Evidence of the Afterlive; I'm Skeptical - Website

An update to our review of Evidence of the Afterlife; The Science of Near-Death Experiences.  As it turns out, the book is extremely light.  I've been told that most books intended for a lay audience are written around a sixth-grade level.  If that's the case, Evidence is written at a third- or fourth-grade level.

There are interesting tidbits though; for example, on the Near-Death Experience Research Foundation's website, there is a little page titled "Skeptic's Corner."  My favorite article there is Debunking the Debunkers by Jody A. Long.

The entire "debunking" is done on the basis of straw-men and ad hominem attacks.  From the opening paragraph:

On one hand you have those who consider the experience as real (usually the experiencer), and on the other hand you have the nay-Sayers (the non-experiencers) who consider the experience nothing more than brain-chemistry.  In the middle of the road, are those who seek truth – the true skeptics.

Interestingly, this statement excludes both "believers" and "unbelievers" from the category of someone who genuinely seeks truth.  She manages to insult both believers and skeptics at the same time!

The first part of the article is just silly; Long defines "skeptic" as one who "habitually questions assertions or generally accepted conclusions."  Fair enough.  She also defines "cynic" as "one who believes all men are motivated by selfishness."  She then simply paints anyone skeptical of an afterlife as being "cynical" instead of honestly "skeptical."

. . . techniques used in the Lancet commentary such as implying that the whole experience was imagined or that the experiencer was fancifully filling in the gaps. What better way to discredit an NDEr than to assume they are lying about their experience or convince others that the NDEr is of unsound of mind?

I love how we go from "the experience could have been imagined, or your mind could have filled in the gaps" straight to, "you're lying or insane."  It's just grossly dishonest to say that our skeptical response to NDEs is to simply say that the person is lying.  Memory is highly fallible, as well; nobody is saying that you have to be insane to formulate false or unreliable memories, far from it, especially memories that you are highly emotionally attached to, or that came from an altered state of consciousness!

Whenever there are some glaring facts that don’t fit into a preconceived world view, these facts are conveniently ignored.  The most ignored facts that NDE cynics gloss over are those that occur in the out-of-body phase of the NDE.  There is no way possible that brain chemistry can be argued when a person is verifiably DEAD, . . .

This is the exact opposite of true.  The out-of-body experience is one of the most (or one of the only . . .) testable hypotheses of these claims about NDEs.  Thus, it's one of the easiest methods of falsifying Long's hypothesis, as we'll see in that chapter of his book.

Inventing false explanations can best be seen by Susan Blackmore . . .  While some of these explanations may be true for some of the reports, they certainly are not true for all accounts.

Of course, there's no reason given why there has to be some NDEs that these explanations simply don't work for.  Long simply states, as a matter of fact, that not all NDEs could be a result of these naturalistic "false" explanations.  She returns to this statement several times over the course of the rest of the article.

These are all examples that Long gives of tactics and rhetoric used by "cynics" as opposed to "skeptics."   It only gets worse, though, when she talks about what would be good evidence, presented by skeptics.

In a court of law, there are rules that allow people to testify (give their oral narratives) to the truth of the matter. . . .  Therefore, much of Susan Blackmore’s arguments against NDE would fail the relevancy test. When viewed in the context of the near death experience, the explanations lack probative value because false explanations do not tend to prove or disprove NDE since they only apply to a few of the NDE accounts.  Moreover, even if false explanations were allowed as evidence, they could still be excluded because false explanations tend to cloud the real issues; and ultimately, they are a waste of time since no single explanation or group of explanations that she gives results in a total explanation for all NDEs.

Long equates a skeptic's naturalistic explanations for NDEs to a testimony given in court, which is a really spectacularly bad analogy. Even ignoring the fact that she tries to name the same issue as two separate cases against the skeptic's argument, a testimony given in court is a specific account given about a one-time event, by a witness to the event.  It's not comparable to giving a naturalistic explanation for a large number of events at all.  I suppose one could still insist that NDEs are evidence of an afterlife, and that a skeptic pointing out naturalistic explanations for NDEs is "irrelevant," but you'd be wrong.  It's pretty close to the most relevant response possible, actually.

Long takes her courtroom analogy and runs with it, rightly acknowledging that their case for the afterlife is built entirely upon hearsay.  She rightly states that usually, hearsay is such a terrible excuse for evidence that it's inadmissible in a court of law (which is saying something, since the debate standards in a court of law are already far, far less rigorous than the standards for a scientific debate).  Amazingly, she claims that hearsay can be very good evidence:

However, even hearsay can be reliable in court.  Some of the exceptions that apply to NDE are called present sense impressions and excited utterances. The rationale of the rule is that the “element of spontaneity reduces the chance of misrepresentation to an acceptable level.”  Even more reliable is evidence obtained while a person is under the stress of the excitement caused by the event or condition, with the key being the spontaneity of the statements.

It should be obvious that this rule only applies when we're trying to get at someone's genuine impression of a situation (especially a situation that's not too complicated, where we can conclude that there's a minimal chance of them just being flat-out wrong about what happened).  Equally clear is how bad such testimony is when trying to determine the objective reality of a very amazing, complex situation.

If a man shot someone else, and was heard yelling at the time, "AAAAHHHH I SHOT HIIIIIIIIIIM . . .  SOMEONE HELP, I SHOT HIIIIIIIIM . . ." and later claimed that they didn't shoot him, then testimony of his yelling would be good evidence (for a testimonial anecdote, anyway).  Now, let's try and formulate an analogy that would actually be closer to a NDE.  If, on the other hand, a carnival ride malfunctioned and spun out of control, and someone managed to record the most terrified, hysterical person trapped on the ride (someone with a highly altered state of consciousness), and that person happened to scream something about the ride going two hundred miles an hour, would that be a good measure of the objective reality of the situation?

Here are some other choice statements:

Few NDErs have anything to gain by telling their story.  Most “skeptics” have books and reputations to defend.

Um, the Dr. Longs have books and reputations to defend.  Ziztur and I don't.  This is just a particularly bad ad hominem.

Other valid observations about anecdotal evidence is that it is mostly reliable in regards to every day things.  Over 90 percent of what we hear from others is accurate when dealing with life.  We talk to others about what they had for lunch, what is playing at the movies, or what happened on the way to work.  While some of this might be small talk, for the most part an anecdotal account, it is not deemed a false memory or hallucination. If anecdotal evidence were inherently unreliable, we would typically not believe a word anyone tells us.

I love this one.  Obvious response, right?  Extraordinary claims?  Duh?  Well, Long has an answer for that:

 I frequently hear that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. . . .  What constitutes extraordinary claims to one person may not be the same for another person.  What is extraordinary becomes a subjective term and open to interpretation.

And there we have it.  Because there's no absolute standard of an "extraordinary" claim, it's no more outrageous to insist that you have scientifically proven the afterlife than it is to state that you had the turkey at lunch today.  I don't think I need to point out why this doesn't convince me.

It is important to remember that just because something hasn’t been scientifically proven, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.  Many times, it is just a matter of developing technology to be sensitive enough to sense germs, viruses, other galaxies, microwaves, electromagnetic fields, or gravity.  There are many things that did not exist at various times in mans’ existence, yet they still existed. 

Therefore, it is more accurate to state, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to convince skeptics, but not necessarily to exist in objective reality.”

Let's clarify the old adage; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be accepted rationally.  This is exactly like the old anti-reason, pro-faith argument:  "There was a time when claiming that the earth was round was an extraordinary claim, and there was no evidence to prove that extraordinary claim true - did that mean that the earth was flat?"

The answer is simple; thousands of years ago, accepting a flat earth was absolutely the logical, rational conclusion based on the available evidence.  New evidence overturned that conclusion, yes, but the only reason that we know that this particular piece of knowledge was dead wrong was exactly because of that overwhelming weight of evidence.  It's absolutely ridiculous to assume that overwhelmingly-accepted-fact-X will someday inevitably be overturned with amazing evidence to the contrary.  Here's a claim; gravity doesn't exist.  An infinite number of invisible, suspiciously humanoid imps and fairies just really enjoy pushing matter together, according to it's mass.  We don't accept this claim, while we do accept that the earth is round.

It's really clear that you shouldn't make the "extraordinary, fantastic, seemingly impossible claims can still exist in spite of no good evidence" argument.  By definition, it's an admission that you have no evidence for your position.

That fact, and thus the reason why the Longs' so-called evidence is so unconvincing to skeptics, is well summed up in Dr. Long's own words:

Consider that just because a person can’t scientifically prove something does not mean that it is false or nonexistent.  For instance, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God or life after death.

How on earth do you make a case for scientifically proving that there is an afterlife when you admit straight out that there literally cannot be any scientific evidence for or against your claim?

Check out this link, found at the bottom of the article (but only if you feel like weeping for the state of critical thinking skills and scientific education in the world).

Evidence of the Afterlife; I'm Skeptical - Introduction, Pt. 2

This is possibly the most important portion of the Introductory chapter.  Here, Jeffrey Long looks at the twelve most common aspects of a NDE, according to his research.  These are:

1.  Out-of-body experience (OBE):  Separation of consciousness from the physical body.
2.  Heightened senses.
3.  Intense and generally positive emotions or feelings.
4.  Passing into or through a tunnel.
5.  Encountering a mystical or bright light.
6.  Encountering other beings, either mystical beings or deceased relatives or friends.
7.  A sense of alteration of time or space.
8.  Life review.
9.  Encountering unworldly ("heavenly") realms.
10.  Encountering or learning special knowledge.
11.  Encountering a boundary or barrier.
12.  A return to the body, either voluntary or involuntary.

He goes into a bit of detail for each.

1.  Out-of-body experiences.  This is exactly as it sounds like.  I find that many, many people put stock in out-of-body experiences, so I might address this topic more closely on its own, in a brief post later.  Long claims that:

The NDERF survey asked 613 NDErs, "Did you experience a separation of your consciousness from your body?" In response, 75.4 percent answered "Yes."

My first question is, why only 613?  Long is very happy with the fact that he has over 1300 stories from people who have submitted the online form, which does ask about out-of-body experiences.  If he has the results from 1300 people, why does he include less than half than number in his statistic?  More than one question in the online form addressed out-of-body experiences; yet he only includes the number for this one question.  Why?

2.  Heightened senses.  Long claims that 74.4 percent of respondents indicated that they had "More consciousness and alertness than normal."

3.  Intense and generally positive emotions or feelings.  Responding to, "Did you have a feeling of peace or pleasantness?", 76.2 percent claimed "Incredible peace or pleasantness."  Responding to, "Did you have a feeling of joy?", 52.5 claimed "Incredible joy."  He mentions that a few people's NDE are "frightening."  He refers the reader to an end note, which refers the reader to a portion of his website, which contains a small section about frightening NDEs.  All he states in the actual book is that frightening NDEs are "beyond the scope" of his book.

Encountering frightening moments during a NDE is not rare.  The NDERF survey asked “During your experience, did you consider the contents of your experience (NOT the possible life-threatening event that led up to the experience) to be:”, followed by the options of “Wonderful”, “Mixed”, or “Frightening.”  Of the 613 NDErs responding to this question with a NDE Scale score of seven or higher, 62.5% selected “Wonderful”, 33.8% “Mixed”, and only 3.8% “Frightening.”  The finding that about one in three NDEs selected “Mixed” is surprising.  It has not been widely appreciated that such a high percentage of NDEs have such an apparent mixed emotional component.

You'd think this would be important information, especially as he uses these twelve points to . . . well, you'll see.

4.  Passing into or through a tunnel.  33.8 percent of respondents report an experience of this nature.

5.  Encountering a mystical or brilliant light.  64.6 percent report such a thing.

6.  Encountering other beings, either mystical beings or deceased relatives or friends.  57.3 percent report encountering other beings during their NDE.

7.  A sense of alteration of time or space.  60.5 percent report this.

8.  Life review.  Only 22.2 percent report experiencing something like this.

9.  Encountering unworldly ("heavenly") realms.  52.2 percent of respondents had such an experience.

10.  Encountering or learning special knowledge.  When asked, "Did you have a sense of knowing special knowledge, universal order, and/or purpose?" 56 percent answered "Yes."  31.5 percent said that they seemed to understand everything "about the universe."  31.3 percent said that they seemed to understand everything "about myself or others."

11.  Encountering a boundary or border.  31 percent of respondents claim to have encountered some kind of boundary or limiting physical structure.

12.  A return to the body, either voluntary or involuntary.  The online form asked, "Were you involved in or aware of a decision regarding your return to the body?"  58.5 percent answered, "Yes."

The main point I want to make about these is that a huge part of his argument is that NDEs are very, very consistent.  As we look at his argument in-depth in later chapters, keep these bits in mind . . . the most common elements of NDEs still only show up as inconsistently as above.  Many of them, like the out-of-body experience, are well-explained by modern neuroscience.  Keep in mind how inconsistent these elements are observed as we look at his arguments about how "consistent" NDEs are.

Evidence of the Afterlife; I'm Skeptical - Introduction

The first part in our new in-depth book review of Evidence of the Afterlife, The Science of Near-Death Experiences by Jeffrey Long and Paul Perry.

The Introduction is, ironically, one of the longest chapters of the book (which isn't saying much; the book is only about 200 pages long and no more than 300 words per page).  It gives a very summarized overview of what Long considers to be his very strong evidence for the afterlife.  Since he goes over these arguments and evidence in much greater detail in the rest of the book, I'll just comment, briefly, on some of the most note-worthy here.

He mentions that at the time the book was published, the data was from "more than 1300 people who had a near-death experience."  Long's website now claims it has received over 2000 such testimonials.  Yes, ALL of the data used in this "research" was submitted via an electronic form and testimonials from people who simply visited his website and claim to have had a near-death experience.  Readers, expect periodic lessons on the scientific method throughout these review posts.

We can comfortably dismiss the entire book on this basis alone.  How can Long not see what a spectacular sampling bias this would create?  I'll get into this in greater detail later, as he addresses this criticism directly at one point.

Entertainingly, he moves straight from the mention of the volume of testimonials and the method by which he collected them into this interesting claim:

More than 95 percent of respondents feel their NDE was "definitely real," while virtually all of the remaining respondents feel it was "probably real."  Not one respondent has said it was "definitely not real."

Isn't it obvious why this isn't saying anything?  Sampling bias.  Everything about the website screams in very emotional language that NDEs are evidence of the afterlife.  We would absolutely expect it to attract people who have little doubt that their NDEs has showed them a glimpse of the afterlife.  If a faith-healer had a website that stated everywhere that testimonials prove his healing power, and invited people who have been healed by him to submit their testimony via the website (and the website screens out anyone who they believe to be "fake"), we would absolutely expect the vast majority of the testimony to claim that the healing was "real."  This wouldn't be evidence for the "healings" at all.  It is also deceptively worded.  Nobody is debating that there were no NDEs.  Of course there were "real" NDEs.  What we are skeptical of is the claim that this constitutes any decent evidence of an afterlife.

A considerable portion of his writing is not evidence or argument, it's Long talking about how wonderful NDEs are, how much they change people's lives, what good news the existence of an afterlife is, etc.

The "scientific" principle that Long has used to "prove" the existence of the afterlife through NDEs is:  "What is real is consistently seen among many different observations."  He frequently states outright that NDEs are incredibly consistent.  Again, I'll address this in more detail later, when he makes his full argument that consistent details prove that NDEs show us the afterlife.  For now, I'll just say that he's quite wrong about NDEs being very consistent in their detail, even using his own data, gross sampling bias and all.

He specifies that he uses a definition of "near-death" to be "so physically compromised that they would die if their condition did not improve."  That language is kind of vague, isn't it?  Next, he says that "The NDErs studied were generally unconscious and often apparently clinically dead . . ."  Sigh.  "Generally" unconscious?  "Often apparently" clinically dead?  One of his first major arguments is that people experience things during a NDE, even though they shouldn't be able to, medically speaking.  Yet he can only say that they're "generally" unconscious?

Here's a hilarious bit; he claims in the book to have nine distinct lines of evidence proving the existence of an afterlife.  He says that the convergence of nine lines of evidence builds a much stronger case than only one.  Well, yes, Dr. Long, but you haven't shown any of your evidences yet.  He even does the math for us:

For example, suppose we had only two lines of NDE evidence.  We may not be 100 percent convinced that these two lines of evidence prove an afterlife, but perhaps each line of evidence by itself is 90 percent convincing.  Combined, these two lines of evidence by mathematical calculation are 99 percent convincing that the afterlife exists.

He even gives an end-note referring us to the back of the book, where he gives us an even more simplified version of the math, reaching the same result.  The argument here is that if just two lines of evidence can give us 99 percent certainty of a claim, how convincing are nine lines of evidence?  I find this suspicious; Dr. Long hasn't even given us his evidence yet, and he's already given us a suggested percentage rate of how convincing his arguments could be, and then tried to show how (because there's nine of them) they should rationally create virtual certainty!  Let's not jump the gun here, Dr. Long.  I'll take a look at your actual evidence first.  You'll understand if I carefully mentally discard your self-serving 90 percent figure for now, right?

Next; Dr. Long talks about the twelve common attributes of NDEs, and what he's found out about them in his research.

Our Newest Book Project!

Some of the most fun and illustrative content that Ziztur and I have dived into on this blog were our grossly in-depth book reviews; You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think, by Ray Comfort, and the classic Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis.  Well, we decided that it's high time we started in on a new book.

Thus, Evidence of the Afterlife, The Science of Near-Death Experiences, by Jeffrey Long and Paul Perry.  This book has only been out since January 19, and became a best-seller almost immediately.  An in-depth review of this book appealed to us for several reasons.  For one, its cultural appeal is incredibly broad.  The arguments and evidence in this book, as well as a thorough, critical examination of it, are relevant to Christians, atheist, spiritualists, and everyone in between.  The arguments here are unique.  Ziztur and I have beaten all the old arguments for the existence of God to death, but an argument for the afterlife, based on near-death experiences, is something we haven't carefully looked at on the blog yet.

A few interesting notes:  Jeffrey Long seems to have assembled the data for this book by simply accepting people's near-death experience testimony via a form on his website (at least, that's what it says on the Near Death Experience Research Foundations's website).

Evidence of the Afterlife is by far the largest scientific study of NDE ever presented, and is based on researching over 1300 NDEs shared with NDERF.

Of course, Ziztur and I, being curmudgeonly skeptics who care about science, would point out that claiming a "scientific"conclusion based on anecdotes submitted to a website is as unscientific as it gets.  It would be very difficult for the authors to screw up the scientific method any worse if they actually tried.  We could reasonably dismiss the entire book's conclusions based on a sampling method as grossly biased as this, but of course we're going to take a closer look.

Look for us to dive into Jeffrey Long's specific claims and arguments soon.  If reading this kind of "evidence" and "science" makes you a feel slightly ill, laughter is the best medicine.  Thus, I leave you with the words of Tim Challies, a Christian reviewer of best-selling books, and his thoughts on this evidence of the afterlife.

The accounts are too common and too consistent to ignore entirely. So we see that such experiences do appear to exist and that they seem to lead directly away from what the Bible teaches us. What recourse do we have, then, but to state with some confidence that these experiences are somehow a trick of Satan?

Pants on Fire

I stumbled upon this article from Bodie Hodge of Answers in Genesis from a couple months back.  It asks the classic yet seemingly simple question of whether it's ethical to lie to Nazi soldiers in order to save a hiding Jewish family.

For most of us, including the vast majority of Christians (which I'll get to in a moment), I think that this is a pretty easy answer - the simple act of lying is nowhere near as unethical as directly endangering the lives of innocent people.  Amazingly, AIG disagrees:

The most common example sent to me was envisioning the Holocaust and being placed in the position of lying to potentially protect someone’s life. Like most, if placed in such a difficult situation, it would be very difficult. In fact, I could never be sure what I would do, especially if it were a loved one.

Ah, it would be much easier to endanger the life of someone that you didn't know very well.  Good to know.

But consider for a moment that we are all already sentenced to die because we are sinners (Romans 5:12). It is going to happen regardless. If a lie helps keep someone alive for a matter of moments compared to eternity, was the lie, which is high treason against the Creator, worth it?

It would be like sitting in a cell on death row and when the guards come to take your roommate to the electric chair, you lie to the guards and say you don’t know where the person went—while your roommate is hiding under their covers on the bed. Does it really help?

So there we have it.  Knowingly causing the death of one or more innocent people is insignificant to offending God.  As he points out, scripture is pretty clear on these priorities, after all.

I don't think I need to explain in much detail what's so wrong with this worldview.  Thankfully, Hodge himself admits that such an action seems wrong to him, and that he's not at all certain what he would do if he found himself with such a choice.  I sincerely hope that he never finds himself in such a position, and that if he does, he chooses the ethical course, and discards his God's wishes entirely.

He offers some other examples:

Stephen in Acts 6–7 preached Christ, and men came against him. This culminated with a question by the high priest in Acts 7:1 who said: “Are these things so?”

At this point, Stephen could have done a “righteous lie” to save his life so that he could have many more years to preach the gospel. However, Stephen laid a long and appropriate foundation for Christ—then preached Christ. And they killed him.

Obviously, I strongly doubt that this story took place exactly as it is portrayed.  If we give it the benefit of the doubt, however, I still think that it's a pretty easy answer, especially considering that Hodge concludes that good came from Stephen's death - his martyrdom to the Christian cause.

Martyrs can be a source of great good, if a person's life is given in service to a worthy cause.  The Revolutionary War, the Civil War and abolition of slavery, various civil rights movement, etc. are all good nominees for such causes.

I don't think that making people Christian is such a cause.

To put it bluntly, Stephen lost his life for almost nothing.  Whatever positive effect could have occurred as a result of his death, I conclude that such hypothetical benefits are not greater than his worth as a person, and the lives of his family and friends.

I find it telling that Hodge specifically states that the good that would have come from Stephen lying to save his own life would come from his continued preaching and proselytizing.  There's no mention of Stephen's own worth, or the effect on his loved ones.

Also, do I even need to say it?  While we (arguably, potentially) have a right to choose to be a martyr, even in a cause of questionable worth, we clearly have no right to martyr other people to our cause.  He could have even responded to the Nazis-hunting-for-hiding-Jews example with something about the value of those lives as martyrs to the cause of rallying support for the Nazi's defeat.  He doesn't, though, he only considers the value of their lives vs. his religious doctrine.

Later in the article, even more disturbingly, he himself has to resort to lying outright about a passage in Exodus, to desperately try and prove his point that God always condemns lying, even to save innocent life (!).

In summary, Pharaoh has decreed to the Hebrew midwives that they put to death all male children that they deliver.  They disobey, and when Pharaoh asks them why the cock they've got all these newborn Hebrew cocks running around, the midwives tell him that the Hebrew women are just giving birth really, really fast, too quickly for the midwives to show up.  God wholeheartedly approves of this falsehood, and blesses the midwives for it by multiplying the Hebrew people.

Hodge claims that the midwives did not lie.  His alternate explanation of the passage is that the midwives simply told Hebrew women that their sons would be in danger unless they managed to give birth very quickly, on their own, without a midwife, and they somehow managed to do so.  Okay, okay, stop laughing.  He also suggests that the midwives just took a really long time to get to a woman in labor.  Of course, this would also mean that the midwives basically lied to Pharaoh (can anyone really claim with a straight face that deliberately dragging their feet and then claiming that Hebrew babies are like greased lightning would not be completely deceptive?).

Both possible explanations suffer from one glaring drawback, hence the clear fact that Hodge has lied about what the Bible says; the Bible passage clearly states that the midwives didn't simply show up late:  "But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive."

This leads me directly to my main point - the Bible contradicts itself on this matter (no surprise there, I suppose . . .), but we have a Christian who, I think, knows what's right, as shown by his hesitation to hand over an innocent family to be murdered.  However, he has concluded with all his rational faculties that the opposite is true - that lying to Nazis is a greater evil than letting an innocent family die.  People, both religious and nonreligious alike, are quick to point out that many people would oppose gay rights based on their own bigotry regardless of whether they had religious doctrine to fuel it.  That is absolutely not what we have in this case - Hodge has reached this grossly immoral conclusion exactly as a result of his religious doctrine.*

*Note that this last paragraph is completely philosophical in nature, and actually only represents what I sincerely hope to be the case.  It is entirely possible that Hodge is, in fact, a violently bigoted closet-Nazi anti-Semite.  I suppose we'll never know . . .

Does Objectification Equal Sexism?

An interesting business was recently under discussion on Atheist Nexus and by our good friend The Nerd.  That business is a small coffee shop, the Java Divas.  Seriously, check out their site.  Attractive women selling coffee in skimpy, suggestive costumes.  The coffee even comes in large/medium/small cups identified by bra sizes.  Another interesting tidbit - the owner and operator/fellow scantily-clad server is also a woman.

So . . . thoughts?  Much conversation at the above-mentioned internet places has already revolved around the idea of objectification not being morally/socially good or bad in and of itself.  Clearly, I sometimes objectify Ziztur, and she sometimes objectifies me.  This clearly has no inherent sexism, for a large number of reasons.

The principle difference, pointed out several times already, is that the suggestively-clad women at Java Divas have nothing more than a financial relationship with the customers (presumably, at least in the vast majority of cases).  There is at least a possible element of the women in question being resigned, by their financial situation, to working that job under these conditions.

My question, not to sugar-coat it too much, but:  So the hell what?

I'm reminded of this incident (among others in other firefighting departments around the world) in which a woman or women came short of physical fitness requirements for the job the were doing or applying for.  This particular case dealt with a distance run, and I've seen other cases dealing primarily with the immense upper-body strength required to be a firefighter.  Basically, in a nutshell, by any reasonable standard, you have to be an utter hardass to be a firefighter.

Now, I'm certainly not going to say that gender bias and discrimination have never been a factor in firefighting; that would just be spectacularly ignorant.  However, it's obvious to most people that these physical fitness standards are for the safety of the firefighters themselves and the safety of the public that they serve, and are not inherently gender-biased.

My question is this:  How are the women at Java Divas, or any similar establishment, being objectified for their physical appearance any more than firefighters are being objectified for their physical strength?  For that matter, why does the criteria have to be physical?  If someone happens to have knowledge and/or experience of, for example, the insurance business, or of Occupational Therapy, and are hired for a job on that criteria, how is their employment not "objectifying" them on the basis of that knowledge?

So, what does it say about someone's attitude towards women, their attitude towards sex, or their attitude towards what they think is women's attitude towards sex (try saying that ten times fast . . .) when they basically claim that women aren't capable of choosing for themselves what to do with their potential physical attractiveness?  Do these folks really worry about whether, to use just one example, firefighters (who after all are in much more physical danger on the job than baristas) are being exploited for their body strength, or are they basically, in effect, thinking, "Ah, well, they're men; of course they can make a mature decision about their own employment."?

Need I even mention that whatever "objectification" of the Java Divas employees that's occurring pales in comparison to a stripper, porn star, or prostitute?  I think it's obvious that an almost puritan or religious restriction on what women can and can't do with their bodies is the more sexist attitude, not only because of it's anti-sex overtones, but also because of it's strong implication that those mentally weak wimminfolk just don't have the emotional maturity to deal with people looking at their bodies.

What do you guys think?

DOWSING FOR BOMBS.

I just stumbled across this appalling news about a British company selling millions of dollars of bomb-detection devices to Iraqi security forces.  What's so wrong with this, you ask?  That device is the ADE 651, basically, a fancy injection-molded dowsing rod:

These things were sold for, I shit you not, $16,500 to $60,000 each.  Disgusted yet?

Highlights include:

-American military advisors have desperately tried to convince Iraqi security forces not to rely on them.

-James Randi has offered the company that produces and sells them, ATSC (UK) Ltd., his standard million-dollar challenge.  The company has refused to attempt the request.

-The devices have no battery, solar cells, or any other power storage.  The user is supposed to walk in place for a few moments to "charge" the device.

-Surprise, surprise, no research has ever shown such devices to be more reliable than chance.

-The manufacturer itself states that it's only customers are developing countries; neither military or police force in any industrialized nation purchases it's products.

This would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.  This is literally a case where we can be remarkably certain that people have died because of a combination of pseudoscience and corporations so unregulated that they can get away with such blatant fraud.

Progress and Bigotry

So President Obama has appointed Amanda Simpson to the position of senior technical adviser for the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security.  She's also transgendered.  You can just imagine how violently right-wingers and evangelicals are filling their pants over this.

There's the real fringe nutjobs, like the folks at WorldNetDaily, who pointedly refer to Simpson as a "he" throughout the entire article, or this nugget of enlightened wisdom from Pamela Geller at the hilarious blog Atlas Shrugs;

Does Obama know anyone who isn't wacky, radical, militant, judeophobic, socialist, marxist, pedophilic? ...... Does he chill with anyone who is normal? Isn't there one Marilyn Munster in the family? What a freak show this presidency is.

David Brody at Christian Broadcasting Network chimed in:

The transgender thing doesn't play well with millions of conservative Evangelicals. Sorry if Biblical absolutes offend you or are so "1950 ish" but don't think conservative Evangelicals are apologizing for it.

Then there's the big players, who refuse to be out-bigoted.   Focus on the Family released an article that consists almost entirely of statements by Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, and Matt Barber, associate dean at Liberty University:

"We should consider what transgender activism is about," he (LaBarbera) said," which is essentially recognizing civil rights based on gender confusion."

"This isn't like appointing an African-American in order to try to provide diversity and right some kind of discriminatory wrong," he (Barber) said.  "This is about political correctness."

I caught a portion of Laura Ingraham's show just the other day, on Tuesday, Jan. 5th.  She ranted about Simpson's appointment for a solid twenty minutes, with two main points.  Firstly, that she's sick and tired of our deep need to shove our opinions and lifestyles down her throat (this from a woman who literally gets paid to rant about her opinion on the radio and had just discussed how we need to worship Jesus in our schools more).  Secondly, she echoed some of the religious right named above in basically claiming that Simpson was only selected because the Obama administration is pandering to the left.

Obviously, I take issue with these folks.  It's entirely possible to discuss this appointment along the lines of, "Hm.  Transgender person.  Appointed directly by the President.  Very interesting."  That is obviously NOT what the above talking heads are doing; they are specifically saying that she is a Bad Choice.  It's very simple:  A rational discussion of this appointment might bring up her experience, or her politics.  If one is going to avoid being a completely bigoted fuck, the one, single issue that will be completely immaterial to your criticism of her is the fact that she happened to have been born with a penis.

Now, I'll bet you readers can never guess, but what's the single unifying theme of EVERY SINGLE criticism of Simpson that I've read or heard?  That's right - all of the above quoted column, articles, and radio shows, as well as all the others you can read online that I've seen, every one of them completely ignores whether she would be good for the job based on her experience.

Not one of them has tried to argue, in even the most superficial way, that she isn't well-qualified for the position.  She has worked for 30 years with Raytheon Missile Systems, a defense contractor company, as a test pilot, and her degrees include an MBA from the University of Arizona, Master of Science in Engineering from the California State University, Northridge, Bachelor of Science in Physics from the Harvey Mudd College.  She has some limited experience in politics as well, having run unsuccessfully for Representative of District 26 in the Arizona House of Representatives in 2004.  So yeah, she's qualified.

It's very simple.  You absolutely cannot claim that a person is not qualified for a job, and that they were only hired as a superficial political gesture, if you don't even bother to discuss that person's qualifications.  How can the miss something so painfully obvious?  If you whine and bitch about a person getting tapped for an appointment entirely and exclusively on the basis of then being transgendered, you are a bigot.

Interview with Ray Comfort: Discussion, Pt. 2

Recently, we had well-known evangelist Ray Comfort here for an e-interview.  We tried to stick to honest questions rather than attempting to create some kind of theological traps, but we're still going to comment on his ideas.  As I noted in the first part of this discussion, Comfort is obviously quite busy, so I don't expect him to be able to respond here personally, but as usual, anyone who feels that they can shed some light on my questions about these issues is more than welcome to comment.

The next question concerned the Biblical "kind" and how such a concept would be defined in biological terms.  Comfort's answer:

The word "kind" is the biblical word for "species." God created dogs to reproduced dogs, cats to reproduce cats. Every animal was created to bring forth after its own kind. The Book of Genesis repeats this many times in the first chapter to make it clear, for those of us who are a little slow. We see evidence of this, both in the fossil record, and in living creation. The meaning of the word "species" has changed over the years. At one point it was synonymous with "kinds." However, nowadays it is used differently in different circles.

Those who are familiar with Comfort's work will be unsurprised at the ignorance of basic scientific and biological concepts here, but on the off chance that Mr. Comfort himself is reading this, let's see if I can explain this in simple language.

Regardless of what the Book of Genesis states, organisms do not remain biologically identical from generation to generation.  Even a very small amount of "genetic drift" is all we need for natural selection to begin working.  The Genesis definition of "kind" is interesting, but it's not useful as a scientific criteria, is it?  Within relatively few generations, organisms can undergo very significant changes from the original species.  I mean, we would expect a useful definition of "species" to be able to tell us when speciation has effectively occurred, right?

That's what we would be looking for, here.  Because we pro-science folks claim that speciation does occur (we can even cause it in a lab, right in front of our eyes, no less), to debate that claim we obviously have to agree on a definition of species that would tell us when the organisms would become a different species.  By your biblical definition of "kind," we could show you organisms bred in different directions for any length of time, becoming vastly different organisms, and they would literally be impossible to ever get to two different species!

The next question is all about this fun biology stuff, too.  I'll just reprint the whole thing:

"Have you met, chat[tted] with or otherwise communicated with an Old Earth Creationist named Adnan Oktar (pen name of Harun Yahya)? His argument for creation is that despite Millions of years of existence, the fossil record shows that all kind[s] of creatures does not display any form of change at all. A fossil of a fish seems to be the same as a modern fish, a fossil of a bird seems to be the same as a modern bird, etc. He says that this clearly shows that creative genius of his Creator, Allah. What fossil evidence can you point out to him that he is clearly mistaken, that micro-evolution does happen and that an ancient fish is very dissimilar to a modern fish. An ancient bird is very dissimilar to a modern bird, etc.? What physical evidence can you show him to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is the creative force behind all of these micro-evolution? Evidence that is so compelling that nothing in the Koran can dispute to it's truth?"

Comfort's answer:

 I have never heard of Mr. Oktar and I am therefore not familiar with his arguments, other than what you have related. Those who believe that a fish fossil is "ancient" reveal their unquestioning faith in dating methods. The fact that a fossil of a bird is different from a modern bird simply means that the Creator made them different. There was no transition from one species to another, so micro-evolution has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. We can see micro-evolution throughout the entire creation of God--both in the fossil record and living things--from the small finch to the large albatross, from the massive Great Dane to the tiny chihuahua. These are variations within species.

As for the God of the Bible being the Creator. That's simple. The moral Law , which Moslems embrace (the Law of Moses), leaves all of humanity condemned to death and on the path to Hell. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only God-given means of escape. Islam has no answer to that, our biggest dilemma (see John 8:31-32).

Again, if you are reading this, Mr. Comfort, I apologize.  I really, genuinely don't wish to make fun of people, but  please try to understand how scientifically ignorant that first paragraph is.  I myself have no more than a layman's minimal self-education in the most simplistic, dumbed-down scientific concepts, and even I can tell that these statements are so hilariously wrong that I nearly pissed myself laughing.

First off; "unquestioning faith" in dating methods?  Mr. Comfort, take this as friendly advice in how to increase the effectiveness of your ministry.  To people who understand the scientific method and are willing to look at the evidence without biased assumptions, the reliability of scientific dating methods can be proven about as thoroughly as the fact that you'll lose your house if you refuse to ever pay your mortgage again.  Even if you could show 100 cases of grossly inaccurate dates derived with radiocarbon dating, isochron dating, etc., you would still not be approaching the hundreds of thousands of verified accurate cases.

On a side note, why do evangelists like to take basic conclusions like the general reliability of scientific dating methods and insist that we must have "faith" in them?  They themselves claim that faith is a reliable method of discovering truth!  When pressed, some religious persons have even insisted that faith is simply a religious, spiritual synonym for "reason," and that they hold things by "faith" only when those claims have stood up to evidence and logic (an entertaining statement in it's own right).  Whatever the definition used, how on earth do they disparage our conclusions for supposedly being faith-based, while simultaneously claiming that their own claims are very reliable exactly because of faith?!?!

Secondly, about there being no transitions from one species to another - this is, again, a clear indication of gross scientific ignorance.  This is really just horrifyingly inaccurate.  There are, or course, multiple instances of observed speciation; there is even an entire classification system for organizing speciation events, for Pete's sake.  The claim that so-called "micro-evolutionary changes" only occur within species is not only falsified by direct observation, this artificial distinction betrays an ignorance of the scientific method as well.  Ziztur and I have blogged about this before, but briefly, science doesn't test histories (because then science couldn't operate on any phenomena outside of our direct observation), it tests mechanism and predictions.  The mechanisms that operate in so-called "micro-evolution" are the exact same mechanisms of "macro-evolution," yet creationists must claim that while evolutionary predictions can be directly tested and verified on a small scale, they will be grossly inaccurate on a large scale!  Since there is no meaningful distinction here, any tests of predictions of the mechanisms will serve to either support or falsify evolution as a whole.  If there is a meaningful distinction to be made between "micro-" and "macro-evolution," then creationists who wish to falsify evolution theory have to first describe what separates the two mechanisms, and then show that while the predictions of "micro-evolution" are accurate, they will somehow be inaccurate on a large, "macro" scale.  Obviously, they have not even tried to do this.

You have to wonder just how deeply ignorant a person must be of basic, fundamental biology to arrive at such grossly inaccurate conclusions, but we get verification of Comfort's scientific ignorance - ". . .from the small finch to the large albatross, from the massive Great Dane to the tiny chihuahua. These are variations within species."  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, 'birds' are a species.  It was at exactly this point that I came dangerously close to peeing in my pants.

No, Mr. Comfort, Aves are actually a "Class," several levels higher in taxonomy than "Species."  Actually, there are some 10,000 different species in the Aves Class.  Seriously?  You don't know that a Finch and an Albatross are different species?!?!  Wow.  Wow, wow, wow.  My brain and bladder hurt.  I give up for today.  More later.  We're such gluttons for punishment.

Interview with Ray Comfort: Discussion

After several days off for the holidays, we're back to discuss some of Ray Comfort's ideas that we saw in his e-interview that he was kind enough to provide for us.

The first question observed that many Christians don't recognize Ray Comfort's name, and asked if he was possibly more famous among atheists.  His reply:

Not every Christian watches TV or reads books. However, it seems that most atheists (thanks the Richard Dawkins and others) are pretty familiar with the brainless idiot known as "banana-man."

It's not just Comfort, though; if you name Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, etc., I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a higher proportion of atheists recognizing these names than Christians.  I can't cite hard data here, so this is just speculation rather than observation, but bear with me.

Two possible perspectives on this possibility.  From my perspective as an atheist, it seems to be the case that self-described "atheists" as a group are self-selecting for people who seek out other perspectives and willingly challenge even widely-held opinions.  In a culture like America, so saturated with religious and spiritual belief, people who reject religious and spiritual claims are clearly far less likely to simply "go with the flow" and accept the perspective of their culture.  This is not to say that all atheists are shining beacons of rationality, incapable of error - far from it (there are certain conspiracy theorist nutjobs I could mention, and there's always Ayn Rand . . .).  Even these individuals, though, are still more likely, as a rule, to actively familiarize themselves with differing perspectives.

Of course, the common theist has a simple response; we atheists (or any other culturally non-conformist label) are clearly quite convinced that we're wrong on some level, and we are "seeking answers" not because we want to be certain that we're not mistaken, but because we actually believe that we are mistaken.  When Ziztur and I visit different churches, on occasion we will politely inform church-goers who ask about us that we're atheists.  Far and away, the most common response we hear is that we've found ourselves in the pew because we are being "called" or "led" to search for God.  To this, all I can say is that in my own limited experience, such church services or apologetic books are no more convincing to we atheists than the "new atheist" books are to your average theist.  After many churches and many books, our atheism is, if anything, is less dispute than it ever was.

The next question was, seemingly, an extremely simple theological question; it asked Comfort to define "the Gospel."

In a nutshell--that Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day. The word "gospel" means good news, and the gospel doesn't make sense until we see why we need it, in the same way the good news of a cure makes no sense until we understand that we have a disease. The terminal disease is sin. If it's allowed to take its course, it will not only kill us, it will justly take us to a terrible place of punishment called "Hell"--because each of us has violated God's Law (the Ten Commandments). He sees lust as adultery and hatred as murder. He is morally perfect, and that leaves us all in big trouble. The good news is that God is rich in mercy, became a human being, and took our punishment upon Himself. That means, because Jesus paid our fine and rose again from the dead, God can legally let us walk out of the courtroom. He can forgive us and let us live. Our case can be dismissed upon repentance and trust in the Savior. The good news is that any of us can have everlasting life. Read the Gospel of John for details.

Interestingly, this "Gospel story" is possibly the single largest barrier to my ever becoming a Christian (and that's saying something, considering all the other reasons I could name).  To put it simply, if I tell you that this season's particular strain of the flu could be very nasty, and that you should get vaccinated ASAP, I can explain why.  If you ask, in all innocence, "So this flu thing . . . is that bad?  Why?"  I can explain that the flu could give you headaches, muscle aches, a cough, and just generally make you feel like crap, and that a few people who are particularly susceptible can even die from it if they catch it from you.  Now, here's the important part - if you ask, "Why does the flu do that?" I could answer that it's simply a result of how the flu virus reproduces with the living cells in your body.  I could say that the flu doesn't have a mind, and that if it did, it would be wrong for the flu virus to hurt and kill people like it does.  Thus, it's easy to understand why you should get vaccinated (in theory, anyway . . .).

I should mention, first of all, that not all Christians believe in a literal hell, to their immense credit.  With or without this traditionalist theology, though, the Gospel story raises more questions than it answers.  Why does God feel the need to punish us with eternal torture simply for disbelieving in him?  Why is there such a harsh penalty for having lustful thoughts, especially when every single human being has lustful thoughts, without exception?  Even without a literal hell, are "anger" and "lustful thoughts" still sins?  Who should rationally be held responsible for lustful thoughts or anger being universal amongst human beings, us or the being(s) who created us?

Additionally, how does the death of Jesus Christ absolve us of our crimes?  I've noticed that whenever Comfort discusses our "criminal actions" as sinners, he almost always uses the analogy of a legal fine being paid for us so that our case can be thrown out of court.  I would have thought that it's obvious why this analogy isn't convincing to non-believers:  If a crime of any significant severity is committed, the court doesn't just administer a simple fine - the offender goes to prison.  If hell is an appropriate punishment for sin, then the analogy of a legal fine is grossly inaccurate (in fact, there really is no good comparison at all, because in America we don't even punish our very worst criminals by torturing them to death, which is still far more humane than the traditional concept of hell).  Perhaps the closest we can come is the death sentence, or in societies that don't even permit the death sentence on ethical grounds, perhaps life imprisonment without any possibility of parole.  Why doesn't Comfort use these punishments as an illustration of the punishment we deserve for our sin?  Why does he use the very lightest punishment that our system has for any crime, a mere fine?  It's possible for a person to pay a fine for someone else, simply because there's no good way to make sure that the guilty person pays it themselves.  A prison sentence, to say nothing of a death sentence, on the other hand, obviously must always be paid by the person who committed the crime. 

So, there's one of the single, largest questions I have about Christianity.  It seems to me that the very first principle of anything resembling justice is that you punish the person who actually committed the immoral act, and do not punish someone else in their place.  Imagine a society built around the principle that a person who commits a wrongful act cannot atone for their own wrongdoing, and the only way for justice to be served is for an innocent person to be punished ( and that the more innocent the punished person is, the more righteous and just the punishment will be).  If this society does every single other thing with their courts, prison system, and police force correctly, they are still doing nothing correctly.  They could get justice right in every single other way, and would still basically have a completely unjust society.  This Christian, Gospel idea of wrongdoers being incapable of atoning for their immoral actions and instead being redeemed by the punishment of a completely innocent person is not simply incorrect justice, it is not merely mistaken justice, it is the polar goddamned opposite of justice.

More about Ray Comfort coming soon.  Obviously, I would love for Ray to hang out here and reply to our perspective, but I totally understand that he's very, very busy, so I won't see his absence as proof that he can't answer our questions.  Of course, our standard modus operandi is to welcome any dissenting opinion, so I look forward to anyone who can shed some light on this seeming contradiction.  That last question, in particular, about Gospel justice has vexed me all my life.

Pinning down this MLK guy.

So, Martin Luther King Jr.  The name alone conjures up images of grand ideas, pivotal history, and notions of all that is best in the United States of America.  When Christians want an example of a fellow follower of Jesus that fought bravely for noble causes, it's just a matter of time until you hear MLK's name.  In this respect, he's squarely in the category of the legendary "founding fathers" of the U.S.A. as a valuable name to claim for "our side."  It seems like everyone wants those rare, awe-inspiring names that other people respect to share their own opinions on big, important questions, as if their worldview is somehow vindicated by the agreement of a long-dead historical figure.

Can we atheists claim MLK as one of our own?  We can't claim Thomas Paine; he was a deist.  Similarly, can't claim Thomas Jefferson.  Susan B. Anthony is debatable.  We could make a case for Charles Darwin or Albert Einstein, but, c'mon, they're scientists; of course they're awesome.

The answer, obviously, is no, no we can't.  MLK was clearly a theist; he was a reverend, for Pete's sake.  He claimed Christianity.  That's not necessarily the end of the question, though.

In 1949, MLK wrote a paper titled, "What Experiences of Christians Living is the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection."  Quite the explanatory title, eh?  Many believers would be shocked at the statements in it:

Although we may be able to argue with all degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and philolophically untenable*, yet we can never undermind the foundation on which they are based.

The first doctrine of our discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great process of developement . . . How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into being? . . . We may find a partial clue to the actual rise of this doctrine in the spreading of Christianity into the Greco-Roman world. . . . Through philosophical thinking the Greeks came to the point of subordinating, distrusting, and even minimizing anything physical. Anything that possessed flesh was always underminded in Greek thought. And so in order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him.

(Regarding the virgin birth) First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to shallow to convince any objective thinker. To begin with, the earliest written documents in the New Testament make no mention of the virgin birth. Moreover, the Gospel of Mark, the most primitive and authentic of the four, gives not the slightest suggestion of the virgin birth. The effort to justify this doctrine on the grounds that it was predicted by the prophet Isaiah is immediately eliminated, for all New Testament scholars agree that the word virgin is not found in the Hebrew original, but only in the Greek text which is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for "young woman." How then did this doctrine arise? A clue to this inquiry may be found in a sentence from St. Justin's First Apology. Here Justin states that the birth of Jesus is quite similar to the birth of the sons of Zeus. It was believed in Greek thought that an extraordinary person could only be explained by saying that he had a father who was more than human. It is probable that this Greek idea influenced Christian thought.

The last doctrine in our discussion deals with the resurrection story. This doctrine, upon which the Easter Faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting."

In each case, MLK ultimately concludes that there is a significant underlying spiritual reality behind each of these seemingly irrational doctrines, so we certainly have no basis for insisting that he was not a Christian . . .

Unless, of course, we were fundamentalist Christians.  I'd wager that a good number of Christians of a more traditional, literalistic bent would not hesitate to declare that if you don't believe in Jesus' literal virgin birth, divinity, and resurrection, you cannot be a Christian.  I strongly disagree; I think we could even potentially make an argument for the existence of an atheist Christian who does not believe in a literal god but who advocates and upholds the teachings of Jesus in every other way, to the exclusion of all others.  It's strange, I think that it's pretty irrational, I'd argue about one of those conclusions for a good long time, but I don't think that the concepts of 'atheist; and 'Christian' must necessarily be mutually exclusive in the way that 'atheist' and, for example, 'theist' are.

Again, if we are going to include the acceptance of specific supernatural assertions as being necessary to consider oneself a Christian, we wouldn't have to go far to exclude MLK.

Another paper, again from 1949, describes what MLK considers to be "fundamentalism," of which he does not speak highly, to say the least.  Particular attention should be paid to the last paragraph:

When the fundamentalist comes to the nature of man he finds all of his answers in the Bible. The story of man in the garden of Eden gives a conclusive answer. Man was created by a direct act of God. Moreover, he was created in the image of God, but through the workings of the devil man {was} lead into disobedience. Then began all human ills: hardship and labor, the agony of childbirth, hatred, sorrow, suffering, and death. The fundamentalist is quite aware of the fact that scholars regard the garden of Eden and the serpent Satan and the hell of fire as myths analogous to those found in other oriental religions. He knows also that his beliefs are the center of redicule by many. But this does not shake his faith--rather it convinces him more of the existence of the devil. The critics, says the fundamentalist, would never indulge in such skeptical thinking if the devil hadn't influenced them. The fundamentalist is convinced that this skepticism of scholars and cheap humor of the laity can by no means prevent the revelation of God.

Others doctrines such as a supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are all quite prominant in fundamentalist thinking. Such are the views of the fundamentalist and they reveal that he is oppose to theological adaptation to social and cultural change. He sees a progressive scientific age as a retrogressive spiritual age. Amid change all around he was {is} willing to preserve certain ancient ideas even though they are contrary to science.

Again, as far as I'm concerned, MLK claimed Christianity, so he's a Christian.  Still, how many Christians would read that last paragraph and conclude that the author could not possibly be a "believer"?

Moreover, MLK obviously had a thing for ethics and social justice, for which he is rightly known.  In all his writings, he basically never appeals to the Bible or the direct will of God for his moral position.  In "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," he explains his opinion of the morality of the "Natural Law," but then he immediately defines the Natural Law in explicitly humanistic terms:

An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

He goes on to give and explain examples of specific injustices wrought by segregation.  True, the "Natural Law" is traditionally understood as a theistic morality, but MLK defines it completely differently.

So MLK was indeed a Christian.  He claimed Christianity.  We can't claim him for the atheist camp.  We can, however, claim him as a liberal.  We can certainly claim him, perhaps most importantly, as a skeptic and a humanist.

The Manhattan Declaration; Part 6

Wrapping up the Manhattan Declaration, with their arguments (a term I use very loosely indeed, here) and examples of the religious freedom of Christians being infringed upon:

"We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses . . ."


Easy answer - if you don't want to do work of a given type (because of moral or religious objection or any other reason) then don't take the job.  I'm always entertained by how they only ever think of Christian doctors whose job involves women who might get abortions or need contraception, or Christian organizations who might not get to discriminate against homosexual couples, or some such bit of Christian fundamentalist dogma.  There are a million examples of other beliefs that are just grossly violated if somebody, for some idiotic reason, takes a job that involves things that they believe to be immoral.  What about a vegan who takes a job at a meat-packing plant?  What about a pacifist who joins the military?  There are even some kookier fringe believers who believe that blood transfusions are a sin; should hospitals and other health care businesses and organizations be forced to hire these folks and permit them to refuse to administer such procedures?


"We see it in the use of antidiscrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business."

This is an old question - how much discrimination should the government forcibly forbid?  Well, I would just ask the supporters and signers of the MD:  Would you be okay with businesses or organizations  refusing to serve Christians?  Do such establishments have a right to be discriminatory against Christians, in the same way that you're claiming a right to discriminate against others?


"After the judicial imposition of "same-sex marriage" in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching."

Yes, the Catholic Church ceased it charitable activities because they were told that they couldn't discriminate against gay couples anymore.  The Church made their priorities crystal clear - with a choice between continuing to do material good in the world and maintaining their discriminatory doctrine while ceasing to do that good, they chose the latter.  Again, to the supporters of the MD, what would you think of an organization that believed that Christian homes are so intrinsically hostile to children that they universally refuse to place orphaned children with Christian couples?  What would you think of them if the government told them that they had to stop their discriminatory policy, or they would be risking their tax-exempt status, and they responded by stopping their charity work altogether?

"In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital "civil unions" scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions."

This bit doesn't actually reference the incident that it's referring to (no surprise there - you may have notices that the MD doesn't reference any of it's claims).  If it's referring to this semi-famous incident, though, they're being dishonest again.  This was not a Methodist organization being forced to carry out a wedding ceremony, it was a tiny pavilion on a beach that had been open to the public but that they now decided was off-limits to gay couples blessing civil unions.  In the words of a lawyer representing a lesbian couple who was denied by the group, the pavilion is open to everyone — and therefore the group could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man.  The Methodist group was also not "stripped of its tax exempt status," it was stripped of it's tax exemption only for the small pavilion area that they barred gay couples from.

"In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality."

Citation needed.  I've heard of a few religious people being basically scolded for disruptive behavior, nothing more.  If there is more, I want to look into it.  You'll be disturbed to know where they're going with this, though:

"New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here."

Um, hate-crime legislation only addresses motivations of violent crime.  I am alarmed and appalled that the MD is concerned over a law's effect on their ability to "preach" their religious beliefs when that law only addresses violent attack.

They go on to use really, really scary language about how the destruction of religious freedom will allow society to devolve into complete tyranny.  Again, entertaining, seeing as how this entire document's central idea is that the government should enforce their specific religion.

"In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.""

They don't stop hammering this.  They would have a point; I strongly disagree with any restriction on the religious speech of anybody.  Except for one thing:  Nobody is telling anybody to stop preaching!  It's a lie (repeated over and over again in the MD) that any Christians are being prevented from preaching in America.

"There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail."

The hilarious part is this:  By King's argument, we should be discussing whether gay men and women, along with their progressive, ethical friends, family, and fellow citizens, should be contemplating civil disobedience in favor of gay rights.  The MD, of course, seems to have concluded that it is Christians who should be contemplating civil disobedience because they might not be permitted to uphold their doctrine (even though their fundamentalist doctrine is unambiguously discriminatory).

In any event, I agree wholeheartedly that Letter from a Birmingham Jail is an extraordinarily eloquent reasoning for principled defiance of unjust authority, except for one thing - King clearly does not base his ethical reasoning on Biblical theology - his reasoning is entirely humanistic.  Similarly, he does indeed quote several thinkers from the Christian church, yet all such statements are secular and humanistic in nature, such as, "I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."  He mentions St. Thomas Aquinas and the 'natural law,' but he immediately goes on to define what he considers the 'natural law' to be in completely secular, humanistic terms.

I have more to say about Martin Luther King Jr., but I think he deserves his own blog post.  The capstone to the Manhattan Declaration:

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

We don't want to make you participate in abortions, "embryo-destructive" research, or assisted suicide.  However, we also won't let you force these religious beliefs of yours on others.  You are similarly welcome to refuse to bless sexual partnerships that you consider to be immoral, but you may not enshrine your bigotry against such partnerships into law, and we will also exercise our right to point out how primitive and downright childish are your doctrines of sexual morality.  We fully render your rights and freedoms to believe these things to you, but under no circumstances will we surrender the rights and freedoms of others that you would take away.

The Manhattan Declaration; Part 5

The last little bit about the Manhattan Declaration; their last point is about religious liberty.  This might seem strange to some.  To their credit, many religious groups and secular groups alike have roundly criticized the UN's anti-blasphemy regulations.  Frankly, from the M. Document so far, I would have bet any amount of money that such an example of an actual violation of freedom of religion is not what the MD has in mind.  So what on earth is the MD complaining about when it insists that Christians will defend their rights of religious freedom?

"Religious liberty is not a novel idea or recent development, but is grounded in the character of God Himself . . ."

The character of . . . which God, again?  Because, of course, the Bible is just oozing with religious freedom.  Yeah, I'm a little sarcastic, but . . . DAMN.  Do we really need to go over all the times in the Bible that God killed or commanded the deaths of people for not worshiping him?

The MD goes on to declare that "No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will . . ."  I agree, of course, but, again, I think that it's clear that they betray the noble, ethical principles that they claim to uphold just a few sentences later:

"It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law-such persons claiming these "rights" are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife."

How many ways can a document be horrifyingly dishonest and unethical in just a single big-ass sentence?

First off; biased language.  I think it's . . . disingenuous, at least, to say that the pro-choice position can be honestly summed up as advocating for the right to "kill the unborn."  I don't say that pro-choice people are those who 'assert a right to control women's bodies,' do I?  That would be a strawman of their position.  More balanced and objective if the description was, "Pro-choice people assert that a fetus should not reasonably be considered a "person, . . ."  In the same way, to those pro-life folks out there, which of these two statements about your opinion on the matter is more honest:  Pro-life people assert a right to control women's reproductive decisions, or, pro-life people assert that a fetus (or unborn child, if you prefer) has a "personhood."?

Secondly, nobody is asserting a "right to kill the . . . aged and disabled."  This bit is so dishonest, it amounts to an outright lie.  The "pro-choice" position here is that, for example, a person with a chronic, incurable illness that leaves them in a great deal of pain should have the right to decide how to end their own life.  Our position is NOT that we should be able to kill them if we want.  This is effectively the exact opposite of our position.  It is the MD and those who endorse it who advocate forcing something on such persons against their will (sometimes, in the case of some conditions, basically amounting to torture).

Thirdly, we're also wrong to believe that we have "a right to engage in immoral sexual practices"?  What's the solution - government "sexual security" cameras in our bedrooms?  Police raids on people's homes if a neighbor tips them off that they think a gay couple is living next door?  Should Ziztur and I set a court date and hire a lawyer because I put parts of me into parts of her without a wedding ring on?  If you think that these are absurd mischaracterizations of their position, then honestly, if we really shouldn't have the freedom to have sex that the MD declares is 'immoral,' then what the fuck are they suggesting that we do about it?

Fourthly, "even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law . . ."  I've been over this, so I'll just briefly reiterate.  Yes, it's true; we think that it's wrong to outlaw certain couples from getting married just because your religion says that they shouldn't be able to.  I personally think that this follows naturally from your religion being obviously false, but many other Christians recognize that it's immoral to force other people to follow your religious doctrines through the law.  Which brings me to . . .

The fifth major, painfully obvious failure of this single sentence (by my count, at least; I would not be surprised to learn that someone else could identify others).  They actually said it themselves in the previous paragraph:  "No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will . . ."  I am fucking flabbergasted that someone could type that sentence while simultaneously claiming that:

-Women must carry their pregnancies to term against their will because God says so.
-People in chronic pain have no right to decide how to end their own life because God says so.
-The government must exclude gay men and women from a number of socially and financially advantageous rights because God says so.
 -They even imply that people have no right to make private sexual decisions at all if they are "immoral," presumably because God says so.

It's not complicated - The MD acknowledges the ethical statement "No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will . . ."  In this very same document, they discuss over and over how people should be compelled by law to obey their specific religious doctrines.  They are doing it fucking wrong.

Sixth and finally, we have the bright red cherry topping this horseshit sundae, "those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments. . ."  Again, this is so dishonest it amounts to an outright lie.  Regardless of whatever other issues there are in a debate about religious freedom of expression, nobody is advocating for restricting their freedom of speech.  I'll make fun of such a seemingly idiotic document like the MD all day long, but I'll never say that they can't express their religious beliefs.  Saying that we're trying to actively infringe upon the freedom of Christians to even simply express their religion is the sort of bizarre claim that really needs to be backed up with specific examples and references.

Tomorrow, we'll get into the specifics of the examples that they offer, and wrap up this ridiculous document.

The Manhattan Declaration; Part 4

More from the Manhattan Declaration.  Yep, still ranting about gay marriage.  Remember, I had warned you that the closest thing to an argument in their whole section on gay marriage just repeatedly hammers the old, standard "marriage is about making babies" line?  This bit has me scratching my head:


". . . loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation.  That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation."

Um . . . what?  Read that again.  They specifically mention "procreation" as the basis of the marriage, yet they immediately point out that it's just downright stupid to disolve a marriage on the grounds that the couple cannot procreate!  How can they not see the blatant inconsistency here?


The only thing I can think of is that they could be claiming that, specifically, a penis being inserted into a vagina is the basis of marriage.  That it is . . . some kind of procreation "ritual," not the actual reproduction, that matters.  What material difference there is, specifically and in terms of procreation, between the sex of an infertile couple and the sex of homosexual partners, well, they don't elaborate.   Either reproduction is the basis, or it is not.  The whole premise of this inane argument is ridiculous - would they lobby for a couple, one male, one female, who are asexual, with no sexual desire at all, but who wish to adopt, to be forbidden to marry?  Why, then . . . horror of horrors, not a single penis or vagina in use at all!


". . . it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships.  Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships?"


Honestly?  Easy answer.  Yes, they should be, and no, they wouldn't.


"The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential."

Um, isn't that exactly what you, the Christian, heterosexual majority, are doing?  This is exactly what has been done throughout all of marriage's history.  It has been redefined to mean a union of choice and mutual love, instead of one arranged or forced.  It has been redefined to include interracial couples.  It has been redefined, starting with polygyny, to mean a union of one man and only one woman, then again to mean a union of one man and many, many women,and back again.   If redefining it again will make the institution worse off, then make that case.  The Manhattan Declaration, though, has NOT done this; it has simply tried to scare people with emotionally-charged, prejudice-exploiting language.


". . . it is the duty of the law to recognize and support [marriage] for the sake of justice and the common good.  If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow.  First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized."


Oh, I see.  The government must recognize and uphold your religious opinion, even if it's discriminatory to others and clearly excludes other people's religious opinions, or you will consider your own religious freedoms to be violated.  It should be obvious that there are religious persons who disagree with your traditional view of marriage; what of their religious freedom?  By this tortured logic, isn't their religious freedom being violated when the government specifically enforces your view of marriage?


"Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as "marriages" sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral."


Yes, there is a role in public education in promoting a healthy, humanistic societal ethic, or, at the very least, mildly discouraging blatant, outright prejudice.  If there is a rational reason for declaring gay men and women to be immoral people, then make that case.  Sorry, but until then, you are, by definition, a bigot, and you cannot use the public schools to disseminate your bigotry.


"Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends."


Not to get too intellectually elitist, but blah, blah, blah.  There's been no attempt, at all, to make this case so far.  No case that marriage should be intrinsically between one man and one woman, and no specifics of the "damage" of the terrible, terrible gay marriage.  Only repeated, vague statements about how society will somehow be irreparably harmed if certain people are allowed to get married.


"And so it is out of love (not "animus") and prudent concern for the common good (not "prejudice"), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture."


Your position would have more credibility if you went after divorce instead of gay marriage, given how much more often divorces occur than gay marriages would occur.  Also, given that Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality, but he did specifically state that Christians should not allow divorce, it seems to be the big J's higher priority, too.


"The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God's creation covenant."


Firstly, no, it doesn't, as I mentioned in the last installment of this review, the Bible gives highest honors to men like Jesus and Paul, who never touch a woman at all, and both of them explicitly stated that all Christians should refrain from marriage if they possibly can.  Secondly, the Bible also teaches that marriage, that central part of God's creation covenant, is between one man and as many women as he can afford.


"Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church."


Yes, the Bible often compares "husband and wife" to "Christ and his church."  Um . . . isn't the church expressly subservient to Jesus Christ in all things?  So . . . Christian marriage is unambiguously sexist.  Nice.  Topping it off with a great note, there.

Next time; their final point:  Religious freedom.  Yes, after all this, they actually end the Declaration with a supposed oath to defend religious freedom.  We'll see how that turns out.

The Manhattan Declaration; Part 3

The second main point of the Manhattan Declaration, predictably, refers to gay marriage, and it's quite long.  There's so much madness here, I'll need to split this one point of theirs into two blog posts on it's own.

"In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself."

So, obviously, filthy atheists like Ziztur and I should not be permitted to marry.  Being incapable of "the transmission of life," neither should anybody be issued a marriage permit if they are infertile or elderly.  Yes, I know, these are the same objections to this stupid reproductive argument that we've all heard before, but I intend to keep repeating them until I hear a decent answer to them.  This spectacularly bad argument makes up the vast majority of their text on "marriage," and this point about gay marriage has more text than either of the points about abortion or freedom of religion.  They just hammer this "natural reproductive nature" of "true" marriage over and over again.

"In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem."

Jesus Christ of Nazareth, claimed to be perfect in every single way, never married.  Paul never married.  Actually, highest biblical honors are given to men who don't ever touch women, and the Bible states as much.  Matthew 19, 10-12: 

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."  Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.  For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Paul likewise says, "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. . . .  I wish that all men were as I am. . . .  Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. . . .  I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. . . ."

Etc., etc., etc.  Anti-gay marriage folks always go on and on, in very emotionally-charged language, how important marriage is.  Not only should this rhetoric illustrate how important it is to give marriage rights to everyone, including gay men and women, but it is also directly contrary to the Bible.

"Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society."

Um, no.  A cultural respect for individual freedom and human rights is far more important, for one thing.  Nazi Germany had marriage.  Imperialist Japan had marriage.  Islamic fundamentalism has marriage.  Etc., etc., etc.  Even if this weren't obviously false, again, arguing for the extraordinary value of marriage only illustrates the importance of protecting the marriage rights of everyone.

"Perhaps the most telling - and alarming - indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate.  Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent.  Today it is over 40 percent.  Our society - and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average - is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair."

Except that rising rates of out-of-wedlock birth over the last fifty years would primarily affect crime rates in the last 15-20 years, as those "illegitimate" children reached adolescence and adulthood.  So have crime rates went up or down in the last 15-20 years?  Down.  Sharply.  So, the document is dead wrong.

"We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage.  Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same."

This is what really gets my blood up over the earlier claims about Christians and Christian churches being the ones responsible for abolition, women's suffrage, and civil rights.  They can't examine Christian history with open-minded ethical humility when it comes to those social evils that the Bible explicitly condones, but they are aware of, ashamed of, and need to repent of the fact that some Christians occasionally get divorced?  WTF.

"We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it.  Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners."

This would be a nice sentiment and all, except for two things:  One, they are still describing a person's private sexual choices as immoral without any justification.  If we said this about anyone else's private decisions that don't infringe upon the rights of others in any way, we would transparently expose ourselves as bigots.  Two, this statement, and the larger context in which it appears, illustrates a profound prejudice.  They are trying to claim humility with this seeming recognition that there are other forms of sexual immorality besides homosexuality.  My question is simple:  If homosexual relationships are no worse than premarital or extra-marital sex, pornography, and/or divorce, they why aren't they lobbying for any of these acts to be restricted by law?  Any one of these other forms of "sexual immorality" are far, FAR more widespread than homosexuality, so why are they ignoring them to focus so exclusively on the terrible gays folks?

More about gay marriage next time; like I said, they have a lot to say about how dangerous the monstrous gay folks are.