dwnomad

According to a recent Pew Forum study:

Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.

On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively. Protestants as a whole average 16 correct answers; Catholics as a whole, 14.7. Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education.

I don’t find this surprising at all. In my own experience the more I studied Theology the more I doubted and the more I doubted the more I checked out other world religions to see if they might be a better fit. They all turned out to be worse fits than Christianity and the way my church and church school upbringing villainized atheism forced me to hold out as long as I could hold together my cognitive dissonance.

Since leaving my faith behind, I have tried to keep up with what’s going on in the religious world since, well, they’re the ones that are doing their best to curtail civil liberties and try to oppose science.

Nobody takes becoming an atheist lightly, a fact that this survey attests too. Oh and for the record, I took the quiz and got 100% and this is after a few beers…

One reader has suggested that I may be passionately exposing the delusion of God. Yes, I think that the very notion of an all powerful supernatural being is a delusion, but I can’t prove that there isn’t one, so I’m not very passionate about exposing that delusion. Let’s look at the ones that I am actually passionate about:

I am passionate about exposing the delusion that leads to the acceptance of obviously ludicrous ancient myths that should not be taken any more seriously than the myth that Romulus and Remus were nursed a wolf.

I am passionate about exposing delusions that deny well established science. The kind that leads people to making ignorant claims based on half truths and outright lies and distorting or ignoring the evidence, especially when its based on the same ludicrous myths I already addressed above.

I am passionate about exposing the delusion that denies students being given the facts of science in all accredited schools. I think that even in private schools students should learn about evolution and not just arguments against it. I sure wish I would have been given the opportunity.

I am passionate about exposing delusions that lead people to restrict the civil liberties of others, such as with the GLBT community.

I am passionate about exposing the delusion that our nation was founded on the principles of a delusion, a position that is supported by quote mining and outright lies and popularized in part by people who don’t know how to check the validity of an email before they hit the “forward” button.

I am passionate about exposing the delusion that promotes faith over reason, doctrine over knowledge, and belief over thought.

I think a better question than if I am too passionate would be could I be too passionate about critical reasoning, intellectual and academic integrity, historical accuracy, and civil liberties.

I know this is a four year old discovery, but it’s just awesome. As I’m sure you are all aware, scientific theories attempt to explain things. The better the theory the better it explains things and the better it will predict that which has yet to be found. Tiktallik is a great example of this. There was a gap in the fossil record between lobe finned fish and tetrapods, since this gap spanned 380 – 360 million years ago it was the place to look. What they found was Tiktallik roseae a lobe finned fish with lungs, amphibian like ribs, limb like fins, and a neck. If you haven’t checked out this ancient member of our family tree, I highly recommend it. Unfortunately the University of Chicago hasn’t been maintaining this site very well so some features won’t work with Flash 10.1 and a few links are broken.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/index.html

A few weeks ago I eluded to the issue of marriage equality. Yep, I’m talking about same-sex marriage. I’m straight and I’m not too sure that anybody should get married considering the near certainty of divorce, and things such as alimony, so I definitely do not have any personal interest in this topic.

So when we talk about marriage, as far as the legal sense, we can simplify it as a legal contract with certain privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities. In a lot of ways its like incorporating, just restricted to a man and a woman (in most jurisdictions). So what are some of the common arguments against allowing any two people of legal age to enter into this contract?

1. The Argument from History – Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, so it should continue that way. Since it’s a historical argument, we should look at a few facts of history. For the majority of history marriage was between a man and one or more women of the same race, tribe, and class. So as far as history goes, this argument fails.

2. The Argument from Nature – Homosexuality is unnatural. Let’s look at human history: Classical Greece, medieval bath houses, medieval universities, and King Philip of France and his lover Richard, Duke of York (aka King of England) and their lovers quarrel during the Third Crusade. Homosexuality in humans has been observed and documented for as far back as we have documentation. How about the animal kingdom? Chimpanzees, banobos, gray whales, orcas, bottle nose dolphins, big horn sheep, bison, dogs, cats, and rats are just a handful of mammal species who have been observed to engage in homosexual relations. Regardless of if you like it, it’s perfectly natural.

3. The Argument for Families – Marriage exists for having families and raising children. This fails on several grounds. First, is that there are plenty of people who get married who either cannot or choose not to have children. There is no fertility test to get a marriage certificate and no expiration if no children are produced (although in the case of Henry VIII there was one and that never turned out well for his wife). Second, is the fact that there are plenty of gay and lesbian couples who do have children, either from prior relationships, adoption, or sperm donors/surrogacy.

4. The Argument for the Children – Children do best with both a mother and a father. Regardless of if this is true, there are plenty of children who have single parents or even no parents. There are also plenty of straight people who are horrible parents. I think it would be safe to say that children do best with two mentally and emotionally stable parents. There have been few studies about people who were raised by same sex couples, but as it turns out they are no more likely to be gay than anybody else and they are just as well adjusted as anybody else. It would seem that anything that promotes stability and permanence in a loving, committed relationship would be good for the children. So again, this argument fails.

5. The Argument from Religion – Marriage is a religious institution and the Bible says it’s between a man and a woman. This fails on two grounds. First off, the Bible doesn’t say that, unless you want to be an elder/bishop. What it does say is that it’s between a man and one or more women. Secondly and more importantly, IT DOESN’T MATTER. If marriage is a religious institution and the government has any involvement in it, then it violates the establishment clause. It’s either religious or its civil. Those who want to be able to define marriage based on their religion should be trying to get it off the law books.

I already know what a few of you are going to say, “Why can’t they just have civil unions so we don’t have to call it marriage?” Ever heard of “separate but equal?” Since people ultimately object based on their religion, let’s end the debate by taking it out of the equation. How about civil unions for all?

This is one of the greatest current tests of American secularism and so far most of the country is failing miserably.

The story in Genesis of the “Fall of Man” is a story of magical fruit. There is the fruit of the “Tree of Life” and the fruit of the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Both fruits together would make people like God by giving them both knowledge and life, as odd as this is, there is something more curious about this tale.

After Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge, they were kicked out of Eden so they wouldn’t have access to the Tree of Life. Their death sentence for eating one magical fruit was carried out by being deprived of another magical fruit. According to this logic, if Adam and Eve had simply stopped eating the fruit from the Tree of Life then they would have still died, even if they had maintained their innocence.

If this story is true, then it is obvious that God knew that the intelligent beings he had created would have chosen knowledge over dogma (do not eat this fruit) so he built their mortality in to the system and allowed them temporary access to the medicine that would keep them from succumbing to their design as long as they blindly followed the dogma.

Talk about sick and twisted.

Humans are programmed for belief. Michael Shermer explains why:

Let’s look at some statistics from the ARIS 2008 report:

Christians make up 76% of the US population.
The non-religious make up 20%.
Other religions make up 4%.

How about the Christian break down:
Catholics are at 25.1% of the total US population.
Other Christians are at 50.9%.

If we allow religious beliefs to be what results in the law of the land then we will have a case where the majority is forcing their religiously motivated values on the rest. So what are a few things that the majority of religiously motivated people in America could agree on?

• Close businesses on Sunday mornings.
• Ban alcohol sales on Sundays.
• Force sporting events to air after 2:00 pm on Sunday.
• Prohibit the manufacture and distribution of pornographic materials.
• Prohibit homosexual behavior.
• Remove the teaching of evolution from high school biology classes.
• Allow teachers to lead prayers in schools.

If you are fine with that then I ask, what happens when those demographics change? Let’s look at the tyranny of the majority that can come from some other groups reaching a critical mass:

• Catholics – banning birth control.
• Muslims – instituting Sharia law.
• Buddhists – mandatory vegetarianism.
• Jews – mandatory kosher and Sabbath observance.

If you think I’m being a little alarmist here, let’s just look at a few countries which are not secular and what they currently have on their books:

• Canada and the UK – voluntary Sharia law courts as an alternative to civil courts.
• The United Kingdom – Anglican Bishops holding legislative seats by nature of their church position.
• Ireland – Priests accused of sex crimes facing ecclesiastical courts instead of criminal courts.
• The Muslim World Iran and Saudi Arabia – Sharia law: loosing a hand for theft, death for homosexuality, adultery, and apostasy, and honor killings having either no prosecution or minimal sentence for just a few examples.

In that first example, due to the lack of a secular government, religious minorities get to have their religion gain legal authority.

The US Constitution has providing the “Blessings of Liberty” as a stated goal. All religions have their “thou shalt nots.” There is no way that we can have the blessings of liberty if we let people’s thou shalt nots enter our laws or our courts. In the pluralistic society we have today, secularism is more relevant than it ever was.

Edited at 6:19 PM MDT on Sept 22, 2010.

In the Tuesday segment my initial thought was to cover recent scientific discoveries, but it’s also of relevance to address and debunk pseudoscience. Kent Hovind, aka Dr. Dino, formerly of Creation Science Evangelism, is currently serving a 10 year sentence for tax fraud. This is a man for whom reason comes with much difficulty. Anyway, there is a great site that addresses the logical fallacies and factual errors of his work. The Hovind Theory is his version of how the flood accounts for the fossil record, geologic column, coal, geologic formations, etc. A lot of this material was familiar to me as I had heard many of these arguments growing up. So, for a succinct transcript of his theory with in line debunking check out:


http://www.kent-hovind.com/theory.htm 

If you would like to see the work of Dr. Dino and Dr. Dino, Jr. check out the Creation Science Evangelism site at:


http://www.drdino.com/

Next week I will be sharing some good naturalistic science.

(Thanks to Jeff for the link.)

Growing up, I had the assumption that the US was a Christian Nation. This thought went unchallenged until college, when Pastor John Cress gave a sermon during a religious liberties themed service at the Walla Walla College Church where he very convincingly showed that the US was founded on enlightenment principles mostly by deists.

He took an hour, I need less than 600 words. We will only cover two documents of supreme legal significance, as that is all that is needed. To establish what is considered the “supreme law of the land,” let’s look at clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”

So let’s start with the Preamble of the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The entire Constitution makes no mention of God, a creator, or specific religion. The only original mention of religion is found in clause three of Article VI and states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

The authority the Constitution appeals to is “the People of the United States” and one of the goals defined in the preamble is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty.” If the Founding Fathers had been trying to set up a Christian nation then we can assume that the preamble would likely have appealed to “God’s divine providence” or the “Grace of Jesus Christ” for authority and they would have been interested in securing the “Blessings of God.” This is of course an argument from silence, which is admittedly one of the weakest  forms of argument.

We can safely note that the Founding Fathers did identify several things they failed to cover adequately in the Constitution. The first was corrected by the Bill of Rights. A few years later they found the need to make an explicit official pronouncement of the religion of the nation.

On June 7, 1797 the “Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary” was unanimously approved by the US Senate and President John Adams. Article 11 of this great treaty reads:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

Did you catch that, “the Government of the United Sates of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” For those who buy into the myth that the US was founded as a Christian nation, I ask how could the Founding Fathers have been any clearer?

Then man said, “Let us create god in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the wind and the rain and the thunder and lightning and all of the forces of the earth.”

So man created god in his own image.

And man blessed them. And man said to them, “Make the land fruitful so we can multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Then man grew crops and raised livestock so they could give offerings to the god they created. Then with the power they claimed their god gave them, man enslaved other tribes and subjugated the women among them. Then when the men saw all that the god they had created had done for them, they said, “It is good.”

*Much of the language here is borrowed from Genesis 1:26-28 ESV.