Friday, July 20, 2007

Maybe God is faking it too?

Richard May headshot by Richard May

At least you apparently exist. But I see a lot of people faking it. They're a little nervous sometimes that they may not exist or have a life. They constantly talk on cell phones and play with electronic gizmos when in public. And, of course, smoke cigarettes, fiddle with matches and lighters, and text message. If you're smoking you're really doing something, like people in TV commercials, so you must exist! You can't just sit there and take in the scenes, bathing in the impressions. Someone might notice that you have no shadow.

People who are beginning to suspect that they don't exist like to eat outside, where they can be seen by others, who may exist, it is thought. Please someone look at the tattoos on my Volvo, my unique identity, confirm my existence for me. As you walk by them they look to see if you have noticed them. I never look. They can look at me not noticing them. At least I don't claim to exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

May-Tzu

Read More...

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Taking the Conversation Back

Kay Vaughan headshot by Kay Vaughan

This article was originally an e-mail response to an Urban Legend that was forwarded to me. The sender obviously thought it was a true account of a court proceeding. After checking it out on snopes.com, it was found to be an Urban Legend. Here it is:

Subject: Wise Judge

In Florida , an atheist became incensed over the preparation of Easter and Passover holidays. He decided to contact his lawyer about the discrimination inflicted on atheists by the constant celebrations afforded to Christians and Jews with all their holidays while atheists had no holiday to celebrate. The case was brought before a wise judge. After listening to the long passionate presentation by the lawyer, the Judge banged his gavel and declared "Case Dismissed."

The lawyer immediately stood and objected to the ruling and said, "Your Honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? Christians have Christmas, Easter and many other observances. Jews have Passover, Yom Kppur and Hanukkah......yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."

The judge leaned forward in his chair and simply said "Obviously your client is too confused to even know about, much less celebrate, his own atheists' holiday!"

The lawyer pompously said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any such holiday for atheists. Just when might that holiday be, your Honor?"

The judge said, "Well it comes every year on exactly the same date.....April 1st! Since our calendar sets April 1st as 'April Fools Day,' consider that Psalm 14:1and Psalm 53:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, in my opinion, if your client says there is no God, then by scripture he is a fool, thus April 1st is his holiday!"

Pray that some day our courts will be full of these kinds of judges.....maybe then, we can put God back where He belongs.........in everything we do.....

Way to go, Judge!

Here is my response verbatim:

Okay, dear XXXX, you asked for it!

As you can see from what I've included below, the article you forwarded is an Urban Legend, a joke or a lie, depending on whether you believe it or not. I often wonder why religious people tend to turn to "Urban Legends" or lies to get their point of view across. I believe it's because they have based their whole life on an "Urban Legend" or a fairy tale.

In the article the judge is suppose to have quoted some verses in Psalms. Psalms was written by various people at various times, but the verses they quoted were written around 1000 B. C. At that time in our history, people believed that the world was flat. Furthermore the God of the Old Testament was cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.

Did you know that there are 400,000 versions of the New Testament? Our culture has chosen to prefer the King James Version which is not the most authentic.

In their wisdom our founding fathers wrote the constitution in a way that religion is suppose to be kept out of our courts. They knew what it was like to be controlled by a government based on religion and they had fled from that. Everyone knows about all the people in history that have been massacred because of religion and still are being murdered because of religion.

Here are some quotes from Thomas Jefferson: "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise . . .without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.

And another one: "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

This quote if from James Madison: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

And from James Adams: "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." He also said, "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"

Did you know that five of our Supreme Court justices are Roman Catholics? My dad thought the pope was responsible for putting Kennedy, a Democrat, in as president. I wonder what he would of thought of our Supreme Court? The funny part is that they were all put in by Republicans. I wonder what he would have thought about that?

This is the origin of Christmas:

December 25 was a significant date for various early cultures. The ancient Babylonians believed the son of the queen of heaven was born on December 25. The Egyptians celebrated the birth of the son of the fertility goddess Isis on the same date, while ancient Arabs contended that the moon was born on December 24.

The Romans celebrated Saturnalia, a feast named for Saturn, god of agriculture, on December 21, the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere. They believed the shortest day of the year was the birthday of the sun. The Roman emperor Constantine was a member of the sun-cult before converting to Christianity in 312.

Some scholars suspect that Christians chose to celebrate Christ's birth on December 25 to make it easier to convert the pagan tribes. Referring to Jesus as the “light of the world” also fit with existing pagan beliefs about the birth of the sun. The ancient “return of the sun” philosophy had been replaced by the “coming of the son” message of Christianity.

The origins of Easter:

Christians celebrate Easter to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some aspects of modern Easter celebrations, however, pre-date Christianity.

Ancient Spring Goddess

According to the Venerable Bede, Easter derives its name from Eostre, an Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring. A month corresponding to April had been named "Eostremonat," or Eostre's month, leading to "Easter" becoming applied to the Christian holiday that usually took place within it. Prior to that, the holiday had been called Pasch (Passover), which remains its name in most non-English languages.

It seems probable that around the second century A.D., Christian missionaries seeking to convert the tribes of northern Europe noticed that the Christian holiday commemorating the resurrection of Jesus roughly coincided with the Teutonic springtime celebrations, which emphasized the triumph of life over death. Christian Easter gradually absorbed the traditional symbols.

As far as April fools day goes, the origin is unclear.

On the lighter side, this is what Mark Twain said about April 1st: "April 1st: This is the day upon which we are reminded of what we are on the other three-hundred and sixty-four.


Pertinent Parts of the Snopes Report on This Urban Legend:

Origins: This item, which began its Internet life in 2003, is another politics-cum-humor item which has prompted numerous "Is this real?" inquiries from readers, even though it is presented in a standard joke format: no specific details, a somewhat farcical set-up, and a punchline pay-off. It's clearly a fictional humor piece, not a literal account of an actual court case. Indeed, in substance it mirrors this item, which was unambiguously circulated as a joke on a humor mailing list in 2002:

An atheist complained to a friend, "Christians have their special holidays, such as Christmas and Easter; and Jewish folks celebrate their holidays, such as Passover and Yom Kippur. EVERY religion has its holidays. But we atheists," he said, "have no recognized national holidays. It's unfair discrimination."

His friend replied, "Well...Why don't you celebrate April first?"

This humor piece utilizes a fantasy court case with exaggerated elements to make its point. The "godless" representative for the plaintiffs is not presented as bringing any legitimate constitutional issue before the court; he's simply complaining that Jews and Christians have religious holidays while atheists have none. (What sort of injunctive relief he might be seeking isn't specified — does he expect the judge to issue a Grinch-like restraining order prohibiting any celebration of Christmas whatsoever?) The "wise" jurist's hands may be bound by the law, but not so his heart. He doesn't even need to hear from the defense — as soon as the plaintiffs are done presenting their arguments, he summarily dismisses their case and brands them "fools" to boot. In this drama the atheists have gone to the legal well once too often, and this time they get the worst of it.

Sometimes the clearest view of what a text like this one is all about comes from those who take inspiration from it, through their voicing of what they perceive as its message. For example, these trailing comments added by unknown forwarders who identified with the piece (and presumably mistook it for a summary of a real court case) speak directly to its nature:

PRAY THAT SOME DAY OUR COURTS WILL BE FULL OF THESE KIND OF JUDGES...

MAYBE THEN, WE CAN PUT GOD BACK WHERE HE BELONGS — IN EVERYTHING WE DO...

Way to go, Judge!

The power of illustrative anecdotes often lies not in how well they present reality, but in how well they reflect the core beliefs of their audience.

Read More...

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Jihad

Brian Schwartz headshot by Brian Schwartz

Sometime in the late 1980s, Tom Wolfe, chronicler of the movement of love and leftwing politics that had painted a rainbow across the drab post-Eisenhower era, tried to set down in writing how the dream had died. He wrote that all religious movements -- and he considered that decade-long summer of love one -- inevitably passed through several phases. First comes one energized by revelation, mystic knowledge and emotion. Then all this gets codified, and passed on not by emotional experience but by verbal command, and then the bureaucrats take over. At some point another era of emotion emerges, and challenges the ossified bureaucracy.

Now whether or not this process explains the 1960s, it certainly sheds some light on the great waves of religious fervor which, emerging every few centuries, sweep across anything in their path with all the force and suddenness of a tsunami. Luther, Calvin, Knox and the emergence of Protestantism is one such wave, and the Puritanical movements of the 1820s in England and America another. (The Amercan part of the tale is told in Revivals, Awakenings, and Reforms (1978),by William G. McLoughlin.) Lately, a new religious fervor based on the mystic acceptance of Christ has emerged on the plains and praries of the American hearland.

And if one studies the long long history of Hindu India, one finds outbreaks of religious revival every few hundred years. The earliest, and most influential, gave us Buddhism, and Jainism too. But there are many others, strange and often sadistic cults that arose in the 9th century AD, only to disappear a few years later and then, around 1100, far more influential, the influence of Madhvacharya and Ramanuja, the Bhakti and Vedanta movements all energized and deepened Hinduism.

Islam has known such times, and in fact its beginning may be considered such a time, as its armies swept across Africa and Asia, carving a crescent from Morocco on the Atlantic to, ultimately, the Bay of Bengal and beyond. And there have been many since, the emergence of Sufism (a gentle Jihad indeed) during the secular, politicized days of the Abbasid Caliphate, the work of the Hanbali scholar Ibn Taymiya, who in the early 14th century condemned all governments not ruled by Islamic law, the Fulani Jihad that raced across West Africa in 1810, the emergence of Salafism in Cairo and Wahhabism in the harsh lands of Arabia.

Many if not most of these movements have challenged the legitimacy of the secular governments of the time, which they viewed as effete, corrupt and ungodly -- which most of them were. And so it was to be expected that the most recent of such reform movements, which began about 80 years ago with the Muslim Brotherhood and continues to this day, would do the same. For a time, it did. In the early 70s, it fought King Hussein in Jordan, and a few years later challenged Assad in Syria; forced underground in Iraq, it loomed as a constant threat to secular Saddam. All of these dictators squelched it ruthlessly, killing tens of thousands, in the Hama massacre in Syria and Black September in Jordan.

When I first read about these movements of religious reform, I thought it would be wonderful to see one. And now I have but sad to say it's become diverted (and strange how so many Populist groundswells become diverted, channeled into xenophobia and racism, perhaps by the ruling classes they threaten), not purifying Islam, not attacking the corrupt and tottering dictatorships of the Middle East, but wasting its time attacking America. What a shame. Though perhaps its leaders are right to recognize Coca-cola consumerism as the biggest threat to religious fervor.

Read More...

Friday, May 18, 2007

Look Ye Not To The Heavens!

Richard May headshot by Richard May

The observable universe is merely a deception of Satan. The universe was created last Friday at 3:23 P.M., before Happy Hour. But Satan has implanted false memories to test our faith in sacred delusion, lies and ignorance. Those on Earth, who love gross stupidity will be saved on CD rom. On Judgment Day this will be converted to a hyperdimensional DVD format that works with Internet Explorer, occasionally. Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, pagans, agnostics, mystics, Hindus, Quakers, Schroedinger's cat and Jesus, Himself, will burn in the hell of the loving Father for eternity, for prefering truth, beauty and reason to the moral and intellectual idiocy of fundamentalism. Psychopaths and rabid Protestant fundamentalists alone will be taken during the Rapture. Dark matter was created by Satan as a deception during the endless end times, hence its darkness.

May-Tzu

Read More...

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Zen Atheist Cat's Got My Tongue

"If the facts prove Buddhist tenets are wrong, the tenets will have to be changed."
—The Dalai Lama

. Sean J. Vaughan headshot by Sean J. Vaughan

I have gotten swept up in the new Atheism wave. And yet I remain Zen Buddhist. Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" has outspokenly helped put Athesism back into the global consciousness where it needs to be. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Barker and others are respectfully and reasonably showing the merits and logic of embracing atheism. And I love it! I'm enthused!

However, I have had a deep challenge figuring out whether I can remain Zen Buddhist and at the same time embrace my Atheist roots and understanding. Something as serious as religion best not be taken on faith.

I'm tired of trying to justify the great zen master saying that the cat burgler made the tofu rise to the top of the pot with its mind bullets. (The story: tofu was being stolen, the zen master meditated all night next to the tofu pot, a cat watched the pot until tofu rose to the top, the cat ate the tofu). Sure, the cat indirectly showed the zen master the enlightening fact that the water/tofu temperature inversion can cause tofu to rise in water. But if you don't grasp this temperature inversion, you're not listening to the cat, Mister Master.

And, I'm sorry but there is not a hungry ghost in the plumbing. I don't mind cleaning every speck of food out of my bowl, believe my 250 pounds. But don't tell me any remaining specks going down the rinse are going to choke a hungry ghost.

And as for the zen master enlightening a general by making a river run backwards: THAT'S quite a Mystery Spot. Don't make me go crazy trying to justify craziness.

Many might find me a bit childish for taking the stories so literally. Can I no longer even enjoy secular art, movies, books and such? Well, I usually enjoy those things. I guess giving up all fiction in pursuit of truth might be more difficult than going along with, gasp, faith. Maybe I just need to lighten up. The Middle Path and all. Honestly, though, nobody had a smirk on their face when they told me about the hungry ghosts. What I need, then, is some clear indicator for the important stories. From what I can tell, they're all basically jumbled together.

Good, there is an indicator. When it comes to stories and beliefs, science comes first and the rest come second, or not at all. Our words are not the realities they point to. At the same time, humans have a very basic sense for learning about reality through storytelling and metaphor. This sense is quite possibly more intuitive and refined than our sense of reason at this point in our evolution. Through storytelling, religion can provide an artistic and intuitive way of understanding complex reality just like learning about ourselves by watching a good movie. And, these stories can help us until we need to understand the more complex scientific foundations behind the stories or, more directly, reality itself.

Just don't lead me to believe the foundations are an old white-bearded man out there everywhere pulling the string theories. Or that there's a big bad boogie man (not a God, mind you!) that wants me to do his brand of evil so he can torment my soul for the rest of eternity. Or that cat huffing is imbibing the flying spaghetti monster's body. Or that legendary zen masters could make rivers flow backwards before our eyes. Puh-leez.

I discussed my personal zen athiest dilemma with the abbot of my zen center and he didn't banish me. Phew, what a relief. He noted that zen comes before God, before Atheism, before Buddhism, before words. HUT! Just this. Clean perception mirror. Oh, yeah!

Read More...

Monday, March 19, 2007

The Importance of Belief

Richard May headshot by Richard May

I wonder, does God, cultivate irrational beliefs in Himself or is this only of importance for us?

I do strongly believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

This is what He wants of me most of all.

Read More...

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

The Miracle Of Intelligent Design

Richard May headshot by Richard May

If the universal constants of physics were not so precisely fine tuned by the IDIOT (Intelligent Designer Of Time), then I would not be standing now in the precise geometric center of all hyper-space(s), sending out smoke signals to the stars, searching for extraterrestrial intelligence, and waiting for interstellar spam. The miracle would be if nothing existed.

Read More...

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Brahms the Freethinker

Music was his religion.

Dan Barker headshot by Dan Barker

How many parents, soothing their children to sleep with Brahms's Lullaby, know they are singing a melody written by a freethinker?

Johannes Brahms, the great German composer known as the "3rd B" (after Bach and Beethoven), did not believe in a god.

Born in 1833 — the same year as American freethinker Robert G. Ingersoll — Brahms shed his Christian upbringing early, though not without being fully informed. Jan Swafford, in Johannes Brahms: A Biography, writes of the young composer: "Though he was to be a freethinker in religion, Johannes pored over the Bible beyond the requirements for his Protestant confirmation." From then on, "Music was Brahms's religion."

In his teens, Brahms would prop books of poetry on the piano to divert himself while playing for drunken sailors in a Hamburg bar. His favorite poet, from whom many of his lyrics sprang, was the anticlerical G. F. Daumer, described by the Catholic Encyclopedia as an "enemy of Christianity" who "strove to substitute a new religion 'of love and peace.'" (In later years, Daumer converted to Catholicism.) Brahms's works were also influenced by philosophy and literature, including Hoffman, Schiller, Robert Burns, Jean Paul, and Friedrich Hölderlin. He had a keen interest in science, and could hold his own debating politics, literature, religion and philosophy.

An avid hiker who loved the outdoors, Brahms often turned to nature for ideas. "A great deal of his music," writes Swafford, "in its inspiration and spirit, rose from mountains and forests and open sky." The melody for the finale of the C-minor Symphony actually traces the shape of the Alps, as Brahms viewed them during a hike.

Brahms occasionally used biblical texts, but only for artistic reasons. After the death of his mother, he wrote the popular Ein deutsches Requiem (A German Requiem, 1867), but was careful to select only those biblical lyrics that relate to this life and to those who grieve. The Requiem starts with "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted," and avoids talk of eternal salvation. Noticing this secular spin, conductor Karl Reinthaler, who had studied theology and was working closely with Brahms on the Easter Week premiere, wrote to Brahms: "Forgive me, but I wondered if it might not be possible to extend the work in some way that would bring it closer to a Good Friday service . . . what is lacking, at least for a Christian consciousness, is the pivotal point: the salvation in the death of our Lord. . . ." In other words, what about Jesus?

"Brahms was not about to put up with that sort of thing," Swafford writes. "He was a humanist and an agnostic, and his requiem was going to express that, Reinthaler or no. . . . With the title A German Requiem he intended to convey that this is not the liturgical requiem mass in Latin, nor a German translation of it, but a personal testament, a requiem. Brahms avoided dogma in the piece for the same reason . . . even if the words come from the Bible, this was his response to death as a secular, skeptical, modern man."

Brahms responded politely but firmly to Reinthaler: "As far as the text is concerned, I confess that I would gladly omit even the word German and instead use Human; also with my best knowledge and will I would dispense with places like John 3:16. On the other hand, I have chosen one thing or another because I am a musician, because I needed it, and because with my venerable authors I can't delete or dispute anything. But I had better stop before I say too much."

He had already said enough! The verse Brahms explicitly discards is central to Christianity: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Swafford concludes:

"Brahms means that he could do without that verse and that dogma, in Ein deutsches Requiem and in his life. If he was a North German Protestant by tradition and temperament, he was not in his faith, which like all his convictions Brahms held close to his chest. For himself he would not call Christ a particular son of God. Meanwhile, to Reinthaler he downplays the theology of some verses he does use, saying, 'I can't delete or dispute anything' from Scripture. With that he obliquely confesses that even the hints of resurrection lingering in his texts are not his own sentiments. At the end of his Requiem, the dead are not reborn but released: 'they rest from their labors.' It is that rest from his own lonely labors that Brahms yearned for someday, as his mother rested from her life of poverty and toil."

When Brahms sometimes spoke of immortality, it was metaphorically, jokingly. To his publisher, he once wrote:

"Done! What is done? The violin concerto? No… One knows nothing definite; even the most credulous doesn't… And I am credulous. Indeed, I believe in immortality—; I believe that when an immortal dies, people will keep on for 50,000 years and more, talking idiotically and badly about him — thus I believe in immortality, without which beautiful and agreeable attribute I have the honor to be — Your J. Br."

To his friend Richard Heuberger, Brahms, who never married, said,

"Apart from Frau Schumann I'm not attached to anybody with my whole soul! And truly that is terrible and one should neither think such a thing nor say it. Is that not a lonely life! Yet we can't believe in immortality on the other side. The only true immortality lies in one's children."

Clara Schumann, by the way, the virtuoso pianist and composer who was a true life-long friend of Brahms, also had little use for the church. "Performing was her religion," Swafford observes. "The world saw Clara Schumann as a priestess, something like a saint. If there is such a thing as a secular saint, surely she was one."

Brahms also used non-biblical gods for his own purposes. The text for Gesang der Parzen (Song of the Fates, 1882) is from Goethe's Iphigenia: "Let the race of man, Fear the gods! They hold the power, In eternal hands, And they use it, As they please..." However, Swafford notes that Brahms's own "gods" were earthly, not supernatural: "When he said to George Henschel, 'As much as we men . . . are above the creeping things of the earth, so these gods are above us!' the gods he spoke of were his personal ones, his real religion: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, and the others. Now he approached his age with the gods of the earth vanished, and the ones in the heavens silent and unapproachable."

While working on Nänie, his commemoration of the death of his friend, the painter Anselm Feuerbach, Brahms wrote another friend: "Won't you try to find me some words?... The ones in the Bible are not heathen enough for me. I've bought the Koran but can't find anything there either."

Brahms was not just a nominal unbeliever. He often had well-thought opinions on religion. Pastor and playwright Josef Widmann, who once expressed to Brahms his support of the Theological Reform movement in Switzerland, was surprised to find Brahms "not only cognizant of the issue but with forceful and contrary opinions about it." Brahms pronounced it "a half-measure that would satisfy neither the pious nor the freethinkers," Swafford writes.

Remarkable for that time and place, Brahms was never anti-Semitic. "Toward the end of his life," Swafford notes, "responding to the antisemitism that had become endemic in Austrian politics, Brahms was heard to growl, 'Next week I'm going to have myself circumcised!'... Brahms may have idolized Bismarck and the authoritarian Prussians, but he remained a liberal and a democrat at heart."

When the Christian Socialists finally elected Karl Lueger vice-mayor of Vienna in 1895, ending the long liberal rule, turning Austria formally anti-Semitic from then until Hitler, Brahms remarked to his friends: "Didn't I tell you years ago that it was going to happen? You laughed at me then and everybody else did too. Now it's here, and with it the priests' economic system. If there was an 'Anticlerical Party' — that would make sense! But antisemitism is madness!"

Brahms hated the music of Anton Bruckner, a devout believer whose works were later performed with gusto by the Nazis. "Everything is affectation with him, nothing is natural," Brahms said. "As to his piety — that's his business, it's nothing to me."

But Brahms admired the music of Dvorák, whom he had helped financially when the young Bohemian was a struggling writer. In later years, they had occasion to become well acquainted. "As the two of them talked," Swafford writes about one of their long conversations, "Brahms rambled on about his agnosticism, his growing interest in Schopenhauer, the philosopher of pessimism (Wagner's favorite). On the way back to his hotel with violinist Josef Suk, Dvorák was thoughtful and silent. Suddenly he exclaimed with real anguish, 'Such a man, such a fine soul — and he believes in nothing! He believes in nothing!'"

Dvorák's "fine soul" assessment was not hyperbole. Brahms the unbeliever was always generous and helpful, sharing his wealth liberally, living simply and humbly, giving of his time and energies to others. Swafford relates an exciting and illuminating event when Brahms was spending the summer of 1885 in Mürzzuschlag:

"One day a carpenter's shop in his house erupted in flames. Brahms ran from his workroom in shirtsleeves to join the bucket brigade to fight the fire, shouting at well-dressed passersby to lend a hand. In the confusion someone pulled him aside and told him his papers were threatened by the blaze. Brahms thought it over for a second, then returned to the buckets. Richard Fellinger finally extracted from him the key to his room and ran to save the score of the Fourth Symphony. When the fire was out—his rooms were not touched—Brahms shrugged off the threat to his manuscript with 'Oh, the poor people needed help more than I did.' He followed that up by slipping the carpenter money for rebuilding. (He could, after all, have rewritten the symphony from memory.)"

Not only was Brahms's Lullaby (Wiegenlied) written by a freethinker, but its story might be considered scandalous by some Christians. The song was written in honor of the birth of a child of Brahms's friends Bertha and Artur Faber in 1868. Years earlier, Brahms had briefly fallen in love with Bertha when she was a young visitor to his female choir in Hamburg, and during the playful courtship she used to sing him a lilting 3/4-time Viennese melody. The romance ended, but the friendship endured, and the melody that Brahms later composed for the private lullaby was a creative counterpoint to the earlier love song that the child's mother would remember singing to the composer. When he presented the gift to the Fabers, Brahms included this note to her husband: "Frau Bertha will realize that I wrote the 'Wiegenlied' for her little one. She will find it quite in order... that while she is singing Hans to sleep, a love song is being sung to her." Bertha was the first person to sing Brahms's Lullaby, both love melodies dancing flirtatiously in her head.

Brahms enjoyed near perfect health until the last few months, not even reporting as much as a headache, rarely visiting a doctor. On the morning Brahms's life ended in Vienna in 1897 — he was almost 64, felled by liver cancer long before he was ready to go — there was no death-bed conversion, no regret for living a godless life. Artur Faber (Bertha's husband), had come to the sick man's bed that morning to give him a glass of wine for his thirst. "Oh that tasted fine. You're a kind man," Brahms said, his last recorded words.

Johannes Brahms did not seek immortality, but he got it anyway: not in children, not in heaven, but in the beauty he bequeathed to the world.

Source:

Johannes Brahms: A Biography, by Jan Swafford (1997, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.)

Dan Barker is a part-time professional jazz pianist. This article first appeared in Freethought Today, May 2002.

Read More...

Monday, February 26, 2007

Should God Grow Up?

Richard May headshot by Richard May

God and gods are clearly at least in part mythical. But the question remains does the word "God" also refer to something real, but probably not a physical phenomenon, in addition to its mythical meanings. I'm not certain that the word "God" has an agreed upon definition in the sense of Western scientific concepts, but this does not necessarily mean that it is meaningless. Perhaps the concept of "God" needs to be further refined and developed, as the concepts of matter and energy have not remained unchanged in the past several thousand years.

Astrophysics and astronomy no longer claim that the Earth is supported by a stack of tortoises. But one is supposed to think that if a god exists, then it must possess the anthropomorphically projected personality of Zeus or some tribal god of ancient desert nomads named Yahveh, who kindly ordered the genocide of every man, woman and child of the Canaanites and in Deuteronomy 22 allegedly said that it was just fine to stone your bride to death with a bunch of the guys, if she was not found to be a virgin on your wedding night. Though hardly modern the Yoga sutras of Patanjali and Buddhism did rather better than this primitive tribal anthropomorphic stupidity of proclaiming a god more violent than even men. Most religionists apparently think they have a complete understanding of the "word of God", when we don't even have an complete understanding of the word of men.

May-Tzu

Read More...

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Atheism Defined

by Dan Barker

Dan Barker

Some have raised again the question of the definition of atheism/agnosticism. (Actually, I might have prompted the discussion in a recent email about a talkshow I did on Christian radio.* For about 20 years I have been one of the leading atheists in the US, and I am always asked to define precisely what those words mean.)

Right at the start there is a problem — though it is not a problem created by atheists. Different dictionaries often give different definitions. Dictionaries usually include one or more of these definitions of "atheism":

  1. The denial of the existence of a god. (Or, as [a list participant] puts it, "the belief that there is no god." Or the dogma that god does not exist.)
  2. The disbelief in the existence of a god. (Or some other way to say this, such as "the absence of a belief in god.")
  3. Wickedness. This is usually last, and it is sometimes presented as informal usage. ("Wickedness" or "lack of moral standards" is more often a description of the word "godless" or "godlessness," which is the same as "atheism." And quite an insult.)
Some dictionaries only give one of those definitions, and some give both. Except for #3, both primary definitions are correct, as understood by atheists themselves.

Looking up a word in the dictionary is not the best way to study a topic. How many Christians, for example, would trust the dictionary to explain their religion? (According to some dictionaries, a "Christian" is reasonably defined as a "follower of Christ," and by that definition Adolf Hitler, who was a member of the Catholic Church in good standing and claimed to be doing the will of Christ, was a Christian.)

My understanding and usage of the words "atheism" and "agnosticism" conforms to most atheistic literature, historical and contemporary , such as:

  • Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, by Michael Martin (1992, Temple University Press)
  • Atheism: The Case Against God, by George Smith (1980, Prometheus Books)
  • The Encyclopedia of Unbelief, edited by Gordon Stein (1985, Prometheus Books)
  • Atheism, and other addresses, by Joseph Lewis (1941, Freethought Press)
  • What is Atheism? A Short Introduction, by Doug Krueger (1998, Prometheus Books)
  • A Defence of Atheism, by Ernestine Rose (1810 - 1892)
… and others.

I admit that there is some disagreement among atheists, especially among philosophers (surprise, surprise). A few atheists think only Definition 1 is valid (because who would call herself or himself an "atheist" unless they are denying something?). Others think only Definition 2 is valid. And (I think) most of us think both definitions are valid. But those disagreements are not important to the actual question of whether a god exists.

Here's how I see it:

"Atheism" is a lack of belief in a god or gods. General atheism is not a belief — it is the absence of belief. (Corresponding to Definition #2.)
"Theism" is a belief, not a fact. Whether a god exists or not is indeed a question of fact, but "theism" is a belief system. Some theists do claim to know that a god exists, but they are a subset of theists. They all have a belief, whether they claim to know or not.

The prefix "a-" is the privative Greek prefix meaning "without" or "lacking" or "not" in the privative (not negative) sense. The prefix "a-" is not the same as the prefix "anti-".

For example, amoral does not equal immoral. Someone who is apolitical is not opposed to politics. Music that is atonal is not music that is anti-tonal (whatever that would mean).

And an atheist is not (necessarily) an anti-theist.

An a-theist is simply someone who is not a theist. Someone who lacks a belief, for whatever reason. Under this definition, every baby is an atheist. (See Stein, especially, on this point, as well as Rose. Stein goes to great historical lengths to show that this is precisely how atheist writers and activists have defined themselves, despite the general public's insistence that atheism is a belief.)

When it comes to the general question of whether a god exists or not, I am an a-theist in this privative sense. There are so many (perhaps an infinite number) definitions of the word "god" that there is no way anyone could say with confidence that they "know" that none of these gods exist.

However, there is a subset of atheists who do claim to know that a god (or a certain god) does not exist. These correspond to Definition #1, the denial of the existence of a god.

Atheist writers and philosophers have distinguished between these two types of atheism. Michael Martin calls it Negative Atheism (lack of belief) vs. Positive Atheism (denial). George Smith calls it Hard vs. Soft atheism. I call it capital-A "Atheism" vs. lower-case "atheism."

In any event, every positive-hard Atheist is also a negative-soft atheist — those who call ourselves "Atheists" who deny a particular god also lack a belief in any god.

You can be a soft atheist for any number of reasons. Your reasons don't even have to be defensible because you are defending nothing. Some people simply do not believe, and don't care. Some of them give philosophical reasons for their lack of belief. Some give emotional reasons, or political reasons (like the Soviet atheists). Some give social reasons, such as the church's opposition to gay rights or women's rights. Some of these people prefer to call themselves "agnostics" (more below), though they can be defined as lowercase "atheists" because they do not have a belief in a god.

But few of these soft atheists would be comfortable with the label "Atheist" as a description of who they are, like many religious people wear the label of their "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Jewish" faith as a personal identification.

Here's a simple way to test if you are an atheist (lowercase, at least). Ask yourself:

"Is there any 'god,' by any definition of the word 'god,' that I believe exists?"
If you can't answer that question with "Yes," then you are without a belief in a god. You are an atheist. You might prefer the label "agnostic," but I can call you an "atheist." (Calling such a person an "atheist" is not attaching a label — it is simply a description, like if I called you a female, not a "Female" signifying a member of a formal named religious or philosophical group.)

Having said all that, I personally take it a step further. Not only am I a soft atheist in general, I am also a hard Atheist in particular, depending on which god you are talking about. For example, regarding the "God of the revelation" (the Judeo/Christian/Islamic "God"), I am a positive capital-A Atheist. Not only do I lack a belief in such a god, I claim to know with certainty that such a god not only does not exist — it cannot exist. I deny the existence of that particular God. (I won't explain here, but I have good reasons for saying such a thing.) As far as most Christians in America are concerned, since they believe there is only one God, I might as well be labeled a hard "Atheist." The other gods don't matter to them.

So I am both an "atheist" and an "Atheist" depending on the god being discussed.

This means that there are some definitions of the word "god" that are either not clearly enough defined or about which I am insufficiently informed to make a decision. I do not necessarily deny their existence, but I certainly do not claim a belief in their existence. I am without belief, "atheistic," regarding those gods.

Some people confuse soft atheism with agnosticism, and it is easy to see the confusion. In fact, most atheists will claim that they are also agnostic, with no contradiction.

The mistake many make is to treat agnosticism as if it were a kind of halfway house between atheism and theism. But there can be no such thing. You either do, or you do not, have a belief in a god. There is no middle ground.

The distinction between atheism and agnosticism is simple, and once acknowledged, it erases the apparent conflict.

Atheism/theism addresses BELIEF.

Agnosticism addresses KNOWLEDGE.

You can be both an atheist and an agnostic. They address two different things. They are not mutually exclusive.

Every person who identifies himself or herself as an "agnostic" still has to answer the question: "Do you have a belief in a god?"

If they can't answer "Yes," they are atheistic agnostics.

If they answer "Yes," they are theistic agnostics.

For example, philosopher/mathematician Blaise Pascal was a theistic agnostic. Pascal said that you cannot know for certain if god exists, but it is safer to believe than not to believe, so he chose to believe in the Catholic God. (I know that is an oversimplification of Pascal's position, but you get the point.) I think Pascal's position is honest, at least. I think there are many Christians in the world who take that position, especially liberal believers: they don't claim certainty, but they value faith.

Agnosticism is not really much of a philosophy. It is a relatively new word, coined by Huxley more for PR purposes than to start a new school of thought. We already had the words "rationalism" and "skepticism." An agnostic is just a rationalist about religion.

An agnostic is a person who chooses not to make a Yes/No judgment about the truth of a proposition when there is insufficient data or reason to make a decision.

You can be an agnostic about UFOs, about the fidelity of your spouse, and about the character of your representative to Congress. But most often agnosticism is applied to the question of the truth of the proposition "God exists."

So … I am an atheistic agnostic about the existence of many defined (and undefined) gods. I don't claim either KNOWLEDGE or BELIEF.

If you think about it, the very notion of "faith" or "belief" requires agnosticism. If you KNOW something is true, you don't need faith. It is only when you lack certainty that you invoke faith.

The word "belief" is often used to signify doubt or uncertainty:

"It is 2 o'clock, I believe." "Let's have faith that Mom will survive the operation."

So in general, a "theist" (a believer in god) is a doubter, an agnostic. I suppose we could say that "Theists" (capital-A godders) are theists who claim to KNOW that a god exists. We could use the word "Gnostic" for this kind of god-worshiper, but that word has a certain historical usage limited to the pre-Constantine Christian mystery cults.

Did you know that the early Christians were called atheists by the Romans? They did not believe in the right gods.

In fact, every believer is an atheist regarding everyone else's god. No Christians believe in the existence of the Norse god Wodin, though they acknowledge that god when they use the word "Wednesday." There are HUNDREDS of gods about which Christians not only lack belief, but about which they positively DENY their existence. (I think they are actually stronger Atheists than I am in that regard.)

The only difference between me and them is that I believe in one less god than they do.

crossed legs drawing


* Indeed this article itself was originally message on an e-mail list.

Read More...

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

The Eyes Of Revelation

Truth of the only Christian on Earth during the End Times *

"The damned whore Reason...." "To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason." -Martin Luther

Richard May headshot by Richard May, scribe of Jessie

Jessie
Jessie -- the Christian cat -- apparently still engaging in the idolatrous heathen practice of omphaloskepsis

The original Biblical scriptures may have been produced by a large number of monkeys typing randomly over a 'very long' period of time (see below) or by a transcendent Creator monkey as part of a simian revelation to humanity. According to some versions, the Creator monkey had a Son who typed randomly, producing all the world's literature as well, in order to take away our sins by sacrificing His time by typing for us.

In any case the world was certainly not created in six days (this appears to be a foolish pseudo-mistranslation, see below) but in six minutes. It was a rush job, because God wanted to go on holiday or perhaps to a football game, according to some Christian scholars. All of the units of time mentioned in the Bible are literally our minutes.

There is also some emerging doubt as to whether the Biblical events are actually even on an ordinal scale, which leaves completely open the question as to whether or not the act of Creation has yet occurred. But it obviously insults God and is blasphemy to claim six days were spent on creation of this world, which may have only been an experimental prototype or developed by God when he was a child, just fooling around. Likewise the Creation is about five thousand seven hundred sixty-five minutes old or, in other words, has existed for just over four of our days. Science, an instrument of Satan, which has only existed for four days, cannot prove otherwise.

Clocks, calendars, carbon dating and 'memory', itself, are the deceptions of Satan. Satan has implanted false memories in our minds, leading to the sinful illusion that we are more than four days old. Recognizing this revealed Truth has the added advantage that both the Old Testament and New Testament were written only a couple of days ago in the contemporary English of the Protestant Christian Bible, rather than in 'ancient' Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The Jews have completely misunderstood 'their' scriptures for a few days now, because of their mistaken belief that the Bible was written in 'ancient' foreign languages, rather than contemporary Texas English, and addressed to believing Christians.

That the Bible is primarily a scientific manual of physics, cosmology, and biology, which consists of the literally true words for all time and in every detail of the Protestant Christian God as spoken to fellow Christians in modern English, there can be no doubt. However, what is seldom recognized is that the 'universe' or Creation, itself, to which the Holy Scriptures refer, is only symbolic and allegorical. This non-literal nature of the world of reality gives rise to confusion in the exegesis of the, of course, literally true Biblical scriptures.

The traditional creationist claim that man and dinosaurs co-existed at the same time and in the same place in the past is inaccurate and misleading. In fact man and dinosaurs still co-exist even today in Manhattan, i.e., their quantum wave functions still exist beyond time in the zero-point energy field at different frequencies in eleven dimensional hyperspace. We are just somewhat mutually unaware of each other at present. Nevertheless, it is the duty of a true Christian to attempt to also bring the dinosaurs to Jesus, if we cannot eat them first.

* "Recently my cat, Jessie, formerly a heathen Zen master, was born again, accepted Jesus as her Savior, and became the only Christian on Earth during the End Times! The following is from an exclusive interview with her, in her own words." -R.W.M.

Read More...

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Games, Simulation and Religion

Sean J. Vaughan headshot by Sean J. Vaughan

Tonight while putting my son to bed I shared some thoughts I have from time to time in terms he could understand...

Virtual Reality

It seems that games will be able to get as realistic as our everyday perceptions. A joint effort between MIT and Harvard has produced rudimentary, synthetic eye interfacing optic nerves with external cameras on eye-glasses. There are several other projects that are working on brain implants for other human-aiding tasks such as allowing quadriplegics to work with a computer. While actual working systems are rudimentary, there don't seem to be any insurmountable physical or technical barriers to interfacing our perceptive organs to synthetic systems.

sketch of Sean J. Vaughan and his son

Using our current perception interfacing agents, joysticks, keyboards, and mice, many people choose to inhabit rich synthetic universes. These universes include Everquest, The Sims, Star Wars Galaxies, Second Life, etc. There are many more.

It is thus easy to imagine a future where we can choose to inhabit a synthetic universe.

From my training in acting and zen, I've found there is a difference to what we think of as acting and what it is to be. One of the main acting guys basically said [good] acting is accepting imaginary circumstance as real and then simply being human.

In zen, we practice kung-ans (Japanese: koans). In a simple sense, these are mind puzzles; for example, one of the most common is, "What is the sound of one hand clapping." These are the lessons taught and learned in Zen. More deeply, these are gates for your self (or soul) to pass through that must be experienced to be answered. There is no room for hesitation, irrelevant thought or acting.

Be it the attainment of life lessons or otherwise, it is easy to imagine a person choosing to embed themselves fully into a simulated universe leaving memories of the real universe behind. Furthermore, for the secret of the real universe to be kept, this simulated universe must only contain others who have fully embedded themselves (i. e., w/o memories of the "real" universe).

At this point, assuming our senses are interfaced and input simulated perfectly and the other players in the synthetic universe are likewise, the synthetic universe is indistinguishable from our own real universe. Also, assuming the rest of our bodies can be simulated (or left behind), that doesn't leave much cause for keeping it around in the real universe.

Astonishingly, if civilization progresses and is able to support a synthetic universe as I've described above, we are likely simulations in a game now.

Ok, so now we have "The Matrix": big deal.

Getting back to my son, he had no response to this. It didn't seem to upset him but I think I succeeded in giving him his first mind fu"¦, er, twist. He was thoughtful about it but didn't have much to say. I may have added to his families' current and future therapy bills but hopefully it's for the good

What my mind's been playing with that I haven't shared with my son (for good reason!) is how religion makes a hell of a lot more sense when given we are living in a simulation. God? He's the fella that created our simulation. Jesus? He used the real universe's Instant Messaging system; yup he was able to get a direct account from here. He's like the first guy that got a gmail account and started inviting the rest of us into the system. Buddha? Whether you're synthetic or not doesn't really change what you are: apples are sweet.

References:

Papers collected under "The Simulation Argument: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?" Nick Bostrom, PhD; Philosophy Faculty, Oxford University.

General simulated reality info from wikipedia including quality external links.

The Boston Retinal Implant Project.

Everquest.

Star Wars Galaxies.

The Sims.

Second Life.

Read More...

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Salvation

If salvation is the cure, then atheism is the prevention.

Dan Barker headshot by Dan Barker

This article was included in the Carnival Of The Godless.

This is the abstract of a speech presented at the World Religions Conference "Silver Jubilee," October 1, 2005, in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada. Dan was invited to represent atheism at this 25th annual event, along with representatives of Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Christianity, and Aboriginal spirituality. The topic for all was "salvation." His participation was kindly sponsored by local Humanists, who joined Dan in singing "Die Gedanken Sind Frei" at the end of his talk.

Atheism is a philosophical position, a world view that disbelieves or denies the existence of god(s). It is not a religion. Atheism has no creeds, rituals, holy book, moral code, origin myth, sacred spaces or shrines. It has no sin, divine judgment, forbidden words, prayer, worship, prophecy, group privileges, or anointed "holy" leaders. Atheists don't believe in a transcendent world or supernatural afterlife.

Most important, there is no orthodoxy in atheism. We atheists do not expect conformity of thought or action. To freethinkers, allowing for differences of opinion is a sign of health.

Terry Mosher of the Montreal Gazette drew an editorial cartoon on March 5, 2002, saying:

"Here's a headline we never see: Agnostics slaughter Atheists!"
Atheists are simply people without theism.

However, many atheists have opinions about much of the above. We champion reason as the only tool of verifiable knowledge. For morality, most atheists follow humanism, a set of natural principles (not rules), that help us think about how to live.

In many religious traditions, "salvation" is a deliverance from one of the three "D"s: danger, disease, and death. Most believers see these in both natural and supernatural ways. Danger can arise from an occupying conqueror, or from the threat to morality and order by evil spirits or devils. Disease and death can be feared both physically and spiritually.

Dan Barker

(photo by Brent Nicastro)
Dan Barker, is co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation with Annie Laurie Gaylor, is the author of Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, three books for children on freethought and humanism, and more than 200 recorded songs for children. Before "losing faith in faith," he majored in religion at Azusa Pacific College and was an ordained minister specializing in a musical ministry. He has produced three tapes of freethought music, the "Friendly Neighborhood Atheist" CD, and the "Beware of Dogma" CD.

Atheists, with the same human desires and fears, also care about deliverance, but only as natural concerns. We see deliverance coming - if it is to come at all - in the real world, from our own human efforts.

Sometimes no deliverance is needed at all. The New Testament Jesus reportedly said, "They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick." (Matthew 9:12) We atheists consider ourselves whole. We are not sick. We don't need the doctor.

Suppose you were convicted of a horrible crime and sentenced to life in prison, but after a few years behind bars you are surprised to hear you are being released. This "salvation" would be a wonderful experience, but which would make you feel better: learning you were released because you were pardoned by the good graces of the governor, or because you were found to be innocent of the crime?

Which would give you more dignity?

We atheists possess "salvation" not because we are released from a sentence, but because we don't deserve the punishment in the first place. We have committed no "sin."

Sin is a religious concept, and in some religions, salvation is the deliverance from the "wages of sin" - death, or eternal punishment. Sin has been defined as "missing the mark" of God's expectations or holiness, or "offending God," so it follows that since there is no god, there is no sin, therefore no need for salvation. Only those who consider themselves "sinners" need this kind of "salvation." It is a religious solution to a religious problem.

We atheists might ask: how much respect should we have for a doctor who cuts you with a knife in order to sell you a bandage?

If salvation is the cure, then atheism is the prevention.

People who believe in "sin" and "salvation" have nothing to fear from us atheists. We are not barging into mosques, synagogues and churches dragging people from worship. If believers do not have freedom of conscience, then neither do we.

Most humanists define ethics as the intention to act in ways that minimize harm. Actions have consequences, so morality is a real-world exercise. A moral person is accountable. If my actions cause unnecessary harm, intentionally or unintentionally, then my "salvation" comes in trying to correct that harm, or to repair the damage as much as possible.

Canadian physician Dr. Marian Sherman, a prominent atheist from Victoria, B.C., in the Toronto Star Weekly (Sept. 11, 1965) article, "What Makes an Atheist Tick?" is quoted saying:

"Humanism seeks the fullest development of the human being. . . . Humanists acknowledge no Supreme Being and we approach all life from the point of view of science and reason. Ours is not a coldly clinical view, for we believe that if human beings will but practice love of one another and use their wonderful faculty of speech, we can make a better world, happy for all. But there must be no dogma."

When asked about death, Dr. Sherman replied: "It is the end of the organism. All we can hope is that we have found some sort of happiness in this life and that we have left the world as a little better place."

Those with a negative view of human nature might seek help in solving problems from outside humanity. But those with a positive view of human nature - a true hope - will work for "salvation" from within the human race, using the tools of reason and kindness.

For atheists, "salvation" is active problem solving.

We do not think there is a purpose of life. If there were, that would cheapen life, making us tools or slaves of a master. We think there is purpose in life. As long as there are problems to solve, hunger to feed, illness to cure, pain to lessen, inequality to eradicate, oppression to resist, knowledge to gain, and beauty to create, there will be meaning in life.

A college student once asked Carl Sagan: "What meaning is left, if everything I've been taught since I was a child turns out to be untrue?" Carl looked at him and said, "Do something meaningful."

If you want to be a good, kind person, then . . . be a good, kind person.

If salvation is the freedom from sin, then we atheists already have it. If salvation is deliverance from oppression and disease in the real world, then there is real work to do. In this ongoing effort, we atheists and humanists are happy to work shoulder-to-shoulder with the truly good religious people who also strive for a future with less violence and more understanding.



Other Dan Barker related Reason and Rhyme content:

Read More...

Monday, November 06, 2006

Millennial Fever in Retrospect?

by Fred Vaughan

Some time ago while on a business trip I asked a very sharp traveling companion a question regarding his religious standing, I found to my dismay that although he does not attend the church of his upbringing with his disgruntled wife, he does nonetheless believe its precepts because of its "accurate predictions"of latter day phenomena. When pressed concerning which phenomena, he explained what was so convincing to him although certainly not to me. Since the Soviet Union had typically been read into Revelations by my father-in-law in much the same way, I asked my colleague jovially whether "bears" had played into the final formula of the church of his apostasy as well. He knew instantly who the "bears"were and said with good humor, "Oh, yes. They were one of the opposing teams!"

"Go bears!"I cheered, not being able to resist a mild blasphemy.

We laughed somewhat awkwardly but suffice it to say that neither he nor I (for different reasons) have returned to our religious underpinnings based on his convictions. But he is one very clever individual. In addition there are others I know who give some credence to the end of the world being nigh at hand including a relative who just the other day attested that what is happening in Iraq and the Middle East was foretold in the bible. Evidently it is a quite natural frame of mind to interpret current events in light of traditional Christian scriptures - such concepts as Armageddon, the Apocalypse, Rapture, Christ's "return," resurrection of the dead, the "Millennium,"etc. were introduced there. Some would deny the association but it seems natural enough to me for anyone who entertains such possibilities which is, after all, the truly absurd aspect! My traveling companion considered it likely, however, that God would wait "thirty years or so after the year 2000 AD just so people can sneer at millennial fever and then, Bam!"He gestured with a closed fist. My God!

angel

Maybe, on the other hand, a millennium is like "K"years, popularly 1,000 but in actuality 1,024, (except as erroneously used in Y2K) such that 2048 AD would be the next significant eschatological date. There was, of course, the possibility that the operative phenomenon would be the transpiration of integral numbers of "the number of man and his number is six hundred threescore and six,"[Rev. 13:18] in which case 1998 AD would have been ominous! Man has, after all, demonstrated extreme folly at approximately such intervals: The origin of Christianity (or Christ's crucifixion, depending on how one looks at it), the emergence of Islam, European famine and Black Death, the Mother of All Battles or …

But if you think this article is going to be about that kind of "millennial fever," you're wrong! I think of all such reasoning as a "crock!" When people use terms like millennia, they invariably presume much more than is warranted. That the happenstance of our civilization adopting the decimal number system and that the value of the right-most three "digits" in the representation of the number of times the earth has revolved about the sun since some arbitrary point in time in that system happens to be zero seems to me to have no more significance than someone I know having been 38 when she had, in fact, been born in nineteen hundred and 38 which excited her no end at one point. (Guess when!) That is one thing.

Another thing is that civilization has survived less than nine such intervals - certainly insufficient for statistical significance even if there had been nine unambiguously validated extraordinarily prophetic events at such intervals.

However, there are phenomena for which millennia are reasonable units of time - the natural (uninterrupted) life expectancy of conifers in temperate rain forests, for example. And there are subatomic phenomena, the half-life of which make them easier to understand when they are averaged over such time scales. And the atmospheric temperature at the surface of the earth is such a phenomenon. Climatic variations caused by the elongation of the earth's orbit, volcanic activities, sunspots, giant meteors, etc. create spikes in the data which obscure trends when averages are made over appreciably smaller time scales. In the figure below this temperature data has been plotted with the area colored in below the curve. The abscissa is number of millennia prior to the year 2000 AD. (The curves below have been brought up to the minute by including data since the year 2000 in the circles continuation toward disaster.) In one sense the data seem harmless enough on this scale. Even the great ice ages, although apparent at the left of the plot and 15 or 20 millennia ago, seem fairly minor dips in the temperature when averaged over the whole earth for whole millennia.

Figure 1

But what is truly scary with regard to fever is the juxtaposition of data on atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over the same time interval as the temperature data. It would be difficult to argue that the underlying phenomena were not directly related. See the line plot in the figure. A second figure is provided to show the data with finer precisions since the industrial revolution. The data for CO2 are taken from the concentration in bubbles in ice cores from as much as two miles deep in glacial ice near the poles. The temperature data are derived from tree rings and other fossil growth indicators.

An advanced degree in eschatology from Oral Roberts University is hardly a prerequisite for interpreting this data. A hair raising prediction leaps from the page like "an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, 'Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth.'" [Rev. 8:13] All that remains to be revealed in these latter days is exactly how much the inflection in the temperature curve will lag the one in the CO2 concentration curve - maybe "thirty years or so after the year 2000 AD just so people can sneer at millennial fever and then, Bam!" (If Einstein had been a fundamentalist Christian he might have said, "God would have done it that way.") We now know that 1998 was not the year of revelation - the year of man. I guess we'll have to wait and see - the science of global warming is after all, like Christian eschatology, rather imprecise. But don't ignore it!

S/he who hath ears to hear, let her/im hear!

Problems worsen even as the US administration and congress vehemently ignore them!

* The circled data are update the plots to the current year.

Read More...

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Human Rights and Religion

by Brent Fredrickson

One of the considerations arising out of the topic of Islam in the modern world is that of the clash between human rights and freedom of religion. Members of all religions claim a right to practice their faith as they see fit. But some of the tenets of some religions come into conflict with other rights claimed by people in the modern world, e.g., with the rights of women. Another clash occurs between the rights of one religion and the rights of another. For example, many Islamic scholars contend that there is no right to leave Islam for another religion. Doing so is termed apostasy, considered an "insult to God," and almost always calls for some punishment, often the death penalty. But this position is in clear violation of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by U.N. General Assembly in 1948.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Note that this article doesn't just give parents the right to raise their children in the religion of their choice, but provides the clear right of people raised in a religion to leave it. It's this latter right which sets up a direct conflict between a major principle of Islam, the forbidding and the punishing of apostasy and the right of Muslims to leave their religion for another, or for none at all.

What is the appropriate attitude of those of us who are fortunate enough to live in Western democracies to the suppression of rights in some countries in the name of religion and culture? There seem to be two basic approaches to this question, and both of them are frequently voiced.

One answer is that the "imposition" of the "Western" idea of universal human rights on societies which don't want them is a form of cultural imperialism. Who are we, the argument goes, to tell other cultures what sort of rights they must have for their citizens. This view is, of course, a form of cultural relativism.

The other main answer is that there are concepts of human rights which are universal, and which apply to all peoples in all cultures. This is the view which is the basis for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the U.N. (1).

I agree with the second view, that of the universality of human rights. First of all, I think a good case can be made that those within repressive societies espousing the point of view that the notion of human rights is a parochial, "Western" notion are often among the oppressors in those societies rather than among the oppressed, so we may suspect their motives as being self-serving. In each of the societies to which this "principle" is applied there are people within those societies who disagree with the notion that they should be considered second-class world citizens in that they may be denied the human rights they seek because those who oppress them argue for some sort of cultural autonomy and "protection from the cultural imperialism of human rights." With respect to those in Western societies holding this view, I think the proper response is that if those who are oppressed by the lack of human rights in other societies don't buy this "cultural imperialism" argument, neither should we.

If the societies under consideration are undemocratic and repressive, a serious question arises as to who actually possesses the legitimacy to speak for the society in terms of discounting the rights of the victims of oppression within it. And when those victims cry out for assistance from sympathizers in democracies, are we to deny them assistance on the grounds that to render it would be a form of cultural imperialism, an unwarranted interference in the affairs of another society?

I would like to distinguish two forms of cultural relativism, a strong form and a weak form. I'm oversimplifying somewhat, because there's actually a continuum of views ranging from the strong to the weak. I consider the opposition to the universality of human rights because of considerations of cultural autonomy to be an example of the application of a strong form of cultural relativism, and I believe the strong form is incoherent, i.e., internally inconsistent. If the strong form were valid, then we would be unable to condemn any kind of behavior in another society approved culturally, because the cultural approval would trump our moral disapproval. So strong cultural relativists would have had nothing to say about the behavior of the Nazis in the Third Reich, because, after all, they were just following their own laws and customs, and it's the essence of strong cultural relativism that this is acceptable.

The notion of cultural relativism in its modern form gained currency based on a century or so of investigation of many cultures around the world by anthropologists. They observed that there are many societies functioning well, but that they seemed to have many different norms and customs. The entirely plausible notion became widespread that cultures in different situations faced different sets of problems and solved these problems by means appropriate to their situation. Hence, a norm which had social utility in one society did not guarantee its utility in another in a different situation. One example of the misapplication of a norm in the wrong context was that of missionaries persuading the natives of some tropical islands that they should wear more clothing, and not follow their custom of being "half-naked," as the missionaries saw things. But these islands had daily intense rainfalls, and the result of the excess clothing was that many got sick and died from walking around in wet clothing. A weak form of cultural relativism takes account of the differing social utility of different customs in different situations as they occur in various cultures. A little thought and the application of this principle likely could have avoided many unfortunate consequences of meddling missionaries.

What the anthropologists failed to do, however, was to notice that there were a number of universal principles which were found in all cultures. They made an inappropriate, though understandable at the time, generalization from the variety of customs they observed to the notion that all customs and morals were relative to time and place. (2).


If we accept the universality of human rights, along with the U.N. in its Declaration with all its signatories, then it's entirely appropriate that we call to account societies which deny people the right to change their religion or which oppress women in the name of culture or religion. The notion that human rights are not for everyone is insulting, I believe, to those who live under oppression in countries outside the West.


(1) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be found here: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html . It's well worth reading, and may be surprising to many, given how many states signed it. Unfortunately, it's far from being universally honored by those countries which gave their signatures and consent to it.

The rights detailed in the Declaration apply to citizens of all member states of the UN, not just to some subset of Western states for which we've reserved the concept, and since they belong to all citizens of all states in the UN, they therefore impose the relevant duties on those states. I'd argue further that they also impose a duty on those who agree with those rights to speak out for them when they're violated.


(2) Human Universals, D. E. Brown, 1991. For details see:

http://www.robotwisdom.com/ai/universals.html

Read More...

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Patriotism Was His Religion

Irving Berlin the Agnostic

by Dan Barker

Originally published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.

This article was included in the 52nd issue of the Carnival of the Godless.

How many patriotic Americans, proudly singing "God Bless America," realize that the song they are intoning was written by a man who did not believe in God?

Or that it was intended as an anti-war anthem?

Irving Berlin is by any measure the greatest composer of popular American music, with hundreds of enduring hits, such as "Alexander's Ragtime Band," "I Love A Piano," "Always," "Blue Skies," "Let's Have Another Cup of Coffee," "Cheek to Cheek," "Marie," "Play a Simple Melody," "There's No Business Like Show Business," "Anything You Can Do," "Easter Parade," and "White Christmas."

Born in 1888 into a Russian Jewish family who came to New York City to escape religious persecution when Irving was five years old, he quickly shed his religious roots and fell in love with America. He became an American citizen when he was 29. "Patriotism was Irving Berlin's true religion," writes biographer Laurence Bergreen in As Thousands Cheer: The Life of Irving Berlin (1990).

Irving Berlin was "not a religious person," according to his daughter Mary Ellin. Relating the story of Irving's marriage to Ellin Mackay in 1926, whose devout father had a deep reluctance to welcome a "lower-class" Jew into the wealthy Catholic family, she writes:

"About religion -- Jew and Catholic. My mother has broached the subject of being married by a priest. She herself, though she goes to mass, keeps up appearances, doesn't believe in all that anymore, she assures him. She has had such a strange religious upbringing: a Protestant like her mother till the divorce, a Catholic since. But a priest might help soften her father. Irving, however, the cantor's son, doesn't see himself being married by a priest. Though he is not a religious person, doesn't even keep up appearances of being an observant Jew, he does not forget who his people are." (Irving Berlin: A Daughter's Memoir, by Mary Ellin Barrett, 1994.) They got married in an unannounced secular, civil ceremony at the Municipal Building, not a church or synagogue.

Once they had children, Mrs. Berlin did try to keep up a minimal appearance of religious tradition. Mary Ellin writes that her unbelieving parents "had their first bad fight when my mother suggested raising me as a Catholic . . . ."

The Berlins had three daughters. "Both our parents," Mary Ellin recalls, "would pass down to their children the moral and ethical values common to all great religions; give us a sense of what was right and what was wrong; raise us not to be good Jews or good Catholics or good whatever else you might care to cite, but to be good (or try to be) human beings. . . . When we grew up, she said, we would be free to choose--if we knew what was best for us, the religion of our husband. . . . It wouldn't quite work out, when we 'grew up,' as my mother hoped. All three of us would share our father's agnosticism and sidestep our husband's faiths."

The man who wrote "White Christmas" actually hated Christmas. "Many years later," Mary Ellin writes, "when Christmas was celebrated irregularly in my parents' house, if at all, my mother said, almost casually, 'Oh, you know, I hated Christmas, we both hated Christmas. We only did it for you children.'"

So why did an agnostic humanist who hated Christmas write the song "White Christmas?"

Undoubtedly, it had something to do with the businessman in him. When his friend Cole Porter confessed that he hated his own "Don't Fence Me In," a surprise international hit, Berlin advised him, "Never hate a song that has sold a half million copies." (Cole Porter, by William McBrien, 1998.)

Christmas, for Irving Berlin, was not a religious holiday: it was an American holiday. He simply needed a melody in 1940 for a show called Holiday Inn, an escapist "American way of life" musical (when all hell was breaking loose in Europe) which called for a song for each holiday. The words to "White Christmas" are not about the birth of a savior-god: they are about winter, the real reason for the season.

Biographer Bergreen writes about the Christmas of 1942:

"Accustomed to traditional holiday celebrations, Ellin arranged for a Christmas tree to be delivered to Berlin's hotel suite in Detroit, where he was performing in This is the Army, and with the girls' assistance she proceeded to decorate the tree while a photographer memorialized the occasion. The photograph of the songwriter, his wife, and family decorating the Christmas tree, when reproduced in the newspapers, served as another plug for 'White Christmas.' Berlin, the cantor's son, rationalized his participation in the Christmas rite on the basis that it had become an American holiday, and as a professional patriot, he made a habit of appropriating all things American to himself."

This U.S. postage stamp (above left) was issued in a ceremony in New York City in September 2002, one year after the 9/11 WTC attacks. Out of agnostic Irving Berlin's 1,500+ songs, "God Bless America" was chosen to represent his life's work.

"God Bless America" was originally written in 1918 for a patriotic WWI show. Irving Berlin had joined the army, and (according to Harry Ruby, his pianist colleague at Camp Upton) to avoid getting up early each morning, Irving convinced his superiors to allow him to serve his country by producing a musical for military PR. It was a light-hearted life-in-the-army show called Yip, Yip Yaphank, including the comic bugle call "Oh, How I Hate to Get Up In The Morning."

As he was finishing the writing, "Berlin composed one unashamedly patriotic anthem," Bergreen writes, "which spoke of prairies and mountains and oceans white with foam. He called it 'God Bless America,' but even as he dictated it to Ruby, Berlin became insecure about its originality. 'There were so many patriotic songs coming out everywhere at the time,' Ruby recalled. 'Every song-writer was pouring them out.' As he wrote down the melody, Ruby said to Berlin, 'Geez, another one?' Deciding that Ruby was right, that the song was too solemn to ring true for the acerbic doughboys, Berlin cut it from the score and placed it in his trunk. 'Just a little sticky' was the way he described the song. 'I couldn't visualize soldiers marching to it. So I laid it aside and tried other things.'"

The song was forgotten for two decades. During those years, Irving Berlin's attitude toward war evolved.

In 1938, while the United States was resisting joining the new European conflict, the singer Kate Smith was looking for a song to perform during her Armistice Day broadcast--a "song of peace," she said. It happened that Irving Berlin was also casting about for an idea for a pacifist anthem. Almost no one in America wanted to go to war. "I'd like to write a great peace song," he told an interviewer, "but it's hard to do, because you have trouble dramatizing peace. Easy to dramatize war. . . . Yet music is so important. It changes thinking, it influences everybody, whether they know it or not."

He tried writing a couple of peace songs, but they were "too much like making a speech to music," he said. It then occurred to him to dig up that discarded composition from 1918.

"I had to make one or two changes in the lyrics," Berlin continued in the interview, "and they in turn led me to a slight change and, I think, an improvement in the melody. . . . One line in particular; the original line ran: 'Stand beside her and guide her to the right with a light from above.' In 1918 the phrase 'to the right' had no political significance, as it has now. So for obvious reasons I changed the phrase to 'Through the night with a light from above,' and I think that's better.

"One of the original lines read: 'Make her victorious on land and foam, God bless America, my home sweet home.' Well, I didn't want this to be a war song, so I changed that line to 'From the mountains to the prairies to the oceans white with foam, God Bless America, my home, sweet home.' This longer line altered the meter and led to a change in the melody."

Kate Smith sang Berlin's peace anthem on national radio on November 11, and it became an immediate hit.

"The reason 'God Bless America' caught on," Berlin tried to explain to The New York Times in 1940, "is that it happens to have a universal appeal. Any song that had that is bound to be a success. . . ."

Discussing the mystery of what makes a hit song, he continued: "The mob is always right. It seems to be able to sense instinctively what is good, and I believe that there are darned few good songs which have not been whistled or sung by the crowd."

This was "a populist credo, as well as a merchant's," Bergreen observes. Irving Berlin may have been right about the business of the mob's taste in music, but he never envisioned "God Bless America" becoming a pro-war anthem, as it is often sung by "the right" today.

Some of us freethinkers might wonder why an agnostic would write a song about "God" at all, especially a Jewish agnostic who must have known that the capital-G "God" is perceived by most to be the Christian deity. But just as "White Christmas" is not about Christ, "God Bless America" is not about God; it is about America. Irving Berlin was not an atheist evangelist; he was a songwriter and businessman who wrote and sold music that reflected the popular mood.

"'God Bless America' revealed that patriotism was Irving Berlin's true religion," Bergreen writes. "It evoked the same emotional response in him that conventional religious belief summoned in others; it was his rock."

Even though Irving Berlin occasionally used the word "God" in a poetic sense, never once in his more than 1,500 songs did he ever promote religion.

"I don't write church lyrics on the side," he once told a journalist, "have no passion for flowers, and never read Shakespeare in the original Greek."

In fact, he sometimes poked fun at faith.

Four years after the original "God Bless America," Irving Berlin wrote "Pack Up Your Sins and Go to the Devil in Hades," a song for his 1922 Music Box Review performed at the new Music Box Theater in New York, which he had built especially for his productions. The song was about the recent "jazz" craze that was sweeping the country, which was being condemned by the Church.

"In the press and from pulpits, self-appointed guardians of public morality decried this dancing bestiary," Bergreen writes. "Matters became so serious that a New York grand jury investigated, and after due deliberation arrived at a 'presentment condemning the turkey trot and kindred dances and laying particular stress on the fact that the hotels and cafes allow such dances.' " People were arrested for dancing! Some lost their jobs for dancing during lunch breaks.

During Berlin's 1922 rebellious revue, an attractive comedienne named Charlotte Greenwood, dressed in a red devil suit, dispatched popular jazz musicians to hell singing, "They've got a couple of old reformers in heaven, making them go to bed at eleven. Pack up your sins and go to the devil, and you'll never have to go to bed at all." (See sidebar.) The song is the perfect antidote to "God Bless America."

Irving Berlin died quietly at home in 1989 at the age of 101. A patriotic agnostic who devoted himself to enriching America, he lived a productive life full of family values, hard work, determination, and joy. He did not believe in an afterlife; but maybe he did jokingly wish for a hell, because "all the nice people are there."

As Mark Twain said, "Heaven for climate; hell for society." If there is a hell, we unbelievers will be in great company.

Dan Barker, a former minister, is a staff member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Dan's father Norman Barker can be seen playing the trombone alongside Judy Garland as she sings "I Want to Go Back to Michigan" in the 1948 musical movie of Irving Berlin's "Easter Parade."

"Pack Up Your Sins and Go to the Devil in Hades" is recorded on Dan's new "Beware of Dogma" CD produced by the Foundation. Also on that CD is a parody of "God Bless America," and the new freethinking "God-Less America," re-written by Dan Barker and Steve Benson.

Read More...