The Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba died a couple of days ago at the age of 84. According to Wikipedia he had predicted he would die at the age of 96 and then be reborn 8 years later. Millions worldwide believed him to be a living god who performed miracles such as causing material objects to appear, transforming one substance into another, raising the dead and other god stuff. On his 80th birthday his devotees gave him a birthday party and it was estimated that well over a million people showed up. In spite of his untimely death years earlier than he predicted, I predict his followers will dismiss all notions that a god who makes predictions which don't come true just might not be a god after all. People are very good at dismissing evidence that contradicts or undermines their beliefs. I would not at all be surprised to hear that his followers are eagerly awaiting his rebirth / return. Maybe they won't have to wait 2000 years.
Were it not for this sort of naive gullibility I might have argued that in this modern world of video and around-the-clock reporting Jesus wouldn't have much of a chance of making a claim of godhood stick. I sure wouldn't want to bet anything substantial on that. People are incredibly irrational. They will blame a president for high gas prices when the world market sets those prices. They will believe the world was created 6000 years ago in spite of overwhelming and ever-growing evidence that it is billions of years old. They will believe the wild conspiracy theories Glenn Beck spouts. They will believe 4-year old boys go to heaven and come back and report on the streets of gold and angels with huge wings. They will believe Joseph Smith found golden plates in the desert and translated them into the Book of Mormon. They will believe a science fiction writer's tales that launched another new religion, Scientology. There is seemingly no end to the list of unlikely things many will believe. But they will not accept the vast amount of data and the statements of almost all climate scientists who warn of catastrophic and perhaps irreversible effects of global warming. Very strange.
Never Give Up
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Stuff In The News
Fire Donald Trump - But Not Yet:
The American viewing public should fire Donald Trump. But only after he goads even more of the right wing loonies into demonstrating just how far from reality they've strayed with the birther issue. In spite of all the information showing Obama was born in Hawaii, including the investigation and testimony by Hawaiian state officials attesting to his birth, the majority of Republicans claim to believe Obama was not born in the U.S.
The American viewing public should fire Donald Trump. But only after he goads even more of the right wing loonies into demonstrating just how far from reality they've strayed with the birther issue. In spite of all the information showing Obama was born in Hawaii, including the investigation and testimony by Hawaiian state officials attesting to his birth, the majority of Republicans claim to believe Obama was not born in the U.S.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Read It And Weep
Could there be a greater stain on the conscience of all humankind than the recognition of the enormity of pain, suffering, and bloodshed; inflicted from the depths of a superstitious ignorance so profound it's hard to believe? If there is truly such a thing as sin, this is it.
Excerpt from the afterword of Letter To A Christian Nation : By Sam Harris.
Humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice. In fact, it has been by no means uncommon for a child to be born into this world only to be patiently and lovingly reared by religious maniacs, who believe that the best way to keep the sun on its course or to ensure a rich harvest is to lead him by tender hand into a field or to a mountaintop and bury, butcher, or burn him alive as offering to an invisible God. Countless children have been unlucky enough to be born in so dark an age, when ignorance and fantasy were indistinguishable from knowledge and where the drumbeat of religious fanaticism kept perfect time with every human heart. In fact, almost no culture has been exempt from this evil: the Sumerians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Hebrews, Canaanites, Maya, Inca, Aztecs, Olmecs, Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, Teutons, Celts, Druids, Vikings, Gauls, Hindus, Thais, Chinese, Japanese, Scandinavians, Maoris, Melanesias, Tahitians, Hawaiians, Balinese, Australian aborigines, Iroquois, Huron, Cherokee, and innumerable other societies ritually murdered their fellow human beings because they believed that invisible gods and goddesses, having an appetite for human flesh, could be so propitiated. Many of their victims were of the same opinion, in fact, and went willingly to slaughter, fully convinced that their deaths would transform the weather, or cure the king of his venereal disease, or in some other way spare their fellows the wrath of the Unseen.
In many societies, whenever a new building was constructed, it was thought only prudent to pacify the local deities by burying children alive beneath its foundations (this is how faith sometimes operates in a world without structural engineers). Many societies regularly sacrificed virgins to ward off floods. Others killed their first-born children, and even ate them, as a way of ensuring a mother’s ongoing fertility. In India, living infants were ritually fed to sharks at the mouth of the Ganges for the same purpose. Indians also burned widows alive so that they could follow their husbands into the next world. Leaving nothing to chance, Indians also sowed their fields with the flesh of a certain caste of men, raised especially for this purpose and dismembered while alive, to ensure that every crop of tumeric would be appropriately crimson. The British were actually hard pressed to put an end to these pious atrocities.
In some cultures whenever a nobleman died, other men and women allowed themselves to be buried alive so as to serve as his retainers in the next world. In ancient Rome, children were occasionally slaughtered so that the future could be read in their entrails. Some Fijian prodigy devised a powerful sacrament called “Vakatoga” which required that a victim’s limbs be cut off and eaten while he watched. Among the Iroquois, prisoners taken captive in war were often permitted to live among the tribe for many years, and even to marry, all the while being doomed to be flayed alive as an oblation to the God of War; whatever children they produced while in captivity were disposed of in the same ritual. Certain African tribes have a long history of murdering people to send as couriers in a one-way dialogue with their ancestors or to convert their body parts into magical charms. Ritual murders of this sort continue in many African societies to this day. [1]
It is essential to realize that such obscene misuses of human life have always been explicitly religious. They are the product of what people think they know about invisible gods and goddesses, and of what they manifestly do not know about biology, meteorology, medicine, physics, and a dozen other specific sciences that have more than a little to say about the events in the world that concern them. And it is astride this contemptible history of religious atrocity and scientific ignorance that Christianity now stands as an absurdly unselfconscious apotheosis. The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a “loving” God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the superstitious bloodletting that has plagued bewildered people throughout history.
Of course, the God of Abraham was no stranger to ritual murder. Occasionally, He condemns the practice (Deuteronomy 12:31; Jeremiah 19:4-5; Ezekial 16:20-21); at other points, He requires or rewards it (Exodus 22:29-30; Judges 11:29-40; 1 Kings 13:1-2; 2 Kings 3:27; 2 Kings 23:20-25; Numbers 31:40, Deuteronomy 13:13-19). In the case of Abraham, God demands that he sacrifice his son Isaac but then stays his hand at the last moment (Genesis 22:1-18), without ever suggesting that the act of slaughtering one’s own child is immoral. Elsewhere, God confesses to inspiring human sacrifice soas to defile its practitioners (Ezekiel 20:26), while getting into the act Himself by slaying the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 11:5). The right of circumcision emerges as a surrogate for child sacrifice (Exodus 4:24-26), and God seems to generally encourage the substitution of animals for people. Indeed, His thirst for the blood of animals, as well as His attentiveness to the niceties of their slaughter and holocaust, is almost impossible to exaggerate.
Excerpt from the afterword of Letter To A Christian Nation : By Sam Harris.
Humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice. In fact, it has been by no means uncommon for a child to be born into this world only to be patiently and lovingly reared by religious maniacs, who believe that the best way to keep the sun on its course or to ensure a rich harvest is to lead him by tender hand into a field or to a mountaintop and bury, butcher, or burn him alive as offering to an invisible God. Countless children have been unlucky enough to be born in so dark an age, when ignorance and fantasy were indistinguishable from knowledge and where the drumbeat of religious fanaticism kept perfect time with every human heart. In fact, almost no culture has been exempt from this evil: the Sumerians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Hebrews, Canaanites, Maya, Inca, Aztecs, Olmecs, Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, Teutons, Celts, Druids, Vikings, Gauls, Hindus, Thais, Chinese, Japanese, Scandinavians, Maoris, Melanesias, Tahitians, Hawaiians, Balinese, Australian aborigines, Iroquois, Huron, Cherokee, and innumerable other societies ritually murdered their fellow human beings because they believed that invisible gods and goddesses, having an appetite for human flesh, could be so propitiated. Many of their victims were of the same opinion, in fact, and went willingly to slaughter, fully convinced that their deaths would transform the weather, or cure the king of his venereal disease, or in some other way spare their fellows the wrath of the Unseen.
In many societies, whenever a new building was constructed, it was thought only prudent to pacify the local deities by burying children alive beneath its foundations (this is how faith sometimes operates in a world without structural engineers). Many societies regularly sacrificed virgins to ward off floods. Others killed their first-born children, and even ate them, as a way of ensuring a mother’s ongoing fertility. In India, living infants were ritually fed to sharks at the mouth of the Ganges for the same purpose. Indians also burned widows alive so that they could follow their husbands into the next world. Leaving nothing to chance, Indians also sowed their fields with the flesh of a certain caste of men, raised especially for this purpose and dismembered while alive, to ensure that every crop of tumeric would be appropriately crimson. The British were actually hard pressed to put an end to these pious atrocities.
In some cultures whenever a nobleman died, other men and women allowed themselves to be buried alive so as to serve as his retainers in the next world. In ancient Rome, children were occasionally slaughtered so that the future could be read in their entrails. Some Fijian prodigy devised a powerful sacrament called “Vakatoga” which required that a victim’s limbs be cut off and eaten while he watched. Among the Iroquois, prisoners taken captive in war were often permitted to live among the tribe for many years, and even to marry, all the while being doomed to be flayed alive as an oblation to the God of War; whatever children they produced while in captivity were disposed of in the same ritual. Certain African tribes have a long history of murdering people to send as couriers in a one-way dialogue with their ancestors or to convert their body parts into magical charms. Ritual murders of this sort continue in many African societies to this day. [1]
It is essential to realize that such obscene misuses of human life have always been explicitly religious. They are the product of what people think they know about invisible gods and goddesses, and of what they manifestly do not know about biology, meteorology, medicine, physics, and a dozen other specific sciences that have more than a little to say about the events in the world that concern them. And it is astride this contemptible history of religious atrocity and scientific ignorance that Christianity now stands as an absurdly unselfconscious apotheosis. The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a “loving” God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the superstitious bloodletting that has plagued bewildered people throughout history.
Of course, the God of Abraham was no stranger to ritual murder. Occasionally, He condemns the practice (Deuteronomy 12:31; Jeremiah 19:4-5; Ezekial 16:20-21); at other points, He requires or rewards it (Exodus 22:29-30; Judges 11:29-40; 1 Kings 13:1-2; 2 Kings 3:27; 2 Kings 23:20-25; Numbers 31:40, Deuteronomy 13:13-19). In the case of Abraham, God demands that he sacrifice his son Isaac but then stays his hand at the last moment (Genesis 22:1-18), without ever suggesting that the act of slaughtering one’s own child is immoral. Elsewhere, God confesses to inspiring human sacrifice soas to defile its practitioners (Ezekiel 20:26), while getting into the act Himself by slaying the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 11:5). The right of circumcision emerges as a surrogate for child sacrifice (Exodus 4:24-26), and God seems to generally encourage the substitution of animals for people. Indeed, His thirst for the blood of animals, as well as His attentiveness to the niceties of their slaughter and holocaust, is almost impossible to exaggerate.
In Denial
Wikipedia defines denialism as, "choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth: It is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event" And, "in science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial".
A few days ago I heard an interview with Richard Leakey, of the famous Leakey family who have contributed so much to the study of human origins. It seemed a fairly wide-ranging interview, although I only caught part of it. My interest was aroused when the topic drifted into matters of lay people's perception of science. Leakey noted the lack of acceptance of scientific consensus on subjects such as the evidence of global warming and the fact that the earth is much older than creationists claim. He said that science has to "gain a greater currency" with people if we are to avoid some serious problems that lack of interest and widespread ignorance of science will allow to worsen to perhaps the point of no return.
America became the world power it is probably for several reasons but surely our dominance in science and technology has been a major reason. To continue that dominance will require heavy and continuing investments in scientific education and research. If Americans don't value and support those investments we will become less and less relevant.
A few days ago I heard an interview with Richard Leakey, of the famous Leakey family who have contributed so much to the study of human origins. It seemed a fairly wide-ranging interview, although I only caught part of it. My interest was aroused when the topic drifted into matters of lay people's perception of science. Leakey noted the lack of acceptance of scientific consensus on subjects such as the evidence of global warming and the fact that the earth is much older than creationists claim. He said that science has to "gain a greater currency" with people if we are to avoid some serious problems that lack of interest and widespread ignorance of science will allow to worsen to perhaps the point of no return.
America became the world power it is probably for several reasons but surely our dominance in science and technology has been a major reason. To continue that dominance will require heavy and continuing investments in scientific education and research. If Americans don't value and support those investments we will become less and less relevant.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The (Not So Good) Old Days
The American Civil War has been in the news lately, fittingly enough, since April 12 was the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the bloodiest war in our history. One of my college professors was something of a Civil War buff and went to battlefield sites to search for artifacts but I never paid much attention to it other than occasionally stumbling across an article that aroused my interest by detailing some of the insanity and butchery of some of the battles. I seem to recall it also holds the record for the bloodiest day in the history of American wars where more men were killed in a single battle on a single day than any other.
I didn't know there was much disagreement over what the war was about. I'd always heard it was about slavery. Apparently, shortly after it ended there were claims that it wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights, or Northern aggression, etc.. After all, it's hard to proudly justify and defend the right to keep human beings as property and use them as farm equipment. I've heard it called "a stain on the nation's conscience". And it should be. But not as a source of shame for whites alone. Whites didn't invent slavery and blacks have enslaved others as well and would undoubtedly have enslaved whites if circumstances had been reversed. It should be a source of shame for all humanity. It is a nearly universal human failing to wish to impose one's will on others through force if necessary and several races and cultures have enslaved their fellow humans.
I'm sort of intrigued by possible parallels between then and now in the sense that surely we are almost as bitterly divided now as then. Of course, now the issue is not slavery but political views. Tax cuts vs entitlements. Anti-abortion vs right-to-choose. Liberals vs conservatives. Supreme Court decisions often split 5-4 right along the political fault lines. What can save us from ourselves? Will there be an Abraham Lincoln to come along and appeal to "the better angels of our nature"? (Not likely. Although Lincoln was a Republican, in today's Republican Party he would not pass the purity tests. His anti-slavery position and lack of unswerving support for states rights would likely be seen as blasphemy.) Perhaps a spanking and off to bed with no supper! would be more fitting? Perhaps we could come up with a national strategy to trigger some sort of enforcement of grown-up behavior and the application of reason when people resort to name calling and demonizing?
I didn't know there was much disagreement over what the war was about. I'd always heard it was about slavery. Apparently, shortly after it ended there were claims that it wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights, or Northern aggression, etc.. After all, it's hard to proudly justify and defend the right to keep human beings as property and use them as farm equipment. I've heard it called "a stain on the nation's conscience". And it should be. But not as a source of shame for whites alone. Whites didn't invent slavery and blacks have enslaved others as well and would undoubtedly have enslaved whites if circumstances had been reversed. It should be a source of shame for all humanity. It is a nearly universal human failing to wish to impose one's will on others through force if necessary and several races and cultures have enslaved their fellow humans.
I'm sort of intrigued by possible parallels between then and now in the sense that surely we are almost as bitterly divided now as then. Of course, now the issue is not slavery but political views. Tax cuts vs entitlements. Anti-abortion vs right-to-choose. Liberals vs conservatives. Supreme Court decisions often split 5-4 right along the political fault lines. What can save us from ourselves? Will there be an Abraham Lincoln to come along and appeal to "the better angels of our nature"? (Not likely. Although Lincoln was a Republican, in today's Republican Party he would not pass the purity tests. His anti-slavery position and lack of unswerving support for states rights would likely be seen as blasphemy.) Perhaps a spanking and off to bed with no supper! would be more fitting? Perhaps we could come up with a national strategy to trigger some sort of enforcement of grown-up behavior and the application of reason when people resort to name calling and demonizing?
Budget Battles: Republican Courage or Political Suicide?
Any thinking person observing the partisan posturing, the pandering to the party bases during the recent budget battles has to have experienced a range of emotional responses that may have went from deep disgust to amazed disbelief at the antics. With the much dreaded government shutdown looming our duly elected heroes averted disaster at the last moment by agreeing to...was it actually only 38 billion dollars? Isn't that like a rounding error in the deficit? Chump change? Hell, Bill Gates or Warren Buffett alone could just about write a check for that much.
Then came Rep. Paul Ryan to offer the Republican plan to get us out of the fiscal hole we keep digging ever deeper. Recently, Time magazine quoted Republican political consultant Mark McKinnon saying Ryan's plan "will completely transform the political debate. It will either be a brilliant blaze that illuminates Republican courage or a roaring fire that immolates the party in a spectacular political suicide."
Not being an economist or particularly well informed about economic finer points, I certainly can't critique Ryan's plan in detail. But from what I hear from those who seem informed it appears to be a flawed - but certainly brave - attempt to tackle a huge threat to our future: the deficit. It seems Ryan couldn't resist the Republican obsession with tax cuts (especially for corporations and the wealthy) and made those a big part of his plan. It also seems that most of the spending reductions will come from cutting programs for the poor and middle class. It's obvious that changes have to be made but I like New York Times columnist David Brooks call to "make everyone hurt". Share the pain equally. We all bear responsibility for getting ourselves in this situation, don't we?
Ryan does deserve credit for courage. It's a near certainity that liberal groups, no doubt still smarting over midterm election defeats that cost Democrats the House can hardly wait to run the attack ads that practically write themselves. Should we take a moment to be outraged at the partisan political games played to gain advantage? To denounce the fiddling by both parties while America's future burns? Well, we could if only we weren't so responsible for putting them in office. For aiding and abetting such a polarized political climate that moderation and compromise become impossible.
There have been calls on both sides for Obama to lead on these budget issues but he has not accepted the challenge until the Republicans made the first move. That was probably very wise (but timid). It's also a near certainity that Republicans would have loved it if Democrats had made the first move so they could do the attack ads. It's also likely that Obama will do some Democrat partisan manuevering and avoid some hard choices that will have to be made sooner or later. Unfortunately, political gridlock, voted in at the ballot box, means those hard choices will almost certainly be put off until the damage becomes catastrophic. We have seen the enemy and still do not recognize... ourselves.
Then came Rep. Paul Ryan to offer the Republican plan to get us out of the fiscal hole we keep digging ever deeper. Recently, Time magazine quoted Republican political consultant Mark McKinnon saying Ryan's plan "will completely transform the political debate. It will either be a brilliant blaze that illuminates Republican courage or a roaring fire that immolates the party in a spectacular political suicide."
Not being an economist or particularly well informed about economic finer points, I certainly can't critique Ryan's plan in detail. But from what I hear from those who seem informed it appears to be a flawed - but certainly brave - attempt to tackle a huge threat to our future: the deficit. It seems Ryan couldn't resist the Republican obsession with tax cuts (especially for corporations and the wealthy) and made those a big part of his plan. It also seems that most of the spending reductions will come from cutting programs for the poor and middle class. It's obvious that changes have to be made but I like New York Times columnist David Brooks call to "make everyone hurt". Share the pain equally. We all bear responsibility for getting ourselves in this situation, don't we?
Ryan does deserve credit for courage. It's a near certainity that liberal groups, no doubt still smarting over midterm election defeats that cost Democrats the House can hardly wait to run the attack ads that practically write themselves. Should we take a moment to be outraged at the partisan political games played to gain advantage? To denounce the fiddling by both parties while America's future burns? Well, we could if only we weren't so responsible for putting them in office. For aiding and abetting such a polarized political climate that moderation and compromise become impossible.
There have been calls on both sides for Obama to lead on these budget issues but he has not accepted the challenge until the Republicans made the first move. That was probably very wise (but timid). It's also a near certainity that Republicans would have loved it if Democrats had made the first move so they could do the attack ads. It's also likely that Obama will do some Democrat partisan manuevering and avoid some hard choices that will have to be made sooner or later. Unfortunately, political gridlock, voted in at the ballot box, means those hard choices will almost certainly be put off until the damage becomes catastrophic. We have seen the enemy and still do not recognize... ourselves.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Losing Their Religion
Recent reports using census data from nine countries suggest that religion may disappear from those countries. The data showed a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation. The countries are Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Switzerland.
I find this welcome news. And hopeful. Without something as divisive as faith based religions that contradict and exclude each other, we'll have fewer reasons to kill each other over what happens in some hypothetical afterlife.
I find this welcome news. And hopeful. Without something as divisive as faith based religions that contradict and exclude each other, we'll have fewer reasons to kill each other over what happens in some hypothetical afterlife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)