St Teresa of Avila - ‘The Patron Saint of Hysteria’

Published
by
Canterbury Atheists
on November 20, 2008
.

Popular Name: St. Teresa of Avila
Real Name: Teresa de Cepeda y Ahumada
Country of Birth: Spain
Time-frame: 1515-1582
Claim to fame: Mystical cloistered Discalced Carmelite reformer and nun. Foundress of St. Joseph's convent in Avila, the first reformed Carmelite convent.
Quote: "This prayer is a glorious foolishness, a heavenly madness where the true wisdom is learned; and it is for the soul a most delightful way of enjoying"


History: Born into a family of 10 kids, when her mother died her father shipped her off to be looked after by Augustinian nuns at age 13. She decided, against her fathers wishes to become a nun, but life must have been fairly rudimentary in the nunnery game, and she soon fell seriously ill. Worried at the lack of treatment his daughter was getting at the hands of the Church, her father decided to take Teresa to a ‘health spa’ to recover. But rather than getting better her health deteriorated to the point she lapsed into a coma and when she regained consciousness found she had temporary paralysis of her legs.

At the age of 39, her biological clock ticking away, Teresa began to have visions of Christ and vivid experiences of ''mystical marriage'' with Him and of His presence within her. The last film in the U.K to be banned for blasphemy ''Visions of Ecstasy,''(1989) depicted the supposed ''erotic imaginings'' of St. Theresa of Avila during these visions. Her life was hence-forth littered with visions & raptures described by one writer in this way: "Her record of raptures and visions answers to nothing, in the experience of most modern Christians".

She claimed to have the gift of ‘extraordinary favours’(which she was able to bestow on others, whilst still suffering ill-health herself? ) and ‘dominion over demons’. During her ‘visions’ she became a regular visitor to hell (yes, ‘the’ hell), the description of one such ‘trip’ is outlined in her autobiography....

“Oh, my goodness! I see--oh, it's a stench! The odor is so horrible! I see a huge pit, and it's real burning. The walls are orange and burning hot. Oh! Oh, and I see these horrible creatures; they're clinging to the sides of the rocks. Some have wings on them with horrible--they look almost human, half human, half animal, but they have pointed ears. And they have ... "oh, my God! Please, Blessed Mother, take me out of here!" Oh, my God, they have feet that look like claws and arms with hair, but they also--the fingers have long fingernails; they're like claws. And they have the most horrible grinning expressions on their faces. Now I see, I see bodies of humans falling, falling. As they fall they're starting to glow. They're glowing like an orange color, like coals. And they're screaming, "Help! Mercy! Mercy! Too late! Too late!" Oh!”Oh, my God! And I see they're going so fast. I don't know where they're falling from. They seem to be raining, like almost from the sky into this pit. And I see--oh, my God! I see some are priests. Oh! Oh, and I see one, he has oh, my God!-a cardinal's hat on his head. And there are three. Now I can count them, there are three. They have mitres on their heads. Oh, my God! Oh, it's so horrible! The heat is so great, and the stench! I feel like I'm just burning"....

I’m sure there’s plenty of hospital staff that hears this sort of thing, shortly prior to sedating the patient. The Robbins & Roth Study of 1999 reported 28% of all patients with psychotic symptoms, involved delusions & hallucinations with religious connotations – so we what we see here is not unusual, nor is it divine.

In her most famous vision, the subject of the statue by Bernini (main photo above): "I would see beside me, on my left hand, an angel in bodily form ... He was not tall, but short, and very beautiful, his face so aflame that he appeared to be one of the highest types of angel who seem to be all afire ... In his hands I saw a long golden spear and at the end of the iron tip I seemed to see a point of fire. With this he seemed to pierce my heart several times so that it penetrated to my entrails. When he drew it out, I thought he was drawing them out with it and he left me completely afire with a great love for God. The pain was so sharp that it made me utter several moans; and so excessive was the sweetness caused me by the intense pain that one can never wish to lose it, nor will one's soul be content with anything less than God.".

The most popular modern-day diagnosis of Teresa’s mental condition is contained in the pages of ‘Psychology of The Future’ by Stanislav Grof.

He describes her as a ‘severe hysterical psychotic’, one which seems fair given the nature of her visions & founded also in her claims she was able to physically levitate and ‘fly around my room’ (claims the Catholic Church backs-up) Her psychosis was similarly highlighted in ‘Saints and Madmen’ (by Russell Shorto)

Another re-occurring theme in the analysis of St Teresa’s life is: sexual repression (the topic of the fore-mentioned British movie) By all accounts Teresa was a beautiful woman, with many admirers. Her sexual desires unable to find a physical outlet, she finds ‘pleasure’ and ‘release’ in her visions.

In her autobiography she wrote “During ecstasy the body stops moving, breathing becomes slower and weaker, you only sigh and pleasure comes in waves…”. For all intents and purposes, she is describing an orgasm. Many interpret her most famous vision (above) as having strong sexual connotations, and the angels golden spear to be phallic symbolism.

Even in the 19th century, when psychiatry was in its infancy, it was obvious to those who read her ‘rambling’ autobiography Teresa was suffering what would now be termed ‘mental health issues’. Sigmund Freud's colleague, Joseph Breur, dubbing her ‘the patron saint of hysteria’ after finishing her story (an herculean effort in itself, the book being almost unreadable to anyone, in any age, past or present)

Others modern psychiatrists like Dewhust & Beard (‘Handbook of Health & Religion), attribute her visions to temporal lobe epilepsy. Just may be, the Catholic Church does have a sense of humour after all, or begrudgingly agree with the diagnosis - St Teresa just happens to be ‘The Patron Saint of headache sufferers’!

Even Teresa herself considered she was “mad” at times, an opinion shared by many of her fellow nuns, villagers surrounding her monastery etc. In one examination of her powers the two priests involved concluded she was ‘deluded’- but not enough to prevent beatification. In many of the Catholic Churches official writings they do point to her issues, framing them as “mental agonies”.
Morbidly, her body was exhumed several times after her death, and the Church reports of the time describe her corpse as ‘sweet-smelling, firm, and incorrupt’( if you are thinking of becoming a saint, it would help to remember this) Her heart, hands, right foot, right arm, left eye and part of her jaw are on display in various sites around the world. She was canonised by Gregory XV in 1622, and in 1969 proclaimed a Doctor of the Church for her writings (the first female)



This article is part of my series on ‘Churches of Christchurch’ in which I investigate the lives of the Saints, exploring the real stories behind the names synonymous with some of our cities most famous landmarks. We look behind the official church rhetoric, and examine more closely their often flamboyant & sometimes disturbing lives.

Global Warming Explained

Published
by
possum_momma
on November 20, 2008
.

P2 was telling me about a discussion in his social studies class. They were discussing the impact of global warming on farmers, especially in historically agrarian cultures. The teacher was sharing that ocean levels in India had risen and the global temperature change had resulted in changes to the cycle of cyclones (or something). I guess this boy put his hand up to argue that global warming wasn't real. The teacher, allegedly, told him that there were people who would agree with the boy's theory, but that he would like to know why the boy felt global warming was nonfactual. P2 says the boy said, the ocean rose because the "Christmas Tsunami" in 2004 pulled so much debris into the water that it was "like dumping boulders in your pool and blaming the spill over on global warming".

*I'll pause while you consider this.

The teacher tried explaining the size of the ocean and the flaws in the boys theory. Boy got angry with teacher. Teacher said that he would like to see where the boy got this information/idea from so that he can read-up on it. Boy tells him that people in Noah's time thought their flood was from global warming, too...or so says the boy's minister.

This is why rational people don't take creation science seriously.

Change, Traditions, and the Inertia of Plans

Published
by
Alonzo Fyfe
on November 20, 2008
.

Here is a puzzle from the field of economics.

Opportunity Costs

Imagine that there is a particular concert that you want to go to with a friend of yours. The concert is expected to be very popular, and concert goers can only purchase tickets at a particular location. So, you go to that location with enough money to buy the tickets, only to discover that the line is already extremely long. Still, you get in line. When the ticket stand opens, the line starts to move, and, before you get to the ticket stand, they hang a “Sold Out” sign on the window and close up the stand.

Your next option is to go onto the computer and see who is selling tickets. You see that the tickets are being offered for $1000 each on-line. That’s $2000 for you and your friend. That’s too expensive, you decide, and you decline to buy the tickets.

Then, you pass somebody on the street who is visibly upset. Perhaps he had just had a fight with his girlfriend or something. He puts two concert tickets in your hand and says, “Do whatever you want with them,” and walks off.

Do you then go to the concert?

Most people answer, “Yes.”

However, traditional decision theory suggests that this is the wrong answer.

When you went online to buy the tickets and saw what they were selling for, you decided that $2000 was worth more to you than 2 tickets. Given a decision between keeping $2000 and exchanging it for two tickets, you selected to keep the $2000.

Here, again, you are put in a position where you can decide between having two tickets to the concert and having $2000. You know that you could go online and put the tickets up for sale and get $2000 for them. Yet, most people choose the tickets (and going to the concert) over the $2000 they could otherwise get.

These are the very same people who, earlier, choose to have $2000 rather than the tickets.

What is going on here?

If you take the model that I have been defending in this blog – that people always choose that which fulfills the most and strongest of their desires, given their beliefs – then this type of decision making is a problem. Why is it that the state that “I have $2000” the one that fulfills the most and strongest desires in the first case, but the state, “I have 2 tickets to the concert” the state that fulfills the most and strongest desires in the second?

Do these types of examples disprove the type of action theory I have been defending?

Probably.

Inertia in Decision Making

What these types of situations argue for is that our decision making has a certain type of inertia – and that it takes a extra energy, in a sense – an extra benefit - to overcome that inertia and to get us to move along a different course than the one we are on.

In the first case, where a person has the option of buying tickets online for $1000 each, the agent would have to spend $2000 that the agent did not plan to spend. Inertia says to keep the money where it is and forego the concert.

In the second case, where one is suddenly given the tickets, inertia says to go to the concert. This is what the agent had already planned – before the “sold out” sign put a roadblock across those plans. When suddenly given a pair of tickets, those plans become viable again, so the agent goes to the concert.

What this tells us more generally is that people make plans and they have some sort of inclination or tendency to follow those plans to their completion. These plans create barriers to anything that would result in a change of course, that would result in changing those plans.

Furthermore, I suspect that observations would show that people have different degrees of reluctance to changing their plans. Some will scrap a plan the instant they see a benefit in doing so, while others will knowingly follow a plan to its painful end even when they fully see the disaster that waits for them. For these people, the costs of leaving the channel that is their plan is greater than the cost of the cost of the disaster, at least in present terms.

The Belief-Desire Model

We can actually incorporate this phenomena into the belief-desire model that I generally defend in this blog. We can incorporate it by saying that people have an aversion to altering a plan. This aversion is stronger in some people and weaker in others. It is probably malleable (subject to social forces), meaning that it makes sense for us to argue, “To what degree should people be averse to altering a plan?”

There is a moral argument to be made to promoting some aversion to changing plans at the last minute. People who stick to their plans are easier to predict. Because they are easier to predict, this makes it easier for others to make their plans. I create a number of plans every day that depend on what other people do. It is far easier for me to create successful plans when I am able to reliably predict the actions of others.

On the other hand, too much devotion to a plan generates the type of problems I wrote about above. It means that the agent will not change course even when the current course is heading towards a disaster. The aversion that we have to those disastrous states argues for promoting in people some disposition to consider where they are going, and to change course.

This concept of inertia in decision making is relevant to a great many of our social policies.

The problem with global warming is that a great many of our plans carry with them a certain amount of inertia. This inertia tells us to keep to our old habits with respect to driving, heating our homes, and our use of electricity. It takes more than the fact that there are benefits to be captured by altering the way we live. Those benefits have to be so much greater that they can overcome inertia – that they can overcome the aversion to changing plans.

Bigotry and prejudice are also subject to inertia. The difficulty in getting institutions to give up on slavery, segregation, or ‘traditional marriage’, on rituals involving pledges to ‘under God’, all rest with the fact that those ‘traditions had inertia, and inertia favors the preservation of traditions.

In fact, we can easily fit the social concept of a ‘tradition’ into this discussion of the existence of and the value of inertia in decision making. I argued above that there are certain benefits to having people stuck in a plan, to a certain extent; this makes it easier for people to make plans. One way to promote this virtue of sticking with a plan is to attach the term ‘tradition’ to certain plans, and to promote a desire to preserve tradition (or an aversion to violating traditions).

The value . . . the virtue . . . of tradition (as captured in some conservative values) does have some merit. The value . . . the virtue . . . of change also has merit where tradition and keeping to a path is destructive of the self and others. It is permissible to argue to preserve tradition for tradition’s sake as long as the cost of doing so is not so great. However, the value of preserving tradition – in the minds of a good person – should be weaker than the aversion to causing great harm to others. When these values come into conflict, the desire to preserve tradition should give way to the desire to avoid doing harm.

Conclusion

In general, our decisions are grounded at least somewhat on the preservation of plans – the preservation of traditions. To the degree that we can promote in others an aversion to changing plans or shunning tradition, to that degree they become more predictable, and we can better fulfill our own goals (including our own aversions to violating certain traditions). The liberal is wrong to dismiss too easily the value of tradition.

At the same time, the conservative is wrong to attach too much value to tradition. The value of tradition is that it adds certain efficiencies to our daily decision making. It is not some sacred, inviolable law that must always be followed regardless of the consequences (the harm done to others).

There is a balance here to be maintained, and it will often be difficult to know where that balance should be struck. These, then, are circumstances where different people can disagree without mocking or denigrating others who they disagree with, within certain limits.

betelgeuse’s bow shock

Published
by
toomanytribbles
on November 20, 2008
.
at ESA


click pic to source

Fundies Rethink Fight Against Abortion

Published
by
Brian
on November 20, 2008
.
Finally! A tiny whiff of common sense emanating from that little world the evangelicals seem to inhabit (a world, at times, so unlike our own). A growing number of fundamentalist leaders and pastors are finally beginning to realize that they will never be able to win an outright ban on abortions. The fight is essentially over.

The new strategy being floated in conservative circles is one I actually agree with and respect - reduce the number of abortions by supporting the needs of pregnant women.

"Frustrated by the failure to overturn Roe v. Wade, a growing number of antiabortion pastors, conservative academics and activists are setting aside efforts to outlaw abortion and instead are focusing on building social programs and developing other assistance for pregnant women to reduce the number of abortions.

Some of the activists are actually working with abortion rights advocates to push for legislation in Congress that would provide pregnant women with health care, child care and money for education -- services that could encourage them to continue their pregnancies".

As long as this strategy stays positive and doesn't include intimidation then I think it's a great idea. All they need to add is a little comprehensive sex education and better access to birth control options and they'd have a winning campaign. It's crazy enough that might just work.

Of course there are still a few hardliners in the anti-abortion camp and by the sounds of it they are already freaking out at just the hint of doing anything positive for women. They are calling this new direction a "sellout" and are calling anybody associated with the idea a traitor. Just how hate filled do you have to be to think that providing opportunities for pregnant women is a sellout of your values?

From Tormented Soul to Freed Atheist - Part 3 of 3

Published
by
guitarstrummr
on November 20, 2008
.

Please do not feel like you need to read this entire story, I have carefully included [tangents] in brackets. Feel free to skip them and read them later - or not at all.

Following the dreadful years of my teens, I was confronted with a period of milder Christianity. I just ‘believed’ everything, ‘believed’ I was saved, ‘believed’ God had a plan for me, and ‘believed’ in the inerrancy of the Bible and that any problem passages could just be resolved with enough research and devotion to the Word (as the Psalmist so often sang).

My love for Christ and my fellow man now became my primary focus - often to the chagrin of more fundamentalists / legalistic friends of mine. I would consider this the “maturing” portion of my Christian faith.

My understanding of the gospel was also deepening. I understood it was less about dogmatic claims and more about the love of Christ transforming us from the inside out. It was a story about a man who is lost and who is then subsequently found. I still did believe the Bible to be inerrant, but I understood from some classes at Moody that inerrancy does not apply to the interpretation but to the original intent of the author. Therefore, if an interpretation is wrong it just means the person has not done enough digging into the word to find the proper interpretation.

My friend and I decided we wanted to start a college-age Bible study at our church. Our church, being quite conservative, did not attract college students and I, for one, felt somewhat secluded from believers my age. I think we had a grand total of 6-8 people my age at church - most of whom I had known for years. At the same time, I felt increasingly called to minister to those my age. For some reason I was attracted to intellectual conversation, stimulating debate, and going “deeper” into the Scriptures. I became rather interested in apologetics (especially C.S.Lewis) and would often use these arguments when witnessing to unbelievers.

Our Bible studies grew - extensively. We went from 6-8 people at our home church to 30-40 in literally. We attracted dozens of other students - outside of church. For the most part I was learning how to do expository teaching and preaching from the text of Scripture alone. We were huge fans of John MacArthur.

I began to give in to pornography. I was thoroughly perplexed by my ’struggle’ (as we used to call it) with pornography addiction. I remember lying on the floor (multiple times), begging and pleading with God that He would remove this sin from my life. I installed filters and got my dad involved. I joined a support group of guys and was rather shocked to discover that they all struggled with this too. Then I discovered that this was a massive problem within the church and that there are support groups for this issue everywhere. It was all new to me. I had not seen a full naked woman until I decided to look at porn when I was around 19 years old. All the built up sexual tension that I had suppressed through my teenage years exploded into my addiction. I would give in about once every two weeks - in those ‘moments of weakness’. Sometimes I would go for months or more but eventually my natural desire would be too much to bear.

To more complicate things, I was under the impression that guys should overcome their sexual problems before entering a relationship with a girl so that they would not carry that ‘problem’ into marriage. (In Joshua Harris fantasy land, relationships are basically equal to marriage because you should not express interest in a girl until you are ready for a serious relationship and serious relationships, if they are done properly, end up in marriage.) I felt like I was in a deadlock. The very thing I needed (a woman) was the very thing I could not get until I was free from my addiction. But my addiction was fed by my inability to get a woman because I was addicted. I was miserable.

During this period I also came up with a rather ingenious harmonization of all of the passages in Scripture that talk about the possibility of losing salvation - including my dreaded Hebrews 6 passage. I can remember the elation and ecstasy at this discovery as I shared it in one of our college Bible studies. My exuberance was no doubt influenced by the relief that finally - finally! - I no longer had to have doubts about my salvation because I understood what these passage were talking about. But the doubts still lingered.

Our church got a new pastor. He scared me, I will admit. For the first time in my life I met a person who had an answer for everything and I have to admit it seemed fake. Compared to the elderly former pastor who was willing to admit “I don’t know” to a crucial question like my own salvation, this pastor seemed cocky. I can remember once sitting in the car, asking him difficult questions - testing him - just to see if he would ever say “I don’t know” to anything I asked. He never did. I confess this left me rather confused. On the one hand he seemed arrogant, but on the other he actually did have answers. Were his answers right? What if he was ever wrong - would he admit it? I was leery, but I decided to give him a chance and trust that maybe he did know what he was talking about.

This pastor immediately got down to business in the church and started mentoring me and my friend who helped me run the local college Bible study. It was during one of these Bible studies that I shared with my pastor about my discovery regarding Hebrews 6. I was animated as I spoke.
He glared at me. I can still remember his words: “So your telling me that you have discovered something that nobody has known for 2000 years?” In other words, who do you think you are?

As you can imagine I was quite taken aback and pressed him for more information. Where had my interpretation gone wrong? How was I being arrogant? My entire goal was to demonstrate the inerrancy of Scripture and the validity of doctrines of eternal security and election in light of these more difficult passages like Hebrews 6. Tell me, pastor, where did I go wrong? He did not have an answer but instead got visibly agitated and frustrated. I was bewildered. Why could I not just get an answer?

Around this same time, our college group was accused (by this pastor) of being a “parachurch” organization. Despite the fact that we had explicitly outlined that we wanted to be under the elders, they wanted more explicitly outlined control over our group. I can remember talking to my pastor and my dad (who was an elder) asking what this was all about. The college group was going great! What were we doing wrong? They kept reassuring me they only wanted to have it made very clear that the group was under the church because we met on church property. This weirded me out because 80% of the people coming to the Bible study were not from our church and we were not doing anything wrong or teaching anything wrong. Things had been fine for over a year, why the sudden change? I felt this was an attempt to place extra control on our group and I wanted to know why. My fear was that if the church took over completely it would scare some of our non-church attendees to leave. Then we would only be left with people from our church (my fears were confirmed within the next year).

I was accused of trying to take over the college group. I’m not kidding. My pastor accused me in his private office of being unsubmissive, unteachable, and likened me to a girl he knew who was manipulative and controlling. I was aghast. I looked for answers and got accusations. How was I supposed to respond to that?

[I had seen what this had done once before. Our church once had a new attendee who struggled with alcoholism. I loved this guy - he was so smart. Yes he was going through a rough time, yes he smoked cigarettes, and yes he struggled with alcohol. But I still loved Him because He loved Jesus. And he was a new baby Christian in our church! After he had only attended for a few months, our church decided to rebuke him in front of the entire congregation for his alcoholism and unwillingness to repent. I still remember how shocked and hurt I was that even though he never showed up for his public punishment, the elders decided to go through with the rebuke anyway - in keeping with the Scriptures. He never came back to the church (no duh). I did not want to end up like this poor guy.]

So I decided to start my own Biblical confrontation of my pastor, who had deeply hurt me and left me confused. We met at a local coffee shop and I kindly and calmly explained to him how much he had hurt me and how much I wanted some answers over the Hebrews 6 passage as well as his accusations that I was trying to take over the college group. I just wanted answers and an apology for hurting me. He blew me off. When he started going on the offensive, rubbing in my arrogance, etc. I decided to get up and just walk out. I can still remember him yelling at me as I walked out of the front door of that public coffee shop. I felt literally ripped to shreds for my curiosity.

How could a man like this have the Holy Spirit?

My heart was broken. I had no one to talk to. I tried to talk to my parents, but they simply tried to soothe my frustration. Nothing was done about this, to my knowledge. The pastor never apologized.

Fast forward several more crazy stories about a bizarre Christian sect in Kansas, wild interpretations of Genesis (weirder than six-day, I kid you not), and extremely arrogant Christian businessmen who used “God’s Will” as evidence that he wanted them to start an almost impossible multi-million dollar business on money from friends and family to help the poor in developing nations.

The next year I moved to Colorado. I went on “faith”, trusting the Lord to provide (He “did”). I was interested in a girl out there too, and started to feel that maybe the Lord wanted me in a relationship with her. I took the necessary courtship steps at that time by getting to know her father. He agreed to start a Bible study with me and my friend (the same friend who had done a Bible study with our pastor). This girl’s father seemed like such a godly man and I was excited to meet him - and his daughter.

The Bible studies we held were a little - weird. It was basically him teaching us all his wisdom and trying to find ways to demonstrate how wrong we were about things. Often when we would question him, he would start to get agitated and frustrated if we did not take his first answer as gospel. He was one of those types who decides that nearly every guest who comes to his house should be subjected to a rudimentary Bible study after the evening meal.

One study we somehow got into discussing relationships, and he was pointing out the “Biblical” mandate that the father of the bride is supposed to have the final say in his daughters relationships. He also pointed out that the young man should come to the father first and pursue the daughter through him. I could not help but notice that his interpretation was a little off (ok, a lot off, but whatever) and so I pointed out that the greatest love story in the Bible is about Ruth, where it is actually the women who are most involved in pursuing and attracting a man into a relationship - no fathers involved (sure, they were dead, but I figured it was a good example that his strict interpretation was a little too black and white).

[Okay, weird story. So my other friend who helped me start the Bible study also liked this girl at one time. He was attending an extremely conservative Christian school in Colorado at the time that she was attending as well. He was confined to campus (a church) for three months for calling this girl and talking to her on the phone for an hour without permission. I am not joking. If there were extenuating circumstances we were never told - this was what he told me (almost crying). He was told that all courtships were supposed to be approved by the school and his phone call broke that rule.]

He grew agitated and would not look me in the eye. He almost started yelling, explaining how wrong I was and that the Bible was “so clear” on how relationships are supposed to be run. He knew I liked his daughter and I think he probably felt like I was trying to usurp his God-given authority in the relationship. I didn’t know what to do. His Biblical interpretation was just downright silly. He never acknowledged the Scriptures I cited and almost banged his Bible saying “God’s Word is so clear, how can you not see it?”

This got me curious: how many Christians hold on to bad interpretations of Scripture and insist they are Biblical when they are not? How many interpretations of Scripture did I hold in similar fashion to this man? And if someone can hold onto a bad interpretation and not know it, what bad interpretations did I have that were wrong?

But I still held on to my faith. Around this time I was starting to have problems with Biblical inerrancy and science and the Bible. One day I was talking to a friend about evidence for God’s existence, and my friend (who is normally pretty darn smart) said this: “Josh, you know how they don’t know what the gluon is? Well, I think they can’t figure it out because the gluon is God.” Now, I may not have been as philosophical then as I am now, but I was not so stupid as to accept this. What would happen when they did discover what the gluon was - would this mean they killed god? Unintentionally I discovered the “god of the gaps” concept.

I was getting interested in philosophy and psychology and biology, etc. I was starting to read - a lot. One thing that kicked this off was an agnostic friend who had me read some Descartes. Finally! I found a person who thought!

I was thoroughly intrigued by atheists. I knew they were wrong, but why were they so smart? How could they not see the error of their way? In church we had learned about all sorts of world religions, but rarely discussed atheism. What was up with these people?

The year of 2007 I spent massive amounts of time writing. I was working on a book - a rational defense of the Christian faith. I reached the point where I had nearly 115-120 pages of material and then hit a dead-end. I had figured out an entire system about how knowledge turns into understanding turns into beliefs which influences actions and generates emotions. My premise was that the right beliefs will lead to peace. This is (of course) why Christians have so much peace. If a person believes something wrong, it will lead to inner turmoil because their beliefs do not match reality. This explains the “void” in people’s hearts in the world. They obviously have bad beliefs.

Because of my interest in atheism and consistent compliments people would give me on my intelligence, I started to feel lead by the Lord into apologetics so I could lead atheists to the Lord. I figured if the Lord had given me the gift of my intelligence and analytical mind, surely I could use it to reach atheists. I met a man at a bookshop who was an atheist and we agreed to start a book club. I was so excited at what the Lord was doing! I agreed to read The End of Faith by Sam Harris and he agreed to read Mere Christianity by C.S.Lewis.

That day I walked down the street, book in arm, to a coffee shop down the road. I had already started reading the God Delusion, but The End of Faith knocked me flat. As I read the first 50 pages, I realized that Sam Harris had stolen all my ideas. He was basically speaking back to me everything I had worked so hard to discover in my book. But he was an atheist.

I couldn’t take it. I stopped reading the book. I literally walked out of that coffee shop unable to continue reading The End of Faith. My confidence was devastated.

A few weeks later (at the beginning of this January, 2008), I got a call from a family member in Chicago who lets me know that there is an opening on the floor at Moody Bible Institute on my old floor. I had not attended for over a year, but with my new doubts and desire to be an apologist I thought I would attend - if not just to get some new answers. I needed time - to think and study God’s Word. I was confident they would have the answers and the only thing I was dreading was the PCM (Practical Christian Ministry) because my faith was so weak at that time I felt like I needed to be taught - not teach.

That night I nearly hallucinated as I opened my Bible to Genesis 1 and 2. I was shocked. For the first time I was seeing problems everywhere. There were contradictions, difficulties galore. I panicked. I called my dad, telling him I thought I was under demonic attack. As I left for Moody the next day I even thought I saw two angels fighting a demon over me at the top of the stares. I almost stopped and then thought “what the heck am I thinking?” This can’t be happening! The voices felt like they were going to come back.

[Ah yes, the voices. I said that I was going to explain them. Ironically around this time I discovered that I could almost always predict what the voices were going to say to me. On top of this, they never said anything new to me - they only told me things I already knew. This got me to thinking: maybe they were all in my head? If they really were demons, I should not have control over them or be able to predict what they say and they should also occasionally reveal something to me that I did not already know. Otherwise they might as well be figments of my imagination. Ironically, upon this discovery the voices started to go away. As soon as I was able to identify them as figments of my imagination, my "belief" in what they said dropped, and I suddenly gained control over them. I can now, in the right moments, make them come back and say whatever I want. They normally just disagree with what I am thinking at the moment anyway!]

If there was anything that cured me of Christianity, it was this last semester at Moody Bible Institute. I took up three primary courses, all of them specifically chosen so that I could get some good answers. They were Philosophy, Genesis, and Intro to Bible.

As I sat in those classes, I was appalled at some of the things students were saying. In Intro to Bible, I can remember our teaching explicitly telling us that Hebrews was probably not written by Paul. A girl piped up and said, “Well, I believe it was written by Paul” - as if that settled it. In Genesis class, our teacher was explaining how the Hebrew structure in Genesis 1-2 does not necessarily imply a literal six day creation. Several students raised their hands and asked him if he had ever heard of Answers in Genesis. One of the most loved, and most hated, teachers was a teacher who believed in progressive creation. He would often be ‘corrected’ in class when he would admit he was a progressive creationist. Our teachers were smart and well educated and they were being gently insulted by students in the class who thought they must have missed something. I was appalled. How could this be? If these students already had the answers, what were they coming to school for?
Sadly, the answers from the teachers were not any better.

I literally spent hundreds of hours studying extra-curricular topics at Moody. I dove into psychology, the paranormal, aliens, UFO sightings, miraculous reports, resurrection reports on the Internet, the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Peter, the formation of the canon, evolution, six-day creation, theistic evolution, debates, apologists, William Lane Craig, a little of Bart Erhmann, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Polkinghorne, Francis Collins, Ken Ham, C.S.Lewis, Socrates, Aristotle, etc.

As my doubts increased, I talked to teachers, pastors, students. I talked to a grad student who was attending Moody. I read books people recommended. I talked to my roommate, my father, and confided in anyone I could think of. I talked to my dorm supervisor.

[My dorm supervisor sat down me down and I confessed that I was having doubts about inerrancy and creation / evolution. To my surprise, he was not surprised. Then (to my later astonishment) he handed by a book by John Polkinghorne entitled "The Faith of a Physicist". Imagine my surprise when I discover that John Polkinghorne does not believe in inerrancy and does believe in evolution. How weird. Here I was admitting to my teacher that I was struggling with doubts about inerrancy and six-day creation and he hands me a book by a Christian who believes neither. If inerrancy is so true, why not give me a book defending inerrancy? I took this as a tacit admission that maybe inerrancy is not true.]

[During spring break I sat down and talked to a graduate student. I confessed that I was having trouble with Biblical inerrancy and laid out before him a rather complicated contradiction between Paul's writings and what Moody taught about Scripture. He looked at me lovingly and basically said "Well, I know that is what the passage says, but hey, there are more complicated problems with the texts that we are learning about in Grad school. Have you heard about the issue with the virgin birth? The amazing thing about all this is that it actually strengthens my faith!" I suddenly felt like I graduated with a PhD in theology. I was way beyond this man, and he was in graduate school. The virgin birth problem was the least of my worries, I was discovering stuff far beyond that. I felt so alone. Did no one else see the problems in Scripture that I was seeing? Why did churches and seminaries hide these issues so carefully from people - until they entered grad school? What did they have to hide?]

My skepticism increased. That semester we had Josh McDowell come to Moody. I was elated. Here was a big-hitting apologist coming onto the scene. I was hoping he would answer my questions and attack this “new atheism” that was on the rise. I was on the edge of my seat, hoping for some new evidence to come to light that the atheists were hiding.

Instead, he gave an impassioned speech about how the evidence is so overwhelming he did not feel the need to address it in front of Moody. Instead, he explained how Christians need to stop paying attention to the evidence and instead start developing close relationships with those outside the church. If we can develop those relationships, and gain their trust, we can then teach them about our Lord. Can anyone say manipulation? We had just learned about logic in philosophy and here was McDowell (an apologist!) breaking the rules of logic. He was basically saying: ignore the evidence and focus on emotional appeals and gaining trust. I was ashamed because I suddenly felt like I was part of a cult.

[At this meeting McDowell confessed something he had never confessed before. He admitted that it was not the evidence that lead him to the faith, it was the close relationship he had with a pastor in his early twenties. You see, he had been molested as a child and the anger of the experience had built up inside him. This pastor taught him about God and lead Him to the Lord and eventually he got up enough courage to confront the man who had abused him.
I was shocked.]

Is that it? Is this all Christianity is? Good relationships? Gaining trust? Emotional appeals? Where is this massive mountain of evidence? How the heck was I supposed to defend the faith as an apologist when I was being asked to basically commit to the faith and make the evidence fit?

During chapel once, a wise old ex-president of Moody Bible Institute was asked by a student what the most difficult question he has to answer on a daily basis. He said “how do I know I am saved?” Then he added his own difficult question he asked himself all the time: “why do I not see more evidence of the Holy Spirit at work in my life?” I could not help but think the answer to both was most easily satisfied with: because neither of them are true.

[One time during a Bible study with a bunch of Chinese people (in which we lured them in by teaching them English and then said they could stay to study the Bible) I mentioned to a very intelligent Chinese lady that I believed in God. She looked at me, curiously tilted her head sideways as a small playful smile slipped into her lips, and simply asked "Why?" That one word did more to destroy my faith than anything so far. I had just spent hundreds - if not thousands - of hours studying Christianity and the arguments for the existence of God and in one simple word she revealed just how silly I was being. I did not have a good answer. I think I made something clever up. I can't remember.
That night I realized I had a problem. I was always an extremely honest person, and I knew I could no longer lie about my doubts. At this point I still clung to the faith but was willing to give up inerrancy. Thankfully school was almost over and I needed time away - away from ministry, away from the indoctrination I felt I was getting at Moody. Away to think. I was in mental anguish. I would spend hours and hours mulling over all the possibilities, trying to think of any way that Christianity could still be true.]

One incident at Moody particularly got my attention. The elevators in the guys dorms are notorious for not closing or opening when they should. Often students will press the “close door” button over and over and over - until the door closes.

I remember once standing in the elevator, looking down at that small button, thinking how stupid it was that people would keep pressing it - when the door was going to close anyway. The thought popped into my head and nearly knocked me over: isn’t this what prayer is? Don’t most Christians intentionally pray in such a way that their faith is safe? Not only this but we all prayed for things that were probably going to happen anyway. Were we all just as stupid as those students who keep pressing the close door button over and over?

This summer, unable to get answers to my questions from private meetings with professors or pastors or reading the books they recommended, I opened up to the public about my doubts. I first revealed on Facebook that I was having trouble with six-day creation and was now a theistic evolutionist. The backlash was horrifying. People were telling me I was losing the faith (not far off, really), that I did not trust God or His Word, and that I was going liberal. I had carefully outlined my reasons but no one cared about that - not a soul dealt with anything I actually said. 95% of those who responded did so out of anger, frustration, and confusion. I kept thinking: are these children of a God of peace and order and truth? Why are they so afraid of solid arguments? Where is the Holy Spirit they claim to have - the Holy Spirit who was promised to lead men into truth?

Then I posted notes about why I was now no longer believed in inerrancy. Vile responses, threats, confusion, anger, frustration, etc. Now I was getting frustrated. I was seriously hoping that somebody would shoot me down, put me in my place, show me how I was wrong so that I could go back to Moody in the fall with a reinforced faith. (Only one professor from Moody really dealt with the issues seriously, and I have him to thank for being one of the best Christians I have met who was willing to dig deep to find answers. If you are reading this, Douglas, I respect you.)

[One friend sent me a reference to a missionary for New Tribes Missions, who was also a PhD in biological chemistry. I was thinking: oh good, someone who can show me how I am wrong! I still wanted to believe in six-day creation because it would have been so much easier that way.

His responses appalled me. We got into a deep discussion and I actually started to out-match him in philosophical matters. This scared me a little, quite frankly. Then we began to discuss inerrancy, and I (rather bluntly) challenged him to find the place in the Old Testament that predicts that the Messiah would rise on the third day. But I gave him one stipulation, he could not use the story of Jonah because the early Christians did not have the book of Luke yet and so they would have only had the Old Testament to work with. Besides, using the book of Jonah was taking it out of context anyway.
His response was scary. He told me that just as Joshua entered the promised land three days after the bearer of the first covenant had died (Moses), so Jesus as the bearer of the second covenant entered the new promised land three days after he died (resurrection). Impressive. But it only took me fifteen minutes of Bible study to realize how wrong he was.

How could a believer indwelt by the Holy Spirit twist Scripture so elegantly? It was a beautiful allegorical interpretation: but it was dead wrong. How could he be so careless with the very Words of God? If Satan is the one who twists Scripture, what am I supposed to believe about this man?]

Christians were pushing me away from the faith with every ridiculous word they uttered.

I continued to post notes. I received dozens of lengthy responses from believers, asking what was “going on?” I have met dozens of new people on Facebook, all of them trying to help me. I was trying to be as honest as I could with everyone, knowing that “faking” my faith was just stupid. I’ve made new friends, probably lost a few friends. One relative kindly told me to stop tagging her in my notes. I stopped tagging anyone, for fear I would keep offending Christians.

Eventually I had to admit I was an atheist. This brought in a new flood of criticism. At the same time it has been bringing in a flood of apologies from believers on behalf of other Christians who have been so ridiculous in their comments to me. I have received confession notes from other believers that they no longer believe the things they used to either. It has been a little weird. One day I receive notes from seasoned believers with comments like “Ya, ya big talker” or “May God have mercy on your soul” and the very next note I receive is a confession from a young Christian that I have been making them think or an admission they are having doubts about things and have not told very many other people for fear of ridicule. Either way, all the comments I receive only convince me more and more that Christianity is false.

So that brings me up to today. I have not hidden anything, I have been open and honest and blunt about my atheism. And it is starting to pay off. “You will reap what you sow.” I have been desperately sowing honesty, rationality, and as much kindness as I can muster (it is really hard to be kind to people who damn you to hell) - and I am starting to see the fruit.

And if anyone has anything new to add to the conversation, I am all ears. If you can demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God - and not just a figment of your imagination - I will believe. Hands down. I miss the good days of my faith, just not the horrifying ones.

Many of you will say that the Christianity I “knew” is not the Christianity you “know”. Oh really? I would just argue you are not taking your faith seriously enough. You are lukewarm, which Jesus detests. Try making sense of Hebrews 6:4-6 - realizing these are the living Words of God - and see if the Bible looks so rosy next time you open its pages.

I am an atheist, and I am free:)

Posted in 809334      

The news from Texas is bad

Published
by
Mojoey
on November 20, 2008
.

Martin Wagner of the Atheist Experience reports on the Texas SBOE hearings on Science TKES (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills). The news is disappointing. The citizens of Texas seem hell bent on ushering in the next Dark Ages.

I’m a big fan of The Atheist Experience. I listen to every show. I appreciate the work they do to promote positive atheism. Apparently in Texas, they have many difficult days ahead with this creationist packed SBOE. Let’s help however we can.

Technorati tags: , ,

Education vs. Religion

Published
by
Spanish Inquisitor
on November 20, 2008
.

In my last post, I discussed the inherent conflict between religion and science. It’s a regular theme here. While many people believe that Religion and Science can co-exist, I’m not one of them. I think there is an inherent conflict between the two, and that ultimately science will predominate in our culture, and religion will die a timely death. Probably not in my lifetime, but since the process started sometime during the Renaissance, it’s unreasonable to think that it would. I can see it happening in the next hundred years however, because of the speed at which the progress of critical thinking has accelerated, primarily because of computers, and most notably the internet. Where it used to take, literally, years for a novel idea to circumnavigate the globe, it now takes seconds.

Intrinsic to this is the role of education. The progress referenced above is increased in direct proportion to the amount of education in any particular populace. A recent attack on education by and English Bishop is a good indicator of the truth of this.

The Rt Rev Patrick O’Donoghue, the Bishop of Lancaster, has claimed that graduates are spreading scepticism and sowing dissent. Instead of following the Church’s teaching they are “hedonistic”, “selfish” and “egocentric”, he said…

Bishop O’Donoghue, who has recently published a report on how to renew Catholicism in Britain, argued that mass education has led to “sickness in the Church and wider society”.

You know that the church is just a tad bit worried when it attacks education itself, and blames academia for the decline in interest in the church, church attendance and, for that matter, church relevance. I find this to be an astonishing admission that religion is dependent on the ignorance of its faithful and the fostering of blind adherence to church doctrine. While it always seemed clear to me that any religion would fail once the body of the church reached a certain level of group intelligence, I always thought that it was a dirty little secret no church would admit to. Apparently, things have gotten desperate.

“What we have witnessed in Western societies since the end of the Second World War is the development of mass education on a scale unprecedented in human history - resulting in economic growth, scientific and technological advances, and the cultural and social enrichment of billions of people’s lives,” he said.

Coincidentally, during the same time frame, religion has become less and less significant, losing more and more influence in the lives of it’s adherents. He blames education. Why? Because educated people learn to think for themselves. They study the scientific method, learn critical thinking at the higher levels of academia, and generally shed the thought processes that are necessary to maintain a system of people reliant on a central authority that offers nothing but hope in an ephemeral and nonexistent afterlife. So of course, when confronted with a decline in attendance, and an increase in religious apathy, what else to blame but the education of the flock? Clearly, they’ve been over-educated! They’re now too smart to buy into the concept of original sin, which along with “radical scepticism, positivism, utilitarianism and relativism” is the root cause for a decline in mass attendance and priests.

Attendance at Mass in 1991 was recorded as 1.3 million, representing a drop of 40 per cent since 1963, but it fell further to 960,000 in 2004. The number of priests in England and Wales has slumped by nearly a quarter in 20 years, from 4,545 in 1985 to 3,643 in 2005.

Although the good Bishop pays lip service to the advisability of continuing education, what he’s really suggesting is that we should educate less, indoctrinate more. Stop teaching people to think for themselves, teach them to let the church do their thinking for them. Turn them back into good little sheep.

As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, shepherds don’t tend to their flock because they love them, they do so in order to a) fleece them and b) turn them into meat for the butcher. The church needs a flock to maintain its wealth, power and prestige. It provides a source of all three of these to the bureaucracy and hierarchy of the church, at the expense of its members. If the members wake up, and realize they don’t need their church, the church falls. It’s that simple.

So keep them stupid, and keep them worshiping on Sundays.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!

free stats

Posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Beliefs, Bible, Catholicism, Christianity, Critical thinking, Education, Evidence, Freethought, History, Reason, Religion, Skepticism, Theism, Theology      

She’s Not One of *Those* Christians

Published
by
Hemant Mehta
on November 20, 2008
.

A reminder that not all Christians are the same:

The Onion

I’m Not One Of Those ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ Christians

… I’m a normal Midwestern housewife. I believe in the basic teachings of the Bible and the church. Divorce is forbidden. A woman is to be an obedient subordinate to the male head of the household. If a man lieth down with another man, they shall be taken out and killed. Things everybody can agree on, like the miracle of glossolalia that occurred during Pentecost, when the Apostles were visited by the Holy Spirit, who took the form of cloven tongues of fire hovering just above their heads. You know, basic common sense stuff…

(Thanks to Aaron for the link!)

It’s World Philosophy Day

Published
by
arthurvandelay
on November 20, 2008
.

And at ABC News Online there is call for more philosophy and critical thinking in Australian schools. I share this view, though I find much to disagree with in Kellie Tranter’s article—especially her uncrtical citing of the think-tank Future Directions’ yearning for “a recognisable spiritual set of values and hierarchy.” But I have long felt that explicit instruction in critical thinking is at least as important as functional English.

Anyway, in the spirit of World Philosophy Day . . . .

By the way, if you haven’t done so already, do (as Ninglun would say) train your podcast feeds on The Philosopher’s Zone and Philosophy Bites.

And I might take the opportunity to bleg: if anyone is aware of decent philosophy/critical thinking in ESL resources, please let me know.

      

Quick Thoughts on NOVA’s The Bible’s Buried Secrets

Published
by
Tommy
on November 20, 2008
.
I just finished watching NOVA's program The Bible's Buried Secrets about 20 minutes ago.

All in all, I found it to be an interesting and balanced program that for the most part confirmed what I had already believed, that some of the events in the Bible described from the time of the kings are largely historical, whereas earlier events are either uncorroborated or legend. The website for the program is here.

I do have a few criticisms about what was not discussed in the program, though in part it might be due to the fact that only so much could be packed into two hours.

One glaring omission from the discussion of the development of the Old Testament is that there is no mention of the books of the prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah, which are dated prior to the Babylonian Conquest. To what extent can it be determined that these books fully predate the Babylonian Conquest or if they were meant to be cautionary tales to impress upon the Jews that their kingdom was destroyed because the prophets were not heeded during the time they were said to have lived?

Since the program supports the scholarly consensus that the Israelis who were polytheistic prior to the Babylonian Captivity had become monotheistic Jews after their liberation by the Persians, I would like to have seen some attention given to the possible influence of Zoroastrianism on monotheistic Judaism. The website I linked to above has a link where you can send an e-mail with questions about the program, and I inquired about this. I will post a follow-up if I receive a response.

Near the end, when they talked about how the Torah achieved its final form during the Babylonian Captivity, there was mention about how the Jews would have found or drawn a parallel between their current situation and the exiles described in Egypt, including Abraham's sojourn there, and that Abraham had originally come from Mesopotamia. I was expecting them to mention what to me seemed so obvious, that the story of Abraham betrays its 6th century BC origin because Abraham is said to have come from the city of Ur of the Chaldees, and the Babylonian Empire of Nebuchadnezzar is also referred to as the Chaldean Empire.

Hooray for Catholics!

Published
by
Pharyngula
on November 20, 2008
.

Don't be too shocked at the title; my arguments are with Catholicism, not the poor unfortunate victims of that dogma, the Catholics. In this case, one Catholic organization, Catholics for Choice (uh-oh—already, I can tell that one argument against them will be that they aren't True Catholics™) has published a scathing criticism of Bill Donohue and the Catholic League. Here's their summary:

  • From the beginning, the Catholic League was marked by a schizophrenic attitude that would become its hallmark: It simultaneously argued for the right of conservative Catholics to impose their values in the public sphere, while arguing against the right of others in the public sphere to offer legitimate criticism of Catholics or Catholicism.

  • The Catholic League tactics are i) manufacture controversy; ii) try to intimidate the "enemy"; iii) bully the opposition; iv) complain early and often; v) attack popular culture; and vi) silence the loyal opposition.

  • In utilizing these tactics it actively embarrasses, intimidates, bullies and distorts reality to suppress critics of the Catholic church, the Vatican, and the church's many controversial policies.

  • Catholic League president Bill Donohue is in a constant quest for the next "controversy" to keep his particular brand of reactionary Catholicism in the media spotlight.

  • Once Donohue has found a "controversy" he uses wildly inflated rhetoric that is sure to inflame--either in print or in one of his infamous cable TV news appearances--and then stages a protest or takes out an ad in the New York Timesto attract attention. Then he waits for the seemingly ever-receptive press to show up.

  • When it comes to peddling its special brand of inflammatory rhetoric, the media and arts have been a special target of the Catholic League since the mid-1990s.

  • The number of examples of anti-Catholicism claimed by the Catholic League grew from 140 in 1995 to 320 in 2006, yet the only thing that seems to have actually increased is the League's definition of anti-Catholic activity.

  • As thin-skinned as Donohue appears to be when it comes to any one else referring to Catholicism, Jesus or the Virgin Mary, apparently his rules don't apply to himself and his friends.

  • Unable to explain away the Catholic church's embarrassing pedophilia scandal, Donohue tried to turn it back on progressive Catholic activists, claiming that they were exaggerating the scandal to try and bring down the church.

  • When the media cover the tempests he manages to whip up from time to time, few ever stop to examine the basis for his objections--they just cover the dog fight.

  • Donohue claims that the Catholic League has some 350,000 members and that number is often used by the media when referencing the organization's supposed clout. These numbers, however, appear to be a highly inflated picture of the Catholic League's actual membership.

Right on!

Read the whole thing, all 25 pages of it. It's a very useful takedown.

Read the comments on this post...

What the hell is HumanLight?

Published
by
Mojoey
on November 20, 2008
.

Apparently, secularists, humanists, atheists and agnostics will be celebrating HumanLight this holiday season. I'm not invited.

The very first HumanLight celebration was held in New Jersey on December 23, 2001 at a gala event attended by close to 100 people. It has grown in popularity around the country every year since. HumanLight is December 23rd, and should always be celebrated on or around this date. This date was chosen for several reasons.

Read more….

So… what? We rebrand Christmas as HumanLight? I’m guessing this just won’t catch on. And what does one do at a HumanLight celebration?

  • Some kind of meal - a potluck dinner is a popular choice.
  • A candle-lighting ceremony.
  • Short readings (e.g. excerpts from the writings of Robert Ingersoll).
  • Educational entertainment for children. One recent event included a professional science demonstration for kids. Some other events featured magicians--who then revealed how their tricks were done.
  • Short talks or discussions.

Read more….

I don’t get it.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Facebook…

Published
by
Bing
on November 20, 2008
.
I have signed on to Facebook, which for every reason in the world must remain completely separate from this website at all times always. It was so bizzarre: I sign in, tell them where I went to college and when I graduated, and like the pictures of 5 girls who didn't want to go out with me popped up. FACEBOOK IS READING MY MIND, AND ONLY THE DISCOURAGING BITS!!! HJ

Don’t Do Business with Them

Published
by
Hemant Mehta
on November 20, 2008
.

If you want to know where not to shop this holiday season, don’t waste time poring over the list of stores which are naughty or nice.

Instead, check out the list of people, companies, and organizations that gave over $5,000 in support of Proposition 8 in California, ending same-sex marriage in the state.

They don’t deserve your patronage.

(via The Daily Dish)

Enabling Religious Stupidity

Published
by
Larro FCD
on November 20, 2008
.
One of the things we don't hear quite enough about in the news is "child endangerment" in regard to extreme fundamentalist religious parenting. In my honest opinion it has more to do with the "enabling" aspect of religion itself. As the vast majority of people in this country hold some sort of faith in any number of spiritual doctrine it is no wonder that when it comes to raising children in such an environment it is overlooked out of blatant reverence for religion itself.

I have recently been directed to a blog on Blogspot regarding such an instance of "child endangerment". The link is here. If you read through the commentary you will find Christians giving support for this woman's archaic and demeaning nature. She "[does] not believe in teaching children self esteem or that they should feel good about themselves, because they should not." Because we should esteem God above all else including the self. I would wager that a great many people in this country would not argue against that premise.

Yet, the child in question is all of four years old! And a "sinner" to boot!

Now, this post is not going to be a breakdown of this woman's post and the comments contained there...I leave that up to you, my readers, to make up your own minds.

This post is about how such atrocious minds are allowed to go on unhindered and unchecked. Sure, people should have a right to raise their children how they see fit (within the law), but I can't help but wonder what allows for this!

At the core is religion itself and all the spiritually splintered minds out there that may think this is wrong but really can't, or don't, argue against it simply because God or Jesus is invoked as the guiding principle. These people are the enablers. The same people who turn a blind eye to the likes of Pat Robertson and even Fred Phelps. It's as if all of this is "okay" because these people have a deep understanding of God and follow their scripture. They are devout and this makes them above scrutiny and often results in the empowerment of their followers or supporters.

Granted, legally, there is nothing to be said on the subject. But instilling a sense of "wretchedness" in a four year old is nothing less than child abuse in my eyes.

By telling this little girl that esteem before God is first and foremost she is saying to submit; which a great many Christian would agree with. However, in doing so, this child is going to grow up and probably be a picture perfect model of her mother and the picture perfect model Christian that her mother envisions: a submissive Christian before God. A sinful and wretched individual that will amount to nothing if God is not in her life.

I believe the great leaders in history have had some of the greatest self-esteem that anyone could aspire to. Individuals with a will to make a difference to put a stamp in the history books.

I can't imagine that these historic individuals were brought up to be sheep; to be submissive. That their lot in life was to be wretched, sinful and without self-esteem.

Finding Jihad: Tribulation Force

Published
by
Bing
on November 20, 2008
.
This is a regular feature where I post searches that have led innocent children to HJHOP where they are ruined forever. Most of these children have to be destroyed. Anyway, my data comes from sitemeter, who is always watching you. virgin territory nude (“Fer cryin’ out loud, Merewether, put some frickin’ pants on!”)accidental lesbian (Oops, she did her again!)virginal cunt drive in (That

Crippled dogs and one-trick ponies

Published
by
Martin
on November 20, 2008
.

I've just returned from the Texas SBOE hearings on Science TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) standards, and I'm so full of disgust and dismay that I'm at a loss for words to express it with enough rancor. You can, however, expect me to go on at length anyway. The whole thing was such a goddamn farce from the outset that I'd had more than enough after only one hour, at which point I could only roll my eyes and walk out the door. If you haven't encountered the gall and dishonestly of creationists on their own turf before, and even if you have many times, it's always the kind of experience that leaves you feeling worse about humanity in general.

As I write this, people are still speaking, and will be for a few hours yet. I saw no point in sticking around, but for all I know there could be, at any time, a real first-rate speaker who could get across the points that needed to be gotten across, and who would call out the creos on the disingenuous rhetoric they repeatedly spewed. As it is, I left the whole charade with two key observations: 1) That the big pitch the creationists are using isn't merely the weasel phrase "strengths and weaknesses," but their defense of that phrase as an expression of support for "academic freedom" that the scientific community apparently opposes; and 2) that the pro-science side, at least as I saw it today, is singly unaware of how to respond to that rhetoric properly and forcefully.

This cannot be understated: Just as the anti-gay contingent of the Christian right sells its opposition to gay marriage as a "defense" of "traditional" marriage that can in no way be compared to opposition to interracial marriage or anything of that sort, so too are the creationists now abandoning the overt, lawsuit-bait language of "intelligent design" for "academic freedom" language that makes them seem like the ones encouraging students to use their minds to think about and evaluate ideas that are presented to them in class on their merits. Conversely, the pro-science side wants to shut this kind of inquiry down, and just require students to be obedient little sponges soaking up whatever the textbooks say.

Why this is a misrepresentation and gross misunderstanding of the opposition to such terms as "strengths and weaknesses" was, to his credit, appropriately explained by Texas Citizens for Science spokesman Steve Schafersman. But he didn't make the point forcefully enough, and even he seemed taken aback when challenged by one of the creationist board members after giving his alloted three-minute address. I'll discuss that last, because it was after Schafersman spoke that I ducked out. After all, if a veteran front-line soldier in the science education wars like Schafersman falters when some creationist puts him in the hot seat, it's clearly time for the pro-science side to step back and understand just how dishonest the rhetoric is, and how it has to be addressed in a no-nonsense manner, calling bullshit bullshit, and stating the pro-science position with sufficient force and clarity that no sleazy creationist ideologue can sit there lying about it and sounding smug and reasonable while doing so. I don't see that the pro-science speakers today fully appreciated the ideological scrimmage line they were going up against, nor the fact that the game plan was going to be offense all the way.

A quick rundown of some of the speakers I did see.

As I had a number of errands to run early in the day, I was worried that I may have missed a lot of the good stuff. I didn't end up getting downtown to the Travis State Office Building until about 3:30. But as the TFN announced that the hearing itself wouldn't start until likely after lunch, and as I recall the last set of hearings I attended in the same building five years ago went on until well into the night, I figured I hadn't missed too much.

Turned out my timing was excellent. The hearings on the science standards started right around 3:55. That must have been some sheer pain for those folks who'd been there since 9:00 AM.

As the title of the post indicates, what ensued was the kind of dog-and-pony show where the dog has only three legs and all the pony knows how to do is turn in a circle. The first speaker was a dignified and well spoken older gentleman named Dr. Joe Bernal, who was himself an SBOE member in the 1990's, and who spoke eloquently on the need to keep science scientific and avoid the pitfalls of allowing room for non-scientific ideas. He stated that it was the duty of parents, not schools, to determine a student's religious instruction. He also reiterated the support among the scientific community for evolutionary theory.

Now, after a speaker has done his three minutes, board members can ask questions of that speaker if they wish. I saw it coming even before it started. The instant the bell chimed on Dr. Bernal's address, creationist board member Terri Leo leapt out of the phone booth with her Supergirl costume on and hit the ground faster than a speeding bullet.

Her first agenda: discredit the recent survey, cited by Dr. Bernal, that showed 98% of biologists and science educators in Texas support evolution. "Who funded that study? Wasn't that study funded by the Texas Freedom Network?" Dr. Bernal admitted it was, but stated calmly that whoever funded the study was beside the point. He actually got in a good comeback to Leo, noting that even the science teachers selected by the SBOE to review the science standards voted in the majority. But Leo wasn't finished. "I always thought that taking polls wasn't how you do science." Well, of course not, and the poll wasn't an exercise in doing science. The science is already done. The point of the poll was simply to get a show of hands among professionals in the relevant fields as to what theory is appropriate to teach in classrooms. But this is the kind of dishonest rhetoric that creationists will throw out there to get the pro-science side on the defensive.

The thing about Terri Leo is, she's so dumb and sleazy that she cannot resist overplaying her hand. And she did it right away by using shameless creationist language while simultaneously denying any creationist agenda on her or the SBOE's part. Note that Dr. Bernal only brought up religion in passing in his speech, pointing out that it's a private family matter and not fit for science class. Leo leapt on this like a hungry tiger, railing that the phrase "strengths and weaknesses" was not religious language, and that the only people making a big deal about religion supposedly being shoehorned into science curricula are "militant Darwinists."

I am not shitting you. She actually used that term, out loud, in front of a packed room, in her questioning of the very first speaker of the day.

I couldn't stop myself. I laughed out loud, loud enough for her to hear. ("Hey...sorry, but...") That was when I knew that the whole day was going to be a complete joke.

Dr. Bernal responded quite impressively by bringing up — and I'm so glad he was the first speaker, which is when it needed to be brought up — that the SBOE had themselves enlisted known anti-evolutionists affiliated with the Discovery Institute, who have not exactly been secretive about their own religious and creationist agendas, to be among those assigned to review science standards. Specifically he asked (to the delight of the crowd), "Why is someone from an institute in Seattle being asked to review Texas science education standards?"

And here we saw, for the first time, the depth of the SBOE's egregious dishonesty they were going to display today. The presence of the DI's Stephen Meyer, and creationist textbook writers Charles Garner and Ralph Seelke was brought up many time by many speakers, and no one on the board would defend or even address it. They simply were not going to justify their actions in this regard to the public, or at least, they didn't in the hour I was there. If anyone reading this stayed through to the end, and heard anything from Dan McLeroy or Terri Leo about why these men, with their overt ID affiliations, were asked to review the Science TEKS standards for Texas, do let us all know in the comments.

Unlike 2003, when Terri Leo (working hand in hand with the Discotute) front-loaded that day's speakers with creationists, I only heard one creationist speak today, some idiot who sleazily brought up the DI's long-ridiculed "list of 700 dissenting scientists" as if it represented some kind of major controversy within science over Darwinian evolution. (As Ken Miller pointed out hilariously in his talk back in the spring at UT, this number represents barely a single-digit percentage of the total number of professionals in the relevant fields, and the list includes a number of names of non-biologists and similarly unqualified people who happen to have Ph.D.'s.) This guy then shamelessly rushed headlong into Godwin's Law while the audience groaned, averring (after supposedly having watched Expelled too many times) that by refusing to allow ideas to be questioned in class, we were doomed to be heading down the same path those poor misguided Germans went down.

This inspired such derision from the crowd that Terri Leo — shocked, shocked at just how "rude" people were being in response to the entirely reasonable comparison that had just been drawn between themselves and Nazis — exhorted everyone to be more "respectful" of this poor man, who had taken valuable time out of his day to come down here to call everyone Nazis, and would the board please be more diligent about controlling such inconsiderate and shocking outbursts.

I can't really put into words the atmosphere of disbelief that circulated around the room at this point. People were being calm, but among the audience and people waiting for their turn to speak (and I saw a very reassuring majority wearing "Stand Up for Science" stickers on their lapels), there was a definite vibe of "Just how much bullshit are we expected to endure?" Well, people, that's what we all have to remember about creationists and religious ideologues: they are a Perpetual Motion Machine and Bullshit Factory all rolled into one, unleashing an unstoppable deluge of bovine feces that would even make Noah throw up his hands and say, "Fuck it, no ark is gonna save us from this one."

Finally I come to Steven Shafersman, a man I admire and whose work in battling creationism over the years and fronting Texas Citizens for Science is unimpeachable. I had already made up my mind to disembark this ship of fools, but when I heard Shafersman's name announced I stuck around, deciding he'd be the last guy I'd hear.

Shafersman did well, but unfortunately his talk left an opening for one of the creationist board members (a portly man whose name I didn't catch, but who's been identified by a commenter as Ken Mercer) to pounce on. See, Shafersman's main point was that the reason it was inappropriate to have language like "evaluate strengths and weaknesses" in scholastic standards is that it requires activity on the part of the students they haven't got the expertise for. Mercer tried to obfuscate this by making it seem as if Shafersman and the pro-science side didn't even want students to be allowed to raise their hands and ask questions in class. This is emphatically not the case, of course, and Schafersman explained that, going on to say that in science, theories are critically evaluated in the field by working professionals, not by students hearing the theories for the first time and lacking the proper expertise and frame of reference to do a "critical evaluation" in the first place.

But Mercer kept hammering the false point repeatedly. What about errors and hoaxes in the past? What about Piltdown Man? What about Haeckel's inaccurate embryo drawings, that were in textbooks for years? If people weren't allowed to question these things, wouldn't these errors and hoaxes have gone unexposed, and wouldn't students be learning misinformation today? Why try to stifle the sort of open inquiry that led to these very necessary corrections?

Here is where Shafersman fumbled the ball, because there was such an easy and obvious response to this that it was all I could do to hold my tongue and not blurt it out as loudly as I could shout. I just wanted Shafersman to say one simple thing, and he never said it, because I think he was so flummoxed by the aggressiveness of Mercer's questioning that he allowed himself to fall into the trap that had been set for him, forcing him to go on the defensive. ("Why, as a matter of fact I was one of the scientists instrumental in getting Haeckel's drawings out of textbooks!" To which Mercer simply replied, "Right! So why then...")

Here's what I think Shafersman should have said in reply to Mercer:

"Sir, your examples support my point. The Piltdown Man hoax and Haeckel's drawings were both shown to be false by working scientists, not students. It wasn't as if some 14 year old in 9th grade biology class pointed to those drawings and said, 'I don't know, teacher, those just don't look right to me.' Because that student could not have done that. He would not have had the knowledge and expertise. And that is why requiring the analysis of 'strengths and weaknesses' is inappropriate language, as it requires students to do something they're not equipped to do. Imagine a history class where you're teaching about Alexander the Great. Then you say to your students, 'Okay, kids, write a critical analysis of Alexander's battle plans against the Thracians.' How can they do this? They aren't generals, they're teenagers. They aren't qualified. First, you have to teach them the facts. Then, later on, if they pursue this field as a vocation they may gain the expertise to critique 'strengths and weaknesses.' But for now, they just need facts. And that's why we're opposed to this language in the TEKS. Our opposition is not a synonym for stifling all academic inquiry or even simple questions, and to claim that it is is an extremely dishonest red herring."

That's how he should have shut Mercer down. And to his credit, he did make some of these points. But Shafersman was never as forceful as Mercer was. The best Shafersman could do, it seemed, was feebly try to regain control of the questioning with very weak-sounding responses (to the effect of "We don't really need to go into the details of Haeckel right now...", which embarrassingly sounds like an attempt at dodging the issue).

I simply could not handle any more. I bolted.

It was clear that the creationist contingent knew that the pro-science side was going to show up in force at these hearings, and they came loaded for bear with every bit of disingenuous rhetoric in their how-to-play-dirty playbook. You'll recall in Kazim's recent critique of the "rumble in Sydney," in which Alan Conradi debated a minister, that Kazim made a very important point: ultimately, public debates are a matter of the performance, not the content. While these hearings were not a debate in the formal, forensic sense, they were an informal public "debate" not unlike that which goes on in The Atheist Experience and similar live venues, where topics are argued, often skillfully and often not, in an off-the-cuff manner with minimal prep.

The hearings today were that kind of thing, just an extremely farcicial parody of it. In one corner, a sincere collection of educators and science activists simply trying to ensure that the state's educational standards aren't diluted by trojan-horse language that, while non-inflammatory on its face, still leaves room for religious teaching to be slipped into classrooms by unscrupulous teachers (like, oh, John Freshwater); in the other, a board dominated by ideologues who aren't the least bit interested in understanding the views presented to them (all the while hypocritically claiming to promote freedom of inquiry), and who made every effort to obfuscate, misrepresent, and lie about those views.

In other words, a joke. A complete and utter joke.

And they wonder why people say Texas is a laughingstock.

Two more observations before I sign off (and remember, this whole epic-length post was simply my report on viewing one hour of this rubbish today):

  1. I would have liked to have stuck around to hear the woman speak who showed up dressed (quite attractively) as if she'd stepped off the set of Little House on the Prairie. I imagine she was going to make some point about 19th century education being unsuited for a 21st century world, but there's no way I could have endured more of Terri Leo and Ken Mercer's verbal diarrhea while waiting. If any of you did hear her, tell us what she said, please.
  2. The pro-science side does seem to have one solid ally on the SBOE, in the person of Mary Helen Berlanga. Ms. Berlanga was very polite and thanked all of the pro-science speakers, including Steve Shafersman, for their hard work and efforts. But that just made me want to hear more from her. Why not be as aggressive with the questioning in the way Bradley and Leo were? Why not be the one to answer the repeated queries about why known ID-supporters and anti-evolutionists were allowed to review the Science TEKS this year?

Addendum: Made corrections once Ken Mercer was identified in the comments.

I Saw The Bible’s Buried Secrets

Published
by
Baconeater
on November 20, 2008
.
To my amazement, I was able to watch a new Nova episode on the very same day it was available to most US households. For some reason the Buffalo PBS station is behind when it comes to shows like Nova. I was able to watch it on a Seattle station that comes with my West time zone subscription from my local cable carrier.

I was actually looking forward to The Bible's Buried Secrets. Something told me it wouldn't be too far off The Bible Unearthed, which was quite an eye opener.

Both were similar. Both compared the Old Testament to actual archaeological findings.

Yesterday's documentary seemed to give more detail and more explanation to what most likely actually happened in the region of Israel whereas The Bible Unearthed was more of a bible debunking video.

The idea of the Exodus and Moses remains an impossibility. And it is very likely that the early Israelites were poor Canaanites, who were the product of a have havenot economy that went into the dumper.

More havenots came from outside of Canaan to form what I like to call the Pre-Jews. Included were some former slaves from Egypt, not hundreds of thousands, and maybe not even a thousand.

Another interesting tidbit is that not only were most of the Pre-Jews idol worshipers, they also believed God had a wife:

The land was full of sun God worshiping animal sacrificing poor people. Finally, when the Pre-Jews got their butts whooped in Jerusalem in 586 BC by the Babylonians, the excuse of having more than one God causing the loss stuck, and finally monotheistic Judaism was created.

Ezra and his buddies put all the stories and myths into a book with strict laws and lots of lessons in morality around 450 BC's, and the Pre-Jews became Jews.

Not touched on was my personal belief that the Babylonian culture's Hammurabi and his laws were used as the basis for the Moses myth.

I've often wondered how necessary it is to most Christians that the Exodus story be literal. I also wonder how some religious Jews can make a case for the Exodus story being mostly allegorical.

I'm glad that TBBS didn't even attempt to tackle the ridiculous Global Flood crapola.
I can't believe there are still some intelligent human beings who still believe Noah's story is literal.

See also Supposes There's No Moses and Controversial Bible's Buried Secrets Ends On Positive Note