Humour, Rantings

10 things that make me stabby

  • folding clothes in neat piles
  • hip-hop played louder than listening speed
  • people with bombs strapped to their chest and a smile on their face
  • small children in waiting rooms who need to be exorcised
  • a blocked toilet without a plunger
  • people who ask me for a light before they look for a cigarette in my hand
  • hobo joe and his dreamcoat crammed next to me on the bus
  • a bad can opener who laughs at me and my last can of beans
  • after a poetic dump, a brown roll looks back at me and waves

 

PhilosopherPoet

Advertisements
Standard
Articles, Philosophy

Living with the Grit on Your Hands

I’ve gone through life long enough now to come to the conclusion I’m an Atheist. Many people hate the ring that word has too it, and instead choose terms like Agnostic or Free Thinker. The reason being is many people misinterpret Atheism. People think you might somehow be sacrificing your intellect when choosing to say you don’t know.

I like to think being an Atheist means you live in the land of not knowing, rather than being at “war with the gods”.

I’ll delve into a few of the myths, or false impressions people have about Atheists. (The following myths I took from this website: http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/08/15/16-common-myths-about-atheists/). Although the responses are my own…think of me conducting my own interview. 😉

 

“Atheists hate Christians and Christianity.”

Atheists don’t buy into the idea of believing in one single God. I tolerate many different beliefs of other people, this doesn’t mean that because I despise the people I despise the religion they hold dear. In fact if you ever met me, religion is most likely the last topic of conversation I’d go into. I don’t feel the need to tell the world what my views on life are. My opinions on God scare those who haven’t looked inside themselves, so I prefer to question and get to know the person rather than the religion.

 

“Most atheists started out as Christians, and stopped believing because of some bad experience with other Christians.”

Atheism for me isn’t born out of an accident. You may aswell say that Christians bumped into the Bible. After long discussions, questioning, thinking and reading up of ideas I felt I gained more meaning from other places than some parts of the Bible. Yes I used to be a Christian, and everyone has bad experiences, however, I got to my area of non-belief through my own choices and experiences.

 

“Atheists’ lives are cold and empty, as they can’t feel the joy and love that comes only from God.”

God isn’t a factory for happiness. There is beauty and joy in so many other things. If people do believe in a God, my hope is they do it not for the sake of pleasant feelings, but rather because they feel secure, rooted, and challenged.

 

“Atheists live their lives in constant fear of death.”

We are all born to die. From the moment we come squealing out of the womb, we are more vulnerable to getting wiped out by some disease. I’m a very mellow and easy going person. I suffer from depression and anxiety, however, I’ve had the balls to manage it. I hold down a decent job, and I’m too busting with great ideas for paranoia to be my prerogative. In fact, coming to terms with their being no god, means you’re prepared to live with the grit under you own hands. It’s an amazing empowering and authentic thing to know you are the muscles in your own cerebral wings.

 

“Atheists are depressive and nihilistic, since they believe there’s nothing after death, and therefore there’s no point to anything.”

You may think I’ve already shot myself in the foot, since I’ve already mentioned that I’m dealing with depression. Well no I’m just being honest and upfront. If there was no point to anything I wouldn’t feel the need for this interview, or to explain myself like this.

Orthodox Religion is a form of nihility against the Self. The reason being…you spend so much energy in prayer, song and ritual that you forget to look inside yourself, and pay attention to your ideas. Too much focus in one direction means, you’re losing sight of something equally important.

 

“Atheists want to forbid religious worship.”

When last did you see a group of Atheists shouting anti-Religious slogans and waving weapons in the air? People misunderstand Atheists and believe we are at war with everything. Many are under the assumption that the basis to an atheist’s argument begins and ends with “I Hate God”.

In fact, if I were asked “Why do you believe there is no God?” I would go on to question the person of their exact definition of ‘belief’ and ‘god’. The fact that I care enough to question the ideas, and get to know the person, means I have no issue with how people express themselves. The only time I get agitated with religion, is if it forcefully tries to tell me I’m wrong and I should rather just ‘believe’ and join them.

 

“Atheists are incapable of feeling awe at simple things, like a beautiful sunset, as they see everything in terms of cold science, instead of miracles.”

Yes many Atheists are scholars, scientists, and higher minded people, however, this means that they are thinkers who like to get to the truth. I surely hope religion isn’t merely there for the sake of miracles. Religion (if you feel it’s the one for you) should be chosen, because you have found meaning, not simply seeing some sleight of hand and buying into it.

Atheists can be skeptics, and we do enjoy a good debate, but this doesn’t consume our personality to the point of making us stiff, cold and austere beings. I question when I feel the time is right, otherwise, I take everything else in stride.

 

“Atheists make bad parents.”

Bad choices turn parents against their children. Parenting is tough for anyone, however most Atheists I know take a down to earth interest in people. As I said earlier choosing not to stick to a particular religion and be part of ‘the club’, is liberating and those people are often most caring and textured, than the stiffly ironed people bustling off to church on a Sunday.

 

The Grit

My father told me a story about an experience he had in Church.

He was in his early twenties. Young, eager, and full of cleanly honed Bible verses. During the church service one of the elders announced they were looking for Youth Leaders in the Church, and those that see themselves fit should head to the front of the Church so that they can be prayed for, and then they would be interviewed at a later stage.
My father went up there, determined to make the world a better place. The prayer happened shortly after, and then the service continued as usual. Once the congregation had sung the last few words of the final song, everyone bows their heads in prayer, and then got up and said their goodbyes to those around them.

As my father was leaving and old man approached him. He was bald, with thin wisps of hair clinging around his freckled head.

The old man to him, “Let me see your hands boy.”
He thrust his two hands towards the chest of the old man.
“Hmmm,” he said as he turned my fathers hands over and inspected them.
“What’s wrong?” my father replied.
“They’re not dirty.”
“Dirty?”

My father anxiously looked into the creases and lines of his hand, searching for the dirt the old man may have missed.

“Look at my hands.”
The old man raised up his gnarly, wrinkled hands to show him.
“These are dirty hands that have seen life. Yours have not. Before you become a leader go out into the world, and get some real dirt on your hands boy.”

 

 

PhilosopherPoet

Standard
poetry

plodding

he told the boy that
there is a ghost
inside him

it’s not a movienhanced
entity that stalks the
broad bed covers but rather
a mist of the mind

you see when a boy sails
the severe starboard side
of family calamity you leave
the gentle fragments of insight
very little to go on

that ghost wears a robe
it catches the rising
light
it flickers for a second
then he sings the old rhyme
frankly the only one
this shaken psyche knows

the father told the boy
there is a ghost inside
that fertile laugh

but ghosts are only
the bones we choose
to play with at night

the boys ghost developed
gradually over the pebbles
of playgroundimples
and the screaming
puppets
parents
paint
and tell
you to believe the Book
without doubt

you have to talk it down
the father said
he gets a gravetching
in those tender eyes
solid as stones

the boy hopes to gather
some heavy fragments
tomorrow and place it
into the abundant sun
where
he’ll make a mirror

small enough to carry
big enough to watch
foreign eyes smile
through saffron tears

and maybe learn
to shave the grazes
off the ghost down
to the bones that
figments are built on

Standard
Articles, Reviews

The universe is queerer than we can suppose: Richard Dawkins on TED.com

The universe is queerer than we can suppose: Richard Dawkins on TED.com.

That splendid music, the coming in music- the elephant march from Aida- is the music I’ve chosen for my funeral. And- you can see why. It’s triumphal. I am- I will, I won’t feel anything. but If I could, I would feel triumphal at having lived at all, and at having lived on this splendid planet, and having been given the opportunity to understand something about why I was here in the first place, before not being here.

Can you understand my quaint English accent?

Like everybody else, I was entranced yesterday by the animal session. Robert Full and Frans Lanting, and others- the beauty of the things that they showed. The only slight jarring note was when Jeffrey Katzenberg said of the mustang “the most splendid creatures that God put on this earth.” Now of course we know he didn’t really mean that- but in this country at the moment you can’t be too careful.

I’m a biologist, and the central theorem of our subject- the theory of design- Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection- in professional circles everywhere, it’s of course, universally accepted. In non-professional circles outside America, it’s largely ignored. But in non-professional circles within America,

(slide, from anti-evolution website: “Handy Dandy evolution Refuter”)

it arouses so much hostility that it’s fair to say that American biologists are in a state of war.

The war is so worrying at present, with court cases coming up in one state after another, that I felt I had to say something about it. If you want to know what I have to say about Darwinism itself, I’m afraid you’re going to have to look at my books, which you won’t find in the bookstore outside. (laughter)

Contemporary court cases often concern an allegedly new version of creationism, called intelligent design, or ID. Don’t be fooled. There’s nothing new about ID. It’s just creationism under another name. Re-christened- I choose the word advisedly (laughter)- for tactical political reasons. The arguments of so-called ID theorists are the same old arguments that have been refuted again and again since Darwin down to the present day.

There is an effective evolution lobby coordinating the fight on behalf of science, and I try to do what I can to help them, but they get quite upset when people like me dare to mention that we happen to be atheists, as well as evolutionists. They see us as rocking the boat. You can understand why.

Creationists, lacking any coherent scientific argument for their case, fall back on the popular phobia against atheism. Teach your children evolution in biology class, and they’ll soon move on to drugs, grand larceny, and sexual ‘preversion’ (sic).

(slide: website for National Center for Science Education)

(slide: book cover, Kenneth R. Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God, caption: “Educated Christians are Evolutionists too”)

In fact, of course, educated theologians from the Pope down are firm in their support of evolution. This book, Finding Darwin’s God, by Kenneth Miller, is one of the most effective attacks on intelligent design that I know, and it’s all the more effective because it’s written by a devout Christian. People like Kenneth Miller could be called a ‘godsend’ to the evolution lobby (laughter)- because they expose the lie that evolutionism is, as a matter of fact, tantamount to atheism. People like me, on the other hand, rock the boat.

But here I want to say something nice about creationists. It’s not a thing I often do, so listen carefully. (laughter) I think they’re right about one thing- I think they’re right that evolution is fundamentally hostile to religion. I’ve already said that many individual evolutionists, like the Pope, are also religious, but I think they’re deluding themselves. I believe a true understanding of Darwinism is deeply corrosive to religious faith.

Now it may sound as though I’m about to preach atheism, and I want to reassure you that that’s not what I’m going to do. In an audience as sophisticated as that- as this one- that would be preaching to the choir. No, what I want to urge upon you- (laughter)- Instead, what I want to urge upon you, is militant atheism. (loud laughter & applause)

But that’s putting it too negatively. If I wanted to- If I was a person who was interested in preserving religious faith, I would be very afraid of the positive power of evolutionary science, and indeed science generally, but evolution in particular, to inspire and enthrall precisely because it is atheistic.

Now, the difficult problem for any theory of biological design is to explain the massive statistical improbability of living things. Statistical improbability in the direction of good design. Complexity is another word for this. The standard creationist argument- there is only one, they all reduce to this one- takes off from statistical improbability. Living creatures are too complex to have come about by chance, therefore they must have had a designer.

This argument, of course, shoots itself in the foot- any designer capable of designing something really complex has to be even more complex Himself. And that’s before we even start on the other things He’s expected to do, like forgive sins, bless marriages, listen to prayers, favor our side in a war, disapprove of our sex lives, and so on. Complexity is the problem that any theory of biology has to solve. And you can’t solve it by postulating an agent that is even more complex thereby simply compounding the problem.

Darwinian natural selection is so stunningly elegant because it solves the problem of explaining complexity in terms of nothing but simplicity. Essentially it does it by providing a smooth ramp of gradual step by step increment. But here I only want to make the point that the elegance of Darwinism is corrosive to religion precisely because it is so elegant. So parsimonious. So powerful. So economically powerful. It has the sinewy economy of a beautiful suspension bridge. The “God theory” is not just a bad theory, it turns out to be in principle incapable of doing the job required of it.

So returning to tactics and the evolution lobby, I want to argue that “rocking the boat” may be just the right thing to do. My approach to attacking creationism is- unlike the evolution lobby- my approach to attacking creationism is to attack religion as a whole. And at this point I need to acknowledge the remarkable taboo against speaking ill of religion. And I’m going to do so, in the words of the late Douglas Adams, a dear friend who, if he never came to TED, certainly should have been invited.
(voice offstage: “He was.”)
He was- good. I thought he must have been.

He begins this speech, which was tape recorded in Cambridge shortly before he died- he begins by explaining how science works, through the testing of hypotheses that are framed to be vulnerable to disproof. And then he goes on. I quote-

“Religion doesn’t seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy. What it means is- here is an idea or emotion that you are not allowed to say anything bad about. You’re just not. Why not? Because you’re not.” (laughter) Why should it be that it’s perfectly legitimate to support the Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the universe began, about who created the universe- no, that’s holy. So we’re used to not challenging religious ideas. And it’s very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it.” He meant me, not that one. “Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it. Because you’re not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally, there is no reason why those ideas shouldn’t be as open to debate as any other. Except that we’ve agreed somehow between us that they shouldn’t be.”

That’s the end of the quote from Douglas.

In my view, not only is science corrosive to religion, religion is corrosive to science. It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural, non-explanations, and blinds them to the wonderful real explanations that we have within our grasp. It teaches them to accept authority, revelation, and faith, instead of always insisting on evidence.

(photo of Douglas Adams)

There’s Douglas Adams, magnificent picture from his book Last Chance to See.

(photo, cover shot of The Quarterly Review of Biology)

Now there’s a typical scientific journal, The Quarterly Review of Biology, and I’m going to put together as guest editor a special issue on the question “Did an Asteroid Kill the Dinosaurs?” And the first paper is a standard scientific paper presenting evidence (reading list of paper descriptions from a fake “Contents” page): “Iridium layer at K/T boundary and potassium argon dated crater in Yucatan indicate that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs.” Perfectly ordinary scientific paper. Now the next one: “The president of the royal society has been vouchsafed a strong inner conviction that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs.” (laughter) “It has been privately revealed to professor Huckstain (sp?) that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs.” (laughter) “Professor Haldley was brought up to have total and unquestioning faith that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs.” (laughter) “Professor Hawkins has promulgated an official dogma, binding on all loyal Hawkinsians, that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs.” (laughter)

That’s inconceivable, of course. But suppose-

(photo of George Bush Sr., w/ caption “Supporters of the Asteroid Theory cannot be patriotic citizens”)

(laughter & applause)

In 1987, a reporter asked George Bush, Sr. whether he recognized the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who were atheists. Mr. Bush’s reply has become infamous- “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered citizens. Nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation, under God.”

Bush’s bigotry was not an isolated mistake, blurted out in the heat of the moment, and later retracted. He stood by it in the face of repeated calls for clarification or withdrawal. He really meant it. More to the point, he knew it posed no threat to his election. Quite the contrary. Democrats, as well as Republicans, parade their religiousness if they want to get elected. Both parties invoke “One Nation, Under God.” What would Thomas Jefferson have said?

(photo of engraving of Jefferson, caption: “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty”-Thomas Jefferson)

Incidentally, I’m not usually very proud of being British-

(photo: backs of English pound and US dollar, Darwin’s picture highlighted on the pound, “In God We Trust” highlighted on the dollar)

-but you can’t help making the comparison.

(laughter and applause)

In practice, what is an atheist? An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor, or Baal, or the golden calf. As has been said before, we are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one God further.

(laughter and applause, cheers)

And however we define atheism, it’s surely the kind of academic belief that a person is entitled to hold without being vilified as an unpatriotic, unelectable non-citizen. Nevertheless, it’s an undeniable fact that to own up to being an atheist is tantamount to introducing yourself as “Mr. Hitler” or “Miss Beelzebub.” And that all stems from the perception of atheists as some kind of weird, way-out minority. Natalie Angier wrote a rather sad piece in the New Yorker, saying how lonely she felt as an atheist. She clearly feels in a beleaguered minority.

But actually, how do American atheists stack up numerically? The latest survey makes surprisingly encouraging reading. Christianity, of course, takes a massive lion’s share of the population, with nearly 160 million. But what would you think was the second largest group? Convincingly outnumbering Jews, with 2.8 million, Muslims with 1.1 million, Hindus, Buddhists and all other religions put together? The second largest group, with nearly 30 million, is the one described as ‘non-religious’ or ‘secular’.

(pie chart showing statistical breakdown of religions circa 2001)

You can’t help wondering why vote-seeking politicians are so proverbially over-awed by the power of, for example, the Jewish lobby- the state of Israel seems to owe its very existence to the American Jewish vote- while at the same time, consigning the ‘non-religious’ to political oblivion. This secular non-religious vote, if properly mobilized, is 9 times as numerous as the Jewish vote. Why does this far more substantial minority not make a move to exercise its political muscle?

Well, so much for quantity. How about quality? Is there any correlation, positive or negative, between intelligence and tendency to be religious?

(series of photos of George W. Bush, one with balloon saying “Them folks misunderestimated me”, caption “Is religion correlated with IQ?”)

(laughter)

The survey that I quoted, which is the Eris (sp?) survey, didn’t break down its data by socioeconomic class, or education, or IQ, or anything else. But a recent article by Paul G. Bell in the MENSA magazine provides some straws in the wind. MENSA as you know is an international organization for people with very high IQ. And from a meta-analysis of the literature, Bell concludes that, I quote,

(chart: “Is Religion Correlated with Educational Ability?”)

“of 43 studies carried out since 1927, on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection.”

That is, the higher one’s intelligence or educational level, the less one is likely to be religious. Well, I haven’t seen the original 42 (sic) studies and I can’t comment on that meta-analysis, but I would like to see more studies done along those lines. And I know that there are- if I can put a little plug here- there are people in this audience easily capable of financing a massive research survey to settle the question. And I put the suggestion out for what it’s worth.

But let me now show you some data that have been properly published and analyzed on one special group, namely top scientists. In 1998, Larson and Witham polled the cream of American scientists, those who’d been honored by election to the National Academy of the Sciences, and among this select group, belief in a personal god –

(chart: NAS religious breakdown, caption: EJ Larson & L Witham (1998) Leading scientists still reject God, Nature 394, 313)

-dropped to a shattering 7 percent. About 20% are agnostic, and the rest could fairly be called atheists. Similar figures obtain for belief in personal immortality. Among biological scientists the figure’s even lower, 5.5% only believe in God. Physical scientists it’s 7.5%. I’ve not seen corresponding figures for elite scholars in other fields, such as history or philosophy, but I’d be surprised if they were different.

So we’ve reached a truly remarkable situation. A grotesque mismatch between the American intelligentsia, and the American electorate. A philosophical opinion about the nature of the universe, which is held by the vast majority of top American scientists, and probably the majority of the intelligentsia generally, is so abhorrent to the American electorate that no candidate for popular election dare affirm it in public. If I’m right, this means that high office in the greatest country in the world is barred to the very people best qualified to hold it. The intelligentsia. Unless they are prepared to lie about their beliefs. To put it bluntly, American political opportunities are heavily loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest. (applause)

I’m not a citizen of this country, so I hope it won’t be thought unbecoming, if i suggest that something needs to be done. (laughter) I’ve already hinted what that something is. From what I’ve seen at TED, this may be the ideal place to launch it. Again, I fear it will cost money.

We need a consciousness raising coming out campaign for American atheists. This could be similar to the campaign organized by homosexuals a few years ago, although heaven forbid that we should stoop to public outing of people against their will. In most cases, people who out themselves will help to destroy the myth that there is something wrong with atheists. On the contrary, they’ll demonstrate that atheists are often the kinds of people who could serve as decent role models for your children. The kinds of people an advertising agent could use to recommend a product. The kinds of people who are sitting in this room.

There should be a snowball effect, a positive feedback such that the more names that we have, the more we get. there could be non-linearities, threshold effects, when a critical mass is obtained, there’s an abrupt acceleration in recruitment. And again, it’ll need money.

I suspect that the word atheist itself contains- or remains- a stumbling block, far out of proportion to what it actually means. And a stumbling block to people who otherwise might be willing to out themselves. So what other words might be used to smooth the path? Oil the wheels? Sugar the pill?

Darwin himself preferred ‘agnostic’, and not only out of loyalty to his friend Huxley, who coined the term.

(slide: caricature of T.H. Huxley (1825-1895), agnostic, caption “I took thought…”)

Darwin said, “I have never been an atheist, in the same sense of denying the existence of a god. I think that generally an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.” He even became uncharacteristically touchy with Edward Aveling. Aveling was a militant atheist who failed to persuade Darwin to accept the dedication of his book on atheism.

(photo: Edward Aveling, 1851-1898, caption: “Agnosticism writ aggressive”)

-Incidentally giving rise to a fascinating myth that Karl Marx tried to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin, which he didn’t, it was actually Edward Aveling. What happened was Aveling’s mistress was Marx’s daughter, and when both Darwin and Marx were dead, Marx’s papers became muddled up with Aveling’s papers, and a letter from Darwin saying “My dear sir, thank you very much but I don’t want you to dedicate your book to me” was mistakenly supposed to be addressed to Marx. And that gave rise to this whole myth which you’ve probably heard- it’s sort of urban myth, that Marx tried to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin.

Anyway, it was Aveling, and when they met, Darwin challenged Aveling- “Why do you call yourselves atheists?” “‘Agnostic’,” retorted Aveling, “was simply ‘atheist’ writ respectable, and ‘atheist’ was simply ‘agnostic’ writ aggressive.” Darwin complained, “but why should you be so aggressive?” Darwin thought that atheism might be well and good for the intelligentsia, but ordinary people were not, quote, “ripe” for it. Which is, of course, our old friend the ‘don’t rock the boat’ argument. It’s not recorded whether Aveling told Darwin to come down off his high horse. But in any case, that was more than 100 years ago. You think we might have grown up since then.

Now, a friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew, who incidentally observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity,

(slide: drawing of teapot orbiting Mars, with ringed planet in background, caption: “You cannot disprove God. So atheism is exactly as irrational as theism.”)

-describes himself as a “tooth fairy agnostic.” He won’t call himself an atheist because it’s in principle impossible to prove a negative. But ‘agnostic’ on its own might suggest that God’s existence was therefore on equal terms of likelihood as His non-existence. So my friend is strictly agnostic about the tooth fairy, but it isn’t very likely, is it? Like God. Hence the phrase, “tooth fairy agnostic.”

Bertram Russell made the same point using a hypothetical teapot (cut back to drawing above) in orbit about Mars. You strictly have to be agnostic about whether there is a teapot in orbit about Mars, but that doesn’t mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as on all fours with its non-existence.

The list of things which we strictly have to be agnostic about doesn’t stop at tooth fairies and teapots, it’s infinite. If you want to believe one particular one of them, unicorns, or tooth fairies, or teapots, or Yahweh, the onus is on you to say why. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why not. We who are atheists are also “a-fairy-ists,” and “a-teapot-ists.” (laughter) But we don’t bother to say so. And this is why my friend uses “tooth fairy agnostic” as a label for what most people would call atheist.

Nonetheless, if we want to attract deep-down atheists to come out, publicly, we’re going to have to find something better to stick on our banner than “tooth fairy” or “teapot agnostic.” So how about humanist? This has the advantage of a worldwide network of well organized associations and journals and things already in place, my problem with it is only its apparent anthropocentrism. One of the things we’ve learned from Darwin is that the human species is only one among millions of cousins, some close, some distant. And there are other possibilities like “naturalist”, but that also has problems of confusion because Darwin would have thought “naturalist” – “naturalist” means of course as opposed to “supernaturalist” and it is used sometimes- Darwin would have been confused by the other sense of “naturalist”, which he was, of course, and- I suppose- there might be others that would confuse it with “nudism”. Such people might be those belonging to the British lynch mob which last year attacked a pediatrician in mistake for a pedophile. (laughter)

I think the best of the available alternatives for “atheist” is simply “non-theist.” It lacks the strong connotation that there’s definitely no god, and it could therefore easily be embraced by “teapot” or “tooth fairy agnostics.” It’s completely compatible with the God of the physicists, the- when people like- when atheists like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein use the word “god” they use it of course as a metaphorical shorthand for that deep mysterious part of physics which we don’t yet understand. Non-theist will do for all that, yet unlike “atheist” it doesn’t have the same phobic, hysterical responses.

But I think actually the alternative is to grasp the nettle, of the word “atheism” itself, precisely because it is a taboo word, carrying frissons of hysterical phobia. Critical mass may be harder to achieve with the word “atheist” than with the word “non-theist,” or some other non-confrontational word, but if we did achieve it, with that dread word “atheist” itself, the political impact would be even greater.

Now I said that if I were religious, I’d be very afraid of evolution, I’d go further- I would fear science in general if properly understood. And this is because the scientific world view is so much more exciting, more poetic, more filled with sheer wonder than anything in the poverty stricken arsenals of the religious imagination.

As Carl Sagan, another recently dead hero, put it:

(photo: Carl Sagan, 1934-1996, with quote below):

“How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.”

Now, this is an elite audience, and i would therefore expect about 10% of you to be religious. Many of you probably subscribe to our polite cultural belief that we should respect religion. But I also suspect that a fair number of those secretly despise religion as much as I do. If you’re one of them- and of course many of you may not be- but if you are one of them, I’m asking you to stop being polite- come out and say so. And if you happen to be rich, give some thought to ways in which you might make a difference. The religious lobby in this country is massively financed by foundations- say nothing of the tax benefits- by foundations such as the Templeton Foundation, and the Discovery Institute. We need an anti-Templeton to step forward. If my books sold as well as Stephen Hawking’s books, instead of only as well as Richard Dawkins’ books, I’d do it myself.

People are always going on about “How did September the 11th change you?” Well, here’s how it changed me: Let’s all stop being so damned respectful. Thank you very much.

Standard
Rantings

Why god never received tenure at any university

1. He only had one major publication.
2. It was in Hebrew.
3. It had no references.
4. It wasn’t published in a referred journal.
5. Some even doubt He wrote it Himself.
6. It may be true that He created the world, but what has He done since then?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating His results.
9. He never applied to the Ethics Board for permission to use human subjects.
10. When one experiment went awry, He tried to cover it up by drowning the subjects.
11. When subjects didn’t behave as predicted, He deleted them from the sample.
12. He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book.
13. Some say He had His son teach the class.
14. He expelled His first two students for learning.
15. Although there were only ten requirements, most students failed His tests.
16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountaintop.
😀
PhilosopherPoet
Standard
Reviews, Thoughts

George Carlin and the 10 Commandments

Here’s the full transcript…Why we don’t need ten commandments!

This (script) is from George Carlin’s HBO show, Complaints and Grievances (2002)

 PhilosopherPoet
😉

Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10? 

You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here’s what happened: 

About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.

Well let me ask you this- when they were making this shit up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I’ll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it’s a decade, it’s a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bullshit list. It’s a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that’s a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.

Let’s start with the first three: 

I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN

THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH

Right off the bat the first three are pure bullshit. Sabbath day? Lord’s name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we’re down to 7. Next:

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER

Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn’t be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent’s performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don’t, period. You’re down to six.

Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we’re going to jump around the list a little bit.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don’t really need two you combine them and call the commandment “thou shalt not be dishonest”. And suddenly you’re down to 5.

And as long as we’re combining I have two others that belong together:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR’S WIFE

Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don’t think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else’s wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he’s waxing his carrot? But, marital infidelity is a good idea so we’re gonna keep this one and call it “thou shalt not be unfaithful”. And suddenly we’re down to four.

But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing “thou shalt always be honest and faithful” and we’re down to 3.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR”S GOODS

This one is just plain fuckin’ stupid. Coveting your neighbor’s goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays “o come o ye faithful”, and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you’re down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven’t talked about yet:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Cashmire, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who’s doin the killin’ and who’s gettin’ killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:

Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.

&

Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.

Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his fuckin’ pocket. I wouldn’t mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:

Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

Standard
Rantings

Go Easy On the Pagans

I recently started new part time work at a restaurant. I can’t complain since I get a free supper, and get paid for helping people fill their stomachs. I also get to watch loads of MTV, since that’s all that the restaurants TV is left on. Whenever I want to change it to something interesting like the Discovery Channel, I’ll only get to see a few seals, and then it’ll be back to the usual adolescent girl jingling her fake wig, and flashy clothes.

Anyway last night was a quiet night. I get to work with a rather nerdy 29 year old guy, who makeas me feel seriously mature. Most of the time when I see a guy whose more a birhgt-eyed boy than man, the warning words (Watch Out He’s A Christian!) normally float through my head. But this time I didn’t want to be too hard on the blood and judgement thing. So continued to work with him, and sure as nuts, he couldn’t resist and told me about his ‘faith’.

It really doesn’t matter to me. When I told him it wasn’t my kinda thing, that made matters worse. If I lied and told him I was all holy and righteous, I could’ve got away with a lot less preaching…but I couldn’t put myself in that category. I’m talking to him telling him that my folks were pretty lame when I burst upon the world in all my screaming glory. They gave me a normal run-of-the-mill name that came out of the Bible. I was okay wth it back then since I didn’t know life out of the cot. A name is something you live with. Having a name becomes like an old shoe that you wear, and eventually you’re aware of its creases and the sound it makes.

This was how we moved onto the conversation of god, and believing. After he told me about how true and reliable everything was I said this to him. I first quoted Ghandi saying, “I’d be a Christian…if it weren’t for Christians.” He gave a nervous laugh at the statement. I continued and said to him, “What if you’re wrong? What if all this time and energy has gone to nothing?” Well, he didn’t have an answer to that…

All he said was that he’d rather have a back up plan. All I’m saying is c’mon Bible Bashers, give us pagan people a break. I know Happy Heathens are probably more scary because people outside of the ‘true faith’ should be lost and confused, but just keep to yourself. You would go give people advice on how to discipline their children, or how to behave in public, because that would be considered an insult. Well, since your perspective on life is even more personal consider it an insult if you try and convince people you know better. I see it as a form of harassment…so go easy on the Pagans!

PhilosopherPoet

Standard