There will be a Northwest Freethought Coalition’s Freethinkers’ Picnic on July 3rd, starting at 1PM at Ravenna Park. See the Meetup.com event for more information.

The following represents the opinions of  single member of the SSU, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the SSU as a whole.

Being an atheist with many like-minded friends, I often detect great amounts of animosity toward the modern form of Christianity, and Evangelical sects in particular. Sometimes, this is directed at the Dominionists, as they attempt to override our laws in order to enforce Biblical law upon the rest of us. Other times, it stems from the frustration of being pre-judged as immoral, degenerate, foolish, or ignorant.

Today, however, I saw this animosity coming from the clear hypocrisy of purported “Christians,” swirling around a recent news story:

Churchgoers more likely to back torture, survey finds

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new analysis.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only 4 in 10 of them did.

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/30/churchgoers-more-likely-to-back-torture-survey-finds/

These Christians claim to follow the man who has long been lauded for his pacifist philosophies which have affected Western thought for centuries.

I speak out of the frustration felt by many whom see these abhorrent policies sanctioned so, when I ask:

How is torture…

• Turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-42)?
• Loving thy neighbor (Leviticus 19:18)?
• Loving thine enemies (Matthew 5:44)?

To any who continue to sanction such acts, I quote your Christ (John 8:7), and say:

Let he who is without sin…

• Administer the first lethal injection
• Tie the first hanging rope
• Flip the first electric chair switch
• Waterboard the first suspect

The god of the Old Testament slaughtered mercilessly those who opposed him or his people. However, Jesus commands his followers to turn the other cheek, and leave the stone throwing to god himself. 

To the self-proclaimed Christians that support and sanction torture, I ask:

Why do you disobey the god you claim to worship so? Why are you not the first to stand up against those who commit these atrocities in your names?

How dare you condemn the non-religious as amoral, when we reject torture in greater numbers, and even without divine commandments. Take the beam out of thine own eye before condemning the mote in ours (Matthew 7:3).

Disclaimer: this post represents the views of an individual, and not of the Secular Student Union as a whole.

Today in my philosophy of religion course, we discussed Buddhism. I’ve heard a lot of atheists who, while incredibly derisive about Christianity, are incredibly enthusiastic about Buddhism. This was the case for most of the students in the class. I have to confess, I’m perplexed. But I think it says something about our psychological need for belief, for spirituality, that when people leave or lack theism, they feel a need to turn to some, any form of religion or areligion.

I don’t understand the attraction of Buddhism. To me, much of it reads like a poetically written self-help book. The beliefs espoused by Buddha are not, in my opinion, religious, although it certainly depends on your definition of religion. Which is not to say that Buddhism isn’t a religion. Despite the Buddha’s rejection of any form of idiosyncratic metaphysics, the vast majority of Buddhists do hold such beliefs, believing in a soul, reincarnation, and nirvana as distinct from the body in this life. As in, the Buddha is basically telling people ways to be happier in this life. You can find many modern equivalents to his work that are better supported by recent psychological research in any supermarket. No one would call those religious. Neither would anyone study them in the way I have seen some atheists study the teachings of Buddha. Why are the works given such respect? I don’t think atheists are giving Buddhism (if one can call the teachings of Buddha “Buddhism” when the two often have large metaphysical differences) the serious critical attention it deserves as both a theory of human psychology and happiness and as an ethical theory. It appears to me, instead, that they are almost giving it the respect of a somewhat dogmatic occasionally questioning religious practitioner. If you’re interested in human flourishing and how to live, I would recommend a combination of modern positive psychologists and modern virtue ethicists as much better sources.

While this isn’t directly a religious issue, or at least shouldn’t be a religious issue…

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iowa.html?_r=1&hp

Salon.com just published an interview with Bart Ehrman, New Testament scholar, former evangelical Christian, current agnostic, and the author of a new book called “Jesus, Interrupted.” I haven’t read the book yet, but I am very familiar with Ehrman’s work and I highly recommend his books. Salon describes him as “a bomb-throwing moderate, a non-dogmatic rationalist.” His earlier “Misquoting Jesus” is a highly readable introduction to what bible scholars know about who wrote the New Testament and why biblical infallibility cannot be true. After a brief detour into the problem of evil with his book “God’s Problem,” he has now returned to his area of expertise and expands on themes from “Misquoting Jesus,” and I am sure it will be a worthwhile read. Here is the article. And here is a video where Ehrman briefly discusses the new book, and here he discusses it on NPR’s Fresh Air..

(link to Seattle Times Article here)

Nightline” debate to take on Satan in Ballard church

By Janet I. Tu

Seattle Times staff reporter

The debate over whether Satan exists is hardly going to be settled in a 30-minute television show.

But that’s not stopping a rather curious lineup from debating that question for ABC’s “Nightline.”

The debaters: megachurch Pastor Mark Driscoll of Seattle; alternative-medicine author Deepak Chopra; a former Las Vegas escort who founded Hookers for Jesus; and a former Pentecostal preacher who was branded a heretic for saying everyone — not just Christians — could go to heaven.

The four are gathering Friday at Mars Hill Church in Ballard, where Driscoll is preaching pastor, to tape the segment, which will air March 26.

The topic has gotten a few responses of “Say what?” Why, now, is “Nightline” discussing Satan’s existence, and why were these particular people chosen to do so?

For one, the topic can be particularly relevant in troubled times such as these, when people are looking for explanations for economic chaos.

For another: “There’s always an interest in these topics,” said James Goldston, the show’s executive producer.

Not to mention potentially great ratings.

“Every time we’ve done one, the response has been pretty dramatic,” he said.

It’s the latest in a series of “Face Off” debates “Nightline” launched two years ago, bringing together prominent people to debate hot topics. The first one — on the existence of God — is still abcnews.com’s single most commented-upon story, Goldston said.

The idea of doing a debate on Satan came about, in part, through conversations the show’s staff had with Driscoll when doing a profile on him.

ABC also had done stories on Chopra; Annie Lobert, the founder of Hookers for Jesus, which preaches a Christian message to women in the sex trade; and the Rev. Carlton Pearson, an Oklahoma pastor who went from preaching before 6,000 to leading a couple hundred after he rejected traditional Christian beliefs about heaven and hell.

“We went for the most interesting voices we could find,” Goldston said.

All of which makes T.J. Wray, co-author of “The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil’s Biblical Roots,” sigh in exasperation.

“Why don’t they call professionals — the people who write this stuff?” asked Wray, an associate professor of religious studies at Salve Regina University in Newport, R.I.

It’s unlikely a debate of this type can get into the complex theology and history behind Satan, she said.

Still, the topic is timely.

“Historically, when times are difficult, Satan increases in popularity. People begin talking about him,” Wray said.

“When things are going well, Satan is kind of on the periphery. But when things go wrong, people ask: ‘Why are things the way they are? There must be some evil force in the world.’

“Satan provides a language for us to speak about evil,” she said. “That’s been his historic role.”

For his part, Driscoll believes a literal spirit being named Satan exists and is at work in the world for evil and injustice.

The Bible speaks clearly and repeatedly of Satan, he said.

And “in my own pastoral experience, I have witnessed such great evil and injustice so often that no answer but the existence of a real enemy to good and life makes any sense to me.”

The lineup of debaters, Driscoll said, helps ensure “this is not just an academic debate but also a practical discourse.”

Driscoll and Lobert will be taking on Chopra and Pearson.

Pearson does not believe in Satan as an actual being and discourages people from doing so because “it makes us helpless, paranoid and frightened.”

Human beings themselves create evil and “stupid stuff,” he said. To blame Satan takes away personal responsibility.

“I’ve heard: ‘The devil made me do it.’ Don’t put that on the devil,” Pearson said. “You made that stupid decision yourself. Let’s talk about why you made it.”

In any case, said Wray, the university professor, “to debate this issue is futile. No one’s going to emerge the victor. … It’s the topic that never goes away.”

Curiously absent? Skeptics, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists… or any other sort of doubters.

This should be interesting, though.

The following represents the views of a single SSU member, and does not necessarily represent the views of the SSU as a whole

UPDATE: LDS Church Responds to Big Love

Big Love to feature the Mormon Temple Ceremony, TV Guide

Well, this is certainly unprecedented.

The Mormon temples are considered the most sacred of spaces on Earth. Within the temples, several “saving ordinances” are performed, which are required to enter the highest levels of the Celestial Kingdom, including the Endowment and marriage sealings. It is a significant breach of Mormon law to discuss details of the temple ceremonies outside of the “Celestial Room” within the temple, and the church defends the secrecy of these details passionately, claiming that they need to be confined within the temple due to their highly sacred nature.

Big Love, the HBO series about a family within a polygamous sect (an offshoot from what is known as the Mormon church), is going to be airing an episode which will show the details of the ceremony, from the ritual attire to the rituals themselves. 

I’ve never watched Big Love, but I’ll be tuning in to this one. Having gone through the Mormon Endowment ceremony, I’m curious to see how accurate the portrayal is. The advertisement (link above) shows the temple clothes of a woman, and it seems spot on… with the exception that the apron ought to be green, not blue. 

I have highly mixed feelings about this, however, which may be a remnant of the Mormonism I was raised with. It was this very ceremony that, due to it being almost entirely foreign in style from the rest of the church, shook my faith to the point that I was able to investigate the church rationally. It is now my opinion that the church has its members go through the ceremony either immediately before serving a mission or getting married as a retention technique.

So… how do I feel about this?

Legally:

I am definitely of the opinion that HBO and the team of Big Love are well within the law. It would be a horribly oppressive act and in complete violation of the First Amendment for the government to step in and censor the broadcast, as some LDS folks are currently advocating. The legality of the situation is hardly questionable - the right to offend is a fundamental piece of free speech.

Effects:

HBO may have awakened a slumbering giant here. In November, the US (and California in particular) witnessed the ability of the LDS Church to politically mobilize, to devastating results. Without question, this will instill vitriol within the Mormon community, the likes of which have never been seen. HBO is broadcasting one of the most sacred of Mormon rituals to a wide audience, and hardly in a sympathetic light at that. 

In a sentence, HBO just “pantsed” Mormonism, and like anyone who just got “pantsed,” they’re going to be embarrassed, hurt, and pissed.

If I were still Mormon, I would find myself entrenched in a new battle. Prop 8 envigorated and energized the youth of the church politically, and that was an indirect affront. This could give the same a banner to wave, a new and more righteous cause, and will further reinforce the persecution complex that has been fostered in the church since its inception. This will further “prove” that the powers of the world, driven by mammon (Babylon, Satan, take your pick), are out to destroy the church.

Morally:

The question of the morality of broadcasting the sacred ceremony of someone else’s beliefs is a tricky one. Honestly, I have many conflicting opinions regarding it, and I’m not entirely certain where I stand. Immediately and nearly simultaneously, I can’t help but think:

- Go for it! Perhaps if the absurdity of their faith is brought to light, it’ll marginalize and retard the growth of the church.

- This is inappropriate - there’s no reason to slaughter another man’s sacred cow unless you’ll die of starvation otherwise. 

I’ll expand more on this as I chew on it, but I think I’m leaning toward the latter right now.

What are your thoughts?

We had a good discussion about heaven and hell and how the concepts of eternal reward and punishment appeal to an early stage of moral development. One of the concepts we discussed was the history of the concept of hell. One of the scholars who has written about this subject is Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton. She is an expert on the Gnostic literature and has written multiple books on the subject, including Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas and The Gnostic Gospels. The books that touch on today’s subject are The Origin of Satan and perhaps Adam, Eve and the Serpent. For those interested in a little video, Charlie Rose interviewed Pagels back in 1995 about The Origin of Satan, and you can watch the video here. The Pagels segment begins at 31:08.

I also mentioned a Yale course about the Bible that is available online. That course is available here, and I would highly recommend these lectures if you are interested in a basic university level introduction to the Hebrew Bible but don’t have the time or interest to take an actual course.

The following represents the views of a single member of the SSU, and does not necessarily represent the views of the SSU as a whole.

Cross-posted from the blog Figuring Shit Out

To a lot of liberal Christians, evolution has become, dare I say, almost a point of identity. Even the Catholic Church has reaffirmed it’s view that evolution is totally compatible with faith and that Intelligent Design is a cruel sham of a belief. A lot of Atheists are keen to encourage this because anything that gets liberal Christians on our side and away from the Fundamentalists is a good thing. Unfortunately, I’m about to take a massive piss into this font of goodwill by stating that I think the belief that evolution is compatible with faith is based on a misunderstanding of evolution that is so prevalent even Atheists are guilty of perpetuating it.

The easy part of evolution to understand is the mechanistic aspect, the “how” of evolution. Mutation happens and features get evolved and some things become more popular because they lead to increased survival and this is how we have the natural world we see around us. Based on an understanding of this how, it’s perfectly plausible to then believe the why comes from God. God works through evolution and gives it a nudge once in a while at the right points. Evolution is just a cog in God’s plan. Of course, this is an unfalsifiable assertion so it falls outside of the domain of science. The scientists are happy, the liberal Christians are happy, why make so much fuss?

But to understand why evolution had the profoundly explosive effect it did on the scientific world and why Darwin was named the most influential scientist of the past millennium by Scientific American, one must move past the mechanistic understanding of evolution and understand the teleological aspect of evolution: the why of evolution.

Imagine for a second that you rolled a pair of dice a million times and noticed that they added up to 7 roughly 1/6th of the time. Why did the dice land the way it did? Why 1/6th and not some other number like 1/3rd or 1/12th? If you were wholly ignorant about probability, then you could believe that God decreed that all dice rolls should fall to his accord and the reason for 1/6th was because it was pleasing to his eye. But what probability does is it not only explains how it is 1/6th, but also to boil the why down to *shrug*, that’s just the way it is. Fundamentally, the why of it is that there is no why, not only is the why not God, it’s not anything. What probability does is explain away the why.

The real impact of evolution was not that it explained the natural world, it was that it provided science with a path to explain it away. Why do birds fly and beasts walk? Why are we the most intelligent of all the animals? Why do we love and war and yearn for the stars? *shrug*, that’s just how the world is. Evolution showed how complex forms and intelligent beings could have arisen following the same natural laws that govern how dice roll and planets move and by doing so, it not only removed the need for an intelligent creator, it removed the need for anything. Even 200 years after Darwin this is the basic point of evolution that is still misunderstood and this is why evolution is far more of a dilemma to faith than most people will admit.

It’s important to note though that this process is far from complete. Darwin only put humanity on the first step towards this understanding and in the last 200 years, scientists have been steadily working away towards this goal. Our understanding of how is still gradually improving every year but none of this could have happened unless Darwin had the stroke of insight that there could be no why.

Is it possible to believe in evolution and still in God? Sure, but It would be akin to showing how you could bend a spoon via sleight of hand and still believing that Uri Geller is bending them with his mind. If that’s the way it’s done, then he’s doing it the hard way.

In commemoration of Darwin Day, I am posting a few links to resources about evolution.

UC Berkeley’s Understanding Evolution and Understanding Science websites

Website about evolution by the National Academies

A collection of articles about evolution by New Scientist magazine

Professor Ken MIller’s website about evolution, on which he argues for theistic evolution and against intelligent design; also see Jerry Coyne’s critique of two books arguing for theistic evolution, including a book by Miller

potholer54’s Made Easy series on YouTube (he’s currently working on a more school-friendly version of the videos that removes the statements critical of religious belief)

The PBS series Evolution, with its companion website

The NOVA program “Intelligent Design on Trial” about the 2005 Dover, Pennsylvania case about intelligent design

Other NOVA programs that relate to evolution are “Alien From Earth,” about the so-called “hobbit” fossils found on the island of Flores in Indonesia; “Ape Genius,” about the similarities and differences between humans and chimpanzees; “The Four-Winged Dinosaur,” about the evolution of birds; “Lord of the Ants,” about E. O. Wilson, an expert on ants and the founder of sociobiology

Richard Dawkins’s recent award-winning series “The Genius of Charles Darwin”

Carl Sagan’s 1980 series “Cosmos“: episode 2 is about evolution and some ideas about life on other planets

If anyone else knows of good evolution resources, please post them in the comments section.