god, i challenge you! (part 3)

^ The ancient Greek myth of Prometheus and the Christian biblical story of Adam and Eve are two of the most well known fables we all can "learn from" today. Prometheus dared defy the gods by introducing fire (i.e. QUESTIONING FOR KNOWLEDGE) to us mere mortals, and for that the gods punished him for eternity. The same thing with Adam and Eve, except the misogynistic author went one step further and blamed it all on a woman. Can you think of other myths created specifically to scare the shit out of us?

More stuff for which I strongly criticize religion today, and specifically religious dogma.

Sacrosanctity (questioning God as taboo or insulting) - The difference between religious beliefs and science is that science is far better suited to exist as a force for good in the world, and by good I mean in terms of the overall survival and progress of mankind. And this is because science by its very nature relies on intellectual flexibility, malleability, and constant tweaking and improvement. In fact science THRIVES on being re-arranged, re-assessed, and re-vamped with new discoveries and ideas.

Mind you, science does not necessarily ask the question of why we exist or what is the meaning of life; that could be addressed in the arena of philosophy and I can try to tackle that in a future post. Instead, what science is good at is explaining how things work in the universe, and with the help of those explanations we can ask further questions, prompting more scientific inquiry, and so on. THAT is the fundamental nature of science. And THAT is where many of us religious types and even non-religious types make our mistake in thinking of science as a replacement for God.

Science was never meant to be God. Instead science discovers truths that were previously thought to be the work of God because we didn't know anything yet other than whatever explanations we made up from lack of scientific knowledge. Science doesn't demand worship or respect like any god does. You don't pray to science, you don't offer it sacrificial lambs or burn incense for it. And you certainly don't hijack and fly planes into skyscrapers in the name of science, or blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors in the name of science.

^ One of the most egregious, most disgusting scams of the Catholic Church today: Mother Teresa. Christopher Hitchens unmasks the seemingly beneficent acts of this "saintly nun" and dares to crash through the wall of sacrosanctity to question her saintliness using reason, logic, and indisputable facts. Part 2 | Part 3 .

In contrast God was never, ever meant to be questioned. Why is that? I previously brought up the point that a faith based system can only survive as long as it is never questioned or challenged. The moment it is is when it begins to fall apart as a system and even as an idea. When that happens we must seek our answers elsewhere. We eventually turn to science and philosophy.

According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 79% of Christians in the U.S. completely believe in the second coming of Christ. The second coming entails the total destruction of the world, where only those deemed worthy by god will be saved and offered entry into paradise while the rest of us die in agonizing ways. Combine that with the blindly accepted notion that no one's beliefs should ever be questioned and the politically correct culture that insists on interfaith dialogue, and we have the groundwork for this perpetually misguided and deluded world of dangerous stupidity. There is no room at all for reason and intellectual honesty in such a world, and certainly little room for survival.

God is supposed to be exempt from being questioned because God is absolute. That requires faith from the believer. And faith is what we desperately fall back on when reason and logic cannot provide us an answer. But can faith have practical applications in the real world? Can faith predict an approaching tsunami that can easily destroy an island country and kill thousands of innocent lives? Can faith at least warn those people and prepare them for the storm beforehand?

One of the most compelling intellectuals today on matters of religion is Bart Ehrman. A former born-again Christian, Ehrman has a rich background in biblical studies:

I worked hard at learning the Bible—some of it by heart. I could quote entire books of the New Testament, verse by verse, from memory. When I graduated from Moody with a diploma in Bible and Theology (at the time Moody did not offer a B.A. degree), I went off to finish my college work at Wheaton, an evangelical Christian college in Illinois (also Billy Graham's alma mater). There I learned Greek so that I could read the New Testament in its original language. From there I decided that I wanted to commit my life to studying the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and chose to go to Princeton Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian school whose brilliant faculty included Bruce Metzger, the greatest textual scholar in the country. At Princeton I did both a master of divinity degree—training to be a minister—and, eventually, a PhD in New Testament studies.

Today Ehrman is an agnostic. In an interview with NPR's Terry Gross he explains his gradual but steady journey from being a fundamentalist Christian to becoming an enlightened non-believer devoted to a life's passionate work of dissecting the history of the bible, thus the history of the human conception of God. Ehrman would never have gotten to who he is today if he had never dared crossing the line of sacrosanctity - if he had never dared to question God.

Grab a sandwich and drink and carve out about an hour of your time and listen to what he has to say. This is some serious shit:

Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer | Fresh Air interview, NPR (direct audio stream)

This sickeningly pathetic state of sacrosanctity is especially apparent in real world situations, such as in the Philippines, where the Catholic Church has a very powerful presence and has been ruining the lives of the many Filipinos who still flock to regular masses, thereby perpetuating the ruination of an entire country. In this case science and reason - in the form of education, family planning, and contraceptives - is constantly being oppressed by the church, which insists that abstinence and prayer is the only answer. And yet plastic bags filled with dead fetuses continue to appear every morning on the altars of Manila churches, left there by anonymous poverty stricken women who can't afford to take on another child but hope that the soul of the dead child can at least be blessed, that it may have a chance to make it to Heaven: a country screwed by a catholic god | a space alien (includes videos of the BBC documentary).

^ The OLPC project, with proper funding and sourcing, is helping to combat the problem of lack of eduction for young children in some parts of the world. Science and technology and human ingenuity is the foundation this project depends on, not praying to a god.

The very idea of believing in god and insisting that he is the answer for everything in the universe demands that we stop asking questions. Period. In which case, how does that work to try and solve such profoundly real problems as children dying from starvation and disease or the lack of any substantial kind of education for the poor and underprivileged? Does praying actually make these things go away?

The very fact that we began to ask questions and actively sought out answers and then asked even more questions is the fundamental essence of science. Science would never have been able to be birthed if we never dared to ask questions in the first place. And it is science that is an ultimate tool in combating problems like world hunger and the need to educate the poor.

Science does not demand faith from us. But it does offer us hope; it offers us possibilities - things that religion or faith can never do for us in this very real world.

Related:
god, i challenge you! (part 1)

god, i challenge you! (part 2)

god, i challenge you! (part 2)

^ Often times seemingly noble intents under the aegis of religious beliefs have very damaging consequences - in this case the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies. Here religion is not the answer, education is.

More stuff for which I strongly criticize religion today, and specifically religious dogma...

Anti-education sentiment and lack of intellectual honesty - In some Midwestern and southern states here in the U.S. the Christian bible is taught in class as a requirement. Even prayer is required every morning before class commences.

Texas public schools now required to teach the Bible | Examiner.com

As of the 2009-2010 school year public schools in Texas are now required to offer a high school elective course on the literature of the Bible and history of that era. House Bill No. 1287 explains that the course “must be taught in an objective and non-devotional manner that does not attempt to indoctrinate students as to either the truth or falsity of the Judeo-Christian biblical materials”. It goes on to say that schools can add courses on other religious texts if they would like, but only the one on the Bible is required...

As far as I know, public schools in the elementary or high school level at large don't offer theology courses - that is, a course that introduces students to world religions and their various details in comparison. Only the study of Christianity or a subject falling within Christianity (creationism/intelligent design) is required. How many of you are willing to bet that other religions are not offered for "neutral" study because the powers that be refuse to have a hand in triggering these young minds to begin questioning the belief system they are being raised under? And do you think that's fair to the child? After all, if you were a parent, wouldn't you want to give your kid the most expansive kind of education so she can be better prepared to make intelligent choices in who she wants to be?

^ The study of religions other than your own may be seen as questioning your god. In fact, in a strict religion such as Islam denouncing your faith is punishable by death. Is studying other religions for intellectual purposes really enough to undermine your certainty in your belief and worship of your god, thus prompting him to damn you to hell? Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris has some things to say about this.

Wouldn't a young person who chooses to remain Christian after being enlightened by the study of other kinds religions in the world - including the knowledge of being secular or non-religious - be more worthy of god's grace than another young person who was never allowed to be exposed to other religions and thus never given a choice?

One major accusation that important thinkers like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens make is that most any faith based system (and we'll specify Christianity here as a strong example) thrive on intellectual dishonesty. A faith based system can only survive as long as it is never questioned or challenged. The moment it is is when it begins to fall apart as a system and even as an idea. And Christian authorities know this. This is why they so vehemently oppose teaching evolution classes and instead require classes in creationism. If they really did feel confident in their beliefs they'd allow the kids to discover Darwinian evolution and biology and other pertinent sciences, as well as other world religions.

god, i challenge you! (part 1)

^ Two ways religion can be viewed. Left - the jawdropping beauty of Chartres Cathedral, France. Right - the World Trade Center, and 3,000 human lives, destroyed by Muslim terrorists in New York City.

I don't hate religion outright. But I do question its role in the world today. I question it on the grounds of intellectual honesty and its pragmatic applications to functional life in our global society, in our diverse patchwork of culture, in how it operates on its concept of women and children, in its governance and institution of laws. The most powerful religions today, Christianity and Islam, exert a force as impressive now as it was back in the Bronze Age. And that's very frightening.

There have been and still are many good things for which I can credit religion, though that is still conditional, and I can get into detail in another post. Instead I have my serious criticisms for the role that religion - specifically religious dogma - plays in this 21st century world. I can address several of the problems topically.

Literalism breeds extremism - Members of Al Queda flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon precisely for their religious beliefs, particularly the idea of jihad. One aspect of it is that they thought that by destroying the lives of as many "infidels" as possible, they would be guaranteed a place in heaven, given 72 virgins and an infinite banquet of milk and honey and whatever else was promised them. In other words, they took the words of jihad literally, especially the third "struggle" of waging holy war (the other two struggles are the preservation of inner faith, and their duty as Muslims to uphold their society).

> Women walking through contemporary Afghanistan. Considering the reward of a heaven full of 72 virgins promised to those men who commit acts of jihad, what does it say about the role of women, the importance of women, in the Muslim world today?

To those suicide hijackers and the suicide bombers, this world means nothing. What matters is the heavenly afterlife, which their belief is supposed to promise. When such a rich and bountiful afterlife is imagined and felt to be so tenable, why not disrespect and trash this world? After all it's worthless in comparison.

Is the goal of jihad achievable in any way other than violence and death in this world? Instead of killing 3,000 people (many of which were Muslims anyway), why not a non-violent protest against "infidels" using signs and slogans, or writing essays and editorials and publishing them in major newspapers?

Besides, the original purpose of jihad was not necessarily to destroy non-believers and heretics, but as a way of expanding the state of Islam, which back at the time when the Qur'an was still warm from the oven, often necessitated the slaughter of opposing tribes and armies. Today we in this world no longer have to fight for resources and land, and major advancements in science and medicine have greatly lowered the rates of diseases and deaths in childbirth so keeping a woman perpetually pregnant to guarantee offspring isn't so necessary anymore like it was during the Bronze Age. So wouldn't it be useless to kill competing people in order to preserve one's clan, and instead opt to wage war through non-violent means, even if it's definitely nowhere near dramatic as flying planes into skyscrapers to get your point across?

Wouldn't you as a Muslim still earn your god's grace if you simply criticize non-believers with an eloquently written op-ed piece instead of an exploding vest under your clothes?

Related:
god, i challenge you! (part 2)
god, i challenge you! (part 3)

a country screwed by a catholic god

I remember when my mom and I boarded the TWA jet at the airport in Manila back in the 70s, when I was on the threshold of leaving the Philippines forever as a citizen. I was just 7 years old. After Dad had saved up enough money to send for us (and eventually send for all my siblings), Nanay and I would be the first ones in the family to finally see America. We were going to Chicago, where Dad was. He was our ticket out of that part of the world where the story in the BBC documentary above is told.

I was a kid then. Before he set out and left for America my dad was a mechanical engineer working for the city of Manila and thus earned enough money to afford a townhouse on Taal Street. He was the first one and the only one in his family to go to university and get a degree. Our house had a concrete front yard. We even had a pet monkey but he never let anyone touch him, only Nanay. I had a pet rooster. We had a dog too, but I barely remember it. We used to "summer" at my grandparents' in the jungles of Sibuyan, which was a long trip by boat from city.

I remember my middle older sister B taking me to the markets in metro Manila to go shopping with her. Where we lived there were regular floods during the rainy season, and often times the garbage from the nearby dump would float by. There was nothing we could about it but stand on the furniture and wait til the water went down.

But thanks to Dad and his university degree we were better off than many, many other families in all of the Philippines. Those unfortunates were poverty stricken their entire lives. Even then they always relied on God for comfort, at least some tiny amount of buffer between what little scraps of happiness they could find and the decrepit infestation of a corrupt government, severely scant social programs, and lack of substantial education because of the perpetually poor economy.

That was back in the 70s.

> A typical squatter's neighbourhood in Manila today.

We went back in 2001 to celebrate our parents' 50th wedding anniversary. The party was at the luxurious Shangrila Hotel in Makati City. As we drove through Manila on our outings I stared out the window of the car, at many of the people, at the little kids wearing dirty clothes and sometimes running the streets barefoot. I knew there were so many mothers with five, six, nine, ten or more kids because they were never taught family planning and were never given free condoms or other kinds of contraceptives.

So all these poverty stricken Filipinos continue to breed like rabbits. And yet they also continue to go to church and pray. And the priests in their robes and their authority continue to tell them that using contraceptives is going against God. And I have to wonder, if God is supposed to be good and kind and loving, why hasn't He done anything to help these people? They've done nothing wrong. In fact, they pray to Him regularly. The mothers struggle every single day to try to feed her kids, even going hungry herself so that they can have more to eat.

A lot can happen between the 70s, when I left that world for good, and 2001 when I returned for a visit. And a lot did happen, to me, for me, around me. Good things happened for my family, in large part because we were in a place where it was possible.

It's now 2010. It's been decades since I left the Philippines. Once in a while I catch news of goings on there - an election, extremist activity from Muslim terrorists, a recent massacre by a desperate man who lost his job and picked up a gun. But other than those nothing has really changed in that country that I used to know as home.

From 1972 to 2010. Nothing has changed in the Philippines. Nothing. Even if I wanted to go back there to live, what would I go back to that praying to a Catholic God could offer?

Related:
audio blog: city of garbage | a space alien

what if islam, christianity, & other faiths had to compete in the marketplace?

^ Excerpt from Ali's talk at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.

Though I've read - and very highly recommend - Infidel, I have yet to read Nomad, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's latest offering of enlightenment on the experience and truth of being born in a society where the practice of total, unquestioned submission to a draconian god whose demands, often steeped in violence, is not only expected but uncompromisingly enforced.

Her writing touches on her own personal experiences, including being subjected to female genital mutilation when she was a young girl. In her recent article for The Daily Beast titled "Why Are American Doctors Mutilating Girls?", she attacks The American Academy of Pediatrics for proposing a "humane" version of female circumcision, called "nicking" (pin pricking the clitoris as a symbolic ceremony in lieu of actual circumcision), thereby helping to perpetuate this cruel practice in the name of cultural relativism. Soon after she and others publicly criticized them the AAP withdrew the proposal.

One of the ideas that Ayaan brought up during her talk at the Commonwealth Club proposes that the world's religions, particularly Christianity and Islam, compete in a marketplace. The idea came to her from an dinner conversation she had with a Catholic priest acquaintance while in Rome.

Watching this hour long talk, I thought this was definitely the funniest of them all so far. With a sense of humour Ayaan exhibits an intellectual brilliance amalgamated - and fiercely fortified - by her own personal experiences of agony and triumph. She understands what many of us in the world go through because she herself has gone through it, and survived.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is someone we should all strive to be like, and certainly what I personally try to be like. She is an anomaly in the world of cold detached intellectualism, ivory tower politicizing, and insensitive Philistine opining. Many of those highly intelligent people in such a world too often exist and proselytize in insularity. Ayaan does not.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali experiences, therefore she thinks.

^ Got an hour and ten minutes and a sandwich? Then this is very much
worth your time - the full length talk at the Commonwealth Club.

Related topics:
politically illiterate, i