For months I have held off on writing anything explicitly related to the death of my father. For one thing, no one in their right mind should want to express such deeply emotional experiences to the impersonal void that is the internet. But beyond that, his death affected my views on people and society in such a profound way that I felt like referencing it might come off as, and in fact may be, a cheap way of exploiting his demise in order to bolster the emotional context of my writing rather than appealing to rational argumentation. But in fact, it is that same drive to protect both reason and his memory that motivated me to write this blog.
I became an atheist and left the pulpit it because I came to understand that the material universe in which we live is all that there is. Our existence is not a preamble to something more awesome upon death. This is it - this is our chance to live, our chance to shine. Nothing else is relevant. Some may still cling to escapist fantasies because they are disatisfied with life but that doesn't change the fact the material universe is all that there is, all that ever has been, and all that ever will be. It may change shape and density but no supernatural force guides it.
When my dad, Charles Barrett Porterfield, died he didn't go to wait for me in some mystical dugout while I stepped up to bat - he simply died. The man that didn't get my jokes, the man that thought I was "crazy as hell" at times, the man that loved my mother, the man that sold his Jag so he could feed me and my brother, the man who loved the Braves, the man who was drafted to fight in Vietnam, the man who took me to see a battle royal at a skating rink, the man that thanked me for reaching out to him and looking after my mother didn't go to heaven, he didn't enter paradise, he simply died. If ever a man walking this planet deserved to be considered holy it was the man that put up with my shit growing up. But my father wasn't holy - he was simply an honest, hard-working man who used the same finite capabilities that humans possess to take care of his family. He contributed time and money to charites to help out other poor. He gave 100 mile rides to people with broken down cars. He would trim elderly people's hedges when his body still had the strength to do so. While some individuals claim to be experts on human dignity and compassion because followers call them "His Holiness" my father showed me what compassion was by the way he lived his life. He didn't offer prayers, he didn't read 'scripture' to people, and he never told anyone how to live their lives. My dad was a quiet man whose let the actions of his life teach me this lesson: if I want a better life, if I want a better world then I am the one responsible for making it happen. He was one of those crazy people, like myself, that believed that individuals matter and that the United States of America is the greatest place on Earth.
I'm an atheist liberterian and offer no apologies about this. I do not talk to an imaginary friend for guidance on my life or on how to make the decisions that will most benefit me and the world in which I live. Look at the actions of yourself and those around you and you will see that by and large people are overwhelmingly good. Despite the cries of religious propagandists people don't need to believe in fairy tales to know that murder and rape are wrong and that exhibiting concern for yourself and others is right. It is literally built into our genes and brains. Religious dogma may make you feel bad about fucking your wife while she's on her period but the reality is that most of us are benevolent and it's time that we recognize that. We all take steps to improve things in our lives and few of us go out of our way to harm others around us.
Despite this reality religion thrives on perpetuating myths and ideas that we are broken, mishapen, evil creatures that must defer to something "greater" or at least different than ourselves in order to fix this overstated malady. It has been historically demonstrated - from the god-emperors of Japan to the the Divine Right of European kings to the God of Freedom in the Bush administration - that you can convince large populations to follow you if you but claim supernatural blessings to your cause. You don't need proof or statistics or data - you only need statements of mystic guidance and you can take a position of leadership. And all of it is predicated on lies.
Throughout Barack Obama's campaign I heard him quoting from the Sermon on the Mount, discussing his faith in God, beseeching us to faithfully buy into an illusory thing he called "hope". T-shirts sold at corner gas stations were brazened with his quote, "I'm asking you to believe." During yesterday's Inaugaration how many goddamned prayers were offered by people described as "controversial" because of their ideology and not because they can pretend to speak to magical, fantasy characters while keeping a straight face? Barack is just a man, a famous man who looks great in a bathing suit, true, but still just a man. I'm glad that my niece and nephews, who are themselves African-American, will be able to see a black individual in the news who isn't a preacher, entertainer, or sports star and that this may help break down many of the devisive walls that we separate ourselves with. But believe me, President Obama is no gift from heaven or a prophet of god. He's ambitious, intelligent and talented but he's just a plain old Homo sapien like all of us.
Which brings me back to my father. A lot of people have found a new hero to 'believe' in. I had a hero and he is no longer alive. As sad as that may be, I remain optimistic about my own life and the rest of the world. Nothing is promised to us so we must be grateful for every day and every moment we have in life. The internet (and the birth city of my father and myself) is filled with a lot of smug assholes who think that because they support the politics of a new president rather than an outgoing president that they have demonstrated moral fortitude. My father voted for Reagan and both Bushes. Had he lived he would have voted for McCain. He and I disagreed on many social and political issues but I always maintained my respect for him because, even when he was wrong, he was a man who loved his family, his country, and his friends. I am humbled by his memory for he was the greatest man I have ever known.
And now, Mr. President and supporters, I let you have your celebration. Consider yourselves on notice.;)
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
A Stupid Book Making a Stupider World
Please don't waste your time reading THE HIDDEN MESSAGES IN WATER by Masaru Emoto. I have a friend that likes to take acid for Jesus who leant me this book. He thinks that I trust science too much and that I am close-minded to the mysteries of the universe. That may be but that doesn't explain how I'm supposed to take statements from HIDDEN MESSAGES like the following seriously:
"Water is not simply H2O. No matter how natural or pure the water you drink, without a pure soul it will not taste good." (p. 83)
"Perhaps it is possible that the miracle water of Lourdes in France, which is said to have healing powers, is filled with the feelings of appreciation of the Mother Mary." (p. 74)
"Love and gratitude are fundamental principles of nature." (p. 134)
Regarding the unfair treatment of the 'research' into homeopathy by Jacques Benveniste: "A year after he submitted his results to the British scientific journal Nature, they were finally published, along with the comment that the results of the experiment were doubtful and without physical proof." (p. xx)
'Without physical proof'?! What good is fucking science if you don't actually have data to back up your conclusion?
If you want to read about the nonsense that is homeopathy check out: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
http://skepdic.com/homeo.html
If you want to follow Emoto's advice, however:
"Whenever you sit in front of water and send out messages of love and gratitude, somewhere in the world, someone is being filled with love and gratitude. You don't need to go anywhere." (p. 99)
Is it any wonder that this book also has information on how to buy shit from Masaru Emoto's water company?
****Originally posted October 30, 2008****
"Water is not simply H2O. No matter how natural or pure the water you drink, without a pure soul it will not taste good." (p. 83)
"Perhaps it is possible that the miracle water of Lourdes in France, which is said to have healing powers, is filled with the feelings of appreciation of the Mother Mary." (p. 74)
"Love and gratitude are fundamental principles of nature." (p. 134)
Regarding the unfair treatment of the 'research' into homeopathy by Jacques Benveniste: "A year after he submitted his results to the British scientific journal Nature, they were finally published, along with the comment that the results of the experiment were doubtful and without physical proof." (p. xx)
'Without physical proof'?! What good is fucking science if you don't actually have data to back up your conclusion?
If you want to read about the nonsense that is homeopathy check out: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
http://skepdic.com/homeo.html
If you want to follow Emoto's advice, however:
"Whenever you sit in front of water and send out messages of love and gratitude, somewhere in the world, someone is being filled with love and gratitude. You don't need to go anywhere." (p. 99)
Is it any wonder that this book also has information on how to buy shit from Masaru Emoto's water company?
****Originally posted October 30, 2008****
Parking Lots Replace the Salon for Social Discourse
I ran into one of my old Relgious Studies professors in the Home Depot parking lot and he told me that because of my libertarian attitudes that I am actually accelerating the Marxist Revolution. I like this because this means whenever I'm backed into a corner in an argument I can just say that I'm doing it for the proletariat.
And am I the only one that thinks it's funny that a professor still believes in God and Marxism? He might as well add 8-Track supremacy and the War on Terror to his list of great ideas.
****Originally posted September 26, 2008****
And am I the only one that thinks it's funny that a professor still believes in God and Marxism? He might as well add 8-Track supremacy and the War on Terror to his list of great ideas.
****Originally posted September 26, 2008****
What Would Jack Chick Do?
If you or someone you love has been affected by child abuse consult an organization like The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute for help:
http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/hero.html
And for the sake of satire check out this link to find out why Jack Chick is a misguided pervert speaking on behalf of a senseless, horrific religion:
http://www.disinfo.com/content/story.php?title=Darkest-Jack-Chick-Tract-Ever
If you have a real life problem, please seek a real life solution. Supernatural or mystical powers do not address physical and mental disorders. Blessings do not remove the pain of emotional scarring. Seeking help from a professional, learning to reclaim your own life and taking responsibilites for your own actions will take you far closer to health and joy than prayer ever will.
****Originally posted June 24, 2008****
http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/hero.html
And for the sake of satire check out this link to find out why Jack Chick is a misguided pervert speaking on behalf of a senseless, horrific religion:
http://www.disinfo.com/content/story.php?title=Darkest-Jack-Chick-Tract-Ever
If you have a real life problem, please seek a real life solution. Supernatural or mystical powers do not address physical and mental disorders. Blessings do not remove the pain of emotional scarring. Seeking help from a professional, learning to reclaim your own life and taking responsibilites for your own actions will take you far closer to health and joy than prayer ever will.
****Originally posted June 24, 2008****
See that dead horse? Would you mind taking this club to it for me?
Before my blog I would like to point out that there are blog categories for ’Dreams and the Supernatural’ AND ’Religion and Philosophy’ but nothing for ’Science.’ When will I learn?
Cliched, unnecessary The Godfather Part III quote:
"Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in."
We were having a delightful conversation about the how science and technology has and will continue to impact human development when this question came up - [Chuck], when is your birthday? - automatic red flag. If anyone other than a liquor retailer asks this it usually only means one thing: Astrology. We’re discussing the future of humanity and out of nowhere astronomy’s irrational, self-proclaimed cousin cuts into our dance. And believe it or not, I just kept my mouth shut.
You see, I’ve been on a positivity kick the last couple of weeks and I’m trying not to get so riled up about trivial things. I’ve been trying to squelch my hostility towards relgion and my general malaise towards superstition. Clearly that stuff isn’t for me. For the most part I don’t think that believing in this stuff helps out the world but that, it seems, is irrelevant. I can rant about this stuff until I’m blue in the face but let’s be realistic here - monotheism is not going to be crushed under my foot, mediums will continue to rip off grieving families and people are still going to pray for peace while at the same time re-electing ’born again’ war mongers. I can say my piece, but when it is all said an done my skepticism will be maligned as ’close-mindedness.’ I thought was making up for some of the damage I may have caused while evangelizing Christianity but now I kind of feel like I’m just doing the same thing for another team.
For example, I’d just rather discuss how beautiful the theory of evolution actually is than lambast creationists for their utter disregard for science. None of us have all of this thing called life figured out so I decided to just take the ’what’s right for me may not be right for you’ approach. Maybe this comes from living in the US but this stuff gets shoved in your face whether want it to or not. Take my recent, non-confronational encounter for instance. To the best of my memory here’s how the exchange went:
Companion: "Chuck’s a pretty rational guy."
Inquistors: "What day were you born?"
Me: (as I look to [Companion] to see if she knows where this is going) "December 22nd."
Inquistors: "So that makes you. . ."
-I remain silent-
Companion: "Chuck doesn’t believe in astrology."
Inquistors: "That’s okay. Astrology believes in you."
Did you see that? It jumps from rational to astrological in one freaking question. They may have been kidding about the ’believes in you’ part but I didn’t even ask. In fact, I didn’t even say anything and I still get roped into a conversation about the supernatural.
For those wondering December 22nd means that I was born on the first day of Capricorn, on the cusp with Sagitarrius whatever that means. Supposedly Capricorns are smart, down-to-earth, and stubborn. At times I may be all of those. At others none of those correctly describe me. So what is it? Do the stars only affect who I am sometimes or only when it suits astrologists? And why does it seem that celestial bodies tend to provide positive or useful traits and grant us opportunities to succeed rather than suffer? What about those crossed stars that lead a man to abuse his wife and children? Is Mars’ approach causing him supernatural rage? Frankly, I personally find the suggestion that ’the heavens’ care for some people more than others as ludicrous and distasteful as a god that simultaneously claims to be all-loving and a proponent of war, slavery, and suffering.
Presumably astrology must affect every single organic creature that has ever lived but I’ve never heard of a snail astrologer. Or fern or protozoan for that matter. Presumably it took humans that claim inherint insight into the mystical to discover it. For the remainder of human existence scientists will be working on learning about the breadth and scope of our cosmos and will most likely never fully learn about even the largest bodies in our universe but astrologers have got it all figured out. Never mind the fact that as astronomical information has grown and changed astrology has had to augment it’s supposed workings to adjust to these findings. Science has the good grace to admit that it is a human endevour and open to correction. That, by the way, is one of my problems with most religious thought: it won’t admit that humans are involved in it’s inception. Science is different because it looks toward existing data and postulates answers and then has the audacity to actually test them to see if they make sense. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t but at least they aim for consistency. Astrology is so vague that consistency is elusive.
The point is that I, Chuck Porterfield, after a few years of arm chair research and reading a number of books on magic and astrology (not to mention a degree in Religious Studies but who’s counting?) determined that this stuff has no value for me. Fine. Maybe it does for you, but not this guy here. And I’m not going to tell you to give up on it. Hell, maybe I’m missing the forest for the trees and using these glaring inconsistencies to blind my third eye or something. The truth is, I kind of find this sort of silly and childish and I’d rather just move past it. There are real world problems out their that require real world solutions and excuse me if I’d rather hear what the prospects of the future are rather than the unfilled promises of the past. My life has never moved in a more positive, productive direction and I think I’ll do what I can to stay on this course.
Thanks.
****Originally posted March 21, 2008****
Cliched, unnecessary The Godfather Part III quote:
"Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in."
We were having a delightful conversation about the how science and technology has and will continue to impact human development when this question came up - [Chuck], when is your birthday? - automatic red flag. If anyone other than a liquor retailer asks this it usually only means one thing: Astrology. We’re discussing the future of humanity and out of nowhere astronomy’s irrational, self-proclaimed cousin cuts into our dance. And believe it or not, I just kept my mouth shut.
You see, I’ve been on a positivity kick the last couple of weeks and I’m trying not to get so riled up about trivial things. I’ve been trying to squelch my hostility towards relgion and my general malaise towards superstition. Clearly that stuff isn’t for me. For the most part I don’t think that believing in this stuff helps out the world but that, it seems, is irrelevant. I can rant about this stuff until I’m blue in the face but let’s be realistic here - monotheism is not going to be crushed under my foot, mediums will continue to rip off grieving families and people are still going to pray for peace while at the same time re-electing ’born again’ war mongers. I can say my piece, but when it is all said an done my skepticism will be maligned as ’close-mindedness.’ I thought was making up for some of the damage I may have caused while evangelizing Christianity but now I kind of feel like I’m just doing the same thing for another team.
For example, I’d just rather discuss how beautiful the theory of evolution actually is than lambast creationists for their utter disregard for science. None of us have all of this thing called life figured out so I decided to just take the ’what’s right for me may not be right for you’ approach. Maybe this comes from living in the US but this stuff gets shoved in your face whether want it to or not. Take my recent, non-confronational encounter for instance. To the best of my memory here’s how the exchange went:
Companion: "Chuck’s a pretty rational guy."
Inquistors: "What day were you born?"
Me: (as I look to [Companion] to see if she knows where this is going) "December 22nd."
Inquistors: "So that makes you. . ."
-I remain silent-
Companion: "Chuck doesn’t believe in astrology."
Inquistors: "That’s okay. Astrology believes in you."
Did you see that? It jumps from rational to astrological in one freaking question. They may have been kidding about the ’believes in you’ part but I didn’t even ask. In fact, I didn’t even say anything and I still get roped into a conversation about the supernatural.
For those wondering December 22nd means that I was born on the first day of Capricorn, on the cusp with Sagitarrius whatever that means. Supposedly Capricorns are smart, down-to-earth, and stubborn. At times I may be all of those. At others none of those correctly describe me. So what is it? Do the stars only affect who I am sometimes or only when it suits astrologists? And why does it seem that celestial bodies tend to provide positive or useful traits and grant us opportunities to succeed rather than suffer? What about those crossed stars that lead a man to abuse his wife and children? Is Mars’ approach causing him supernatural rage? Frankly, I personally find the suggestion that ’the heavens’ care for some people more than others as ludicrous and distasteful as a god that simultaneously claims to be all-loving and a proponent of war, slavery, and suffering.
Presumably astrology must affect every single organic creature that has ever lived but I’ve never heard of a snail astrologer. Or fern or protozoan for that matter. Presumably it took humans that claim inherint insight into the mystical to discover it. For the remainder of human existence scientists will be working on learning about the breadth and scope of our cosmos and will most likely never fully learn about even the largest bodies in our universe but astrologers have got it all figured out. Never mind the fact that as astronomical information has grown and changed astrology has had to augment it’s supposed workings to adjust to these findings. Science has the good grace to admit that it is a human endevour and open to correction. That, by the way, is one of my problems with most religious thought: it won’t admit that humans are involved in it’s inception. Science is different because it looks toward existing data and postulates answers and then has the audacity to actually test them to see if they make sense. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t but at least they aim for consistency. Astrology is so vague that consistency is elusive.
The point is that I, Chuck Porterfield, after a few years of arm chair research and reading a number of books on magic and astrology (not to mention a degree in Religious Studies but who’s counting?) determined that this stuff has no value for me. Fine. Maybe it does for you, but not this guy here. And I’m not going to tell you to give up on it. Hell, maybe I’m missing the forest for the trees and using these glaring inconsistencies to blind my third eye or something. The truth is, I kind of find this sort of silly and childish and I’d rather just move past it. There are real world problems out their that require real world solutions and excuse me if I’d rather hear what the prospects of the future are rather than the unfilled promises of the past. My life has never moved in a more positive, productive direction and I think I’ll do what I can to stay on this course.
Thanks.
****Originally posted March 21, 2008****
Keep your fucking knife away from my genitals. Thanks.
I tried to think of something funny to say but the seriousness of this topic allows little space for comedy. Check this article out entitled "Man Faces Child Abuse Charges After Home Circumcision": http://www.wxii12.com/news/15251643/detail.html
There should be no debate as to whether this man's alleged actions are child abuse but we as civilized humans need to further understand this: ALL circumcision is child abuse. No child for any reason should have harm inflicted upon his penis or her clitoris. Science has found no medically positive reason for cutting or removing a male's foreskin. Don't give me any bullshit about it being cleaner: teach your child to wash his penis and you can give up millenniums of archaic, torturous practices. Lives are only harmed by this practice. It teaches that physical suffering is better to experience than sexuality. America and the world will not be able to healthily and justly deal with issues like sexual abuse as long as genital mutilation is thought of as safe and normal.
If your traditional religious dogma has required circumcisions of infants or children I challenge you to take a stand against the thousands of years of physical and psychological torture that those before you have accepted. You are in a position to be a positive force of change and to unbind some of your religion's primitive chains.
If you are a parent who has had your child circumcised it is never to late to apologize to them, especially if you were unaware that what you were doing was harmful. My physical scarring may never pass but one of the first steps towards my psychological healing was educating and forgiving my parents for doing what society had taught them was normal. Tell your kid that you are sorry and that you will never do it to anyone else. I have to believe that if we work together as a people that we can permanently end the practice of circumcision altogether by the 22nd century.
****Originally posted February 8, 2008****
There should be no debate as to whether this man's alleged actions are child abuse but we as civilized humans need to further understand this: ALL circumcision is child abuse. No child for any reason should have harm inflicted upon his penis or her clitoris. Science has found no medically positive reason for cutting or removing a male's foreskin. Don't give me any bullshit about it being cleaner: teach your child to wash his penis and you can give up millenniums of archaic, torturous practices. Lives are only harmed by this practice. It teaches that physical suffering is better to experience than sexuality. America and the world will not be able to healthily and justly deal with issues like sexual abuse as long as genital mutilation is thought of as safe and normal.
If your traditional religious dogma has required circumcisions of infants or children I challenge you to take a stand against the thousands of years of physical and psychological torture that those before you have accepted. You are in a position to be a positive force of change and to unbind some of your religion's primitive chains.
If you are a parent who has had your child circumcised it is never to late to apologize to them, especially if you were unaware that what you were doing was harmful. My physical scarring may never pass but one of the first steps towards my psychological healing was educating and forgiving my parents for doing what society had taught them was normal. Tell your kid that you are sorry and that you will never do it to anyone else. I have to believe that if we work together as a people that we can permanently end the practice of circumcision altogether by the 22nd century.
****Originally posted February 8, 2008****
Would Someone Explain to MySpace what ’Demographics’ Are
I'm sure by now, oh MySpace users, that you've noticed that this dear site analyzes your various entries searching for keywords for marketing purposes. For instance, if you have entered 'superheroes' in one of your interest fields (as I have in the past) you will get adds for comic book sellers on your MySpace homepage. Thanks to our good friends at News Corp. and their directed advertising practices if you select 'Atheist' as your 'Religion,' you can expect ads from companies that offer 'God's Promise in His Word' and debate 'Evolution vs. Creation.' Atheist, people. I do not believe in God. Get it? I used to, now I don't. Pretty simple. Perhaps Christian webmasters have never actually met an atheist, but most of us don't want to subscribe to your daily devotional newsletter. Unless we can win an XBOX360.
++UPDATE++
I now have 'Sponsored Links' that ask if I am 'Struggling with Lust,' 'Believe in Evolution?' and am 'Puzzled by Christianity.' Is this Christianity saying 'fuck you,'? Well, grow up, Christianity. We're getting tired of your nonsense. You're like a child who wants to keep telling us the details of an unfunny joke.
++And now 'Cool Jesus Christ T Shirt.' Really? Nothing makes a fashion statement like '100% Human 100% Divine Color Black, Long Sleeve'
+++This shit is ridiculous: "Want to Share Your Faith?", "Puzzled by Christianity", etc. It has actually gotten so bad, in my opinion, that I have written MySpace to complain. And I guess I will have to again
****Originally posted October 3, 2006****
++UPDATE++
I now have 'Sponsored Links' that ask if I am 'Struggling with Lust,' 'Believe in Evolution?' and am 'Puzzled by Christianity.' Is this Christianity saying 'fuck you,'? Well, grow up, Christianity. We're getting tired of your nonsense. You're like a child who wants to keep telling us the details of an unfunny joke.
++And now 'Cool Jesus Christ T Shirt.' Really? Nothing makes a fashion statement like '100% Human 100% Divine Color Black, Long Sleeve'
+++This shit is ridiculous: "Want to Share Your Faith?", "Puzzled by Christianity", etc. It has actually gotten so bad, in my opinion, that I have written MySpace to complain. And I guess I will have to again
****Originally posted October 3, 2006****
Best of the Rest
Although my full name is Charles Barrett Porterfield, II I have become colloquially recognized as 'Chuck.' Chuck is not a particularly uncommon appellation, but just as some people feel a connection with their ethnic or cultural identity, I embrace my own form of Chuck Pride. As I suspect that my inbox would be filled with queries about my opinions on other notable Chucks, I present to you:
Chuck's Top 5 Other Guys Named Chuck
5) Chuck Yeager - Anyone can break a world record, but only one man can be the first to break the sound barrier.
4) Chuck Berry - All this talk about rock and roll being the devil's music is all well and good, but it takes a true pervert to make it happen.
3) Chuck Liddell - Ice, man.
2) Chuck Norris - I seriously doubt that anyone who embraces internet irony will ever be called "fighter of the year" by BLACK BELT MAGAZINE.
-and, without question-
1) Chuck Jones - If "Duck Amuck" and "Duck Dodgers in the 24th and Half Century" were the only cartoons left after the apocalypse, civilization could still rebuild itself.
****Originally posted May 2y, 2007****
Chuck's Top 5 Other Guys Named Chuck
5) Chuck Yeager - Anyone can break a world record, but only one man can be the first to break the sound barrier.
4) Chuck Berry - All this talk about rock and roll being the devil's music is all well and good, but it takes a true pervert to make it happen.
3) Chuck Liddell - Ice, man.
2) Chuck Norris - I seriously doubt that anyone who embraces internet irony will ever be called "fighter of the year" by BLACK BELT MAGAZINE.
-and, without question-
1) Chuck Jones - If "Duck Amuck" and "Duck Dodgers in the 24th and Half Century" were the only cartoons left after the apocalypse, civilization could still rebuild itself.
****Originally posted May 2y, 2007****
An Easy Way to Make a Million Dollars
If you are frequent reader of my blog then you may remember me mentioning one of my heroes, James 'The Amazing' Randi ("Oh, Me, of Little Faith"). Alongside his accomplishments prevously mentioned he also is the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) which promotes scientific skepticism and serves as "an educational resource on the paranormal, the pseudoscientific, and the paranormal."
Now, I know a lot of you out there already think I'm some kind of a nut for not buying into things like aliens in the White House or faith healers but you gotta love the people who do (unless you have something against the swindlers who maliciously profit off of the ignorance and suffering of others. I do, but that's another blog). But there are some individuals who earnestly believe in their own psychic or paranormal powers enough to open themselves to scrutiny. This is where the JREF comes in.
Whether you believe in the mystical or not, chances are that at some point you were exposed to the premise of the scientific method at some point. Basically, you have a hypothesis and then test it to see if it holds water. Using this approach to scientific inquiry JREF has found a way to let the faithful test their claims: Money!
JREF sponsers the "Million Dollar Challenge", a program that allows anyone who can successfully demonstrate a paranormal claim in strict testing conditions will receive $1 million. Both parties must agree on the best way to create an objective testing environment and what constitutes success. From psychically making hands grow to proving the extrasensory abilities of an unfertilized chicken egg to creating super-magnetic fields with one's mind just about everything that people can come up with has been submitted. Of course, when most of these people learn the rigors of scientific testing (like someone else being there to observe it is a frequent stumbling block) it usually never gets past the discussion stage. Suprisingly enough, no one has been able to demonstrate any form of psychic, paranormal or supernatural phenomenon. Fortunately for us, though, JREF is kind enough to include the coorespondence with applicants on their website:
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43
Trust me; this is good fun.
For more information on 'The Amazing' Randi and the James Randi Educational Foundation goto www.randi.org or visit your local library.
****Originally posted May 3, 2007>>>>
I'm Voting for Thor in the Next Election
I love Vikings. In this day and age when people have their 'ninjas vs. pirates' debates I call upon the name of Odin and strike them down with my mighty hammer of war. If you are going to embrace the paths of warriors of old, I say go with the most barbaric you can. Frankly, the lives of scurvy-ridden criminals that participated in the slave trade is hardly the life I want. Nor do I feel that a life of feudal espinoage is for me. Perhaps then the life of a Nordic raider, filled with its constantly jovial good times would suit me. Of course, I haven't been conditioned to think that rape and murder are idealistic dreams leading to a glorious afterlife, so maybe that's not right for me either. Come to think of it, even the romanticized version of The Vikings with Kirk Douglas (which is a totally bad ass film) seems like a life wrought with an unglamorous peril. So what is it I like about Vikings? For one thing, as I will most likely never have to engage in hand-armed combat for myself and loved ones (thankfully), I can vicariously live the life of Dark Ages adventure through them; for they truly were war masters of land and sea. But what really gets me is their mythology and stories. Derived from pre-Germanic 'pagan' belief systems, the Vikings seemed to have developed a unique way to unite their mythology to their adherence to monarchy by having their kings be the descendants of gods.
But in reality, it isn't that unique of a strategy at all, is it? Leaders love touting divine authority.
We all remember from our middle school elementary class about how the pharaohs of Egypt were gods incarnate. Japanese and Roman emperors alike were divine. The Bible is filled with stories of individuals heavenly blessed to killed and slaughter tribes and children. The Bible throws an interesting curve though, rather than giving people superhuman powers to be gods, they exist narratively to perpetuate the import of religious and political hegemony. After all, in these tales, man is created in the image of the Jewish god. The whole 'Jewish god' thing will be dealt with at a later time, but it still demonstrates the perpetuation of homo sapien superiority through myth. All of these myth systems have purposefully distorted and changed their histories to tales of fantasy for the purpose of, well, misleading masses into battles and servitude.
I have received some criticism for being too hard on religion, both from this blog and my personal comments. I am accused of supplanting the human-created religion for human-researched science. Admittedly, both are subject to human foibles (although thorough scientific study is supposed include areas of potential error in its published research - I've yet to see scripture with such inclusions) particularly when it comes to areas of ideology. Religion is used to form and preserve ideology while ideology drives science. For example, space initiatives seemed far more dazzling to Americans when we discovered that satellites can both spy on us and beam home entertainment. Space travel has been commodified and become has since become just another rich person's dream. As an aside, I think astronomy and space exploration are pretty much the coolest human endeavors ever and I'm glad that the dream is still alive. I want to be wealthy just so I can buy a ticket into space!
As you can see, there is a huge difference between these two human approaches to understanding the world. If you think a scientific statement is invalid or incorrect you have very practical ways of challenging them. But when people have conflicts with a religious group or idea they use rhetoric and illusions that historically lead to schisms, wars, and crusades. If you have read my previous blogs then you know that I have trouble digesting statements about the world and what is in it without some sort of justification or proof. Praying to the East; fasting for days; if it helps you out, great. It is your act of devotion and I have no place or reason to admonish you for doing it. However, when you use your religion to dictate my life and the lives of others, I have a real problem.
This one is priceless - let's look at homosexuality. I spent some time today reading some anti-Disney statements made by various Christian sects and one of the most repeated comments about the fact that, apparently, Disney doesn't hate homosexuality or homosexuals. In fact, they have the gall to suggest that homosexuals are normal people and, thus, homosexuality is something normal people engage in. While I may be fine with this, many within the monotheistic community are downright appalled by it. It would seem that they are obliged to by incensed because their texts say so. Or are they?
Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination."
- Levitical law are rules that Jews live by. In fact, they are rules that they live by to show that they are separate from the world and godly. Jews follow these laws because they love their god and feel that it is a display of faith and trust in him, not because they are absolute truths.
I Corintihians 6: 9, 10 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." - Followers of the Christian god are likewise admonished for the act of homosexuality. Mind you, these individuals are practicing a religion that grew from Judaism and still embrace its exclusionary nature.
It is certainly within your rights as a practitioner of any religion to follow its tenants and live a life befitting a person of whatever faith. But to then say that everyone has to live the same way you do? Indefensible. I was a Christian for years and part of my commitment was to abstain from drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and eventually meat. Maybe those are potentially harmful substances and a good idea to avoid but just because I didn't use them mean that I thought legislation should exist to ban them (and you can sure as hell bet that I left vegetarianism behind with the church). Besides, it's not like religious people are concerned with consistency. Where would North Carolina be without Baptists and Big Tobacco?
You can keep your divine right of kings. Perhaps George W. Bush is right when he declared "Good speaks through me" (Lancester New Era, July 16, 2004). Personally I'd rather see a performance by Willie Tyler & Lester if I wanted to hear a dummy speak.
****Originally posted February 28, 2007****
But in reality, it isn't that unique of a strategy at all, is it? Leaders love touting divine authority.
We all remember from our middle school elementary class about how the pharaohs of Egypt were gods incarnate. Japanese and Roman emperors alike were divine. The Bible is filled with stories of individuals heavenly blessed to killed and slaughter tribes and children. The Bible throws an interesting curve though, rather than giving people superhuman powers to be gods, they exist narratively to perpetuate the import of religious and political hegemony. After all, in these tales, man is created in the image of the Jewish god. The whole 'Jewish god' thing will be dealt with at a later time, but it still demonstrates the perpetuation of homo sapien superiority through myth. All of these myth systems have purposefully distorted and changed their histories to tales of fantasy for the purpose of, well, misleading masses into battles and servitude.
I have received some criticism for being too hard on religion, both from this blog and my personal comments. I am accused of supplanting the human-created religion for human-researched science. Admittedly, both are subject to human foibles (although thorough scientific study is supposed include areas of potential error in its published research - I've yet to see scripture with such inclusions) particularly when it comes to areas of ideology. Religion is used to form and preserve ideology while ideology drives science. For example, space initiatives seemed far more dazzling to Americans when we discovered that satellites can both spy on us and beam home entertainment. Space travel has been commodified and become has since become just another rich person's dream. As an aside, I think astronomy and space exploration are pretty much the coolest human endeavors ever and I'm glad that the dream is still alive. I want to be wealthy just so I can buy a ticket into space!
As you can see, there is a huge difference between these two human approaches to understanding the world. If you think a scientific statement is invalid or incorrect you have very practical ways of challenging them. But when people have conflicts with a religious group or idea they use rhetoric and illusions that historically lead to schisms, wars, and crusades. If you have read my previous blogs then you know that I have trouble digesting statements about the world and what is in it without some sort of justification or proof. Praying to the East; fasting for days; if it helps you out, great. It is your act of devotion and I have no place or reason to admonish you for doing it. However, when you use your religion to dictate my life and the lives of others, I have a real problem.
This one is priceless - let's look at homosexuality. I spent some time today reading some anti-Disney statements made by various Christian sects and one of the most repeated comments about the fact that, apparently, Disney doesn't hate homosexuality or homosexuals. In fact, they have the gall to suggest that homosexuals are normal people and, thus, homosexuality is something normal people engage in. While I may be fine with this, many within the monotheistic community are downright appalled by it. It would seem that they are obliged to by incensed because their texts say so. Or are they?
Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination."
- Levitical law are rules that Jews live by. In fact, they are rules that they live by to show that they are separate from the world and godly. Jews follow these laws because they love their god and feel that it is a display of faith and trust in him, not because they are absolute truths.
I Corintihians 6: 9, 10 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." - Followers of the Christian god are likewise admonished for the act of homosexuality. Mind you, these individuals are practicing a religion that grew from Judaism and still embrace its exclusionary nature.
It is certainly within your rights as a practitioner of any religion to follow its tenants and live a life befitting a person of whatever faith. But to then say that everyone has to live the same way you do? Indefensible. I was a Christian for years and part of my commitment was to abstain from drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and eventually meat. Maybe those are potentially harmful substances and a good idea to avoid but just because I didn't use them mean that I thought legislation should exist to ban them (and you can sure as hell bet that I left vegetarianism behind with the church). Besides, it's not like religious people are concerned with consistency. Where would North Carolina be without Baptists and Big Tobacco?
You can keep your divine right of kings. Perhaps George W. Bush is right when he declared "Good speaks through me" (Lancester New Era, July 16, 2004). Personally I'd rather see a performance by Willie Tyler & Lester if I wanted to hear a dummy speak.
****Originally posted February 28, 2007****
Sorry, Folks - More About Faith
Neurologically speaking, I tend to be what one would call a concrete thinker. I definitely have the ability to utilize abstract thought but my inclination is to see things through a very literal, grounded world view. I would not suggest that this makes me a 'better person' but it does mean that you have to provide something tangible to appeal my cognitive abilities. Passionate pleas hold less value for me than well-documented arguments. This is a double-edged sword, for sure. On one hand, things have to make sense to me. They have to be reasonable and have equally reasonable explanations. On the other hand, this rarely leaves room for the immaterial in my ideology. I don't consider it to be close-mindedness on my part but a case of utility.
Before it gets too far, let me address a point of religious intolerance. An individual that meets me at this point in my life may be unaware that I have even walked a spiritual path. They may see my blogs and presume that I am yet another religion-basher that thinks he knows better than everyone else. I am not without my religious experiences. Over a decade in the Salvation Army. After that I spent almost half that time exposing myself to ideas of the world's religions, mysticism, Eastern thought, and the occult (somehow without owning a single book by Crowley!). I am not unfamiliar with the religious journey, nor am I unfamiliar with some of the wants and needs that religion attempts to satisfy. It just so happens that as I became more knowledgeable and experienced in the world that I decided that matters of faith and belief were as deserving of critical scrutiny as all other aspects of life. When I was a Christian, I boldly argued that "God gave us brains with the ability to use reason so it is must be within His Will to think about things and have them make logical sense" - this was interpreted by others as "testing the Lord" and thus a sin. A sin. Come on, people. Is your God so frickin' small that inquiries of a decidely finite homo sapien cannot answer for himself. Don't give me that "God doesn't need to explain himself" nonsense either. The same people who make that claim then use the supposed Word to explain God and thus demonstrate the necessity for some sort of rationalization for their faith.
Many people will immediately dispute this next statement but I'm not sure why: all things have a rational explanation. I agree that we do not and proabably will not ever have explanations for everything but as we continue to do more scientific research the things of the 'unexplained' will become more clear. As you can imagine, this mode of thinking compliments my concrete thinking so one could probably argue that I, like everyone, is trying to find answers to life that appeal to the way we already think. Fair enough. But consider this: if I can point to very real, physical justifications for my belief systems then the grounding I stand on is, I feel, pretty solid. I am not asking anyone to buy into something without giving reasonable proof to support it.
The whole point of this for me is utility. If the rational explanations that science and reason present me satisfy me more than faith in God then that is what I will use. When I wrote about presuppositions it was correctly linked by my commentators with faith. For instance: Heaven and Hell. I have absolutely no evidence to suggest that there is an afterlife; much less an afterlife that lasts an eternity. If I don't have evidence for that, I certainly cannot prove that there is some sort of destination to go to afterwards and certainly not to the point of being so definite that there are only 2 options (3 if you count Purgatory). Sure, ancient peoples may have had an idea of the afterlife that has been passed down colloquially, but they may have also been buried with their personal belongings to take with them only to find themselves robbed and dead. This doesn't mean there really is an afterlife.
When my life was centered around matters of heavenly kingdoms I thought that if I were to spend my time and energy seeking to serve and please God then I would be able to reach some sort of personal peace. Maybe things didn't go the way I wanted them to when it came to things like women or self-esteem but I trusted that God would be able to offer me emotional solice above and beyond the workings of humans. Somehow, I still found the daily crying and self loathing associated with placing trust in God's hands didn't pan out for me. Everyday I asked God to help me with my depression in prayer. I talked to my pastor about these issues. Guess what? His answer was prayer and faith-these were our earthly tests in preparation for an eternity of peacefulness and easy living. A Master's in Christian counseling and he couldn't even offer "you might have a chemical imbalance" or even "when the Bible says turn the other cheek it doesn't mean to accept abuse from peers." Nope. Prayer and faith. All of my emotional pain and suffering were all a part of my service to God. Maybe I was broken but I will be glad to take a stand and say that God did not help me fix anything.
What has helped me? A conversation and time with me will prove that I am a pretty positive person. My blog may make it appear that I am a hater, but only of things that seek to subdue and control individuals and masses. In truth, I genuinely feel that I am the luckiest man on earth. I am a more appreciative, gracious person than when I was religious. I take less for granted because I have a materialist outlook on life. What has helped me? Sorry. You're just going to have wait for the uplifting messages later.
Forgive me for doing this, but I'm going to have to quote Ted Nugent: "You're born at point A, you die at point B. Kick maximum ass."
****Originally posted December 19, 2006 ****
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Oh Me of Little Faith
Some call me sentimental, others call me fanatical. But either way, once I find an area of interest it usually sticks with me permanently; a thread (or several) that weave together into a fabric of interrelated interests. For instance, amongst its many other associations, Halloween became special to me because it was an opportunity to see illusionists and escape artists on television. TV capitalized on Harry Houdini's Halloween death and aired the annual seance to contact him exposing youngsters like myself both to the unlikelihood of ghosts and, more importantly, the art of escapology.
One of the great escapologists and illusionists that thrilled me was The Amazing Randi. Sure the Pendragons had flash and speed and Lance Burton was flawless in his execution but Randi's confidence and matter-of-factness seemed more driven than mystical. I mean, how many guys older than my dad get chained up and put in boxes, self-liberating themselves all while rocking a Santa beard? As it turns out, Randi was more than amazing.
Following in Houdini's footsteps, James Randi took his knowledge of prestidigitation and sought to expose individuals who prey on the naive and poor with the same techniques he used to entertain. He now runs JREF, the James Randi Educational Fund (www.randi.org) and has published several books related to skepticism. If you go to www.youtube.com and search for 'james randi' you will come across video of him exposing spoon-bender Uri Geller including his legendary "Tonight Show" endeavour (Randi's book on Geller has suffered from well-deserved criticism). Likewise, you will find footage of Randi exposing faith healer Peter Popoff.
This crusade for truth lead to him writing a book about his experiences called -wait for it- FAITH HEALERS. I won't go into too many specifics about the book or its themes but I will explain why I made read two paragraphs of non-religious themes in a religious blog (although if you have read my first blog then you know I am writing about my religion, at least). Obviously he must explain what he means by faith healing as compared to other healing so he must define faith for his readers. It is from Randi's book I derive my usage of the word 'faith.'
Randi offers two kinds of faith: a) believing in something without evidence or data to support the claim and b) believing in something despite the fact that the evidence or data would demonstrate otherwise. An example would be a) "I believe that Coca Cola is consumed by extra terrestrials" b) "I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old."
Critics may call this an over-simplification but I have yet to come up with any matter of faith that does not fall into one of these two categories. Obviously it is easier to employ these usages on material things. It cannot be proved that laying of hands has any efficacy on healing when you seek medical treatment but people have faith that it helps (although a recent article in "Skeptic" describes tests that show there is no increase in efficacy with prayer and other acts of faith). It can be proved, however, that getting necessary medical treatment is far more effective than ONLY laying of hands would prefer this route. The point from these examples is: getting medical treatment is the most effective way to deal with injury or illness. And actually, that is the whole point.
I do not want or need faith. I have no interest in counting on things when I have no reason to. With hope, you may not know for certain what will happen but at least you know what you want to happen. When faith is unwavering you expect a result - in your favor - whether it is even possible or not. If I maintain my car, keep it fueled, turn the key the right way I have enough data from previous experiences to expect it to operate. I don't need faith in my car. I have a pretty good idea of what I am capable of physically, emotionally, and socially. I know my skill set and what it lacks. I don't need faith in myself because I have proven track record that I can look at and either reconsider my actions or gain confidence from. I gather no personal benefit, nor does the world, by making decisions with insufficient evidence. Imagine how even more irresponsible and backwards our court systems would be without the basic requirement that you have to prove your case; if criminal justice were a faith-based initiative. It is a simple point, if you cannot prove in 'x' why would I want to invest anything, personal energy, time, anything, in 'x.' Would you put money in a business you know nothing about? Or worse, would you invest in a business you know to be a sure loser (stay away from video stores, people)? Sorry, Jesus, but once again you got it wrong: a house built on a foundation on faith is about to get washed away.
I can understand the personal value that faith may have for some people. Homo sapiens are pattern seeking animals and will make up answers whether they have proof or not. We want explanations and it just drives us crazy when we don't have them. This has its positive effects: it motivates science and inquiry. It also means that we have a neurological predisposition to making things up. But me, well, I'm tired of makin' stuff up! It has become far more satisfying to me to only believe in things when I have verification of their existence.
When I consider faith I begin to think of its usuage by Chrisitanity. Frankly, I think that faith is one of the Church's self-perpetuating myths that require its adherents to continue to return, submit, and give. The oft-repeated phrase I heard in church growing up was "Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen" (Hebrews 11:1)" Once again the Bible misguides its readers. Faith is far from substantial - it, in fact, relys on individuals accepting unsubstantiated claims. And unseen things rarely can provide evidence - sorry God.
So what's my problem with faith? Perhaps it seems that a person without faith should be able to just let others hold on to what is important to them and let it go. They aren't hurting anybody by having faith are they? Maybe that would be fine if we were just pushing some sort of MIRACLE ON 34th STREET you-just-gotta-believe-in-something message. But it isn't. Focus on the Family's Josh McDowell writes horribly errant and deceitful books regarding the proof of Christianity's claims about Jesus (I should know, I've personally put MORE THAN A CARPENTER in stockings). In an attempt to convert others McDowell distastefully pulls together his favorite, cobbled together Gospel narrative and distorts and inaccurately reports history. Ironically, he makes up a bunch of 'evidence' in order for us to have nothing but a rational response to Jesus' divinity. The reader is then expected to follow the rest of it on faith and repent and be born again and son and so forth. It seems McDowell would want to make Jesus' story as unlikely and improbable as possible to increase the need for faith in God to make it true.
But I'm not sure that he cares. He lies to other believers in such a way that, unless they are genuinely interested in reading about biblical history and scholarship, they have no other course of action but to go along with his version of Christian history. I don't know if he believes, but his scriptures he reads say "the truth will set you free" but he blurs the line between fact and faith to push his own agenda.
James Randi, like Harry Houdini before him, wanted to entertain audiences and educate people. The accomplishments of both of these men are very real and well-documented. I do not have faith in them nor do I worship them; but their forthrightness and desire to expand on the physical and intellectual abilities of being a human is quite inspirational. Maybe having faith can, and does, help individuals get out of bed and set the world on fire (as my mom might say). I just want to make sure that I'm not the one getting burnt.
***Originally posted Saturday, December 09, 2006 ***
One of the great escapologists and illusionists that thrilled me was The Amazing Randi. Sure the Pendragons had flash and speed and Lance Burton was flawless in his execution but Randi's confidence and matter-of-factness seemed more driven than mystical. I mean, how many guys older than my dad get chained up and put in boxes, self-liberating themselves all while rocking a Santa beard? As it turns out, Randi was more than amazing.
Following in Houdini's footsteps, James Randi took his knowledge of prestidigitation and sought to expose individuals who prey on the naive and poor with the same techniques he used to entertain. He now runs JREF, the James Randi Educational Fund (www.randi.org) and has published several books related to skepticism. If you go to www.youtube.com and search for 'james randi' you will come across video of him exposing spoon-bender Uri Geller including his legendary "Tonight Show" endeavour (Randi's book on Geller has suffered from well-deserved criticism). Likewise, you will find footage of Randi exposing faith healer Peter Popoff.
This crusade for truth lead to him writing a book about his experiences called -wait for it- FAITH HEALERS. I won't go into too many specifics about the book or its themes but I will explain why I made read two paragraphs of non-religious themes in a religious blog (although if you have read my first blog then you know I am writing about my religion, at least). Obviously he must explain what he means by faith healing as compared to other healing so he must define faith for his readers. It is from Randi's book I derive my usage of the word 'faith.'
Randi offers two kinds of faith: a) believing in something without evidence or data to support the claim and b) believing in something despite the fact that the evidence or data would demonstrate otherwise. An example would be a) "I believe that Coca Cola is consumed by extra terrestrials" b) "I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old."
Critics may call this an over-simplification but I have yet to come up with any matter of faith that does not fall into one of these two categories. Obviously it is easier to employ these usages on material things. It cannot be proved that laying of hands has any efficacy on healing when you seek medical treatment but people have faith that it helps (although a recent article in "Skeptic" describes tests that show there is no increase in efficacy with prayer and other acts of faith). It can be proved, however, that getting necessary medical treatment is far more effective than ONLY laying of hands would prefer this route. The point from these examples is: getting medical treatment is the most effective way to deal with injury or illness. And actually, that is the whole point.
I do not want or need faith. I have no interest in counting on things when I have no reason to. With hope, you may not know for certain what will happen but at least you know what you want to happen. When faith is unwavering you expect a result - in your favor - whether it is even possible or not. If I maintain my car, keep it fueled, turn the key the right way I have enough data from previous experiences to expect it to operate. I don't need faith in my car. I have a pretty good idea of what I am capable of physically, emotionally, and socially. I know my skill set and what it lacks. I don't need faith in myself because I have proven track record that I can look at and either reconsider my actions or gain confidence from. I gather no personal benefit, nor does the world, by making decisions with insufficient evidence. Imagine how even more irresponsible and backwards our court systems would be without the basic requirement that you have to prove your case; if criminal justice were a faith-based initiative. It is a simple point, if you cannot prove in 'x' why would I want to invest anything, personal energy, time, anything, in 'x.' Would you put money in a business you know nothing about? Or worse, would you invest in a business you know to be a sure loser (stay away from video stores, people)? Sorry, Jesus, but once again you got it wrong: a house built on a foundation on faith is about to get washed away.
I can understand the personal value that faith may have for some people. Homo sapiens are pattern seeking animals and will make up answers whether they have proof or not. We want explanations and it just drives us crazy when we don't have them. This has its positive effects: it motivates science and inquiry. It also means that we have a neurological predisposition to making things up. But me, well, I'm tired of makin' stuff up! It has become far more satisfying to me to only believe in things when I have verification of their existence.
When I consider faith I begin to think of its usuage by Chrisitanity. Frankly, I think that faith is one of the Church's self-perpetuating myths that require its adherents to continue to return, submit, and give. The oft-repeated phrase I heard in church growing up was "Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen" (Hebrews 11:1)" Once again the Bible misguides its readers. Faith is far from substantial - it, in fact, relys on individuals accepting unsubstantiated claims. And unseen things rarely can provide evidence - sorry God.
So what's my problem with faith? Perhaps it seems that a person without faith should be able to just let others hold on to what is important to them and let it go. They aren't hurting anybody by having faith are they? Maybe that would be fine if we were just pushing some sort of MIRACLE ON 34th STREET you-just-gotta-believe-in-something message. But it isn't. Focus on the Family's Josh McDowell writes horribly errant and deceitful books regarding the proof of Christianity's claims about Jesus (I should know, I've personally put MORE THAN A CARPENTER in stockings). In an attempt to convert others McDowell distastefully pulls together his favorite, cobbled together Gospel narrative and distorts and inaccurately reports history. Ironically, he makes up a bunch of 'evidence' in order for us to have nothing but a rational response to Jesus' divinity. The reader is then expected to follow the rest of it on faith and repent and be born again and son and so forth. It seems McDowell would want to make Jesus' story as unlikely and improbable as possible to increase the need for faith in God to make it true.
But I'm not sure that he cares. He lies to other believers in such a way that, unless they are genuinely interested in reading about biblical history and scholarship, they have no other course of action but to go along with his version of Christian history. I don't know if he believes, but his scriptures he reads say "the truth will set you free" but he blurs the line between fact and faith to push his own agenda.
James Randi, like Harry Houdini before him, wanted to entertain audiences and educate people. The accomplishments of both of these men are very real and well-documented. I do not have faith in them nor do I worship them; but their forthrightness and desire to expand on the physical and intellectual abilities of being a human is quite inspirational. Maybe having faith can, and does, help individuals get out of bed and set the world on fire (as my mom might say). I just want to make sure that I'm not the one getting burnt.
***Originally posted Saturday, December 09, 2006 ***
Monday, January 12, 2009
Statement of Intent
Historically speaking I have always used MySpace as my primary tool for dispensing my oh so important opinions on the world, life, politics, religion, and people named Chuck. Given the limited accessibility of this site and the growing interest in other social networking sites like Facebook I have decided to relocate my blogging to a site devoted to it.
For those who have not had the benefit of reading my previous entries into the blogosphere I am going to migrate older writings to this blog. I'd like to think that there is some value in my commentaries and I would like to open them to a broader audience. Given our current social and political climate I have been formulating new ideas and I think that having these MySpace blogs available to new readers may offer some perspective on my upcoming writings.
For those unfamiliar with my blogs I hope that you will become a regular audience member and please know that I love an active discourse with my readers. Whether I inspire or infuriate you I appreciate all comments.
For those who have not had the benefit of reading my previous entries into the blogosphere I am going to migrate older writings to this blog. I'd like to think that there is some value in my commentaries and I would like to open them to a broader audience. Given our current social and political climate I have been formulating new ideas and I think that having these MySpace blogs available to new readers may offer some perspective on my upcoming writings.
For those unfamiliar with my blogs I hope that you will become a regular audience member and please know that I love an active discourse with my readers. Whether I inspire or infuriate you I appreciate all comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)