor Stenger, celebrated professor of particle physics and distinguished author whose latest book, The New Atheism, brought him as a speaker to NOSHA in October 2009, provided more support for people voicing their atheism instead of “sucking up” to Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus “and any others who claim they have some sacred right to decide what kind of society the rest of us must live in—what a human being can do with her own body.”
He feels encouraged that younger generations are less likely to be accommodationists because they are moving away from organized religion and that the United States is on its way to joining the developed world in rejecting religion’s control over our progress. He supports the idea that in order to see change in our society, it takes both approaches ultimately. “If you look at the history of every great social movement, you will see both components. There are people who work within the system to make changes. They often succeed, but usually at a snail’s pace—too slow to satisfy the millions who are impatient to have their inherent rights recognized by the power structure.” This outlook must be how confrontationists get their wings.
Friday evening culminated in a gala banquet where Richard Dawkins, author of numerous books—perhaps most well known is The God Delusion which has sold over two million copies in English and has been published in more than 30 other languages, was presented with the Robert Craggs Prize and over $45,000 to his foundation. Dawkins, who was present for the day’s sessions, spoke briefly and pointedly to the need for non-believers to be insistent that we reject efforts to coddle religion and made it clear that he didn’t share the same opinions as his esteemed dinner companions, Kurtz and Mooney, who flanked him at the head table. He was respectful, but it was clear to me he was “bitch slapping” everyone who fell more in line with the acommodationists’ arguments from earlier that day.
On the Saturday panel for “What can philosophy, ethics, aesthetics and the sciences contribute to our pursuit of the good life in this life?” author Jennifer Michael Hecht offered an interesting observation that there are two kinds of atheists: “…those who attack the silly stuff and those who attack the subtle beliefs” of Christians and others. This may be the source for the concern over how stridently we promote non-belief. Ron Lindsay, who is the president and CEO of CFI, spoke about the perception of humanist ethics and that the method by which we approach deciding many issues has a lot to do with content. People want to make decisions where moral certainty is not always possible, such as the right-to-die for the terminally ill. He gave a nice presentation about the Oregon law and what it means for current efforts. Rev. Barry Lynn with Americans United, delivered a rip-roaring speech on a panel about the separation of church and state and made me truly sad for anyone who had to follow his presentation.
The highlight of Saturday evening (maybe the entire weekend) was the debate between Sam Harris, author of New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation and Robert Wright, who has been named one of the “Top 100 Global Thinkers” by Foreign Policy magazine and is also a New York Times bestselling author of The Evolution of God. They were to speak on the subject of where “secular humanists stand today and tomorrow on questions of religion and belief,” but instead Wright baited Harris about his obvious disdain and public derision of Islam and we never made it back to the topic at hand. It didn’t help that Harris’ entourage of body guards put the throngs of attendees through a security detail (because he’s received death threats from both Christians and Muslims), which only hyped the paranoia of the evening!
Wright started off by stating that what bothered him most about the “new atheism” is the claim of being new. He’s also concerned that the new atheists think that religion is a major problem, and that the tendency to over emphasize religion means that “we take our eye off the ball.” I was never sure what the ball actually was to which he was referring.
What provoked Harris was Wright’s comment that new atheists are adding to the anti-Islamic sentiment in the United States. Once Islam was on the table, they never quite gave any time to the original topic, which was very disappointing. I made a note of one fascinating question he posed to Wright: “What would it be like if Dawkins came out as a Muslim?” It is easy to assume that Dawkins declaring he is any religion would cause a colossal stir simply because it would invalidate everything he stands for. So, Harris is concerned that we’ll wake up in a world “where the only people we can trust are our own religious people.” So for him, that is why what people believe matters; beliefs are the “engines of our behaviors” and that is why he is steadfast that Islam as a religion should be scrutinized.
There wasn’t enough time to even scratch the surface of the neuroscience surrounding morality, nor am I completely convinced that Harris does that well at presenting this in person yet. Even though I did and do enjoy listening to him in general. He is one of the “rock stars” for non-believers, after all. (He does have a new book out titled The Moral Landscape where he explores neuroscience in much greater detail). Nevertheless, he makes the compelling and evolutionarily sound proposal that “morality is a product of neuroscience” and that our pursuit of happiness, and that which is good for society, depends on brain chemistry. I do agree with that personally. I just wish he could have talked more about our people and what brain science can tell us about how we can make progress as a movement. That was the “send off” I had hoped for with this conference and, unfortunately, we have many rather large egos to stroke while we search for the answers.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Would a Secular Majority Make a Better America?
NOSHA's president, Harry Greenberger, made this presentation to the Lakeview Community Unitarian Church here in New Orleans in November and we wanted to let everyone who couldn't be there that day read what he had to say on this important topic.
******************************
Would a Secular Majority Make a Better America
By Harry Greenberger
All recent U. S.
Where are we today vis-à-vis religion versus secularity?
Here are some descriptions of contemporary conditions.
At a recent conference of Free Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism, Victor Stenger said “We are now probably only about a generation or two away from the catastrophic problems that are anticipated from global warming, pollution, and overpopulation. Such disasters are predicted to generate worldwide conflict on a scale that could exceed that of the great twentieth-century wars.”
Later he concludes, “So, the time has come to rise up against the unthinking, immoral acts that are brought about by religious views—to state the case for science, reason, and honest compassion. We need to demonstrate that a nation no longer dominated by religion will be a better nation and that we must work to achieve that goal no matter how long it takes.”
Atheists for Human Rights includes this paragraph in their list of principles: “Traditional religious morality is notorious for the astounding number of ways it hurts people. On a short list are: human sacrifice, slavery, subjugation and reproductive control of women, persecution of homosexuals, religious wars, cruelty to children, torture and execution of heretics, denial of end-of-life self-determination, and opposing every advance in science and medicine…”
In Michael Parenti's book God and His Demons the author writes, “Backed by moneyed interests, the right-wing Christianist media propagate free-market corporatism, militarism, and super-patriotism.” And he makes the accusation “…emotional extortion of money from the gullible for personal enrichment has been the hallmark of fundamentalist Christian leaders.”
Countering those negative views, we know of religious heroes—civil rights leaders, founders of universities and hospitals, Catholic Charities, etc. The comfort and solace that faith provides to believers in times of loss and sorrow can’t be denied. But zealous spokespeople warn against secularism. Televangelist Pat Roberson asserts that when a society is without religion “the result will be tyranny.” Ann Coulter says that societies which fail to accept God’s significance are headed toward slavery, genocide and bestiality. Bill O’Reilly advises that a society that fails to live “under God” will be a society of “anarchy and crime.”
Where will the recent “New Atheism” movement lead us?
The Freedom From Religion Foundation recently sponsored a billboard at Canal and Rampart Streets with the message "Imagine No Religion.” It might have added words from The Richard Dawkins Foundation: Imagine no “superstition, astrology, fortune telling, pseudo-science, voodoo, alternative medicine, or other …grandiose promises that are never fulfilled…Imagine a world where everyone has access to education, health care, and the freedom to explore and discover their world.”
Recent proposals for achieving this secularly improved society have developed a “rift” between confrontationists and accommodationists regarding the best strategies for advancing the secular, scientific worldview. Best selling atheist authors in the last few years, Richard Dawkins, Christoher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Victor Stenger aggressively promote activism for the public adoption of the non-theistic life stance, at the risk of offending large portions of the American society. The Council of Secular Humanism even promotes celebration of “Blasphemy day,” much to the chagrin of its founder, Paul Kurtz, who feels that the new angry atheists will set the movement back—not unlike the abrasive style of American Atheists founder, Madelyn Murray O’Hare
Greg Epstein, secular Chaplain at Harvard University
On the other hand, where will today’s right-wing Christian movement, which now dominates the Republican Party, lead us?
While much of what is considered positive religious morality is adopted from much older classical ethics, it has been distorted from time to time. Newt Gingrich formed “American Solutions for Winning the Future” with the position that the Democrats are promoting a secular socialist America that violates what he deems to be the Christian or Judeo-Christian foundation of the Republic.
This reflects the promulgated erroneous view that this country was founded on Christian principles, including the Ten Commandments. The Tea Party groups are seen to be primarily highly religious and anti-big government, women’s right to choose, gay marriage and adoptions, and church/state separation; and in favor of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and Christian prayers and teaching of “creationism” in public schools. Many see their ultimate goal as a conversion of our republic into a theocracy.
So which is best course for America
Take a look at recent surveys of different countries
In an essay in the August/September 2009 issue of Perspectives entitled “Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment” sociologist Phil Zuckerman reported that “countries with the highest rates of happiness, life expectancy, literacy, income, gender equality, and education are relatively secular. So are the countries with the lowest rates of homicide, infant mortality, AIDS, and teen pregnancy.” Also covered in that issue is a David G. Myers article that cites a Gallop survey from 152 countries. “Countries, where most people say that religion is not an important part of their daily life and where most people have not attended religious services in the last week, tend to be countries where people report high quality of life. Folks in highly religious countries (think Pakistan , Uganda , the Philippines
Myers wrote further, “I extended this association between secularity and the good life by comparing U.S.
Reported in the November 20 edition of Times Picayune, a Gallup
What measures of “good,” “better” and “best” can we justify?
Is it likely that the form of government might determine the level of individual wellbeing as documented for countries under communism, socialism, republic, democracy, dictatorship? But each of these can be either religious or non-religious, so what role does the government play? Are the ones allowing the most individual freedoms most inclined to produce general life satisfaction? How important is the concept of “Give me liberty or give me death?”
How about Standard of living as it is generally measured to include necessities and luxuries.
Should we measure by the opportunity for individuals to achieve a high living standard or alternatively reach for “the greatest good for the greatest numbers”—e.g. Communism’s “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” If this requires a totalitarian government is that an acceptable cost?
Lastly, consider the quality of life, level of happiness (as reported in some of my prior cited surveys)
My inclination is for the “happiness” scales which are applicable in any of the forms of government, at various standards of living, and at a variety of levels of religiosity. Our Declaration of Independence proclaims the pursuit of happiness to be an inalienable right. But what is “happiness?” “America,” the national catholic weekly, reports, “The new study of happiness, or subjective well-being, is a growing interdisciplinary field…Any monopoly that religion or political philosophy once held as the preferred guides to Eden is over.” “Policy makers in developed and undeveloped countries are drawing on happiness research to increase the ‘gross national happiness’ of their populations.” However, there is a caveat to be considered before relying on these surveys, as that article further reports, “Current secular critics will doubt whether happiness researchers have been able to avoid the problems of self-report, self-deception, response bias and social framing effects. Are the results and experimental interventions of happiness research reliable or valid by standard scientific norms.”
And one sobering thought about the role of happiness, is reflected in the final verse of a familiar poem by Thomas Gray published in 1923:
To each his sufferings: all are men,
Condemn’d alike to groan—
The tender for another’s pain
Th’ unfeeling for his own.
Yet, ah! Why should they know their fate,
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies
Thought would destroy their Paradise .
No more;--where ignorance is bliss,
‘Tis folly to be wise.
Should this one concept invalidate an advocacy on behalf of reason and science?
And now for my Conclusion
I recognize that those with Ph.D’s, especially in study of philosophy, and others more learned than I will find my analysis of this question to be superficial and possibly naïve, but I am trying.
I’ve lost the source of the following pertinent quotation: “We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
The article I previously referred to in the National Catholic Weekly concluded with this: “And here we come to the theological crux of the matter. Is it possible to become positively transformed and virtuously happy without being empowered by God’s Holy Spirit given in, with and through Christ? Happiness and joy are promised to the virtuous followers of God’s precepts and to those who become Christ’s disciples through faith.”
(I am still quoting the National Catholic Weekly) “But does happiness seen as our loving relationship with God make other ways of happiness impossible, invalid or incomplete?” A Nathan Murillo article entitled “Why Religion?” opines, “The forces that propel and propagate religion are powerful indeed and are not likely to diminish in and of themselves. Perhaps there is only one force equal or greater than these and which offers the most likely challenge to religion: the truth of reality”
The previously quoted Myers article in the journal Perspectives equating frequent church attendance with “very happy” people, further wrote: “…the data help us appreciate a spirituality that gives meaning to our lives, connects us in supportive communities, motivates morality and altruism, and offers hope in the face of adversity and death.”
But he adds: “I hasten to remind people: these data do not validate theism. The benefits of faith are irrelevant to its truth claim. And truth is ultimately what matters. (If theism’s central claim is untrue, though comforting, what honest person would choose to believe? If true, though discomfiting, what honest person would disbelieve?”
Now here is my moot conclusion: A secular society, armed with the conviction that theism is untrue will be a better America
Friday, November 26, 2010
Carl Sagan Felt Our Pain
Humanist groups nationwide celebrated the life and work of Carl Sagan this month. Sagan (1934-1996) an astronomer, educator and secular humanist, was probably best known for his PBS series “Cosmos.” It has now been 30 years since “Cosmos” first aired.
This is a wonderful story he wrote that you can use when dealing with people who try your patience. You'll see what I mean.
The Dragon In My Garage by Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help.
At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons.
Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The Phantom Life
Ponder this for a moment. Ceasing to be. Can you do it?
In this case, there isn't any question about whether to be or not. Because one day, you won't...and that is one of the major moments we all wrestle with from time to time. This is where fear for believers takes hold and never offers relief from the relentless worry of what will happen after they die. So death is a major reason so many people we know, who were never given to spiritual concerns before, all of sudden start going to church and talking about what they expect to find on the other side.
The thought of not being is very daunting and certainly not pleasant, because humans are not easily able to think of what "not" is. We know that the people in the family photographs lived before we were a twinkle in someone's eye. We know that many beings and creatures came before us and that eons of time passed before now. And yet when you consider we were "not" then, dealing with "not" at some time in the future is a tad more difficult.
I had the chance to consider what that curious moment of unconsciousness must be like because of surgery this past summer. I use the phrase "must be like" because you don't really appreciate consciousness until you are pulling out of the fog from a chemically induced coma-like stupor; there is this single moment when your brain is aware that you were not dreaming and not thinking just then. (Yes, the brain is aware that nothing is going on. Which is kind of cool.)
It is quiet, painless and still and I like to think that moment is what death is probably like, only soon after that very moment, we no longer realize that we were ever even alive. Which is a tremendous thought all on its own. Nor do we have any means to worry about what just happened, so we're spared regrets and faulty reasoning. People who die in fiery crashes and from painful wounds should know some immediate relief and this is what I think it is. Likewise, dying peacefully in your sleep at a ripe old age should also be as relaxing and calm. Maybe more so!
For the other perspective, however I believe that what religious folks must handle is far worse. Because they do fret over the next life. Who will be there? Will they be forced to be with peoople they didn't really like? Or maybe even hated? Which cannot be a fun worry to have! And what of the people who are sure they will end up in a hell, as they understand it? How awful to carry that fear with you your entire life only to die and realize something far worse. That's why I call this blog "The Phantom Life" because believers must be burdened with existence that is possibly not pleasant or even tolerable by our standards. Not to mention the longing and the sadness brought on by the memories of the previous life
It's this optional phantom existence that must torment most religious people because it is more than unknown, it is eternal speculation. And it is a waste of time. The most we can hope for is to do and feel as much as we can in the time we'll be here. Because if I'm correct, we won't be lingering. We simply won't be...whcih is very much a strangling thought in its own right. But it might make us more passionate about the life we have now since it is all we'll ever know.
And unfortunately, this gives new meaning to the old cliche "Life is hard and then you die." Because it is, you know. It's up to you to give your life meaning and let death take care of itself.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Don't know much about First Corinthians?
Or maybe you do?
A letter to the editor from a local NOSHA member, Timothy Ruppert, deserves our applause. It's imporant when someone takes up our cause and lets the public know more about non-believers and that we are paying attention. Even better when it's in New Orleans.
Why atheists have the answers (Published: Sunday, October 10, 2010)
(Re: "Most Americans flunk basic religion," Page 1, Oct. 3.)
The Times-Picayune's coverage of the Pew Research Center report glossed over the major finding.
If you have a question about religion, the best person in America to ask is an atheist or agnostic.
Bruce Nolan's coverage leaves one with the impression that non-believers were merely among the highest-scoring in the test of general religious traditions and beliefs. In fact, atheists and agnostics came out on top, scoring above everyone else including Catholics, Protestants, Mormons and Jews.
On questions specifically about the Bible and Christianity, atheists and agnostics ranked third, behind only Mormons and white evangelical Christians. Non-believers knew more about Christianity and the bible than Christians of every other stripe and flavor.
I am not surprised.
Atheists and agnostics are often well-educated people. They are open to inquiry and learning beyond the religion of their childhoods.
My experience has been that religious believers typically wall themselves off from information and learning about other religions and any topics they deem threatening to their belief systems.
The Pew study confirms this. They found an inverse relationship between educational level and religious belief.
So the headline, "Most Americans flunk basic religion," might more appropriately have been, "Atheists have correct answers to religious questions."
The Times-Picayune's coverage of the Pew Research Center report glossed over the major finding.
If you have a question about religion, the best person in America to ask is an atheist or agnostic.
Bruce Nolan's coverage leaves one with the impression that non-believers were merely among the highest-scoring in the test of general religious traditions and beliefs. In fact, atheists and agnostics came out on top, scoring above everyone else including Catholics, Protestants, Mormons and Jews.
On questions specifically about the Bible and Christianity, atheists and agnostics ranked third, behind only Mormons and white evangelical Christians. Non-believers knew more about Christianity and the bible than Christians of every other stripe and flavor.
I am not surprised.
Atheists and agnostics are often well-educated people. They are open to inquiry and learning beyond the religion of their childhoods.
My experience has been that religious believers typically wall themselves off from information and learning about other religions and any topics they deem threatening to their belief systems.
The Pew study confirms this. They found an inverse relationship between educational level and religious belief.
So the headline, "Most Americans flunk basic religion," might more appropriately have been, "Atheists have correct answers to religious questions."
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Finally,,,,Some Sanity for Anne!
Recently vampire author and spiritually "determined" Anne Rice revealed that she is giving up on Christianity:
"For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian ... It's simply impossible for me to 'belong' to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else."
Thankfully, for those of us who have really liked her books (before her transformation), seductive characters and that she has paid a lovely homage to New Orleans, she decided that she refuses to be "anti-gay," "anti-feminist," "anti-science" and "anti-Democrat." Just like that. Cold turkey!
Which, in essence, does mean that you really can't be a Christian the way they way some people define it these days!
But there's more: the Los Angeles Times is declaring in an opinion piece by William Lobdell (the Times staff writer and author of Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America — and Found Unexpected Peace) that it might just be the beginning of the "slip sliding away" for the Christian movement in the United States.
I think many of us would agree this is a tad Chicken Little more than a reflection on religious reality. However, evangelical pollster George Barna says "...they can find little measurable difference between the moral behavior of churchgoers and the rest of American society. Barna has found that born-again Christians are more likely to divorce (an act strongly condemned by Jesus) than atheists and agnostics, and are more likely to be racist than other Americans."
Huh? You mean Christians act like the human animals they really are? That they have physical desires, emotional weaknesses and intellectual proclivities that they must reconcile with a civilized society? But that is what makes it a crises for the religious among us. In the 21st century, they must acknowledge that they are not divine or special, except that they have the brain capacity to weigh the consequences of their behavior. Until they accept that fact, they will continue to wallow in the simplicity they call their doctrine and faith.
That Rice is shedding these spiritually dishonest shackles is refreshing and perhaps a testament to her growth as a person. Afterall, she's on a soul searching mission, you know. But welcome back, Anne. It's nice to have you back among the (somewhat) rational, where you belong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)