May his days be few; may another seize his position. (NRSV)

Of course God works in mysterious ways and often needs his followers to do his dirty work. So if this movement gets enough momentum, it’s only a matter of time before some lunatic tries to act on this “biblical advice.”

The ironic thing, of course, is that these Christians seem forget one of Jesus’ main teachings: “Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you.” (Luke 6:24)

(via)

You folks may remember a previous post on Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, North Carolina and the book burning they were planning to have. The Church, run by Pastor Marc Grizzard, was planning to burn the usual targets: heavy metal music and smutty movies. But they also planned to torch all translations of the bible other than the KJV:

“We are burning Satan’s bibles like the NIV, RSV, NKJV, TLB, NASB, ESV, NEV, NRSV, ASV, NWT [...] These are perversions of God’s Word the King James Bible.”

And then there would be fried chicken with all the sides.

Well, the best laid schemes of mice and morons often go awry. The blog “Right Wing Watch,” declares it the Worst. Book Burning. Ever:

“But when the big day came around, a combination of rain, protesters, and a state law against burning paper all conspired against them. Here’s what happened:”

Bless their hearts.

They tries to make the best of it. According to their website:

Our goal was to destroy garbage as noted below, and we did just that. We didn’t care how it was destroyed; only that it was destroyed. These same people must have never heard about “Paper, Rock, & Scissors.” Scissors cut paper, and paper tears real easy. We destroyed everything as planned. Praise God!

No word on the fried chicken.

Who gets your vote?

I have no rap sensibilities, so I have no idea if this would be considered good or bad in style, but the lyrics seem pretentious. I mean seriously:

Where He laid down the law for God-ruled government. Commonly referred to as the Mosaic covenant. Sin was imputed. So for man to know he’s unrighteous, God instituted animal sacrifices. This was to show our constant need for atonement.

Would anyone appreciate that except a room full of theology-obsessed evangelicals?

(via)

Tomorrow we’re back to regularly scheduled UF blogging!

This is my last post in the week of guest-blogging for Dan.  As you could probably tell, I’ve had a fantastic time doing it and I hope you enjoyed this past week on UnreasonableFaith as much as I have.  As noted earlier, I usually write over at FriendlyAtheist, but you made me feel welcome and right at home.

The internet is doing so much to help us foster a sense of nontheistic community.  Please feel free to add me as a friend on facebook!  I just recently started a twitter account, so you can follow me while I figure it all out.

I came up with a parting gift for this visit to UF. Since Dan brought up my breakdancing in his introduction of me, I spent some time in the gym to get this shot:

Jesse Galef reading The Portable Atheist while breakdancing

I feel like a portable atheist myself, as this is now the third atheist blog I’ve written for.

Have a wonderful evening, and I hope to see you again either at FriendlyAtheist, here at UnreasonableFaith, or at another place in the world/internet!

All the best,
Jesse

When I was a kid, I was something of a smart-alec.  To be honest, I still am.  I can definitely relate to the wise-ass kid in today’s SMBC:

That kind of misleading statement always upsets me.  I want expressions to have meaning, and I feel cheated when the meaning disappears upon close examination.

Far too many sayings *cough theology cough* try to appear meaningful without actually asserting anything.  At the 2009 Atheist Alliance International Convention, I got to see Dan Dennett give a wonderful talk on the subject, described by Jerry Coyne thusly:

a hilarious attack on theologians like Karen Armstrong, who mouth pious nonsense like, “God is the God behind God.” Dennett calls this kind of language a “deepity”: a statement that has two meanings, one of which is true but superficial, the other which sounds profound but is meaningless. His exemplar of a deepity is the statement “Love is just a word.” True, it’s a word like “cheeseburger,” but the supposed deeper sense is wrong: love is an emotion, a feeling, a condition, and not just a word in the dictionary. He gave several examples of other deepities from academic theologians; when you see these things laid out — ripped from their texts — in a Powerpoint slide, they make you realize how truly fatuous are the lucubrations of people like Armstrong, Eagleton, and Haught. Sarcasm will be the best weapon against this stuff.

You can watch the whole hour-long speech on the RDF website if you like; I certainly enjoyed it.

Over the weekend, I saw the very disappointing movie Boondock Saints II.  Where I found the first film original, clever, and fun to watch, the sequel was sadly lacking.  But I’m not a movie critic; my focus is the glorification of vigilante justice present in our culture.

“And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee, and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.”

I’m a big believer in the rule of law, so it was difficult for me to see the protagonists as heroes.  Two admittedly cool Irish Catholics experience a religious vision and decide to take justice into their own hands, slaughtering “bad guys”.  The killing is surrounded by religious imagery and symbolism, from the prayer the brothers say before assassinating their victim to the rosaries they wear.

They generally target mobsters, but at one point they make a spur-of-the-moment decision to shoot two other men in an adult entertainment parlor.  How is this behavior to glorify?

It is arrogant to assume that you know all the facts.  It is borderline psychotic to assume that you have the authority and judgment to administer lethal justice yourself.  The brothers were clearly partly motivated by religion, but there are countless similar stories without it playing a part.

Other Questionable Heroes

Come! Break the law for us!

The same line of thinking applies to other cultural heroes glorified in our society.  In Batman Begins, it’s a mitigating factor that the people of Gotham City have no power in their government.  Mobsters have bought the justice system and will never be investigated.  But Bruce Wayne commits assault, destroys property, invades people’s privacy, and generally breaks laws to help send the mobsters to jail.  No, he never killed anyone, but he still took the law into his own hands.  Should he serve as a role model?

What’s worse is that the police force regularly calls for Bruce Wayne’s involvement in the stories because he can disregard the laws they swore to follow. The police need search warrants, arrest warrants, and need to be careful of excessive violence. Not so for Bruce Wayne.  Instead of respecting those rights, the police outsource their lawbreaking.

A source of problems is that the audience has the special position of “knowing” that the bad guys are bad and the good guys are good.  Anything the good guys do must be good by definition!  When these ideas seep into the cultural consciousness, it perverts the careful, nuanced approach we’ve developed.

For example: we now have people in America believing that extreme executive power should be legal in the war on terror because they watch it work on 24.  I remember a particular 2006 episode of the Bill Maher show in which The Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore said that he supported a bill because it created “Jack Bauer justice… This guy knows how to interrogate people!”  He was serious.  Bill interjected with “You do realize it’s a TV show?” and Barney Frank did a great job refuting the argument (watch the exchange at OneGoodMove.org).  He was willing to grant the President extreme power because he saw it work out well in a fictional TV show.

Rule of law should be promoted, not dismissed in our cultural myths.  As much as I love Batman, extralegal vigilante crime-fighters should not be among our revered icons.  What do you think their place should be in our culture?

(The graphic novel Watchmen does an incredible job exploring these issues from the other side, if you’re interested.)

When a Christian Post story starts with the sentence “Conservative pastors rallied outside the Justice Department on Monday to test the limits of the newly expanded hate crimes law” you know you’re in for a treat. In wake of a new hate-crime bill that just passed, they wanted to make sure they could still “defend their freedom to proclaim biblical truths” (read: spew venom about homosexuality and gender identity).

“You may choose to disbelieve or disagree with us but you have no right to seek to silence us,” said Dr. Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America Action, as pro-gay clergy and some from the gay and lesbian community gathered with signs reading “My love is legit.”

“If this law is used to silence me or any of these preachers for speaking the truth, then we will be forced to conscientiously defy it,” Scarborough declared. “That is my calling as a Christian and my right as an American citizen.”
…
Clergy, religious broadcasters and conservative groups fear the legislation will subject them to prosecution for preaching what they believe the Bible says – that homosexual behavior is sin. While some believe they are exaggerating the effects of the expanded hate crimes law, the group on Monday was convinced they could be targeted for their speech and beliefs.

Yeah, not so much. They proceeded to say anti-gay things in hopes being arrested, giving them standing to challenge the law. To no avail. According to Dana Milbank, who was reporting on the event for the Washington Post, the cops were more interested in checking their blackberries than arresting the preachers. Why?

To break the new law, you need to “plan or prepare for an act of physical violence” or “incite an imminent act of physical violence”.  That shouldn’t be too controversial.  If the preachers really wanted to break the law they shouldn’t have stopped at “Homosexuality is a sin,” but continued to say “and should be punished by immediate stoning as the Bible says.  Let’s get ‘em, who’s with me?”

What followed the press conference was not an arrest, but a counter-demonstration when gay protesters took over the lectern to hold their own news conference:

“We’re here to say, my love is legit!” announced David Valk, an organizer of the National Equality March for gay rights.

Another speaker, Ian Thomas, went to the microphone and announced: “I was created a bisexual male. Just like many figures in the Christian Bible, I like boys and girls!”

[organizer Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission] turned angrily to the AV guy. “We’re not on the clock, are we?” He turned with equal anger to Valk. “You guys gonna help us pay for the microphones?”

The gay activist smiled. “God,” he said, “works in mysterious ways.”

In this case, God took the form of Chuck Fazio, from DC Podiums. Fazio was hired by the religious conservatives to provide the sound system for the event, but upon learning of their cause, he decided to donate his proceeds to the gay rights activists and to give them a chance at the microphone before shutting down the amplifiers.

How cool is that?  I used to do sound for events at the Library of Congress, but I never saw anything like it. Major kudos to Mr. Fazio.

(via Rob Boston’s post for of Americans United for Separation of Church and State)

As if celebrating the holidays isn’t hectic enough for most people, we atheists have to decide which days to celebrate and how.  Thanksgiving and Veteran’s Day are easy ones – they’re good secular values.  I celebrate the secular version of Christmas – celebrating the spirit of giving – but I often have to explain my views to confused onlookers.

I can imagine it would be even tougher for an interfaith couple.  The Washington Post is hosting a forum to discuss the issue.

Perhaps your atheist husband wants that manger scene off the mantel. Your Hindu wife is uncomfortable with the Hebrew blessings before dinner. Your Muslim mother-in-law doesn’t want her grandkids sitting on Santa’s lap.

The holidays can be a minefield for interfaith couples, unearthing disparities that lay mercifully buried throughout the rest of the year. Because the tree isn’t just about the tree, of course. Like the menorah, or Iftar feasts at sundown during Ramadan, it’s about family and ritual, identity and culture.

Apparently 25% of married adults in America are married to someone of a different faith – a number that goes up to 37% if you count different protestant denominations.

Do you think it’s easier or harder when one of the pair is an atheist?  In that situation it’s not just a disagreement about which religion to believe, but a rejection of all religion.

What would you do?

My friend Hemant Mehta (FriendlyAtheist) had a great interview with blogger Nancy Duke on the Chicago Coalition of Reason billboard, atheism, and religion.  The questions gave away her semi-hostile position, but I feel like Hemant did a great job answering in a positive way:

ND: What is ChriFSMas?
HM: Christmas for the Flying Spaghetti Monster followers.

ND: Are you equating Jesus to a Flying Spaghetti Monster? That doesn’t sound like a “Friendly Atheist.” In fact, it sounds a little mean.
HM: Well, the ChriFSMas thing is just a play on words, but there is a FSM movement where the argument is: There’s as much evidence for a Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is for any other God. So, why not worship the former and not the latter? It’s tongue-in-cheek, but I think it makes a good point. In any case, I think Christmas is a good time for everyone to give presents and spend time with loved ones. It’s not limited to Christians.

Oof.  She’s clearly looking for a fight.  An interesting exchange came near the end:

ND: One more question and then a few quick hits to wrap it up. You mentioned that after research, you couldn’t find evidence to support any of your previous religious ideas. But isn’t that the point? Isn’t faith supposed to be based in a belief of not needing evidence, not needing proof? It wouldn’t be faith if you needed evidence and facts, because that’s called science. So, why use science or atheism or anything else to debunk religion when religion is based on embracing something you cannot prove, i.e. faith?

HM: Yes, relying on faith is the opposite of relying on evidence. However, I was always taught my beliefs as if they were facts. I don’t know of any Christian churches that say, “We believe Jesus resurrected after three days but we don’t actually know that for sure.” No, they say it as if it were true and proven and factual.

I discovered at 14 that my beliefs, which I always believed were factual, were just ideas that people of my faith shared and there was no good reason to believe any of it was true. I guess I discovered that my faith was indeed faith. And I decided I wanted to rely on things that were evidence-based and actually factual. That led me to atheism. It doesn’t say that God doesn’t exist, but atheism says that there’s no good evidence for God’s existence, so why bother believing in one. To me, that’s honest.

Bewildering image and caption:

---

Facts are fun! …
Sometimes.

This meme is what we need to combat in America, and Hemant does a good job explaining why he dismissed faith.  It’s not a reason to belive something is true.  It’s funny that both sides are saying “there’s no evidence for this belief!” but meaning it in completely opposite ways.  It is central to our arguments that people need reasons to assert something as true.  If they don’t accept that basic tenant of thinking, literally any belief is acceptable.

A big distinction that I make time and time again is that we’re never looking for proof – we’re looking for a reasonable amount of evidence to support the level of belief.  It would be a positive step if churches did what Hemant suggested – admit their own uncertainty and instead use stories as non-authoritative metaphors about life.

I’m a bit puzzled – and concerned – that Duke had a small clipart of someone pointing to a chart with the caption: “Facts are fun! … Sometimes.”  What in the world is that supposed to convey?  In context of the discussion – it was right next to the above blockquote – it wasn’t saying that sometimes the world isn’t as we wish it to be.  No, it seems to be dismissing the very value of facts when assessing a worldview.  “Facts are great unless they contradict my beliefs!”

How do you respond to such brazen disregard for logical thinking?

[Update:] You raise the point that this might be a Poe, especially given the “Keeping democracy intact since 1912″ slogan. If it’s satire, it’s remarkably subtle. I’m looking into it. What do you guys think?

Why are dirty underwear, mutant clover, and amputated mammal appendages associated with good fortune?  How did humans develop our “lucky” rituals? And why are they usually gross when you think about them? I hope to address two of these three questions, read on to find out which.

A lucky charm I made in college: card laminated with a 4-leaf clover

Tonight I will be watching my beloved Baltimore Ravens playing the Cleveland Browns on Monday Night Football.  It should be an easy game but I don’t want to leave anything to chance (my fantasy team also needs a strong showing from the Baltimore defense).  I’ll be doing everything in my power to help my team win: that is, nothing in particular.

I am on the record publicly disbelieving in luck.  But I am fascinated by the power the belief in luck has over us.  Even very rational and scientific people have rituals and “lucky’ charms.  As Neils Bohr is credited with saying, “I don’t believe in luck, but I hear it works even if you don’t believe.”

Why are we so beholden to the belief in luck?

Superstitious Pigeons

The famous psychologist BF Skinner once did an experiment on hungry pigeons. In one test, he conditioned them to react to the word “peck” or “turn” and rewarded the correct behavior by giving them food. Interestingly, they would perform the action more if the reward happened at a variable rate – not every time the bird pecked, but every three times or ten times. Their behavior was used to learn about the human capacity for conditioning – slot machines are so addictive because they operate on the same principle.

What was more interesting was another experiment in which the researchers rewarded the pigeons at intervals that had no connection to what the birds were doing. The pigeons instinctively try to repeat whatever action they did which caused the food to come. Superstitions arose:

One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a ‘tossing’ response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body, in which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return.

How cool is that?

Superstitious Humans

She’s either doing the Gangsta Lean or trying to make her ball move

Are we better than the pigeons? Well, yes, in various ways, but not when it comes to the superstition.  Our brains evolved with the strong urge to see causation and pattern.  It’s how we learn about the world.

But we get a lot of false positives.  Even for things out of our control, there’s still the impulse to do what you can to affect the world.  A classic example is in bowling.  It’s extremely common for people to lean one way or the other in a desperate attempt to make their ball stay out of the gutter.  Why do they do it?  No doubt in the past the ball curved while someone was leaning that way and they unconsciously made a connection.  I’ve caught myself doing it, and it… feels right.  I feel like I’m affecting the ball even though I rationally know I’m not.  The urge to find causation is that strong.

Bowling is a particular case in which the actions taken after the ball is thrown have nothing to do with the result. Other rituals might genuinely have an effect – but on the person’s confidence, not on external reality. An athlete wearing the same dirty underwear before playing in a baseball series might be more relaxed and confident, leading to better performance. The connection between the underwear and the win is reinforced, and forms an upward spiral.

Perhaps a hiker found a clover with four leaves instead of the normal three and picked it up for the novelty, only to have good fortune later in the day. A faulty connection is made and a superstition is born.

Don’t ask me about the rabbit’s foot; I have no idea where that sick idea came from.

Religious Implications

Daniel Dennett makes the point in Breaking the Spell that this tendency could explain many religious rituals.  If a society doesn’t understand what caused the rain to come, elaborate rain dances will follow. As time goes on and the illusion of causation is semi-reinforced by random events, the rituals get more and more elaborate.

How many times have you heard someone say “I prayed for my brother to get better and his fever went away! Explain THAT!” If the human mind is frantically figuring out possible ways to understand and affect the world, faulty connections like this are very likely. We just have to foster better understanding and internalization of probability, the scientific method, and psychology.

What superstitions did you used to (or still do) practice?

Here’s a test I’m trying tonight: every time I take a drink of beer, I expect the Ravens to have a good play. It’s for science!

What do the Jews and the Gays have in common?  The horrid Westboro Baptist Church is protesting against both!  Sorry, that probably wasn’t as funny a punchline as you expected.  It does, however, have the advantage of being true. From a USA Today article:

The change in focus has caught Jewish leaders by surprise. While the group has always had anti-Semitic tendencies, it had largely stayed away from Jewish sites until this year.

In Washington, Margie Phelps balanced several signs targeting Jews, Israel and the Obama administration. One read “Rabbis Rape Kids,” another said “God Hates Jews.” Margie Phelps’ T-shirt read “Jews Killed Jesus.” She argued with men and women passing by, warning them that God will soon send the Jews to hell.

“I don’t care what you claim, chosen wise,” she said. “Obedience is the standard.”

What a disgusting and desperate attempt to get attention.  How long before someone breaks Godwin’s Law?  Three… two… one…

“This is more about generating ink and outrage than it is about attacking Jews per say [sic],” said Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project. “But their language is absolutely Hitler-esque. They talk of filthy Jews and Jews murdering Christ.”

Since April, Westboro members have protested more than 200 Jewish institutions and sent thousands of anti-Semitic faxes to American Jewish officials. “I guess they felt it was a successful tactic,” said Deborah Lauter, the national civil rights director for the Anti-Defamation League.

It’s always a difficult question: do you counter-protest and give them more attention, or do you let them spew their hate unchecked?

I’m usually in favor of staging a counter-protest, but not for the purpose of addressing the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC).  A counter-protest can bring people together as a shared rejection of hatred and a symbolic gesture of solidarity. It serves as an excuse for people to come together and reaffirm their peaceful views, rather than as an attempt to out-shout the opponents – that would be pointless.

The audience is not the rabid fundamentalists, it’s the others in the community.  It’s a nice way to let the gays/Jews know that they are not alone.  If nobody bothers to counter-protest, some might get the wrong impression.

The article says that religious leaders on the far-left and far-right have come together to condemn the WBC’s tactics.  I hope it was just lazy journalism and that there are non-religious individuals and leaders also opposing bigotry and hatred.

As you have probably realized by now, I have a deep appreciation for the majesty of the universe and great admiration for those who can express and communicate it well.  I grew up watching Bill Nye instead of Carl Sagan, but they can both make me smile and inspire a sense of wonder.  Plus, it’s a great crime-fighting technique (XKCD):

“They laugh now, but within 10 years the city’s entire criminal class will have quit to work on space research.”

---

Last month Daniel posted the wonderful video of Carl Sagan clips autotuned to make the song “A Glorious Dawn”. I wanted to share a similar video also made by John Boswell, this time including Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Bill Nye:

Is there any better way to start a week?