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.

A response to a modern "myth"

Recently, I think I might have touched a few nerves on Facebook. I got asked why I come across as angry so often in some of my posts there that touch on religion, and so I answered. I blatantly stole the format Greta Christina used when she wrote "Atheists and Anger," and listed off a whole lot of reasons that I find to be angry about religion. I had some push-back and objections, and was accused of implying that "all religious people are assholes." I responded appropriately (which means, respectfully, and explaining my position as needed). A day or two later, I saw a link from one of those objectors, which, sans any personal comment from my friend, I took as an attempt to rebut my assertion that religion has done more harm than good. I told my friend I would examine it in more detail over the weekend. This post is the result of that, posted here because this will probably be long, and because the nature of the article cried out for a public rebuttal. 

The article is from the National Catholic Register, and is entitled "Myth 2: Religion Does More Harm Than Good," by a Father Thomas Williams, and dated April 1, 2008 (it appears to be an excerpt from a book, or perhaps a distillation of a section in a book, called "Greater Than You Think: A Theologian Answers the Atheists About God"). I know, that's ancient times on the internet, but the article is still relevant, even four years later. I think I'll respond to it by first addressing what's good or bad about the arguments, and then I'll go ahead and address whether I've changed my mind about religion being more harmful than not. Let's get started.

In their attacks on God and religion, the neo-atheist authors such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are especially vehement in their accusations concerning the effects of religion on the public order. 

The atheists charge that religion is a net evil for civilization, and allege that, on the whole, our society would be healthier and more secure without religious belief.

So far, so good. That's a fair summary of the conclusion many of us have reached (by us, I mean "New (Gnu) Atheists"; I'm not as popular as Hitchens, Dawkins, or Harris).

Hitchens, for instance, in his book God Is Not Great, asks whether the net effect of religion is positive or negative. Does religion do more harm than good (p. 217)? 

He answers with a resounding “Yes!”

Well, I haven't read that book (so I can't properly say how accurate Father Williams is portraying the book), but that does match up with my understanding of the view Hitchens held in life.

Religion is the cause of all social woes. The provocative subtitle of his book — How Religion Poisons Everything — seems to imply that religion does nothing but harm.

Hmm. Now we start to see problems. "Religion is the cause of all social woes." I am not aware of anyone claiming that "religion is the cause of all social woes." That's a very strong, very broad claim. Father Thomas is setting up a straw man fallacy here, an argument that's easy to knock down and claim he's defeated, but it's not actually the argument his opponent's making. Yet, with some sleight of hand, he can claim that it is. "Religion poisons everything" is a strong claim, true, but it's still not a claim that religion is the only cause, nor is it necessarily a claim that religion is a cause to every social woe--the woe might have already been there, and religion just made it worse. Naughty, naughty, Father Williams, trying to trick your readers like that. Not very honest of you.

This may strike us as strange, since the common wisdom of humanity has always held that religion makes people better, not worse. Our own experience often backs this up.

Just because an idea is popular, does not mean the idea is right. Ad populum fallacy, for those keeping score--claiming or implying that because a bunch of people agree with something, or are doing something, that must make it right, or worth doing. The popular question parents ask kids "If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump off too?" is an attempt to inoculate our children against that fallacy. Some examples of popular ideas, either now or in the past: the earth is flat, women are inferior to men, chocolate is delicious, and (ironically) the Catholic Church is wrong (the RCC has roughly 1 billion adherents, in a world of 7 billion people, meaning most people think the RCC is wrong). In other words, popularity of an idea says nothing about it's truth. Also, my own experience has not backed up the idea that religion makes people better, but hey, he did say "often," so maybe I can ignore that quibble.

So what possible reasons could the atheists have to make the extravagant claim that religious belief has a negative effect on people’s behavior? What evidence do they put forward? 

On close examination, it turns out that the atheists’ real evidence is rather thin.

Given your track record at this point, Father Williams, I'm losing confidence in your ability to back that assertion up. But we'll see.

Rather than examine religious teachings and practice to discover their effects on society, Hitchens, for example, prefers to offer anecdotal evidence for his claim.

Anecdotes, or examples? There is a difference. Still, like I said, I haven't read the book, so I'll assume anecdotes, and anecdotes do not equal data, that's true.

He begins his 13th chapter titled “Does Religion Make People Behave Better?” with a personal attack on Martin Luther King Jr. 

Here Hitchens makes a clever, though absurd, assertion. He asks whether King’s Christianity made him a better person. His answer is that yes, Martin Luther King did all sorts of good things for society in the area of civil rights, but … here’s the kicker … he wasn’t a Christian. He may have said he was a Christian and thought he was a Christian, but he was mistaken, and Hitchens knows better. 

“In no real as opposed to nominal sense,” Hitchens avers, “was [King] a Christian” (p. 176). 

By what rhetorical legerdemain does Hitchens arrive at this conclusion? 

The only proof he puts forward to back up this thesis is that King didn’t advocate violence and didn’t threaten people with hell, so he must not have been a true Christian. 

This is like saying that Hitchens couldn’t be a true atheist, since he is too nice a guy.

Oh, snap! If that is, in fact, an accurate portrayal of Hitchens's argument in the book, then Father Williams rightly points out a fallacy on Hitchens's part. "Christian" is a fairly broad term, one that is probably best defined as "someone who purports to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ." But that doesn't necessarily mean they're strictly following them, or that ambiguous statements by the Biblical character of Jesus have not been interpreted differently by different people (although how ambiguity is seen in some of those verses is beyond me . . .).  (No True Scotsman fallacy--I've been helping a client with an Intro to Logic course, so I've got these fallacies running through my brain)

So what do our neo-atheist authors make of Christianity’s undeniable contributions to society? 

They basically start with the Martin Luther King premise: If a person did good things, he couldn’t have been religious. If he did bad things, he must have been religious — despite whatever evidence to the contrary. 

And if a clearly religious person did something good, he must have done it despite his being religious, and not because of it. And so the deck is hopelessly stacked against religion from the start.

Damn. And here it was looking like our priestly friend might turn things around. Once again he's back to setting up straw men, and knocking them down. Atheists in general are well aware that religious people have done good things. We are also aware that atheists and other non-religious people have done bad things, Stalin being an example that's all too often trotted out.

The other point there has slightly more of a leg to stand on, in that we are sometimes skeptical that religious people would suddenly stop being good if they lost they're religion. If you're religious, ask yourself this: if you were to stop believing in your religion tomorrow, if you suddenly came to believe that there's no god, no afterlife of reward or punishment, no physics-defying miracles, no karma, no reincarnation, would you stop being a good person? Would you stop being nice to people, or polite? If you donate to charity, or volunteer your time at a homeless shelter, and you've been doing so in the name of Jesus, or to get good karma, would you stop donating or volunteering? If you answer yes, why? If you answer no, why not? I suggest that most people would answer "No," because they would still be good people. Many, many atheists come from religious backgrounds. A number of us were even in the clergy. Many had belief, and some still miss those comforting beliefs. They may have reevaluated certain moral positions they held, but that would generally be done in the spirit of "I want to be a good person. My previous faith said that certain things were evil/good. Now that I know there's no god/afterlife/karma/whatever, I should check if the positions of my previous faith on morality are accurate." Or, "I want to be good. Am I actually being good?"

I will grant however, that there may very well be, even probably be, those individuals out there who are acting good only because they fear the results of angering their god(s). It may even be more common than I hope. To any such people: please don't lose your faith. At any rate, I still don't see the deck as being hopelessly stacked against religion when it comes to answering the question "Does religion cause more harm than good?"

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.

I'm not so sure that first sentence is entirely true, but even if it's close to true, the question becomes: how much do we need to? Many of the religious take pains to tell us how great they are, and how you need religion to be good, and don't hesitate to give examples. Which is fine, if they believe it, they should make the argument; but if they're so busy pointing out the good, why shouldn't those of us who disagree point out the bad? At any rate, when I get to addressing the actual question at hand, I'll look at the good as well.

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? 

Instead, they choose to enumerate the things that Christianity hasn’t done to better the world or hasn’t done well enough or has simply done too slowly!

Hmm, yes, well, if you're going to seek to demonstrate that religion (not just Christianity, by the way) does more harm than good, then a part of that is going to be rebutting the idea that religion does a lot of good, by showing where it has failed.

This pseudo-methodology can be used to discredit anything. 

Let’s take the example of one of the most beneficent disciplines there is: medicine. Imagine if you were to undertake a study of the biggest blunders committed in the name of medicine throughout history — from botched surgeries, to bleeding with leeches, to cranial boring, to the hellish experimentation afflicted by Nazi doctors on war prisoners — and used such research as an indictment of the entire field of medicine. 

During the unprincipled years of the late 19th century, for instance, medical quackery abounded, and hundreds of traveling medicine shows extolled the virtues of worthless potions and products, from Dr. Kilmer’s Swamp Root, to Dr. Pierce’s Nasal Douche, to Kickapoo Indian Sagwa, to Dr. Hercules Sanche’s Oxydonor. 

By Hitchens’ standard, medicine has been an unmitigated disaster for humanity, and all doctors should be shuffled off to the guillotine! Yet if there can be good medicine and bad medicine, why can’t there be good religion and bad religion?

Actually, no. That analogy doesn't work. Implicit in the claim that "Religion does more harm than good" is the idea that religion does at least some good. What's at issue is the balance of harm vs good. The balance for medicine is clearly on the side of good, and so "Hitchens' standard" would not be condemning doctors to the guillotine.

Moreover, in their search for historical examples to make their case, the atheist authors spill very little ink calmly confronting the teachings and practices of religions today (except in the case of Islamic fundamentalists) and instead spend page after page describing the most hideous examples they can find of errors committed in the name of religion in centuries past.

Actually, most atheist authors that I've looked at -if you include bloggers and commentators, as I do- spill most of their ink confronting the religious teachings and practices of religion today, and not just historical, and not just of Islamic fundamentalists.

For example, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II before him have repeated over and over again that God and religion cannot be co-opted to justify violence. Violence in the name of religion is an aberration. Yet nowhere do Hitchens or his cronies acknowledge this.

Catholicism is hardly the only religion out there that gets criticized by Gnu Atheists. It cannot follow that what one religious leader of a specific religion says about violence necessarily applies to every religion. Given the history of violence in the name of religion, it could hardly be called an aberration. Still, I'll acknowledge (after a Google search) that both those popes have made statements against violence (though I could not find sources for John Paul's quotes). Of course, there's still a Just War doctrine that's held by the Catholic Church.

Time after time Hitchens makes the claim that anything done in the name of religion could just as well be done in the name of secular humanism. Thus — he says — religion really contributes nothing.

An accurate assessment of the late Hitchens's views, as far as I know them.

He seems to miss the more important point: People actually do many good things by religious motivation that they wouldn’t do otherwise. People could be compassionate and selfless in the name of secular humanism, but the fact remains that they more often are compassionate and unselfish in the name of religion.

There's a claim that needs some examination. I'll attempt to do so in Part 2.

There is no doubt that religious people could do more, and Hitchens’ accusations, though mean-spirited, do oblige us to a serious examination of conscience and a renewed commitment to offer a more consistent witness. 

Yet an impartial examination of the facts will lead any objective observer to the conclusion that religion, and Christianity in particular, has been and continues to be an overwhelming force for personal and social good.

The religious do need to do some serious examination of conscience, that is certainly true. Next, I'll examine the claim itself that "Religion does more harm than good," and see if, as Father Williams claims, it really is a myth, as that was the end of the article. Not a good showing on his part, I think.

If you want to talk about "slut shaming" . . .

There are certain things that enrage me. Rape apologists and "slut shaming" are right up there, toward the very top of the list. Get a load of this:

When a woman walks down a crowded sidewalk in revealing clothing, she is forcing herself on every man nearby.

The woman fully understands the powerful biological drives of men. She knows they cannot ignore her, not even if they want to.

She has chosen to advertise herself to everyone passing by, but she is looking only for a few men. The wealthiest, the most famous, the most powerful men she can attract. Yet her display is bound to be noticed by hundreds of men in whom she has no conceivable romantic interest.

That crap is from a post by a Giovanni Dannato, titled "Provocative Female Attire is an Assault Against Men."  You know what? I have "powerful biological urges," this is true, and if a woman I find attractive is dressed in whatever way I find sexy, it's hard to ignore. But so what? Part of puberty was learning a little self-control. The woman isn't responsible for my control. And speaking of control:

There’s an old elementary school custom…when you bring something tasty to class, it’s understood that you should put it away unless you intend to share it with others. The rationale:

• It’s a distraction to the entire class.
• The goodies are blatantly advertised without any possibility of fulfilling the promise of the advertisement for everyone.
• It’s considered impolite to show off what you don’t intend to share.

Likewise, a woman who puts her goodies blatantly on display is making false advertisements. Nobody supposes or expects that she could share herself with her entire audience—not even if she wanted to.

We're not children. Even the teenagers going through puberty aren't children. Children DO often have issues with control, and boundaries, and understanding things like "It's mine, not yours." Adults should not. Oh, and women are not products. They are not billboards showing off their goods, they're people.

These feminists and manginas completely miss the point and resort to a straw man. They suppose that their critics believe it should be illegal for women to dress provocatively! They fail to understand that the rule of law is hardly the only set of rules that binds us.

Somehow, they are unable to understand that women exposing themselves without intent to reciprocate the attention they attract is impolite and inconsiderate – an act of aggression in which they use the power of their sex as a weapon. They publicly and proudly demonstrate callous disregard towards others without the faintest understanding that common courtesy is a two-way street…

 "An act of aggression"???? Are you kidding me!? Ok, look. I am not harmed by seeing a sexy woman, and not getting to touch her. Not even a tiny bit. I rather enjoy it, actually. So that's a pretty damned ineffectual weapon women apparently have.

When I studied abroad in Latin America during college, I was in a group of students from my school that consisted mostly of spoiled women. They would insist on going out in low cut tops and become outraged when local men started catcalling at them.

Rather than sharing their sense of righteous indignation, I found myself hiding a smile. It didn’t take me long to understand that tastefully dressed women never received catcalls. This sort of behavior was reserved for women who broke their side of the social contract.

They became enraged by the catcalls because those men were treating them as objects, and not people. They became enraged because those asshole men were assuming that women dressing a certain way meant the men could act a certain way, when there is no social contract specifying any such bullshit. As for your "tastefully dressed women," at one of my previous jobs there was a young woman who never once -that I recall- had a low-cut top, or dressed in any way that sane people might consider "provocative." Jeans and work appropriate shirts. She wasn't supermodel material by modern standards, had a little weight "problem" (as in, her doctor might have cared, but I didn't), but every time I saw her walking around I couldn't help but be immensely attracted to her. Why? Attitude, and sheer confidence. It practically radiated off of her. I loved it. No other woman there could draw my eye like that, and there were plenty in low-cut tops. I chatted with her a few times, found out she had a fiance, and chatted some more. Never once flirted, but always enjoyed her company, and remained extremely attracted to her. Still am just thinking about her. What's my point? Simple: how the fuck do you propose she should have avoided that? Answer: she shouldn't, and couldn't. Well, ok, she could have worn a burqa, and stayed at home where I couldn't see her, but hey, you know what? That would have been bloody stupid, and insulting to me. I was not harmed by her presence, I loved it. And it's not her job to control me, it's mine.

Catcalling, I realized, was a defense mechanism used by lower status men against women flaunting themselves publicly – for the benefit of millionaires only. Feminists and their defenders have a special place in their hearts for this sort of retaliation. They are reminded of horrible days of yore when Western women actually had social responsibilities – when even ‘loser’ males they considered beneath them could resort to public shaming when pushed too far.

Present first world societies allow men no defense whatsoever against predatory and false female advertising. In every social venue, women are free to treat men as they like and should males reciprocate their wanton sexual displays with similarly crude and aggressive behavior, it’s called ‘sexual harassment.’

"Lower status . . ."? "Defense. . . "?? "Predatory . . . "???

First, let me repeat: women are not billboards, they're people! Second, what lower status? Money? Yeah, sure, some people seek out the rich for partners, but most just want people they're compatible with (I was dirt poor when my very sexy wife met me, and she didn't seem to care). Socially lower status? Take a look at not just some history, but the modern world. Men STILL have more social and economic power than women.

Third, what harm are you seeing that you require defense from these "predatory" women? Because honestly, if you can't just enjoy their company as fellow people, and enjoy being able to admire beauty when you see it, the one with the problem is you. Not them. And you need to get over yourself.

Thus men are effectively strapped down, gagged, and muzzled while females can flaunt and taunt with impunity. For many men this pretty much sums up every single day of an entire lifetime at school and at work.

Bullshit. Total bullshit. If someone's harassing us, we've got the same options as a woman to address it. Women are not responsible for your reactions just because they're in your field of vision. If you don't want to see them, I recommend a monastery of all men, high in the mountains somewhere, preferably with no internet connection.

Western Women don’t just abuse their incredible sexual power, they pathologically lie about their inability to understand the effects and implications of their actions. In fact, they seem to derive a sort of sociopathic pleasure from being able to sow unpleasantness and discord without consequence – all while playing innocent. They express their contempt and hatred for men even as they troll the populace for providers. Their enormous power comes without responsibility and they love it that way.

Maybe they just expect better of us. I know I do.

For those who would doubt for a moment that these women know exactly what they’re doing, let’s take a look a recent events. How do Western women collectively respond when some male displeases them?

In the most vengeful, derisive, and mocking way they know how.

They call it a ‘SlutWalk.’ 

No, that's how they react when there's a culture that thinks how a woman dresses dictates how men can treat her. It's called a "rape culture," and it's perpetrated by crap like this. They are making a very key point that it doesn't matter how she dresses, YOU still need to control yourself, and not try to control her. You still need to recognize her humanity, her personhood, and her right to not be controlled by men.

In other words, Grow Up.

An attitude problem about abortion

I saw a comment on Facebook tonight regarding abortion that bugged me. I couldn't comment since it was one of those "friend of a friend" threads that you can sometimes see when people don't have their privacy controls set to prevent strangers from seeing their posts. Let me paraphrase the comment, since it's a general attitude I've seen before:

They made the choice to have sex, knowing they could get pregnant. If they didn't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex.

I doubt I'll hit on all the things wrong with this, but I'm going to try highlighting a few.

First, the easy one: rape. While I realize that some anti-abortionists make an exception for rape, not all do, and yet they will still trot this one out. By definition, a woman does not choose to be raped. Statistically, I've seen the numbers at "1 in 6," all the way up to "1 in 4," woman have been raped or sexually assaulted in the United States. Given how many go unreported, the actual numbers are probably higher. What does this mean? It means you probably know someone who's been raped or sexually assaulted. It means I've stopped being surprised when a woman tells me she was assaulted at some point, because so many have told me that -- and I find that lack of surprise sad. It means, well, there was no choice in getting pregnant from rape.

Second, health issues. Sometimes, a woman would love to carry to term and give birth and raise the resulting child. Unfortunately, during the pregnancy she develops health issues, perhaps directly related to the pregnancy, perhaps not. Doesn't matter. What matters is that the pregnancy is complicating things to a degree that it may be healthier to terminate the pregnancy, and at times, life saving. Some treatments cannot be used while pregnant, so even if life isn't threatened, long term health may be (and certainly short-term health is). It was not the woman's choice to develop these health issues, so even if she deliberately got pregnant, shouldn't she be able to reevaluate that choice in the light of new circumstances?

Thirdly, contraception failure. We do lots of things that have a risk to them, and we don't just tell people "you made the choice, deal with it." For example, eating steak rare (increased risk of getting sick), not flossing (increased risk of cavities or gingivitis), driving while tired (increased risk of car accidents), crossing the street (increased risk of a car hitting you), not washing our hands before and after eating (increased risk of getting sick), or any number of other things that you can probably think of. We especially don't say "deal with it" to those who have taken every reasonable precaution, and still have something bad happen. We let them get treatment, and well we should if we have any empathy at all. So if properly used (or even improperly used) contraception fails, contraception that has a 99% success rater (the pill, and a bunch of others), then in what way can it be said the woman "made her choice when she had sex knowing she might get pregnant"? If you wouldn't say to the person "hey, you chose to eat that steak rare, so quit complaining about your food poisoning, and you better not be using tax-supported Medicare to pay for treatment," then you bloody well shouldn't be saying the same damn thing about getting pregnant after contraception failure. The choice to avoid pregnancy was clearly there, regardless of the sex involved.

Fourth, and for now last, ignorance. Many teens are victims of poor sex education, such that they might believe the rhythm method, one of the least reliable contraception methods available, is actually effective. Many don't realize that when the guy says "hey, I'll pull out before I finish," his pre-cum will still have sperm in it, meaning the woman can get pregnant even if he doesn't ejaculate inside her. And some, in a truly atrocious display of poor education, don't even realize sex can get someone pregnant. How does choosing sex in this case mean someone's obligated to carry a pregnancy to term that they didn't think could happen?

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.

A video on morality

A video that I found through Friendly Atheist by QuoliaSoup. It's quite good, and deserves a look.

If your screen is making it look really tiny on this webpage, like mine is, you should just watch it at YouTube so you can actually see the animation and images.

Matthew 7: 1-5

Once again I'm going to select a passage from the Bible, consider it, and render my judgement of it. Today, with a wee sense of irony, I shall select Jesus's words from Matthew 7:1-5. Here's the text (King James Version):

 ¹Judge not, that ye be not judged.

 ²For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

 ³And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 ⁴Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

 ⁵Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

For comparison, here's the text of the New International Version:

¹ “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ² For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

   ³ “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? ⁴ How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 

This one's a bit of a mixed bag, and could be read in two or three different ways it seems. In the first couple of verses, we've got an admonition to not judge, with a warning that if we do, we'll be judged as well. Then we have 3 verses cautioning against hypocrisy. So we have 1) Do not judge, 2) Don't be a hypocrite, or 3) Don't judge, because that makes you a hypocrite.

Let's deal with number one first. That first verse captures the essence, doesn't it? Well, bad essence. Apart from the fact that it's probably impossible to completely avoid judging someone, it's really a bad idea to even strive for that. We have a moral obligation to judge others. That's right: an obligation. If we refrain from judging others, then how are we to say that it's wrong for a priest to rape a child? Or a man to kill another for the money in his wallet? How can we say it's good for a person with money to spare to donate to the poor? Or a father to donate his time as a Little League coach? We must judge these things. Note that it's perfectly acceptable to judge something as morally neutral. Dancing to a song with a good beat? Getting a tattoo?  Morally neutral. And certainly there may be nuance to consider in various cases, but nonetheless, we must judge. To claim that beating one's wife for going outside the house without a male escort is okay because that's the culture, that we cannot judge the man because we are not in that culture? Wrong, so totally wrong. Of course we can judge him, and we must!

Nor should we consider the warning ("you too will be judged") to be a warning, but a promise, and a welcome one. If we're of good character, we should welcome it when our mistakes and immoral actions are pointed out to us, because then we have the opportunity to correct our mistakes and make amends for our actions -- or at least try.

That's interpretation one, let's deal with number two, "don't be a hypocrite." Sound advice, and a good policy to follow. It can't be judged moral to scold someone for stealing when you're cheating on your taxes.

Well, that was easy! On to number three, "don't judge, because that makes you a hypocrite." Um, no, it doesn't. True, if you're judging someone for stealing when you're cheating on taxes, you are a hypocrite, and that's bad. The person you're judging is fully justified in pointing out your own failings. However, this doesn't mean that either should avoid making the judgements, or excuse the first thief for thievery, it only means the hypocrite has more that he's doing wrong. Each should be dealt with accordingly.

So, here's my judgement of this passage:

Interpretation one: Immoral.

Interpretation two: Moral.

Interpretation three: Immoral and silly.

I wish I didn't have to say it

There's been a few things lately about rape in the news, and it still boggles my mind that anyone thinks to blame the victim, ever, or even to hint that it may have been the victim's fault, and that there's ever any excuse for the rapist. So let me just say this, once again:

Rape is bad, mmkay? It's bad when it's done with a knife, it's bad when it's done with a drug, it's bad when it's done with a gun, it's bad when the victim is dressed like a nun, it's bad when the victim is dressed like a hooker, it's bad when the victim IS a hooker, it's bad bad bad.

If a woman is walking down the street naked in public, that doesn't mean you get to touch her. There is no "implied consent." If someone should seek to touch her, and she says "stop that" or "no" or flinches, or gives any sort of indication that she doesn't want that, then back off. Simple.

If you're making out with someone, and things are hot and heavy, and clothes are coming off, and suddenly someone wants to stop, and doesn't want to go any further? Stop. If you don't, that's assault and rape. You don't get to say "oh c'mon, you can't stop now!" or "what did you think was gonna happen?" or, really, anything other than "ok, stopping now." If you want, you can follow that up with "give me a bit to calm down here before we talk about it," as long as you're actually stopping.

Consent. Consent is the key to the whole endeavor. Without consent, we're talking about rape. Coercion, by the way, doesn't generate consent. Coercion just generates more rape. Oh, and if they're under the age of consent, then there is no consent. Period, full stop. I hear some people saying "but what about. . . ?" and the answer is "NO."

And making excuses for the rapist? Bad. Bad bad bad! Seriously, where do people get these ideas?

Bin Laden is dead, should I be glad?

My first emotion on hearing the news was excitement, eagerness to hear the President confirm it, and a certain amount of "finally." But then I did what I occasionally do, and thought.

I started thinking that a man is dead, gone forever. A human life has been snuffed out. Should I be glad? True, it's a relief that Osama Bin Laden is no longer capable of threatening America or the world. True, he's responsible for thousands of deaths, and much suffering. True, getting him has been a goal of the USA since even before the 9/11 attacks. Still, should I be glad?

There are pragmatic reasons to think it would have been better were he captured alive. Dead, he becomes a martyr. Alive and on trial, he could've been shown as merely human. Also, though a severe long shot, there is a small chance we could've gathered more information from him. If we had captured him alive, it would've been easier to silence those who are already questioning (at least on my Facebook account) whether it was really him. But those are simply "gee, it would've been nice . . . " concerns, and sometimes in military operations, you just have to take the shot.

What of ethical concerns? Because this is where the thought really leads for me: ethically, is it good that someone, even Bin Laden, died? I have held for a long time that life is (for want of a better word) sacred. We have one very brief life, and when it's done, it's done. There is nothing more after this. Frankly, if there were an afterlife, I suspect that killing another would be easier to justify (I'm not going to bother arguing against that link, Greta Christina did a great job already). But, there is no afterlife. No hell for Bin Laden to go to, and no heaven either. All that remains of him is memory. Memory is powerful of course, but he no longer is concerned with that.

There's a saying in Jewish tradition that "To end one life is to destroy the world entire."  To forcibly take another's life destroys something precious, something wonderful. Our lives are our own, and should not be taken from us by another without consent, even less than our property, our freedom, or our innocence. If we kill a criminal, all possibility of them making amends is gone. If we kill a murderer, all possibility of them learning how wrong that action was is gone. Yes, all possibility of further evil perpetrated by that man or woman is gone as well, but the cost is simply not worth it.

Yet, I do not think it is always and everywhere unethical to take a life. One of my high school instructors, a Christian, believed that it was, but when asked said that she would kill to protect her children, even if it meant going to hell. I find myself agreeing with her that I would kill to protect my loved ones, even if it meant going to a hellish prison. Defense of life is a situation where killing can be justified, but should still be avoided whenever possible. If you've an option between a gun or a taser, use the taser. When defending life, you are defending the very thing that is so precious and important, against someone who is seeking to end it. Sometimes, the only possible defense, and therefore the only possible ethical choice, is to kill. But should I be glad that a life is gone?

No.

James Croft had his own thoughts on the matter, and I find myself in agreement with his conclusion: "we might accept that, sometimes, it is necessary for a person to be killed to ensure the welfare of others. But we should never celebrate that decision."


Yet a part of me is glad Bin Laden's dead, and another part is ashamed of that feeling. I'm not sure what to do with that, but there it is.


Anyone else have a thought on this?

Two Rings, Ring 1

I have two rings on my right hand. Objectively, they don't mean much. Subjectively, personally, they mean a great deal.

On the ring finger of my right hand is my high school class ring, which I got in the tenth grade. Almost two decades later, I still wear it. We were able to pick from various designs in order to personalize the ring, so I aimed for things that were meaningful to me. Some of it is not so deep: the coloring is gold with a black inlay, it has a fake emerald for the month of my birth, with the name of my high school circling the base of the stone. On one side is the year I graduated and the school mascot: an eagle, talons out as if to catch something, wings outspread. On the other side is my first name, and below that a design consisting of a torch held high, with the atomic symbol just right of that, and in a diagonal overlay two words: Truth Honor.

Truth, Honor, Education! These are the things that mattered to me when I was 15, and still do today, the values that, when I think back over my life, were there in some nascent form even as young as 7 years old. They have evolved and shifted over the years, but have always grown deeper.

Truth: I realized sometime between 8th and 9th grade that I was miserable, I had no one I trusted in my life, no one I believed could be trusted. It occurred to me that if I desired people in my life I could trust, I needed to be trusted, to be trustworthy. I made an oath, a vow, that I would not lie. I would strive for the rest of my life to be honest, to stick to my word when given (and to not give it lightly), and be worthy of trust. It's worked out really well for me overall.

I cannot say that benefits were immediate. I still struggled with misery, with depression, not just then, but later in life as well. However, as time went on, some people recognized that I would speak the truth, and that I would stick to my word. As a result, I've heard things from people that were sometimes very ugly, stories of abuse or misery of their own. Others knew they could ask me a question, and get an honest answer. And yes, I found people whom I could trust.

My views of Truth, and of my personal vow, have changed and evolved over time. I still believed at that tender age that I needed to hide from people, and so I got very good at saying things that were literally true, while allowing others to misinterpret my meaning. Sometimes this was useful in being tactful while not lying, other times . . . well, I cannot say it was always the right thing to do, anymore than I can say I've never slipped up and failed to live up to my own ideal. I am human. It is a fact that despite our best intentions, most (or all) of us will slip up from time to time. I do not intend that as an excuse, simply . . . a statement.

My focus has shifted from simply desiring trusted people in my life, to considerations of individual's personal truth, to desiring and seeking objective truth. And that is where I sit now, looking to the work of science to give the world the truth of reality, not as we might wish it be, but as it actually IS. In an introductory philosophy course in college there was a discussion of hedonism, with the following thought experiment presented: if you could be placed in some sort tank that would sustain your life for the length of your lifespan, while also having your emotions and mind stimulated so that you could constantly experience a level of pleasure unknown in normal life for the rest of your life, would you want that? Assume, if you must, that society has already made allowances for such a decision, and that it's accepted and normal, so that you will not be harming anyone by doing so, or that you won't be reducing anyone else's pleasure by doing so. The original presenter of the thought experiment assumed that the only answer anyone would make is "Hell, yes!" My answer is "NO, reality is more important than pleasure." Of course, the fact that reality offers so much in the way of wonder and fascination -- from the sheer bizarro workings of particles smaller than an atom, to the proliferation of life in all it's myriad forms (have you ever taken a look at some of the creatures and ecologies in the deep ocean? it's like another planet down there!), to the crashing of galaxies -- is a distinct pleasure. Yet, even were it not, my answer would remain the same.

Honor. Concerns of honor were much on my mind then, and still are, though I think more in terms of ethics or morality than I do "honor." If you'll notice in my first post I describe how concerns over evil and God's actions in the Garden were instrumental toward starting me on a path to being an atheist. Integrity, ethics, morals. When I study philosophy, these are always my primary concern. I've mentioned before that my grandfather is a pastor, well, he's also the closest thing I have to a father figure in my life (for some reason, I just never had that kind of connection with my stepfather). As such, he's been a large influence in my life. One memory doesn't even have him directly in it, just his influence. I was at my grandparents house, and my grandmother was talking to someone, I don't recall who, and telling a story of something that happened recently to her. Apparently, she'd been having a conversation with one of her lady friends, and this lady friend started talking about something or other going on in her life that had been troubling her. The problem was, the lady was talking as if Grandma knew all about it, without providing any background details to the issue. Frankly, Grandma was confused. When she asked what the lady was talking about, she responded something to the effect of "I told [your husband] all about it when I talked to him." My grandmother had to explain that when someone discusses something with her husband in confidence, than as far as he's concerned that discussion is between the person, him, and God. Get that? He doesn't even tell his wife! That's as it should be. Though I disagree with my grandfather on what he considers the very foundation of his life -- faith in a personal God, and that faith is any kind of virtue -- I nonetheless hold him in the highest esteem, with this story being but an example of why.

I hold that concerns of ethics should be a primary concern in all people's lives. Without it, we could probably construct plenty of laws that would keep society orderly, but how could we possibly expect that anyone would choose to avoid breaking such laws if they thought they could get away with it? And some would indeed get away with it. How could we ever think to raise our children in a way that leads to fulfilling lives for all, without an ethical concern?

Education. The class ring as a whole is an homage to an educational facility, and I firmly believe in the value of a good education. I look at the problems of the world, especially in America, and it strikes me that a direct cause of much of our ills comes down to a poor education. When parents refuse to vaccinate their children for fear the vaccine is at best worthless, and at worse causes problems like autism, that's an issue of critical thinking and knowledge. But critical thinking is not the sole province of smart people, it can be taught, the province of education. When so many people stop taking an antibiotics course before it's gone just because they feel better, and as a result we start seeing the emergence of drug resistant bacteria, that's a failure of education. When we see evolution decried as "just a theory," and legislative bodies seeking to force teachers to teach the "theory of creationism/intelligent design," that's a failure of education to explain just what a scientist means when he or she uses the word "theory," and the reams of evidence necessary to earn that name.  It's been shown time and again that higher levels of education lead to greater economic opportunity for the educated, which leads to better economic health for society as a whole. How can there be any doubt that education is vastly important? Yes, education is definitely a core value of mine.

I wear this ring not for any fond memories of my high school years, and not for any sense that high school was a high point in life (it was actually a rather low point), but for what the ring has come to symbolize: truth and trust and objectivity and ethics and morals and education and a better life as a result.

Tradition

Perhaps you have heard of or seen a film called "The Fiddler on the Roof?" I can't remember the last time I actually sat and watched the whole thing, as it is at times slower than the films I like to watch, and quite long. Plus, no dragons, lasers, robots, or superheroes. Anyway. It's a musical (and I do love musicals) with some rather delightful songs, and one who's title line has always stuck in my head is "Tradition!" It's the opening number of the film, split between Tevye (the milkman) speaking to the audience and explaining the importance of tradition to the people of his village, Anetevke, and the chorus of villagers explaining traditional roles. Their lives are shaky, uncertain (the film takes place in Russia during a time of great Jewish persecution), like the balance of a fiddler playing on a roof, and tradition helps them maintain balance in their lives. Everyone has a place, and knows just who they are and what's expected of them, thanks to tradition. They even have traditional feuds, like the time when *he* sold a horse to _him_ that was *he* told _him_ was 12 years old, when it was only 6.

It's powerful, this sense of tradition. And it remains powerful even in 21st century America. We have traditional holidays, traditional dress for men and women, traditional gatherings, traditional foods, and traditional feuds. When those traditions are broken or unable to be followed, it can be distressing. The first time I couldn't go to my parents home for Thanksgiving was a sad time, and when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, many, I suspect, were distressed at the idea that Mardi Gras might not be able to go forward. Thankfully, it did. I'm sure you yourself could think of many traditions that you would not wish to miss out on.

Yet, it is in large part because of tradition's power that we need to always be willing to examine our traditions, and to determine if those traditions we hold dear (or not so dear) are still worth keeping. To go back to the "Fiddler on the Roof," it was traditional for the Jews of Anetevke to have fathers choose who their children would marry, often when they were still quite young, yet as the movie progresses 3 of Tevye's daughters all seek to marry a man of their own choosing, each one seemingly worse than the last from a traditional perspective. Is that a tradition that should be maintained?

When considering a tradition, there are always going to be multiple things to consider: is it fun? is it beneficial? is it used to memorialize some event that should not be forgotten? is it necessary? in what way is it necessary? is there a better way? And most important, is it ethical? Choosing who your children will marry may have had benefits, such as ensuring that your children will in fact get married, and thus have social stability protected, the family line will continue, there may be financial considerations, political benefits (ending some of those traditional feuds), etc. But at the same time, it denies those individual children, who will some day be adults, the freedom of choice to choose who they will spend a lifetime with, having sex (effectively legitimizing rape of both the man and woman), raising children, interacting with day in, and day out. If the man does not like the wife who was chosen for him? Too bad. It's tradition. Can there be any doubt that when these things are taken into account, this tradition can only be called unethical? If the tradition is unethical, should it not be eliminated? Of course.

Not all traditions are good traditions. Some are downright harmful (female genital mutilation, for example), some are just boring as hell (sitting through multiple commencement speakers at graduation -- ok, that one might have a redeeming feature or two), some might have had a purpose at some point in time, but no longer have a purpose (I don't have any examples for that one, can anyone else think of one?). It's not always immediately obvious whether a tradition is a good tradition, and as such, all traditions must be open to critical  examination, and never defended solely on the basis of "But it's a tradition." If a tradition is found to be unethical, or harmful, it needs to eliminated, or modified to address those concerns. If it's simply boring, can we spice it up a bit? If it had a purpose once, but that purpose is no longer valid, is it worth keeping as a memorial, or because it's fun, or for any other good reason? If so, by all means hold on to it.

Christmas, for example. On the one hand, I'm an atheist, so clearly, I have no desire to celebrate the birth of Jesus, so you won't see any Nativity scenes in my home, I'm not likely to sing traditional, religiously themed carols, or go to Christmas church services. I worked in retail for a number of years, at the local mall, in a store geared toward children, so I'm quite familiar with the commercialization of Christmas. But, I like the get togethers of family that we traditionally engage in. There's a beautiful song by Tim Minchin, called "White Wine in the Sun," that captures my feeling exactly. So, original purpose? Gone, and was never really valid. Memorial? Nope. Fun? Oh yea, definitely. If you ever saw a gathering of my in-laws when the white wine's a-flowing (or even when it's not), you'd agree. And while there's no white wine flowing on my side of the family, there's still fun to be had. I have yet to find any ethical concerns with the tradition as we maintain it, but there's a sense of belonging and connection that I quite like. I think I'll keep this one.

"You may ask, how did this tradition get started? I'll tell you...I don't know. But it's a Tradition!" -Tevye, "Fiddler on the Roof"

1 Corinthians 4:19-21

From time to time, I will be selecting certain passages from the Bible that seem to have a moral dimension to them, and judging them. I won't often, if ever, consider the factual issues of the Bible, i.e., historical or scientific facts, since such questions are dealt with in far greater detail and by those far more qualified than I in other publications. I will use the King James Version primarily, but will occasionally contrast that with other modern translations.

Today's selection was suggested by my wife: 1 Corinthians 4:19-21. I hadn't been aware of this particular passage before, so I checked out the chapter, trying to see if maybe there was a context that could mitigate the boldness of it. I could not find such a context. Here's the text:

¹⁹But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. ²⁰For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. ²¹What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? (KJV)

For comparison, here's the New International Version of 2011:

¹⁹ But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. ²⁰ For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. ²¹What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline, or shall I come in love and with a gentle spirit? 

For background, Paul is writing to the Corinthians because he's heard some disturbing tales of dispute and division amongst the church members there. He has a variety of things to say about the divisions, of course, but here he's saying that those who have been speaking arrogantly against him, and causing division, will be answering to him when he gets there. It's not the words they say that he intends to test, but their power.

Might makes right. Let's not engage in discussion and debate, for that's arrogance. Power. I will shut you up, because I have it, and you don't. Whatever happened to turning the other cheek? I suppose he does ask if he should arrive and be meek instead, but he also makes it clear which choice he prefers.

Paul has been held up as one of the more important writers of the Bible, so this is pretty damn interesting, wouldn't you say?

Judgement: Immoral.