Questionable Motives
Why is acting on the presumption of Original Sin moral hypocrisy in action?
Filed under: abuse,anger,apologetics,Atheism,Bible,child abuse,Children,Critical Reasoning,Ethics,faith-based beliefs,God,hypocrisy,Morality,Religion,religiously inspired violence,Scripture,stupidity,theology,values — tildeb @ 3:51 pm
This is just too good not to pass it on.
To all of those people who are so humble in their faith-based arrogance that they presume all humans are born with a fallen nature in need of salvation, that all are sinners unworthy of god's love except by grace, who have the meekness and mildness to presume this opinion causes no harm but brings a moral benefit to all, have a listen to how strident, militant, shrill atheists, who make no such assumptions and who hold no patience to such unadulterated bullshit, dismantle its pious overtones to expose it for what it is: moral hypocrisy in action.
(h/t to Tracy Harris and Matt Dillahunty at Atheist Experience #795)
What's the harm of a little religious belief exercised in the public domain?
Filed under: Bible,creationism,faith-based beliefs,Government,Politics,public domain,Public policy,Religion,Science,Scripture,Southern Baptists,stupidity,Supernatural — tildeb @ 4:28 pm
Rep. Paul Broun (R-Georgia) is member of the Science Committee of the House of Representatives and chairs the House Science Committee's panel on investigations and oversight. He claims to be a scientist because he's a medical doctor, which reminds me to remember that half of all medical doctors graduated from the bottom portion of their class.
What's wrong with a little bit of discrimination in the name of jesus?
Filed under: belief,Bias,Bible,Bigotry,civil rights,Religion,rights and freedoms,Scripture,theology,transgendered — tildeb @ 9:17 am
A lot, it turns out.
Discriminating on the basis of gender and sexual orientation is illegal in Canada. Yet in spite of this clear law, some think that their personal religious beliefs outweigh the civil rights of others… beliefs supposedly ordained by the sometimes metaphorical/sometimes literal god and the sometimes metaphorical/sometimes literal scripture sometimes dictated/sometimes merely inspired. When the law is enforced to ensure equality under it, the outcry from many in the religious community is that religion (and the right to express it) is what's under attack by those evil forces of darkness known as secularists. This is a clue for the rest of us: when up becomes down and black becomes white, we know we're dealing with people who don't care about what's true and are comfortable in their hypocrisy. This is especially revealing when the religious embrace their hypocrisy and claim that their right to discriminate is violated by enforced equality-of-rights laws. The ability to appreciate irony in action is obviously lacking in such people.
A recent case in point:
The owner of the Trails End Farmers Market (in London, Ontario, Canada) was presented Saturday with a petition containing the signatures of more than 4,000 people. About 30 protesters arrived at the Market on Dundas Street East shortly after 11AM to personally present Ed Kikkert, who's owned the market for 28 years, with their petition, asking him to reconsider a decision last month to ban transgendered employees from working at Trails End. Kikkert received the petition and thanked the demonstrators for stopping by, but indicated he was not interested in how many people had signed the document.
He said his petition, with one signature, carried more weight. When asked by one of the demonstrators who signed his petition, Kikkert replied "Jesus Christ."
Note that the owner has no theological problem working on his sabbath in spite of clear scripture that this is a rather serious no-no. He probably picks up sticks on this day, too. We are left with the kind of intricate moral quandary that bible supposedly clarifies: does god favour Ed's father or brothers to stone him to death for these transgressions or should the wider community gather to carry out this enlightened punishment… in the name of jesus who upholds such a law, of course, whose decision should be the only one that matters apparently.
The absurdity of Ed's hypocrisy in the name of jesus will be dismissed by other religious folk as being unrepresentative of christianity as a whole, that those who criticize the authority of scripture on the basis of such necessary hypocrisy do so only because they are unable or unwilling to appreciate a more sophisticated interpretation of god's will in the matter (that is to say, unable to respect the correct cherrypicking of bits and pieces of scripture that agrees with a particular believer's personal morality). But we can see how the claim to a higher authority derived from some personal religious belief like the kind Ed adheres to is in fact an unequivocal expression of a common religious belief that is antithetical to a shared acceptance of democratic and Enlightenment values and the equitable rule of law based on them. We can see that far from bringing people together to create a wider and more caring community so often advertised as religion's central social contribution, religion just as easily can be used to drive a wedge between people, granting unearned and unjustifiable moral sanctity for some to discriminate against others only on the basis of cherrypicked religious belief.
As usual, we are left shaking our heads at how unreasonable and unfair some people can be while thinking themselves pious in their bigotry. But this kind of religious discrimination will never improve so long as so many of us continue to grant religious belief any kind of moral authority whatsoever in the public domain.
What is the fundamental error we make of religious scripture?
Filed under: accommodation,belief,Bias,Bible,Bigotry,Catholic Church,Critical Reasoning,Dignity,Education,Ethics,Faith,faith-based beliefs,God,Law,Morality,Religion,university — tildeb @ 12:39 pm
Presuming it's true.
Once this fundamental error is made, there is a cascade effect that greatly impairs one's cognitive ability to make later corrections for it; instead of simply correcting the original error in the face of mounting contrary evidence to its veracity, we see otherwise rational people perform amazing feats of mental gymnastics to accommodate its fundamental irrationality.
One of the most common ways for the believers to maintain the presumption of scriptural truth in the face of a contrary reality is to alter the language we use to describe that reality, and then shift blame for the obvious scriptural failure unto reality itself as some kind of dirty and obnoxious pollutant. This is where denial of reality finds sustenance in the religious community and offers aid and comfort to anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-rational proponents.
Surely such deluded and intellectually dishonest people as reality deniers must be at the fringes of society, wouldn't you think?
Apparently not.
Consider the legal wisdom delivered by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia during his recent lecture at Duquesne University Law School, a catholic university in Pittsburgh:
"The Rule of Law is second only to the Rule of Love. The here and now is less important than the hereafter."
Now think about that for moment.
His priority as a Supreme Court Justice is not about the rule of law in the here and now but about love leading to something he calls the "hereafter". This is religio-speak for obeying the authority of scripture first and foremost. This blind obedience to the vagaries of biblical scripture to outline appropriate religious behaviour is what Scalia calls love, and its purpose is to exchange the legal respect owed to the individual here and now to some earned eternal bliss… the fulfillment of a nebulous contract to be fulfilled by god after that individual's death.
That's an insane contract in any other connotation: for example, how big a fool must you be to seriously accept the contract to pay me all your money throughout your life on the promise that I will pay you back a thousandfold after you're dead. It's an insane presumption based as it is on no evidence outside of its religious connotations that it might be true. Yet for anyone inside its religious connotations such a presumption is fine for a catholic Supreme Court Justice, no matter how nutty, how batty, how foolish, how flipping crazy exactly the same thinking is without the religious connotation. For many, it's peachy that we waive the requirement for rationality in and respect for the here and now in the name of respecting religious gullibility and delusion about the hereafter.
It seems to come as a shock to some people that making allowance for the religiously deluded might actually carry some small cost when it comes to following and implementing scripture. But is it really such a small price to pay?
Surely that insanity, that irrationality, stops when it comes to practicing and implementing actual individual legal equality, doesn't it? Well…
Scalia again:
"Our educational establishment these days, while so tolerant of and even insistent upon diversity in all other aspects of life, seems bent on eliminating diversity of moral judgment – particularly moral judgment based on religious views. I hope this place will not yield – as some Catholic institutions have – to this politically correct insistence upon suppression of moral judgment, to this distorted view of what diversity in America means."
What is he talking about? He's bitching about the requirement that student clubs that receive university support and backing must be open to all students, even gays. Exercising this legal equality on behalf of all students who pay the same tuition and fees, who attend the same classes as everyone else, who meet the same academic expectations as all, suddenly becomes – in the confused mind of Supreme Court Justice Scalia – the distorted suppression of a religiously acceptable yet bigoted moral judgement.
This catholic moral judgement is not understood to be just another example of religiously inspired bigotry; after all, it comes from scripture, which is presumed to be true. That means that correct moral behaviour is considered by the religiously minded like Scalia to be bigotry in action. And that causes him not the slightest intellectual discomfort. In his mind befuddled and addled by catholicism all other considerations – like legal equality – must first fit this faith-based model on what is moral under scriptural authority, and if that means abusing the language to do so – by presuming that a bigoted moral judgement is sanctioned by god through the authority of scripture – then legal equality must be an imposition indeed.
The blame for this imposition – this insistence on legal equality by the secular state – is flung back at reality, claiming that legal equality of diverse people is actually a distorted view under catholicism, clashing as it does with the presumption of scriptural authority that allows a special exemption for religious bigotry under the intentional misnomer of moral judgement. It's as if to say it isn't up to me as a Supreme Court Justice to judge legal inequality when it is upheld by the religiously deluded; my hands are tied by the religious view that god has judged this inequality to be right and proper on moral grounds. Bigotry becomes moral and is then brought forth from the wastelands of scripture into the confusing world of real people in real time where what should be a cut and dry legal issue of equality becomes a confused religious issue about permissive legal bigotry sanctioned on theological moral grounds.
And Scalia is okay with this contorted pretzel of rationalizations in the service of maintaining the supremacy his religious presumptions even in his high public office. The fact that such a dimwit and badly confused idiot as Scalia could be selected and then promoted to the highest secular court in the land is damning evidence of just how in need of repair and support is the wall of separation between church and state… if you care about legal equality, of course.
And on that issue I shouldn't presume…
How can this kind of dedicated faith-based attack on Enlightenment values be accommodated?
Filed under: accommodation,belief,Bias,Bible,creationism,Critical Reasoning,Evangelical,failed logic,Faith,faith-based beliefs,Government,Morality,Politics,public domain,Religion,Scrutiny — tildeb @ 5:00 pm
It can't.
This attack on the secular foundation of liberal democracies has to be fought in the public domain by anyone and everyone who thinks all of us have the same rights and freedoms to believe or not believe as each of us sees fit. No one is more at risk by this kind of fundamentalist evangelical advance into the political domain than those believers who value their religious freedom.Don't be swayed by the notion that the state will favour the same one you do; what is lost is your freedom to choose otherwise and that's not an insignificant right to sacrifice in the name of christian piety.
There is no middle ground in this battle.
(h/t sensuouscurmudgeon)
And do we feel any safer?
Filed under: abuse,belief,Bible,Christianity,New Atheists,nuclear weapons,sophisticated theology,US Constitution,US military — tildeb @ 7:19 pm
From Truthout.org:
The United States Air Force has been training young missile officers about the morals and ethics of launching nuclear weapons by citing passages from the New Testament and commentary from a former member of the Nazi Party, according to newly released documents.
The mandatory Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare session, which includes a discussion on St. Augustine's "Christian Just War Theory," is led by Air Force chaplains and takes place during a missile officer's first week in training at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
St. Augustine's "Qualifications for Just War," according to the way it is cited in a 43-page PowerPoint presentation, are: "to avenge or to avert evil; to protect the innocent and restore moral social order (just cause)" and "to restore moral order; not expand power, not for pride or revenge (just intent)."
The Powerpoint uses quite a few references to the Old Testament as arguments for why Jesus' Dad loves nukes , (I haven't read the 500 page training manual) yet I am assured by many theological sophisticates that the New supersedes these god-sanctioned barbarisms that I read plain as day. One has to be pretty stupid to assume that scripture means what it says, I guess. Obviously, I need more sophisticated comprehension skills. But I'm thinking that maybe the sophisticates should be taking up correct interpretation with their military commanders and selected trainers rather than us militant atheists… armed as we are by the bristling weaponry of reason and words fortified by the occasional beer or glass of wine.
Just sayin'.
Wouldn't it be swell if the religious could get their theological house in order so that our public institutions like the military could at favour just one belief set rather than one that is a little… umm… bloodthirsty? Oh, right… that anti-American US Constitution keeps getting in the way of the armed forces being properly christian – the same Constitution (that contains the First) military officers swear to uphold and defend from enemies foreign (and domestic, mumble, mumble, ahem). Oh, the conundrum! A good thing none of these confused military souls have their fingers on the triggers, so to speak… well, except those involved with the nuclear arsenal… and those who fly all those planes, drive the armoured vehicles, steer the ships and subs, carry firearms, and so on.
And yet for some unknown reason I still don't feel any safer for reading Augustine. Funny, that.
Does creation 'science' disprove biblical creationism?
Filed under: Argument,belief,Bible,Biology,creationism,Critical Reasoning,Evolution,Genesis,Science,Scripture,theology — tildeb @ 11:57 am
The short answer is Yes.
The long answer can be found in two papers, here and here.
Creation 'science' (an oxymoron if there ever was one) posits that animals fall into types, or baramins, which were created independently, but have diversified since. I'm sure you are aware of the creationist campaign to allow for microevolution but not macroevolution. Obtuse reasoning, but there you have it. Baramin is a word used to describe a kind of critter, say a cat to which all members of the cat 'family' (like lions and tigers) belong. The argument is that Noah's ark brought on board not all animals we see today but only the essential kinds necessary to repopulate the world after the love of god was expressed by a murderously cleansing flood. Morphological gaps in the fossil record are used as 'evidence' for distinct baramins that could only have come about by a designing creator.
I know, but bear with me.
Dr Senter's first paper – described in this BBC Nature Wonder Monkey article by editor Matt Walker – points the obvious, that if the fossil record for dinosaurs:
do show transitional forms, and are in fact genetically related to each other, then creationists are in a bit of a bind. Either they must accept that to be true, and therefore contradict their own position that these groups appeared without evolution. Or they must throw out the assertion, but also reject their own methodology, which they have used to validate their creationist claims. Dr Senter's 2010 study, did of course, show that coelurosaurian dinosaurs are related, in particular that tyrannosaurs (to which T. rex belongs) form a continuous group with other dinosaurs belonging to a group called the Compsognathidae.
In the second and latest study, Senter looks at another creationist science method called taxon correlation, which is also a baraminological technique, and shows enough morphological continuity between dinosaurs to prove, by creationist standards, that dinosaurs are genetically related.
Well, it shows that dinosaurs can be grouped into eight kinds, or baramins, which would seem to make creationists happy. Eight kinds of dinosaurs are easier to load on to an ark than, say dozens of the huge monstrosities or thousands of smaller ones. So far, so good in the creationist camp. Ain't life grand?
But hold on a second! This raises a rather sticky problem, namely, that:
in just a few thousand years, each "kind" of dinosaur begat the huge variation in fossils we see today.
In other words, incredibly rapid microevolution leading to macroevolution.
Heads, evolution wins. Tails, creation science loses.
Are we really surprised? Of course not… not if one honestly and with an open mind takes the time to understand why so many branches of science concludes that evolution is true. The evidence painstakingly gathered from every strand of inquiry except theology (again showing why theology is not an inquiry at all but a position of trust in certain assumptions) is mutually supportive and overwhelming. It takes a very firm belief to counter what is true in reality with what is simply believed to be true about it, and this is what theology does: it tries to convince people that reality and causal evidence should be no constraint to a good belief.
(h/t to MUR)
Could Adam and Eve have been real people?
Filed under: belief,Bible,Evolution,Faith,Genesis,NOMA,Science — tildeb @ 3:20 pm
The evidence is clear – from a scientific perspective. And this is incompatible with the claim from Genesis that there was an Adam and there was an Eve living in the same place at the same time that brought about an act that upon which human sin and the need for redemption hinges.
It's factually wrong.
These individuals – humans in the modern sense and not apes or australopithecines – are claimed to be literally true and this means that this claim is open to scientific investigation and verification. So what does the science actually tell us to a very high degree of certainty?
From Why Evolution is True (and a contest!):
Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female who lived about 140,000 years ago, but genes on the Y chromosome trace back to about 60,000-90,000 years ago, and nuclear genes all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years. This shows that any "Adam" and "Eve" must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans, for each of our genes traces back to different ancestors, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.
So there you have it. Now we can sit back and watch (and wait) for some new theological argument to revisit Genesis and 'properly' reinterpret it in this scientific light of fact.
But please note that the theology based on a belief claim (like Adam and Eve as the parents of the human race) doesn't correct itself. It has no self-correcting mechanism to do so, no means for honest and knowable inquiry; instead, we find the science of methodological naturalism stepping into the knowledge void – maintained and often violently protected by those who assume that respect for religious beliefs is an equivalent respect for what is true and knowable by a different means (NOMA) – and providing us with honest and knowable answers. But there is no way we can determine if such faith-based beliefs are true unless and until we invest our respect into a method of inquiry that allows us to test and verify these kinds of claims. Faith-based beliefs are insufficient and whatever pseudo-answers they provide are untrustworthy. Belief in a literal Adam and Eve is a typical example of a faith-based belief that seems like an answer but is, in fact, simply wrong.
What does the bible say about the Nativity?
Filed under: belief,Bible — tildeb @ 10:01 am
Why let what's true interfere with a good story?
(h/t to Dead Wild Roses)
What do religious beliefs look (and sound) like when compared to religious knowledge?
Filed under: 10 commandments,belief,Bible,Critical Reasoning,Debate — tildeb @ 6:53 pm
Foolishness from ignorance.
Now this is entertainment: Mike Huckabee and his 'beliefs' about the commandments taken to school by Alan Dershowitz and his historical knowledge about the commandments.
Questionable Motives is a site dedicated to raising important questions in the never-ending battle between rationality and superstition, offering commentary about topical issues, and addressing which of these motivations is truly being served.
tildeb
What is this 'Woke' movement and what does it have to do with me?
Is censoring reality to support a BLM narrative causing real harm to real people in real life?
Social construct? Too perceptive not to post
What is today's social justice movement and where does it come from?
Is the Woke movement racist?
Is the Trump Administration the First Postmodern American Regime?
Why is Critical Social Justice theory the Covid-19 of liberal democracies?
Female Erasure: the sustained attack against women's sex-based rights and freedoms
Look how 'fringe' Valerie Terico has become!
What is critical thinking and what does this have to do with my criticisms of GroupThink and the resulting rise of Identity Politics?
Cynthia Coleman on What is this 'Woke…
binary options on Social construct? Too percepti…
tildeb on Is censoring reality to suppor…
SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ on Is censoring reality to suppor…
tildeb on What is critical thinking and…