Author Archive for Zachary Moore

Inevitable Disappointment

I'm on the email list for a really interesting church in the North Texas area- the Village Church, pastored by a guy named Matt Chandler. I visited there once on the recommendation of a friend, and couldn't help but like the place. And yet, I was a little put off by how much I couldn't help but like the place. It was a bit like a theological Disney World- by which I mean, it's a church that's (subconsciously or otherwise) designed to be attractive. The pastor is young and dynamic, and reminds me uncannily of the itinerant on-leave-from-seminary wannabe preachers who used to visit my high school youth group, usually to much acclaim.

When I visited, there was a tremendous emphasis on having a genuine experience. The unspoken implication was that at other churches, people sang songs and read the Bible and worshipped God, but at the Village Church, they really meant it. And you could tell the really meant it, because they mentioned it every five minutes.

I don't really want to be too hard on them, since virtually everyone I met there was incredibly nice and friendly, and I could sense a real level of sincerity that, if it didn't impress Jesus, would at least win over the Great Pumpkin. Plus, a friend goes there, so it can't be all bad, right?

On my way out, I noticed a stack of flyers advertising some kind of seminar coming up in the next couple weeks. Peering past the design elements and the catchy phrases, I could make out that it was a subtly-euphamized gay-deprogramming seminar

Gah. Just when I'm starting to like the place, they mention that they like helping people get rid of their gay. It's that inevitable disappointment hiding behind some obscure Bible passage, just waiting to trip me up as I'm walking past the pews.

I received another reminder of this in my email inbox today- a request for people to go to Myanmar in support of a charity that provides drinking water for those in need. Yeah! All right! Good humanitarian efforts for a good cause at the right time! This is a church!

But then, the inevitable disappointment:
The country has recently been one of the most closed off countries in the world to the gospel, and the humanitarian crises there had been escalating as the government continued oppressing its people. In light of the natural disaster, the doors to Myanmar are opening as the level of need is beyond anything we can imagine. Please keep this country and its people in your prayers.
I suppose there are worse excuses to evangelize, but damned if a part of me didn't shrivel up after reading that.

Another Christian Sex Scandal

Honestly, these should be boring by now, but I had a minor insight after watching this story- what if the reason so many Christian leaders clamor for the legislation of sexuality is because they think it's the only way for them to control THEIR OWN orientations and kinks?

SA: Reverse Magazines

A little Photoshopping fun from the SomethingAwful goons...



Creationists Love “Expelled”

Since I visited Ken Ham's Creation Museum last summer, I've been getting regular email updates from him. Most of them are too vacuous and preposterous to circulate, but I thought this was humorous- Ken Ham's glowing endorsement of the upcoming film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."

Dear AiG supporter,

I thought it very important to send you another email this week. You see, the news is so important that I also want you to send this email to your pastor and friends.

As you know, Darwinists have been expelling any hint of creation or intelligent design from public schools and research institutions. Now, many of them are expelling people from their academic posts in a desperate attempt to defend their evolutionary worldview.

The upcoming film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed comes to theaters next week (April 18). Already a highly controversial film, its host Ben Stein (whom I met last month) is on a personal quest to discover more about the topic of origins and to expose the ruthlessness of many evolutionists. Even though Stein is not a creationist and is not a Christian, he presents the evidence of intelligent design we see in the world and exposes the censorship efforts of leading evolutionists.

I encourage you to visit www.GetEXPELLED.com right now and discover more about this excellent, entertaining, and enlightening film. I’ve seen it twice now, including at a special preview screening at our Creation Museum. You need to see how our education system is expelling freedom of speech—and then you should do something about it.

For a theater listing, go to www.expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php

If you don’t see your local theater listed, call the manager and say you want to watch Expelled.

Please be a “creation evangelist.” Let your family and friends know about this film (send them this email with your words of endorsement), and then direct them to our website where they can find out more about the gospel message.

Thank you,





Ken Ham

President, Answers in Genesis
"No intelligence allowed," indeed. The message is clear- "Expelled" promotes a creationist message, for the purpose of driving people to Christianity. Hey, at least they're finally being honest about their motives.

Christian Gene Found


Mind-bendingly delightful.

Easter Challenge: Year Three

It's been three years since I first published my own response to Dan Barker's Easter Challenge here at GTA, and the Christian response has been underwhelming. Although our in-house Christian apologist Brucker tossed his harmonization into the ring, it only lasted a few rounds of discussion before it was obvious that his version had as many, if not more, continuity flaws than my own.

In the meantime, there's been a deafening silence. Surely, with Easter being the paramount event in the Christian conception of history, some clarity would at least be of some interest. 

This weekend is the biggest of the year in terms of church attendance- I'd like to suggest that all the Christians out there, as long as they're stuck in church on Sunday morning, at least take a few minutes to reach in front of them and grab a Bible, flip to the ends of each Gospel, and try to make sense of the four stories. Use one of those little golf pencils on the back of the bulletin if you have to.

Little kids grow up pretty fast when they realize that the stories told about Santa Claus don't actually make any sense when you look at them all together... I'm hopeful that the same realization comes for those who accept other superstitions also.

The Horrific Atheist Apocalypse

If God hasn't sent the "Four Horsemen," who has?

Uh, oh. It can only get worse from here.

Intelligent Design at TAMS: Summary

I first heard about the Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science in an article posted by P.Z. Myers, which took me from elation to disappointment in two sentences. Throughout this country, any effort made to improve math and science education is well-needed, and for such an academy to be organized in the state of Texas seemed to fit that desperate need as well as a rainshower in the West Texas wasteland.

But then the shoe dropped: "a gang of god-walloping creationists" had set their sights on TAMS, and were coming in to ensure that students heard their own particular brand of religious dogma to usurp an otherwise wholesome scientific education. Who are these nasty, creationist bugaboos? Probe Ministries, and more specifically as it turns out, Dr. Ray Bohlin.

I have been somewhat familiar with Probe, as my good friend Derek Sansone had been engaged with their team on a regular basis when he was trying to develop himself as a Christian apologist. Essentially, they operate very much like apologetical consultants; they spend their time writing articles and giving lectures for the benefit of churches that are interested in bolstering the faith of the average pew-sitter with a bit of argumentation. I'd gotten to meet another of Probe's team, Patrick Zukeran, through my relationship with Kevin Harris (who podcasts Pat's "Evidence and Answers" show, as well as William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith" show, and who also participates in my "Apologia" podcast). The three of us had even sat together last year when the Discovery Institute road show came to SMU. From my experience, they're good, sincere people that you'd probably enjoy going to dinner with... they just also happen to be very sincerely wrong on a number of critical points.

I received an email from a friend forwarding the particular details of Probe's involvement yesterday: Probe was sending Dr. Ray Bohlin to TAMS to talk about Intelligent Design, and it would be taking place last night! Needless to say, I cleared my schedule and high-tailed it to Denton to figure out what was going on.

I arrived early and took a seat in the front row as Dr. Bohlin was setting up his presentation (incidentally, I caught a glance at the filename for the presentation, which was "sermon1"). I introduced myself, and we chatted about how molecular biology had changed since he received his PhD (in cellular and molecular biology from the University of Texas at Dallas, after joining Probe). After students filed in (lured by the offer of food, the key to any university-level function), an RA with TAMS named Samantha introduced Dr. Bohlin and the lecture series. Apparently, the "Think Tank" series tends to be conducted in the fall semester, but given her interest in the Intelligent Design issue and Dr. Bohlin's schedule, it had to take place in the early spring. Dr. Bohlin then launched into his presentation, which made essentially the same points as this article.

Overall, the demeanor of the presentation was submissive and defensive. Nearly all of the scientific information being presented was accurate as far as I could tell, and "Darwinism" was only used instead of "evolutionary theory" once or twice (although that may even be too much for some people). Evolution was accepted almost completely as a concept, and even the usage of the word "theory" was mostly appropriate (although perhaps slanted a bit to emphasize uncertainty for rhetorical effect). Intelligent Design was presented as an enterprise that was committed wholeheartedly to the scientific method, with no desire to overturn evolutionary theory as we know it. The pitch was more of ID being an "Evolution-Plus," sort of a scientific bonus that does not detract from evolutionary theory, and may even help it.

I was taking notes throughout, and jotting down appropriate questions that I planned to ask, since I had no way of knowing if there would be any scientifically literate people in the audience. I was pleasantly surprised (in a similar manner as when I visited Carl Baugh's Creation Museum in Glen Rose) to find the audience chock-full of students who saw the flaws of ID's rationale as easily as I could, and so I gave most of my questions an early retirement.

I did, however, offer this criticism: the concept of 'specified complexity' as advanced by ID advocates seems to me to suffer from a control problem. Both Dr. Bohlin and myself were trained in the conduct of scientific experiments, and one of the cardinal rules is that without proper positive or negative controls, an experimental result is scientifically meaningless. Any experiment needs a positive control (an independent verification that the test will work), and a negative control (an independent verification that the test can distinguish between signal and background noise).

Specified complexity can make use of neither: using Dr. Bohlin's analogy of rocks on a beach as an example of non-design, it could be the case that an intelligent agent has arranged those rocks in a specific pattern that just happens to appear random, and which no human agent would recognize as such. This demonstrates ID's inability to rule out false negatives, meaning that it cannot distinguish actual design from background noise. In addition, it lacks the right positive control: Dr. Bohlin offered many examples of human design, but that's not at issue. Assuming ID is accurate, the design in nature would be from a non-human agent, and we have no clear examples of such. Without an independent verification of specified complexity using an externally-provided example of non-human design, this approach is a scientific non-starter.

Needless to say, Dr. Bohlin took umbrage at my criticism, and responded that using human design (e.g., "John loves Mary" written on a sandy beach) was not a problem for ID. According to him, "as long as it tells us something, who cares [about controls]?" Scientifically-literate readers will of course be aware that any experiment can 'tell us something,' and in fact nearly any assay can produce data, even if used incorrectly. Hell, I can get beautiful protein bands on a Western blot if I overexpose the film, but you always have to check your controls before you start polishing your Nobel. If the controls aren't telling you the right thing, then your experiment can't tell you ANYTHING.

Aside from my own contribution, as I mentioned the audience was brimming with students on the side of science- even some first-year students who had scientific publications handy when they asked a bacterial flagellum/Type III secretory apparatus question. After the lecture ended, I introduced myself to them and encouraged them to found a new secular student group on campus (the previous incarnation had disbanded)- from the makeup of the audience last night, it's something that is sorely needed. And another positive note- I introduced myself to the event organizer and offered to present a lecture on the molecular evidence for common descent at any time, which was provisionally (though gratefully) accepted. Before leaving, I thanked Dr. Bohlin for his participation and offered the same lecture to him, albeit in debate form. It's a subject that he doesn't normally speak on, but he agreed to consider it if given ample opportunity to prepare. Hopefully, all three of these will come to fruition, and sooner rather than later.

On The Differences Between Science And Religion

Something interesting caught my eye when I was browsing through the table of contents of the latest issue of Nature: "Nobel Prizewinner's Paper Retracted."

The story is only mildly controversial, outside of a relatively small group of olfactory neurologists and/or Nobel enthusiasts: Dr. Linda Buck, who won the prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2004 for her work studying the olfactory system, published data in 2001 that she cannot now reproduce. Since scientific certainty is dependent on experimental reproducibility, she's decided to retract the paper from the literature. Over one hundred other papers have cited her work in the meantime, and they'll all probably be a bit nervous until they've been able to reproduce their results as well.

Nothing is particularly amiss in this situation- human error is assumed in the scientific process, and although stringent controls are employed to avoid its effects, no experiment is perfect. It speaks to the strength and reliability of the scientific method that it allows for this self-correction as a matter of routine. The neurology community will absorb the correction, adjust their hypotheses, and move forward, slightly more confident that they're uncovering nature's true form.

The same thing does not happen in religious circles, however. Let's say that a certain person had remarkable success praying for some random attribute... courage, perhaps... back in 2001, and now needs it again. The person prays... but nothing happens. Would it now be reasonable to ask if the original courage truly was of divine provenance? Certainly for the scientist, less so for the more religious-minded. Failures in a religious process should inspire correction of that process- at least, if religion was as rigorously committed to reality as the scientific process.

Instead of human error being cited as cause to revise the process, as with science, for religion it is cited as reason to trust the process even more strongly. This kind of backwards-thinking in no way commends religion as a reality-based enterprise.

Where’s Your Precious Gravity Now, Professor?

A sublime intersection of the Upright Citizens' Brigade, religion, and science.

via Pharyngula

A Good Question


The No-God Squad: In Their Own Words

This video has been around for a while, but for anyone who finds themselves speaking for (or against) Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens, it would really be best to hear their own open opinions.





via Debunking Christianity

Religious Irony on Dallas Top 40

"Kidd Kraddick in the Morning" is the morning show for KHKS 106.1 "KISS" FM, a popular Top-40 station here in Dallas that's also popular with my wife for their support of her favorite musician, Elliot Yamin. As such, it graces our clock radio and tends to wake me on a regular basis.

Although there's usually some ridiculous conversation in progress when the alarm trips, this morning's was especially interesting and ironic. The group was discussing the recent viral video of Tom Cruise blathering on about Scientology, which they had placed on their website. Show member "Kellie Rasberry" [sic] was defending his comments in the video, with the argument that all religious people think that they have the Answer, so she didn't think he should be criticized.

That alone tickled me awake, but then she offered the following case in point, which I'll paraphrase:
"Everyone thinks Tom Cruise is crazy for thinking that aliens live inside each of us, but as Christians we believe that the Holy Spirit lives inside us, so is he really so crazy after all?"
Oh, the irony, it is so delicious...

An Atheist’s Christmas Carol

Libby Purves recently wrote in the Times:
Richard Dawkins, Prophet of Atheism, has said in a BBC interview that he is not against “cultural” Christianity and “Yes, I like singing carols along with everyone else”. Which raises enough tantalising philosophical and ethical questions to keep us going till Christmas Eve. Dawkins sings carols? Does he sing all the words? Does he boom out lines about herald angels, holy nights, the tender Lamb promised from eternal years?

...

But if you loudly and repeatedly make a career of denying any possibility at all of the reality of God, how honest is it to sing? How easy to reconcile? How insulting to those who mean every word of it?
Tantalizing, indeed. The veneer of hypocrisy seems to have been too attractive for Ms. Purves to let alone- though I daresay she, being both deist and carol-singer alike, may also be engaging in some cultural self-flagellation. The draw is obvious: the Great Atheist, the man who trumpets religion's flaws the world over, pauses at Christmastime to sing a few bars of "Hark, the Herald Angels Sing." If there's anything that titillates our interest more than hypocrisy, I'm not aware of it (although adding sex to the equation usually tips it past the boiling point, as the Spears family knows all too well).

But as with most outbursts of (false?) shock, this belies both a woeful ignorance of the accused, as well as a pathetically facile view of the cultural context. Dawkins has long voiced his support for the continuation of religion as a cultural curiosity, preserved in museums for edutainment purposes, much as we've done for the ancient Egyptian and Greco-Roman religions. Would Ms. Purves think us ethically and philosophically out-of-bounds for watching "The Mummy Returns," even though we didn't really accept the mystical power of the Book of the Dead? Or does the Disney film "Hercules" promote rampant hypocrisy amongst our youth? It would be another thing entirely if Ms. Purves discovered Dawkins teaching Sunday School in some back-alley or basement, and snapped pictures of him as he desperately tried to hide the felt-board Jesus in his hand. But if she thinks that catching him with a carol in his mouth will shame him or inflame us, Ms. Purves clearly doesn't know Dick.

Nor does she know much about Christmas. At the risk of enraging the Christian Christmas Warriors out there, this season isn't exactly a high-water mark of Christian theology. The well-informed need no instruction on this, but the primary contribution of Christianity to Christmas is the name alone- virtually everything else about the holiday comes from other sources. The foundational, of course, is the winter solstice, celebrated by virtually all northern hemisphere cultures in antiquity (and, not coincidentally, which is occurring today). From that humble (yet important) beginning, we have Brumalia, with its feasting and merry-making; Saturnalia, with its gift-giving and social reversals; Natalis Solis Invicti, which set the date on December 25th and linked it with the birth of a god; Yule, which brought the Christmas tree, holly, mistletoe, and most of Santa Claus. Each of these are thoroughly pagan, and yet without any of them, Christmas just wouldn't be Christmas. In fact, if one wanted to be annoyingly picky about it (and one does, I'm sure), it could be argued that Christmas was stolen by the Christians, and that celebrating the holiday as a non-Christian is simply reclaiming its proper heritage.

But the Christians did write some lovely songs, didn't they? Of course they did- music is a key component to any celebration, and after Christmas was co-opted there were many theologically-oriented songs written. Some songs were co-opted as well, as "Greensleeves" became "What Child is This?" Others have mixed parentage: "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" was written by the proto-Methodist Charles Wesley, but the melody was written by Felix Mendelssohn, a Jew. Ultimately, of course, these songs represent a sampling of the best human musical talents throughout history, which anyone can be proud of, no matter their religious orientation. The music for "Cantique de Noël" (O Holy Night) was written by the 19th century French composer Adolphe Adam, and is my absolute favorite. The lyrics never were much of an interest to me- even as a Christian, one of my favorite versions of the song was as a French horn quartet, performed by the Canadian Brass. And my absolute favorite version (which can sometimes bring me to tears) is sung by Eric Cartman, featured below.









It's a true atheist's Christmas carol. Best wishes to you and yours, and I hope you enjoy whatever holiday you use to mark the winter's solstice.

Hitchens on Christmas

The A.V. Club interviewed Chris Hitchens on his thoughts about Christmas.

A teaser:

AVC: Do you have any fond memories of any holiday?

CH: A Christmas one? Only when I spent it far from home, and preferably far from anywhere where the thing was celebrated. Which has become more difficult since I've become a father. When I was younger, I used to shake my girlfriend and go just as far away from where we would normally be as possible. And just try to forget the whole thing. Cuba's a good place for that. I went there also for the New Year for 1999-2000, because it was the only place in the world that did not call that the Millennium. Because Castro ruled, for once, quite rightly, that the Millennium is 2000-2001. This is the wrong year. That's actually quite true. So you could get away from all the incessant crap about Y2K. And also Christmas, they don't make a big deal of Christmas down there. I took the family on that occasion, and we had a great time. I think attitudes toward Christmas don't depend just on attitude to religion, but on what kind of family you had, and my family was one that didn't do very well with compulsory celebrations. Whether they were birthdays or any other kind. It was always a little tense.

You can get the rest here.

Flying The Christian Skies

I recently returned from a long business trip; the flight wasn't too long, but most of the passengers were grumpy because the flight itself had been delayed several hours. The upshot of this meant that, at least for me, it would have been quicker to drive home than fly... but I digress.

Typically, when passengers disembark a plane they're met by one or more of the pilots or flight crew, to wish them well in the continuation of their journeys, and to express their gratitude for choosing their particular airline. This was the case here: both pilots were standing outside the cockpit, offering pleasantries to the passengers on the way out.

Just before I reached them, one of the pilots smiled at the fellow in front of me, and said, "Happy Holidays!" As I passed by them, the other pilot grimaced, looked over at his colleague, and offered this brief monologue:

"Happy Holidays? I don't think so. It's against my religion to say 'Happy Holidays.' We have rights too, you know."

Given that this particular airline operates in the heart of North Texas, it's a pretty safe bet that the guy wasn't a Jehovah's Witness, or any other religion that looks down on those who celebrate holidays. I don't think I'm being unreasonable to suggest that this fellow was expressing the popular 'War on Christmas' viewpoint perpetuated by cultural conservatives in this country- that saying 'Happy Holidays' is not only a betrayal of American culture, but it's actually a refutation against anyone who wishes to celebrate Christmas as a specifically Christian holiday.

While shaking my head silently as I walked up the gangway, I couldn't help but think of my piano teacher. As a young boy, I took piano lessons from a nice Jewish woman for several years- and every year at the proper time, I would wish her a 'Happy Hannukah.' In return, she'd wish me a 'Merry Christmas.' It seems to me that any well-wishing that's made should be done so in light of the recipient's particular celebration, not the other way around. If you want to give good wishes to a Jew, say 'Happy Hannukah.' If you want to do the same to a Christian, say 'Merry Christmas.' For a Muslim or a Hindu, you can wish a 'Happy Ramadan' or "Happy Diwali' respectively, once the calendar rolls around. But these specific wishes are dependent on knowing the specific religious (or cultural) affiliation of the person to whom you're offering them. In a situation where you don't know those affiliations, or you can count on them being diverse, 'Happy Holidays' is actually the most appropriate thing to say.

What I find particularly disturbing about the current Christian Christmas-warriors is that they've turned such a friendly, generous gesture into a selfish, divisive battle-cry. It used to be that 'Merry Christmas' meant, 'I wish for you a Merry Christmas.'

Now, it means, 'I celebrate Christmas, asshole, and if you don't like that you can go to hell.'

Christmas spirit, indeed.

God’s Little Object Lessons

Within theistic worldviews, birth defects present a particularly troubling example of the Problem of Evil- the obvious question being, "if God is so loving, why would he cause children to be born physically deformed or developmentally disabled?"

John Wilson addresses this question, and points out that claiming these children to be the recipients of God's 'cruelty' or 'curse' is an insult to them and demonstrates ignorance of God's 'higher purpose.'

I don't think any parent of a disabled child would like the idea that their child is a curse to them. I'm sure there are difficulties but does that mean the child is useless? Does that mean that the parents can't learn anything from the child? Does the child not love?

...

This is another one of those arguments that is supposed to defend some people group from the likes of people who think God is loving. If I have a special needs child, the Lord would certainly be showing Grace by teaching me to love and be patient and understanding and allowing my heart to be changed to pour love on a child who, in the arms of some proponent of that argument, would apparently be hated.
The desire to see meaning and purpose in adverse circumstances is natural human psychology, and not something that I would normally take issue with. But John raises some interesting points that I think deserve robust commentary. Firstly, I would agree that no parent would want to see their child, no matter how disabled, as a 'curse' that exists for no other purpose than to demonstrate God's anger, and I would echo his sentiment that labeling such a child with that label is both dehumanizing and immoral.

The problem is that this is an explicitly Christian label, not one that stems from naturalism. The root of this can be found in Genesis 3, where Yahweh speaks curses into existence after he discovers that Adam and Eve have eaten from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Especially astute readers will note that only two curses are given in this passage: one to the serpent, and one to the soil. Neither Adam nor Eve are specifically 'cursed' by Yahweh, and in fact the only threat of death comes from Yahweh's removal of the two proto-humans from the Tree of Life, which it must be presumed could have sustained them otherwise. Later, as Jewish theology evolved, the concept that any physical disability or deformity was the province of Yahweh became more explicit:

Exodus 4: 'Who makes a person dumb or deaf, gives sight or makes blind? Is it not I, Yahweh?'
Strangely enough, even though such physical handicaps were the result of Yahweh's whim, they were clearly negative attributes, and any person burdened with such a condition was prohibited from partaking in many sacred activities:

Leviticus 21: Yahweh spoke to Moses and said: 'Speak to Aaron and say: "None of your descendants, for all time, may come forward to offer the food of his God if he has any infirmity, for non may come forward if he has an infirmity, be he blind or lame, disfigured or deformed, or with an injured foot or arm, a hunchback, someone with rickets or opthalmia or the scab or running sores, or a eunuch. No descendant of the priest Aaron may come forward to offer the food burnt for Yahweh if he has any infirmity; if he has an infirmity, he will not come forward to offer the food of his God. He may eat the food of his God, things especially holy and things holy, but he will not go near the curtain or approach the altar, since he has an infirmity and must not profane my holy things; for I, Yahweh, have sanctified them"'
More recent Jewish religious tradition reflected in the story of Job introduces the concept that not only is suffering and pain due to God's sovereignty, but it also reflects some kind of sin or impiety in the life of the person who receives it. As Job's friend Zophar tells him, in an effort to prompt confession and repentance:

Job 11: Come, reconsider your attitude, stretch out your hands towards him! If you repudiate the sin which you have doubtless committed and do not allow wickedness to live on in your tents, you will be able to raise an unsullied face, unwavering and free of fear, for you will forget about your misery, thinking of it only as a flood that passed long ago.
By the time of Paul the concept had progressed to the point where not only was the human condition the result of God's curse, and not only were physical hardships divinely mandated, and not only were they deserved as a response to sin, but in fact the continued existence of death and any suffering was directly due to the 'original sin,' which, though not literally supported, was at that point obscured by enough layers of tradition to be a plausible explanation when Paul needed a motivation for his casting of Jesus as the ultimate salvific agent:

Romans 5: Therefore, just as sin gained entry into the world through a single individual, with death arriving on sin's coat tails, death permeated all mankind since all sinned.
And thus, we can see that this concept, albeit perhaps not self-conscious of its own theological ontogeny, is thoroughly Christian in every way. Whether Christians like it or not, their own theology holds children with hydrocephalic skulls or spina bifida up as examples of the curse of God, leveled against mankind for the crime of eating a piece of fruit.

Lest I be accused of wrangling Christian theology without assessing the teachings of Jesus, his words in the Gospel of John are consistent with the preceding Jewish understanding, but plays down the causal impact of sin, instead introducing a novel spin on suffering as an opportunity for divine action:

John 9: And passing by, he noticed a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this poor wretch or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that the mighty works of God might be displayed through him."
And thus we reach the second point that John presents: that of handicapped or disabled children existing explicitly as educational tools, whether to demonstrate the power of God as with the blind man in John 9, or serving to bestow a lesson of Grace as John posits on his blog. While, as I said above, I can't find fault with parents wanting to find purpose in their child's misfortune, at the same time I can't help but see it as the most hollow purpose imaginable.

What this argument says, in essence, is that God purposefully gave these children malformed bodies in order to teach their parents a lesson. It may have been the case that the parents desperately needed such a lesson, and that their lives may be immensely improved because of their child's struggles, but I find it horribly immoral to cripple a person simply as an educational strategy. Surely we can expect that an all-good, all-powerful deity such as that posited by Christianity could come up with an alternative lesson plan for any subject that doesn't require causing babies pain.

Within my naturalistic worldview, of course, the idea that painful birth defects serve some divine purpose is absolutely nauseating. In my worldview, such events are what everyone recognizes them to be according to common sense: horrendous tragedies. This approach does not diminish the humanity of the afflicted, but provides a rational and visceral basis for human empathy, which is the very foundation of morality. We all may not be born with physical deformities, but we all come to know tragic circumstances throughout our lives, and approaching our fellow humans with real empathy is approaching them as equals, not embodied object lessons handed down from on high.

What Does An Atheist Do?

Following news of an unfortunate health problem with the family of a mutual friend of ours, John Wilson struggles to understand how atheists cope with these situations.

I mean this in as sincere a way as I can muster: what does someone who does not believe in God do with pain and death? Having a degree in Philosophy ensures that I have had and continue to get an earful of why evil means that God does not exist but not one time have I heard a good explanation from the other side as to the meaning of it.

...

I can pray for my friend and for his wife. I can pray for them both. I can offer up petitions and beg for her health. And maybe I am painting the ceiling with air. Maybe nothing is listening to me but my distant cousin, the cockroach. Then I am only participating in some art form handed down by some gene. Or my brain uses it to provide some societal function.

Do my prayers work? Are they mine that work or someone else's? I don't know. I don't need to know. A positive answer or a negative one does not change the fact that either way that pain is redeemed. And none of this solves anything.

And yet...I can pray.

A Christian can pray, sure.

An atheist can weep. Lacking any god-belief does not imply a lack of human empathy. The pain that occurs in the lives of others cuts us to the quick as surely as it does any believer, but we don't have access to the anaesthetic of concepts like divine providence or provenance, having given them up to avoid the unhealthy side effect of accepting life's blows like a battered wife. Human pain caused by natural happenstance is no less tragic, but is decidedly less masochistic than the alternative.

An atheist can act. Whether that be organizing the friends and family of a sick person to provide for their needs in times of trouble, or working diligently to find a cure for whatever horrible illness has befallen his or her fellow human, being an atheist means that you know that the here and now are what count, and no other agent can be counted on to intercede when things go sour. Being an atheist means that the onus of responsibility is on oneself, instead of being impotently projected outward.

An atheist can comfort. Although trememdous progress can be made by human efforts, nothing is ever complete. Even the latest and most advanced medications have a failure rate. Once everything humanly possible has been done, an atheist knows that the ultimate moral value is happiness, and tends it like a delicate flower. Not every disease can be cured, but even though our days are finite, if they are filled with happiness, they can be precious to us nonetheless. An atheist knows that its limitations make life special, just as the fleeting beauty of a rose blossom is something to be anticipated, enjoyed, and remembered.

Flew The Coop: A Conversion Tale

Antony Flew is at the center of quite a bit of drama right now- though I daresay he's likely oblivious to it all.

Though his conversion from atheist to Deist has gained quite a bit of notoriety, the recent publication of a book attributed to him seeks to promote his story as an antidote of sorts to others who have moved in the opposite direction.

As such, this is likely to be an oft-quoted and frequently-cited book from Christian apologists far and wide.

Before you have to deal with any of this half-assery, I strongly suggest you read about the rest of the story.

Barker vs. Harris: Debate At UTA

Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, will be coming to the Dallas/Fort Worth area next Monday to speak to the Freethinkers of UTA (a member of the Secular Student Alliance), and will also be debating a local Christian apologist, Kevin Harris. Kevin is a regular participant in the Apologia discussion, and is the co-host of the Reasonable Faith podcast with Dr. William Lane Craig.

If you're local to D/FW, you really should come and see the debate- and that goes for both theists and atheists. I'd love to see a good mix of people there on Monday. Official information about the event can be found at the Freethinkers of UTA homepage.

Date: Monday, November 12, 2007
Time: 7:00 PM
Place: University of Texas at Arlington, University Center, Red River/Concho Rooms
Participants: Dan Barker (Atheist), Kevin Harris (Christian)

Click here for Google Map goodness to help find directions.

Oh, Snap!

ERV seems to have a remarkable talent for putting Michael Behe in his place.


One defining characteristics of Creationists is that no matter what their educational background, their highest attained degree is treated as a carte blanche for authority in any topic under the sun. ... Hence no one should be surprised at your arrogance, claiming you know more about HIV-1 evolution than everyone in the HIV research community, even the people whose papers you chose to cite.



Though you, Behe, hump your credentials on the legs of every book you write and presentation you give, you curiously made the decision to exclude all of *my* research experience and chose to refer to me as some ‘woman.’



But your ability to ask questions and use PubMed has atrophied, Behe. Your only recourse to my essay was Creationism. You made the decision to ignore everything I said about Vpu's differential evolution between subtypes and pubjack a review like a Creationist.



So whats your deal? Is it just for the money? You’ve got a litter of kids, and I admit I would find the $20K you get for selling out rather tempting in todays funding climate. Do you just like how you get treated by your followers? Or do you like how you get treated by your opponents, in a Mel Gibson sort of way?

Oh, to not be Michael Behe right now...

Bible Murder Mystery

In the spirit of Halloween, I thought that I'd spark a discussion of something truly horrific... murder most foul, and in the Bible, no less!

The mystery is a unique one, since the identities of both victim and murder are known- Balaam son of Beor, killed by the Israelites under Moses' command.

"So what's the big deal?" you might be wondering. "Tons of people were killed by the Israelites in those stories. Why is this particular man so special?"

While it's true that the ancient myths of the Israelites are chock-full of blood and gore, enough to make even modern stories like Hostel or Saw look mild by comparison, the intent behind all the death is usually made apparent. This person dared to touch the Ark of the Covenant, for example. Or this group of young boys made fun of a bald man. Or an entire town was particularly inhospitable.

But for Balaam, the continuing mystery is: what exactly did the guy do to deserve death? He's first introduced in Numbers 22, and meets his end in chapter 31 of that same book. I have some thoughts regarding the rationalization of his fate, but in the meantime, I'll entertain anyone's best guess.

Butchering the Sacred Cow

I should preface this by saying unequivocably that I am no fan of J.K. Rowling or her books. I haven't read one, nor seen any of the derived movies (aside from commercials). And yet, I'm utterly fascinated by the furor surrounding the casual announcement that a key character was "always thought of as gay" by Rowling.

It wasn't just the howls of dismay, it's the sheer nastiness that accompanies them that's so odd. That an author so popular and so beloved would be told to shut up her big fat mouth since she's just plain wrong is remarkable, to say the least.

Most people are trying to couch their indignation in the language of art and literary theory, claiming that once she had finished the book, her input had ended, and no way is she gonna tell me who is and who isn't gay if I don't like it.

The reality is, of course her input doesn't end the minute she puts down her pen. Even the high-brow literary types have to admit that her opinion counts at least as much as the next reader, and that's all she was really offering anyway: her opinion about one of the characters.

In this age of printed text and copyright, storytellers have much more control over their characters than in ages past. These days, ideas have currency, and all of five minutes spent germinating a character with potentially international appeal could translate into a massive fortune. For those storytellers who have found popular success, special dispensation is given to the stories that they themselves create, even as their characters leave their aegis at first telling. The term 'canon,' more familiarly applied to Biblical stories, is even used to wall-off and separate those truly "authentic" stories from the cheap knock-offs crafted by those who have borrowed the characters, either legitimately or otherwise.

And 'canon' is the right word, to be sure. Imagine a similar situation occurring to a key character in the stories of the Biblical canon... let's say, Jesus. Is it that difficult to predict what might happen if, for example, an old text from a church father were to make the suggestion that Jesus was gay? Oh, right- that happened. It's not likely to be accurate, but I can't think of a single Christian who finds it plausible... because it conflicts with the picture of Jesus interpreted from the 'canon.' Never mind that no mention is made there of Jesus' sexuality one way or another, nor the fact that he's middle-aged and unmarried, hanging out with a bunch of guys all the time.

The fact of the matter is that 'canon' is just opinion, too. It's just the way the story happened to be told by one person, or agreed upon by a group of people. Nobody's confined to it, and it's subject to change. Just think of how the interpretation of the Tanakh changed after the Christians added their scriptures to it. But if those of us who are interested in figuring out the root of the Christian story deviate from 'canon,' what do we hear?

No way are they gonna tell me who is and who isn't myth if I don't like it!

Google #1 Meme

With a hat tip to World's Fair (and Larry and PZ), I'll indulge in the new meme:

Five Googled Phrases That Return This Blog As The #1 Site
  1. lee strobel fake atheist
  2. rush limbaugh anti religion
  3. does Christianity glorify death?
  4. religious moral systems
  5. sexual goosing meth

...interesting, and that seems about right. While I'm at it, I'll check out which phrases list Evolution 101 as the #1 hit:

  1. do men have milk ducks
  2. how homosexuality evolved
  3. time before a woman orgasm
  4. why men have mammary glands
  5. do all mammals have nipples

Filthy stuff, that. Clearly, the popularity of the podcast is due to its prurient interest.

Creation Museum Pics


It's been a while in coming, I know, but I finally made room on my website for all my Creation Museum thoughts and musings. These include several pictures that I haven't displayed before. You can find them here... enjoy!

Atheists and Anger

From Greta Christina's Blog.

I get angry when religious believers make arguments against atheism -- and make accusations against atheists -- without having bothered to talk to any atheists or read any atheist writing. I get angry when they trot out the same old "Atheism is a nihilistic philosophy, with no joy or meaning to life and no basis for morality or ethics"... when if they spent ten minutes in the atheist blogosphere, they would discover countless atheists who experience great joy and meaning in their lives, and are intensely concerned about right and wrong.

Clash of Faiths: Muslims in Texas

The Islamic Center of Irving, Texas (just outside Dallas)

This past Sunday, after the NTCOF service, I had planned to meet a new friend at the Jason's Deli fellowship lunch/blood drive, so that I could give him a copy of the William Lane Craig presentation on DVD. When he stopped by, I asked if he had any time to stick around and chat with the friendly Freethinkers, but he said that he wanted to head over to the Islamic Center of Irving for their (regular) Open House event. After spit-taking my chocolate soft-serve/root beer float (it's delicious), I quickly inquired where it was located, since I've been looking for an excuse to interact with some Muslims on thier own turf recently, and this was just about as good as I was going to get.


The ICI Entrance and Foyer

This group of Muslims has been active in Dallas for well over 15 years, and have somewhat recently built their own masjid, after meeting in private homes, hotels, and rented commercial space. It ranks in size with most of the more moderate Christian megachurches in the area, and is at least as architechurally attractive as the best of them. Having a strictly geometrical aesthetic tradition, it's not too terribly surprising that their architecture is so impressive. Aside from that difference, there wasn't that much about the place that didn't remind me of any other average Christian church- bulletin boards, pamphlets, warm lighting all around. There were plenty of masjid members immediately outside and in the foyer, all with smiling faces and friendly attitudes, happy to welcome any and everyone inside and direct them to the registration table, where we received gift bags containing a (English translation of the) Qur'an, a number of informational pamplets and brochures, and a booklet detailing all the (groan) scientific discoveries that were predicted by the Qur'an.


The main prayer room

One of the things that was somewhat disquieting to me personally was the obvious evidence of gender segregation in the place. There's a separate "Sisters' Entrance" and "Sisters' Prayer Room," and all the female members were wearing hijab. Of course, I reminded myself that one really doesn't have to look far from orthodox Christianity to find a lot of the same stuff- Mormonism, especially the fundamentalist variety, gets very close to this same concept, and you probably don't have to try very hard to find similar female roles in hard-core fundamentalist orthodox Christian communities either. Hell, the Shaker movement claimed complete segregation of the genders to be an article of faith, and even built it into their architecture!

After registering at the entrance, guided tours commenced that wound through the masjid, showing us the washing areas (used by the men prior to prayer), the masjid store (sold hard-to-find treats, candies, and Muslim literature), the prayer rooms, some of the schoolrooms (they run a K-12 educational program), and upstairs to a sort of fellowship hall (serving Middle-eastern refreshments), which led into a room set up with lots of chairs ready for a presentation.

Yaseen Black explains that Muslims love Jesus too

My friend was already in the room, and since it was packed (with people from apparently a wide variety of backgrounds), I sidled around the back and took a spot near the front right. I was somewhat surprised to see two white guys sitting at the table in the front while the Imam recited verses from the Qur'an, but I figured they were there as representatives of the community or local government, there to lend their support to the Muslims during a time of inter-cultural and -religious interaction. Imagine my surprise when they were introduced as Khalil (Eric) Meek and Dr. Yaseen (Jason) Black, two Muslim members. In fact, Khalil Meek is active with the Dallas chapter of the Council for American-Islamic Relations, being somewhat uniquely qualified for the role after converting to Islam while studying to become a Southern Baptist preacher.

They took turns talking to the crowd about Islam, with the major points being:

  1. Islam is a religion of peace
  2. Muslims love Jesus just as much as (if not more than) Christians
  3. Muslims don't mistreat women.

Regarding the first point, they stressed that Islam is nothing more than submission of one's will to the One God, which I have to admit, sounds a lot like any of the other two large monotheistic religions, and of course, they claimed all of the Jewish prophets (as well as Jesus) as good Muslims. Regarding the second point, they claimed that as a good Muslim (and second only to Mohammed), respect and reverence for Jesus is important to all Muslims. It's just that the Christians who wrote down his words later added to them (I'm on board with that) either intentionally or inadvertently obscuring the fact that the historical Jesus preached Islam (not so much on board with that). To bolster their third point, they claimed that the hijab is a directive from God, and so Muslim women are showing their respect and worship towards Him when they follow his orders (it just happens to be a coincidence that this also follows sociological patterns of female ownership).


Why don't Muslims accept the historical truth of Jesus' resurrection?

After the presentations, they opened the floor for questions from the audience. I was somewhat expecting the questions to be genuinely curious about Islam, but they ended up being largely confrontational, or at least somewhat accusatory. They amounted to, essentially: "Why don't you believe in Christianity?" There seemed to be a genuine bafflement among those Christ-followers in the audience as to why, if these Muslims worshiped the One True God, respected all the prophets from Adam to Jesus, rejected evolution and equitable gender roles, they wouldn't just go the whole hog (so to speak) and become Christians?

This was perhaps the most entertaining part of the experience for me. Given my perspective, there's very little in terms of fundamental theological differences (just the identity of Jesus, really) between them. It was also interesting to see crossed apologetic swords, as in the video above- my friend asks why they deny the resurrection of Jesus, and the Imam gives the classic Muslim docetic response. It kills me when religious apologists from different faiths use their standard arguments on each other, expecting them to be bulletproof. At any rate, it was bizarre to see Christians walk into a masjid and take Muslims to task for their religious beliefs... it'd be like a Protestant walking into a Catholic church and asking the priest why he believes in the doctrine of transubstutation. Or like an orthodox Christian walking into a Mormon temple and asking why they believe Jesus appeared in America. Apparently Muslims are just different enough that they have to make an extra effort to justify their presence in America... and Austin Cline suggests that the sense of Christian nationalism may have something to do with this.

From where I stand, though, this is just one more sign that religious diversity is on the rise here in the states (even in Texas!), when there almost as many Muslims as Presbyterians. I see this as an even stronger indication that common understanding needs to be sought among all parties, theists and nontheists, as well as every variation on either side. That's the only way we're going to be able to make progress without succumbing to violence and immorality.

Borrowing the Silver Lining

It's been a while since I've been to a Christian church service... essentially, since I've found myself an atheist. But as I've gotten more involved in the North Texas Church of Freethought, I've become more and more interested in "rediscover