A song, for your listening and viewing pleasure.

I came across some music that I decided needed sharing. It's from a band I've never heard of before, called Colony 5, and the song is "Future." The video is done by dogmaticCURE, and is meant as a tribute to all those battling for a secular view of the world. Enjoy.

A Professor vs a Student, via Facebook.

I recently spotted a photo on Facebook that was accompanied by what appears to be a transcript of a conversation between a Student, and a Professor. In it, the Student and Professor debate the existence of God. I thought I would share this important debate with you. My thoughts are in read, for your viewing pleasure.

Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ? 

Student : Yes, sir.  

Professor: So, you believe in GOD ? 

Student : Absolutely, sir. 

Professor : Is GOD good ? 

Student : Sure. 

Professor: Is GOD all powerful ? 

Student : Yes. 

Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm? 

(Student was silent.) 

Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good? 

Student : Yes. 

Professor: Is satan good ? 

Student : No. 

Professor: Where does satan come from ? 

Student : From … GOD … 

Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world? 

Student : Yes. 

Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it? And GOD did make everything. Correct? 

Student : Yes. 

Professor: So who created evil? 

(Student did not answer.) 

Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they? 

Student : Yes, sir. 

Professor: So, who created them ? 

(Student had no answer.) 

Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD? 

Student : No, sir. 

Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD? 

Student : No , sir. 

Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter? 

Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t. 

Professor: Yet you still believe in Him? 

Student : Yes. 

Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son? 

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith. 

Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has. 

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat? 

Professor: Yes. 

Student : And is there such a thing as cold? 

Professor: Yes. 

Student : No, sir. There isn’t. 

(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.) 

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
[“Cold” is a relative concept, like so many other concepts that we have (bald, tall, short, skinny, fat, long, wide, etc), meaning that it’s use and definition are relative to something else. In this case, when we speak of “cold,” we are referring to a level of heat that is relative to what we normally experience in our normal, everyday lives; we’re also referring to the sensation that is “cold,” which is also relative to individual experience. Think about how someone from Hawaii might find 50 degree Fahrenheit weather to be cold, but someone from Minnesota just after winter has passed might find 50 degree weather pleasantly warm. “Cold” then, is the term we use to describe a certain level of energy, not just its absence, as well as a particular sensation.] 

(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.) 

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness? 

Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness? 

Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?
[Since “darkness” is also a relative concept, referring to the amount of light present in a particular area as compared to a level of light that lets us see normally, “darkness” does, in fact, exist as a relative concept. And when my room is dark at night, I can actually make it darker, simply by taking steps to block the various sources of light that allow me to see, however slightly.] 

Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ? 

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed. 

Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how? 

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. [As were you, Student, when you called God “good.”] You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. [Whether or not God is a finite thing doesn’t matter, so much as whether the effects of an existing God can be measured, and determined to most likely be caused by God, and not some completely natural force. So far, no such effects have been identified.] Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. [And once upon a time, science couldn’t explain gravity, sound, where babies come from, or why some people have blue eyes instead of brown. Now it can. The only appropriate response to a lack of understanding is “I don’t know” or “I’m not able to explain that.” Saying “I don’t know, therefore the answer is God” is intellectually dishonest at the very least.] It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. [“Death” is certainly the absence of life, but it's a term that is used to refer to the absence of life where life previously existed. We do not call rocks “dead,” because they were never alive. In other words, it’s one of those relative terms again.] Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey? 

Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do. 

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir? 

(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.) 

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. [Wrong. Evolution has been observed at work, both in the lab and out of it. Scientists are, in fact, able to demonstrate very conclusively that evolution is an on-going endeavor. Check that link for a few examples, or just google "observed evolution."] Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? 

(The class was in uproar.) 

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain? 

(The class broke out into laughter.) 

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
[Evidence. To be fair, the Professor sort of set himself up for this, by not being clear that science relies on evidence, sometimes indirect evidence, and not just the five senses. For example, we can say that every time a human skull has ever been opened up for examination, there’s been a brain in there. We can also say that every time we’ve used advanced technology to peer inside a human body, there’s been a brain in there. The Professor, presumably, is human, and therefore we can say, with a very, very, very high degree of probability, that he has a brain. Other things that we use indirect evidence to be aware of include radio waves, microwave energy, odorless and tasteless poisons, and the love of a parent for their child.] 

(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.) 

Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son. [It’s not faith, it’s confidence based on a high degree of evidence. And the disbelief in God is based on a severe lack of evidence. The disbelief in an all-powerful, all-good God is based on the evidence that there is no all-powerful, all-good entity interfering in the world in any way that an all-powerful, all-good entity would be expected to: preventing cancer, natural disasters, random birth defects, and all other forms of suffering that humans may be unable to prevent, but an all-powerful being could do something about. If an all-powerful being exists, it is clearly NOT an all-good being.] 

Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving. 

[Faith tells us nothing, it demonstrates nothing, and is never a good reason to believe. It does not keep “things alive and moving,” and if faith is the only link between man and God, then there is no link between man and God.] 

P.S.
I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you’ll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won’t you?
Forward this to increase their knowledge … or FAITH.
By the way, that student was EINSTEIN. [Citation seriously needed. Maybe it really was Einstein, or maybe this entire conversation was made up. Regardless, the Student is wrong, and the Professor didn’t do a very good job of calling him out on it. For example, the Student never did address the problem of evil that the Professor brought up.]

So, what do y'all think?

Does religion do more harm than good?

So, earlier I wrote a response to an article called "Myth 2: Religion Does More Harm Than Good," sparked by an exchange on Facebook. In that response, I simply went through the article and pointed out the good and bad parts. I didn't actually address the question "Does religion do more harm than good?" That's what I aim to do now. Of course, there have been entire books written on this subject ("God is Not Great," by Christopher Hitchens, for example), so it's unlikely that I would be able to properly address this question in a single blog post. It should also be noted that it's unlikely I can do this without treading ground already walked by others, but I'll do what I can in giving a (relatively) brief answer.

Before I begin, it would be helpful if I define how I'm using religion. This may seem an obvious thing, but the definition has been debated before. So, the definition I'm using is as follows: religion is  a belief in supernatural forces and/or entities that have an effect on the natural world. It's a belief in entities or forces that are undetectable by any natural means (invisible, inaudible, etc). And yes, I'm blatantly stealing that definition from the one Greta Christina uses in her talk "Why Are You Atheists So Angry?" It's useful, and tends to be how we see religion playing out in the real world, rather than in sociological circles (not that sociological definitions are necessarily bad, but the ones I've seen are so broad you could toss in love of a sports team and have it match).

So let's start with a look back at a few things in the "Myth 2" article. Father Williams had this to say:

Hitchens and company claim to follow the Gospel principle of judging a tree by its fruits, but as for the tree of religion, they consider only the rotten fruits, never the good ones. The innumerable saints, geniuses and benefactors nourished by the Christian faith simply count for nothing. 

In making their case, Hitchens and company refrain from considering the almost countless ways that Christianity has benefited the world as we know it today. 

What of the hospitals? What of the orders of nuns established to care for the dying or educate young girls? What of the soup kitchens and orphanages? What of the preservation of classical culture? What of the artistic and literary treasures?

Let's start with hospitals. I really don't need to enumerate the good that hospitals have done, but I'll list a few points anyway: setting broken bones, treating cancer, helping heart attack victims, and oh yea, saving lives. Lots and lots of lives. This is the case for secular as well as religious hospitals. This is unequivocally a good thing. However, in December of 2010, Bishop Thomas Olmsted of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix stripped a hospital, St. Joseph's, of it's Catholic affiliation because the hospital performed an abortion for the purpose of saving a woman's life. From the letter the Bishop sent to the hospital administration:

I now ask that CHW agree to the following requirements by Friday, December 17, 2010. Only if all of these items are agreed to, will I postpone any action against CHW and St. Joseph’s Hospital. Specifically, I require the following in order for me to postpone any further canonical action directed against St. Joseph’s Hospital: 

1. CHW must acknowledge in writing that the medical procedure that resulted in the abortion at St. Josephs’ hospital was a violation of ERD 47, and so will never occur again at St. Joseph’s Hospital.

The abortion in question was performed to save a woman's life when she developed severe symptoms of pulmonary hypertension. She was dying, and without the abortion, she would die. Plain, and simple. There was no saving both. Yet, the "good" Bishop is requiring a promise that it would never happen again, even if it was the only way to save the woman's life. (I recall seeing an article written by a woman who went through a circumstance that sounded just like this, including the five kids, Catholic hospital, life threatening pregnancy, and reluctance on the hospital's part to have the abortion performed, but have been unable to find it. It might have been the same woman, but have been unable to find it. Anyone have a link to it?)

That Bishop uses his religious views to claim authority to let a woman die. He apparently wants all the Catholic hospitals to follow his authority in this matter (his letter is full of his claims to authority). That's a whole lot of harm, right there.

But there are other goods that religion does. For example, orders of nuns who take care of the dying and educate young girls. Mother Teresa is perhaps the most famous for taking care of the dying. She founded the Missionaries of Charity to care for the poor and sick, believing that she was following a calling placed on her by God. Here's a quote from Mother Teresa, which was given in response to a question at a 1981 press conference:

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

That passion for suffering was on display in her 'hospices.' She did not provide painkiller, even in the worst cases. She felt that suffering was a way to be closer to Jesus. In other words, her religious views provided a very direct harm to people.

Moving on. In 2004, The Salvation Army threatened to close all of their soup kitchens in New York City if the city enacted legislation that would've required them and other businesses that deal with the government to provide benefits to the partners of gay employees. That's thousands of homeless who would've been affected. According to one Army official, "You cannot change theological views. Those are so deeply embedded, they form the root of the faith itself." The Salvation Army thinks gay sex is wrong, and was willing to cause harm to the homeless as a result.

I have very little to say about the preservation of classical treasures, or of the artistic value of religiously inspired pieces. Those things are important, although it's an open question if they're more important than the other, very real harms I've mentioned. I would however note that for the longest time, the patrons of artists were religious (and truthfully, probably the artists themselves), so it's hardly surprising.
_______________________________________________
But all I've really done so far is list some examples of harm caused by religion, using Father Thomas Williams's questions as a jumping off point. I have not yet shown clear reason to think religion does more harm than good, on balance. So, let me do that now. For this next part, I'm indebted to Greta Christina and JT Eberhard, as well as William K. Clifford's "The Ethics of Belief" (1877), specifically for making arguments that inform my views on this.

There is one thing that religions everywhere have in common: Faith. Now, before I go further, let me define how I'm using that word in this argument:

the belief in something without sufficient evidence to warrant belief, or the belief in something when the evidence contradicts the belief

Keep that definition in mind when you read my argument. "Faith" is often used in normal discourse to refer to things unrelated to religious belief, spiritual beliefs, or anything else that definition might refer to. For example, a husband might say to his wife "I have faith in your abilities" when she's worried about a job interview, or a college test, or some such. His "faith" in such a case could be better described as confidence, a confidence based on past experience with her, in which he's seen that she's talented, skilled, and good at what she does. Or, in another case, he might say "I have faith you haven't cheated on me," and in such a case "trust" is what he's actually talking about, based on the evidence of his experience with her, in which she's demonstrated integrity, and that she loves him enough to maintain the monogamy they've agreed to. I'm sure you can think of other examples. The point is that to avoid confusion and the fallacy of equivocation, I need to define how I'm using the word.

Anyway. Religion of all sorts have as a base faith. This faith underpins not just the factual claims of a religion ("God created the Universe, and us," "There's an afterlife," "We are judged upon death to determine if we belong in heaven or hell"), but also the moral claims that are supposed to follow from the factual claims. When you believe that God exists, and believe that God has moral authority, and dictates how we spend eternity, then you have good reason to follow the rules that you believe God has laid down, no matter if they conflict with your own thinking and reason.

Faith inspires people to do many things. It inspires people to be honest, to give to charity, to be generous, avoid violence, and to have hope. It also inspires people to engage in bigotry, oppression of women (see "Does God Hate Women?" by Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom for an excellent showing of exactly how religion oppresses women, even today), oppression of homosexuals, child abuse ("spare the rod, spoil the child"), and ignorance of science:

When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory.

It may seem that the balance is coming out in favor of calling it equal in the question "Does religion do more harm than good," but I don't think it is. Faith provides a cop-out of any question. It let's you claim "It just feels right," "It makes me happy," or "I had a dream" as valid reasons for believing basically anything. Even when this leads to a positive, agreeable conclusion, such as "Don't rape women," it's still dangerous. If the reason that you agree with "Don't rape women" is because you think women are, in all but name, the property of their fathers first, and then husbands after marriage, rape becomes a matter of property vandalism, rather than a violation of a woman's right to control her body and sexuality. And if your reason for believing that is "God declared it so" and your reason for believing in God is faith, then faith has become a serious problem. Arguing against the premise that women are property is going to be very difficult, maybe impossible, if your faith tells you that God is the dictator of morality.

It's not just the extreme views in which faith can become a problem. If you have faith in karma, and that everything will work out all right in the end, then there's a strong chance that you won't do everything you need to do to help everything work out in the end. You're more likely to do all that's necessary if you consider that not everyone has a happy ending, and good people do have bad things happen to them, and that bad things sometimes never go away before death.

Of course, it's possible that if religion didn't so very often treat faith as a virtue, and advocate for it, that the dangers of faith could be minimized. I don't know, but I would certainly like to see a world where we tried that out for once, a world in which this quote by William Lane Craig didn't make sense to apparently 64% of the American public:

Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa.

 Yet, that is the world we're in. A world in which faith, and therefore religion, harms far more than it helps.

Something positive

Recently I've been challenged. I've been challenged to not just talk about what I'm against, or what I don't believe, or what I'm angry about, but to talk about and present things that I'm about, positive things. What do I value, in other words? So, ok, that sounds like something I can get behind doing. But before I do that, a little defense of talking about things we're against, and don't believe.

It is not always possible, or even a good idea, to avoid discussing what we're against, or don't believe. If I support universal health care as a secular humanist, then I have to respond to those who do not support it. I have to say why I don't believe that the free market will lead to everyone getting the health care they need, and why I'm against extreme libertarian viewpoints as they relate to health care. If I believe that we should follow the evidence in forming our beliefs, and I live in a world that overwhelmingly is filled with people who think it's ok to believe things, important things, without evidence to back it up (or even against evidence, in the worst cases), then I need to speak against the latter. It is not enough to simply speak for the former if I want to make the case, but rather I must say why the latter is wrong.

But anyway, moving on to the good stuff.

I'm a secular humanist. I seek to live in a society in which no one is coerced into following the creeds and practices of any religion, and in which no one's ability to follow their religion is suppressed. This protects everyone's rights: mine, yours, and that crazy guy on the corner with a megaphone.

I'm looking to be in a society that supports and encourages reason, critical thinking, logic, and the scientific method. The power of reason and science is impossible to deny. Just look around at the marvels that have been the result of men and women studying the world around us, and applying what they learn! Heart transplants, cancer treatments, the eradication of smallpox, deaf people gaining hearing, amputees walking again with artificial legs, and that's just the medicine! You're reading this on a technological marvel that is running multiple algorithms in the background in order to coordinate the colors, the layout, the music you might be playing at the same time, the antivirus software that you have running in the background, and so much more. With programs like Skype, we can communicate face to face with people who are on another continent. And if we ever wanted to get together in person, we can take a plane and cross oceans in less than 24 hours. As a species, we know more than we ever thought there was to know about the universe, about other stars and galaxies and worlds. We know so much as humanity, that no one person could ever hope to learn more than a small fraction of our accumulated knowledge. All because of reason, critical thinking, logic, and science.

I have hope. I know there are many reasons that I have to be cynical, untrusting, and angry. But I also see people who work hard to make a world in which those reasons will be minimized, and that gives me hope. When I write about the things that I'm against, and that I don't believe, it is because of my hope that I do so, and not because of my anger. I have hope that those writings, and the actions and writings of others, will move us toward a brighter world. Science continues to advance our knowledge, and as such I have hope that the children of the world will have longer, healthier, and better lives than my generation, and the generations that have come before me. I do not know or believe that any of these things will happen, I have no faith in the future, but I most assuredly have hope.

I have meaning in my life. That meaning comes from sharing my thoughts with others, with discussing and debating the things we agree and disagree on. It comes from the work I do with the disabled in my job. It comes from sharing and building a home with my wonderful wife. It comes from my friends, who are the family I choose. It comes from listening to Greydon Square rap about moving forward and Onward, despite any resistance offered. It comes from Tim Minchin singing about sipping White Wine in the Sun at Christmas with his family. It comes from staying up late to write posts like these, or comment on posts at other blogs.

I seek to be an ethical, moral person. I analyze, I judge, I put myself in other's shoes, all so that I can come to a better understanding of what it means to be ethical, of how to be moral. I care about humanity, and I care about us being better than we've been, better than we are. I believe we must strive for the equal treatment and dignity of all of us. I feel compassion, but seek a world in which compassion is not frequently felt, not because we're all unfeeling assholes, but because the reasons for the compassion have been eliminated. I believe in restraining compassion in favor of respect and dignity, or as the late Christopher Hitchens said "Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others." (Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001))

I have laughter, joy, and love. Few can make me laugh like my wife, who herself laughs often and loud. Little can compare to the pleasure, even the joy, of making her laugh myself. There is joy in visiting my best man and his daughter, my niece. He provides great discussions, cooks an awesome steak, his wife is fun to have around, and his daughter calls me "Uncle Nathan." If you're lucky, you know exactly how awesome it is to hear something like that from a toddler's mouth. That I can bring a huge smile to her face just by walking through the door has been the highlight of many a weekend.

I love stories, especially fantasy. My first rule for a good novel is that the story must be good, regardless of any theme, or even no theme. But if the author manages also to make me think, then that is awesome. I value fantasy not just because dragons are cool, but because it provides a rich medium in which to explore humanity, what it is to be human, how we might relate to each other in extreme circumstances. Fantasy and science fiction stories can be thought of as opportunities to engage in massive thought experiments. How could a society full of amoral, selfish individuals survive and function, if at all? What of a society that sought true harmony with nature? What might it mean to be immortal? Does the method of immortality matter to that question? What happens when certain individuals have power so far beyond normal people as to be almost godlike? And so on, and so forth. But also, dragons and sword fights are just plain cool.

I have not always had a good life. I have been told that the place I thought was becoming a home, would no longer be making me welcome. I have been bullied, shoved, and cruelly teased. I have had to sit back and take it while my family was abused for eight long years, because I was a child, and powerless. I have had times when I was terrified of my anger, and then discovered that I had no idea who I was without that anger when the reason for the anger was shown to be a mistake on my part, and not a cruelty on someone else's part, as I had believed. It took me years to build an identity that was not based in anger (and no matter how often I post something with anger in it, anger is not central to my identity). I have held the knife to my wrist after signing the note. I have swallowed the pills with a chaser of alcohol. I've had a relationship in which I spent months just fighting and having sex. So not healthy. I've wandered the streets at night before, looking for a place I could lay my sleeping bag that would not be discovered by the cops, because I had nowhere to go. I've sneaked onto corporate property and slipped into the back of semi-trailers that were clearly going nowhere, just to sleep. I've sneaked into the garage behind an apartment building, and out at the crack of dawn, ever fearful that someone from the building would see me, and report me, and I would lose my shelter. I've had to clean my pants because I could not find an open, public bathroom fast enough. Being homeless sucks. There are many, many, many people who have had it worse than me, who continue to have it worse than I ever had. I survived. Many have not, many do not, and many will not. I grew. Many have not, many do not, and many will not. But many CAN.

That preceding paragraph is not there to elicit your pity, or your compassion. I do not need either, and I do not want either. It is there so that you can know that when I say I have a life of hope, a life of meaning, a life of joy, and a life in which I strive to be moral, I know what the fuck I'm talking about. I kept my ethics even when I was cleaning shit from my pants, but the hope, meaning, and joy had to come later. I found that meaning through hard work, by examining my emotions, and by applying reason to them. My brain was broken, and medication helped me combat the Severe Depressive Disorder that I had. Therapy and critical thought helped me to combat the thoughts and emotions that contributed to the disorder, and to find ways to live a life of meaning and happiness. I have to continue using those skills every day, because depression is a disease that's never truly gone it seems, but is only in remission. But I persevered then, and I do so now. And like now, there was no "higher power" then. There was me, and the support and assistance of people who helped me. There was science backing the words of my therapist, and science backing the medication prescribed by my psychiatrist. There was love in the hearts of my friends and family. And if you're going through anything like what I went through, please, look at where I was then, and where I am now. Let that be encouragement for you. Because you can do it; you can survive, and thrive.

I believe in the power of people, helping people. I am a skeptic, and a secular humanist.

And I will speak against those who would drag us down, and I will express my anger at those who, no matter how good their intention, would keep us from getting better as a species.

Belief matters

There's an idea that permeates certain parts of our culture. I've seen it in the religious, and the non-religious alike. It's an idea that seems ok at first glance, and has a warm fuzzy feeling to it. Here it is, in essence:

It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you're happy and not hurting someone. Can't we all just get along?

Put like that, I too have an instinctive desire to simply agree and shut up. Yet, I can't, and here's why: belief matters. It absolutely, positively matters what you believe. Sometimes it's of great consequence, and sometimes it's of very little consequence.  But it matters.

Belief matters because it has direct, and sometimes indirect, effects on our actions. It can't help but do this, or put another way, we can't help but act according to our beliefs. If you believe that apple seeds contain enough cyanide to kill, you probably will make sure you don't swallow them when eating an apple. If you believe that ginkgo biloba can enhance your memory, you're more likely to spend money on it.

Those are small beliefs; it's even easier to see how large beliefs affect us. If you believe that "what goes around, comes around," or some version of karma, you're more likely to let certain offenses pass, since karma will bite them in the ass. On the other hand, if you believe that there's no such thing as karma, you're more likely to see a value in confronting the offense, rather than let it pass. If you believe that there's an afterlife, then you're more likely to be willing to risk your life, since death is not the end. But of course, if you believe there is nothing like an afterlife, then you're less likely to take that risk.

Our beliefs can also affect our happiness and general satisfaction. If you believe that everything works out for the best, always, you might be less likely to give in to depression when the going gets rough. Of course, you might also be less likely to work as hard as you need to get past that rough patch, since things "always work out." It's not always clear how one's beliefs will affect your emotions or actions.

But affect them they will. When I believed in reincarnation, karma, and a God that loved me, I made a conscious decision to consider ethical dilemmas as if all that wasn't true. Mostly, I think I succeeded. Yet, that decision was itself influenced by the belief that I had to share a world with people who didn't agree with me, and that there was a possibility, however small, that I was wrong.

This is why I care what you believe. Your beliefs affect what you do, and what you do might affect me. When it doesn't, that's when I quit caring -- but only until the next belief is confronted. I am happy to get along with you, with anyone, so long as your belief doesn't cause harm, or at least, is very unlikely to cause predictable harm, and so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. But I will not say it doesn't matter what you believe.

After all, I'm sure it matters to you.

My view of marriage

I've been going through various articles and essays that attempt to give a secular argument against same-sex marriage, and I realized something surprising: some people have a fundamentally different view of what marriage is, and (more importantly) should be, than I do. It's not even a religious view, per se. I suspect that in the battles over same-sex marriage, this fundamental difference is going to be one of the biggest hurdles to overcome by supporters of same-sex marriage, even when religion doesn't make an appearance.

Procreation. 

Yes, some people genuinely believe and argue that the primary purpose of marriage is to have and raise children. Joe Hargrave posted a piece in September 2010 at the American Catholic website making that very argument:

In my view only procreative unions should be recognized as valid and worthy of benefits, incentives, and the word “marriage.” For [Andrew Sullivan] is correct; to recognize non-procreative heterosexual unions and not homosexual unions has the following effect:

It creates one class of people, regardless of their actions, and renders them superior to another.

Procreative unions (including polygamy, though it is not superior heterosexual monogamy) ought to be superior to all other unions.

Now, it wasn't that long ago that I argued against Bishop DiMarzio referring to marriage as if it were just about procreation. I also objected strongly to him seeming to treat marriage as a vocation, or job. At that time though, I didn't realize that there might be a wider group of people who see marriage in much the same way. I will undoubtedly have to return to this argument another time, but today I wanted to just get my view of marriage out there and on the record.

I see marriage as a commitment to a relationship, a relationship built on romantic love, trust, communication, and respect. It's a way of saying to the world "we're going to stick this out and try to make this relationship work, because that's how much we mean to each other." Financial benefits, procreation, and other such things are all completely secondary to this basic foundation, and in fact not even necessary. I am well aware that this is not the historical viewpoint of marriage, but I do not think that I'm alone in seeing marriage this way. Given the vast number of book and movie romances that seem to put love first and foremost, I don't see how I could be the only person to view it this way.

When you see me arguing in support of same-sex marriage, remember that this is the foundational view, the basic premise, that I'm holding. Some of my arguments probably won't make much sense without it.

Pascal's Wager IS a risk . . . for the believers

Pascal's Wager is used too often by believers (especially of the Christian variety) to challenge non-believers, or warn them, or something. It's been dealt with numerous times in numerous places, and is always found wanting by the very people it's supposed convince. What I have realized though, is that it's also a problem (if indeed it is a problem) for the believers.

For those unfamiliar with it, Pascal's Wager (put forth by philosopher Blaise Pascal), was formulated with the Christian God in mind. It says that when attempting to determine whether to believe in God, it can be approached as a wager, heads or tails. God exists, or he doesn't. If you believe in God and follow his teachings and commandments in life, and you're wrong, you've lost very little -- a few fleshly pleasures perhaps, but not much of consequence. If you believe in God and do as he commands, and you're right, congrats, you get heaven. So it doesn't seem such a bad thing to believe in God. However, if you do not believe in God, and you're right, you gain little over the believer. If you do not believe in God, and you're wrong -- you get hell. Therefore, you potentially gain tremendously by believing, while potentially losing horrendously if you don't believe. The only reasonable wager then is to believe.

I'm not going to bother going through all the usual problems that are put forth with this wager, because it's been done so frequently. Go ahead and Google it,  you'll see. What I want to point out is the problem that I see for believers if they're wrong.

The wager says that there isn't much consequence if you're wrong, and you follow the commandments of God. Well, actually, there's a pretty big risk: the risk that you will cause or support needless suffering and immorality during your life. For example, homosexuality. If the believer follows the teachings that homosexuality is a sin, and uses that as an excuse to deny gay people a chance to love and be loved by their partners, but this is not in fact immoral, then the believer's wager has caused or supported suffering.

If you would like a more obvious example, then consider some of what is done under the auspices of the more fundamentalist Islam beliefs. If those believers are wrong, then things like honor killings, child marriages, female genital mutilation, and other abuses are all completely and utterly without a point. These horrible things will have been done to follow the commands of a non-existent God, causing suffering, misery, and potentially (even likely) caused the believer to miss out on some chances for positive, fulfilling relationships with the people s/he has harmed. I'd call that a huge risk.

Most of us don't like to be mistaken, and most of us don't like it when we make mistakes because of bad information. How much worse would it be to go against our empathetic and altruistic instincts because of a bad wager?