SEIZURE SALAD

"It is best to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain."
--Mark Twain 

The first time I witnessed a seizure I was on a Mormon mission in Bulgaria. I had been in the country for about a year and I was living in the Capitol, Sophia. The man who had the seizure was a quirky and likable thirty-something with epilepsy. Aside from a sometimes overpowering body odor, which was common in the economically distressed post-communist country, I can't think of anything bad to say about him. With an ear to ear smile and an eagerness to please anyone willing to look passed his embarrassing stutter, he had found an accepting community in Mormonism. Everyone liked Pepe.

As you might expect, when Pepe fell to the floor in a convulsive fit during a church function (Family Home Evening), everyone present went on high alert. Save Pepe! A small army of young Mormon missionaries surrounded Pepe, frantically trying to decide what to do. None of us knew whether Bulgaria had an emergency system set up like America's "911" program. The only thing we could think to do was to pray.

One missionary put his hands on Pepe's head and commanded Pepe to be healed and made whole. In a matter of seconds, Pepe stopped shaking and after a couple of minutes he was on his feet apologizing for the inconvenience. We were amazed.

If this was all the information I had about the situation, I might still wonder if I had witnessed a miracle. But, education has a tendency to thwart the miraculous and the supernatural. As I came to find out, seizures rarely last longer than a few minutes. Whether we prayed for Pepe, called for medical help, or sprayed cheese whiz on our faces and tickled each other, Pepe would have snapped out of it on his own in about the same amount of time. It was my ignorance which kept my faith alive.

A few years later, after I had learned a thing or two in college about the human body and seizures, I found myself at a get together with some fellow young adult Mormons (BYU students). We were staying at a ranch in Blackfoot, Idaho (Utah junior). While one of the girls was riding a horse in the corral, the horse spooked and began galloping. The fenced-off area was only about a quarter acre--not much room for a horse running at full speed. When the horse was about fifteen feet from the fence, it abruptly stopped, causing the girl to fly over the horse's head and roll--ribs first--in to a large wooden fence post. She was unconscious.

As with Pepe, a swarm of young true-believing Mormons rushed to aide her. Seeing her convulsing to and fro and gargling bloody foaming spit from her mouth, I gently held her head out of the thick mud and kept her airway clear. I knew that her seizure would only last a few moments, but my concern grew when she did not regain consciousness after her convulsions ended.

One of boys, also a returned missionary, handed me a small viol of consecrated oil. This extra special magic healing oil is very important to Mormons, who bless the oil in advance and keep it in a viol on a key chain for just such an occasion. I didn't feel comfortable asking god for a blessing (this was around the time I started to quietly acknowledge my doubts about Mormonism, and for all I knew, god had spooked the horse in the first place), and I told him to do the blessing himself. Besides, I was focused on not letting her suffocate on her own spit.

His prayer was typical of Mormon blessings: "Please, god, heal her, don't let her die, etc." Hardly inspired. Hardly helpful.

I held her head for 10 minutes or so until EMTs arrived (it was an isolated area), all the while keeping her airway clear and her neck and spine straight (she tried to roll around a few times), and talking to her positively about the situation in case she could hear me, despite her inability to respond. Once the EMTs arrived, they put her on a stretcher and airlifted her to a hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah. There, she stayed in a coma for a few days. After awaking, she had a few cracked ribs, some amnesia and loss of some motor skills.

Expectedly, everyone left the ranch somber and worried for their friend. They "kept her in their prayers" and rushed to visit her when she regained consciousness. In the minds of many, god had responded to the young man's blessing with oil in a positive way. Even the injured girl was grateful to god for "healing" her.

As I pointed out, this second incident occurred around the time I first acknowledged my doubts about Mormonism. I was still attending BYU--surrounded by Mormon culture--and I had an inner struggle with the situation. Part of me wanted to chalk up the whole thing as yet another example of superstitious religious folk reading into situations and assigning divine intervention to make them feel better (my current position). But being on the cusp of a faith crisis, I was truly worried that the real reason I refused to offer the blessing was because deep down I felt unworthy to do so.

Mormons have several "rites of passage" for youth and young adults, the most well-known of which is the mission. Before one can go on a mission, however, one must first complete another rite called a "patriarchal blessing." I received my blessing a couple days before I left on my mission. The Mormon Patriarch assigned to my area was an elderly man, who had been a bishop, a stake president and a mission president--all highly respected positions in the Mormon community. As I recall, he and his wife had recently returned from Haiti on a mission trip.

He brought me into his study and explained the process to me: he would put his hands on my head, say whatever words he felt god tell him about my future life in Mormonism, and he would mail me a transcript. It would be my life's horoscope. This sounds like a great deal--direct revelation from god concerning my entire life. However, like most things which sound too good to be true, this life-changing blessing comes with a catch.

Should I disobey god, the deal is off. Should I leave the church, the deal is off. Should anything specified in my blessing not happen, it is because I sinned or did something wrong. You see where this is going.

The reason I bring this up is because in my patriarchal blessing is a clause, which I later found to be rather common in these sorts of blessings, where I was promised that I would be allowed to heal sick and infirmed people through god's power. During my faith crisis, this really messed with my head. Had I simply been unworthy at the time this girl needed a blessing to save her? Would god really make her suffer more because of my sins, stubbornness, or disbelief?

I know now that no matter what the outcome had been for this poor girl, Mormons would find a way to call god merciful. Even if she had died, some would have said "Well, it was her time to go. She is now in a better place. God needed another angel in heaven to help people come to Christ. He allowed her to die as a mercy. Had she lived she would be in pain." And so on. God cannot lose. And because he cannot lose, he cannot be supported through reason and logic. If he cannot be supported through reason and logic, how can I believe he exists and base important life decisions on this belief?

When I realized that I had no good reason to believe that god exists, my faith crisis became less of a crisis and more of an intellectual adventure. My decisions mattered on a more intimate scale. The world became infinitely more fascinating and complex. Natural explanations for creation, to me, are more satisfying and honest than "god did it." Magic doesn't explain anything. It only raises more questions. I would rather admit my ignorance and say "I don't know" than accept an unsupported answer as true because it makes me feel good.

These days, my conscience is not clouded with concerns about my "worthiness" when I help someone in need. I no longer feel bad about refusing to ask god to save that girl. I feel that focusing on first aid and helping her breath was far and away the right and moral choice. 

SING A LITTLE SONG

"[Ted Bundy] said that after a while, murder is not just a crime of lust or violence. It becomes possession. They are part of you ... [the victim] becomes a part of you, and you [two] are forever one ... and the grounds where you kill them or leave them become sacred to you, and you will always be drawn back to them."
--Special Agent William Hagmaier of the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit quoting Ted Bundy (serial killer)

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:"
--Jesus

Some people describe religious beliefs as "false yet harmless" convictions lacking any real or demonstrable harm to the person holding them to be true. But can believing something to be true without supporting evidence really be without harmful effects on other aspects of one's life?

While some thoughts or beliefs, at least on the surface, may seem not to directly hurt a person, the very process through which one comes to believe falsehoods is harmful in itself, and if left unchecked, can sprout through in other lines of reasoning until one does, in fact, believe something harmful.

For example, let's say I believe Santa Claus exists and I have some anecdotal, though fairly unconvincing evidence to support this hypothesis. While the specific belief that "Santa is real" may not hurt me, the fact that I accepted the claim without thorough examination, perhaps because it makes me feel comfortable or offers me reassurance in some way, leaves me susceptible to accepting other unsubstantiated claims on tenuous evidence. It is the process of thought which causes the harm more than any specific false or unsupported belief.

Throughout the countless religion classes I attended while growing up in the Mormon Church, I heard several times that "our thoughts inform our actions," or some variation of that theme. For this reason, one should be mindful of one's thoughts since thinking about bad or sinful things (especially things of an explicit or sexual nature) will invariably lead one to act accordingly. Cases of serial killers and rapists are often described as examples of people who contemplated about such horrific acts long before committing any crimes, thus suggesting that in some sense their crimes could have been avoided by thinking happy thoughts.

But it was not the thoughts of Ted Bundy, and others like him, which led him to kill so many people. No; his beliefs, not simply his thoughts, informed his despicable actions. If he had merely thought about killing people, rather than believing that he could and should do so--consequences being damned somewhat ironically--he likely would have lived a long life as a charismatic, if slightly off-centered and perverted loner. Additionally, being a sociopath, thus lacking the necessary empathy to prohibit him from inflicting harm onto another human being, didn't help.

Likewise, if I spend a great deal of my time fantasizing about flying like a bird or Peter Pan, I know deep down that any attempts to do so would be foolhardy and no amount of thinking will allow me to actually attempt it successfully. However, if I sincerely believe I can fly, perhaps only under specific circumstances (i.e. with the aid of pixie dust), the game changes entirely, and I might be inclined to try it. 

Many suggest reciting or humming a religious hymn as an effective way to distract oneself from unseemly or distasteful thoughts and thus save oneself from the anguish derived from the eternal effects of unrepentant sinning. Coincidentally, many also discover the very Pavlovian conditioned response which may occur if one repeatedly couples thoughts of hymns and sexual desires, however innocently or well-intended. 

As compelling as the argument may sound that our actions are so easily informed by even our worst, most depraved and perverse thoughts, fundamentally the reasoning is flawed, and is nothing more than a feeble attempt by small-minded theocrats to control the minds of their adherents--especially youth with budding libidos. This is what George Orwell described in his book 1984 as "thought crime". It is not enough to say that one should abstain from sexual promiscuity--even thinking about something like adultery, according to Jesus, is the same as committing it, and is just as damning. So much for nuanced and thoughtful consideration from a "just and merciful" god.

Bonus Material:

The Atheist Experience dispelling the notion that lust is the same as adultery:



CIRCULAR CIRCLE IS CIRCULAR

When I was in high school preparing to go on a Mormon mission and trying desperately to have some kind of spiritual experience affirming that the Mormon Church was true, I had a seed of doubt planted by a well-intentioned source. This young man was a couple of years older than me (he still is, in fact) and had just returned from a mission of his own, making him an ideal person for me to talk to concerning such a "burning in the bosom." Or so I thought.

During a discussion or class or something, this person brought up some of the conditions one must allegedly meet in order to recieve a genuine answer from god concerning the validity and historicity of the Book of Mormon, among other things. As he described how one must first have a desire to believe, I found myself for the first time questioning how this process was any different than just simply believing what you want to believe, because you just want to believe it. At the time, I had no knowledge of confirmation bias, or self-affirmation, but what really got me was when he further explained that the Holy Ghost will never lead you astray from what the Church teaches. In other words, only spiritual experiences which agree with the Church are really from god. Well, if this isn't a circular argument, then I don't know what is. He may as well have said, "I know god talks to me, because he tells me so."

Deep down I knew there was a huge problem with the reasoning behind all of this "spiritual experience" business, but I couldn't bring myself to admit it--not even in private. There was too much pressure for me to go on a mission, go to BYU, get married and make lots of babies as quickly as possible. Which brings me to my next point: the Mormon Church's policy to "get 'em while they're young".

One of the toughest things I can imagine in a marriage is when two people of the same religious devotion get married, and some time down the road, one of the two loses their faith. I don't know of very many couples who have survived this. For this reason, many people bury their doubts about a given religion, as it were, "for the kids". Now, the cynical side of me wants to think that this predicament is exploited by religious leaders, with claims that god wants young adults to marry and have children as soon as they can, in order to seal the door on a marriage and trap people in a particular religion for the rest of their lives. The more compassionate side of me wants to think people wouldn't be so callous and flippant with the lives of other people. The more practical side of me thinks it is more complicated than either of those options.

It always seems sinister to me whenever I hear the Mormon Church talk about eternal families. The idea that families can live together in heaven for all of eternity sounds great to many people. This is especially true of young couples starting their families. But without any thing more than a pre-desired sensation, with no verifiable evidence to confirm its origin, and a vague promise that, if obedient to Mormonism, families can be eternal, how can a rationally minded person not at least be skeptical of the claim? Sure it sounds nice, but so what? Is it true? How do you know one way or the other?

This sort of manipulation of the heart-strings brings the argument "What if you're wrong?" to a whole new low. This is why videos like the one below irk me so much:

One last point: Suppose for a moment that one were to empirically demonstrate that god really does talk to people through physical sensations in their chest, and that such a sensation really does confirm that the Book of Mormon is true; would this mean that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "official" Mormon church) is true? No. Ever since the death of Joseph Smith there have been more schisms in Mormonism than Catholicism has had in 2000 years. Just look at the chart below.

With so many sects claiming the Book of Mormon is true, and that they are the true successors of Joseph Smith, how do you know you have accepted the right brand of Mormonism? Even if a burning in the bosom is genuinely from god, how does it prove anything? How do you even know it's genuine?



BONUS MATERIAL:

A family which survived a crisis of faith:

LOVE THE SINNER

"The Bible. That is what fools have written, what imbeciles command, what rogues teach, and young children are made to learn by heart."
--Voltaire





The past few weeks have been rather busy for me. Work has been a big part of it, but also I have had certain musical opportunities come up. One group of which I have been a part for a few years now had a sort of reunion show recently where I got to see some people I haven't seen in quite a while. One of these people was quite shocked to find that I had left the Mormon Church, since we were in the same ward (congregation) while attending BYU.

In fact, this person was the reason I joined this particular group in the first place, and when I first started practicing with them he told me how great it was for him to have another active Mormon in the group. Since this was between the time I had stopped attending church services but had yet to acknowledge my atheism fully, I played along with his expectation. It really was no skin off my nose despite having to bite my lip on a few occasions. If he needed that kind of support system I was happy to oblige. This was my mind set at the time.

A lot has changed from that time to now. Most notably with regards to my relationship with this person my atheism has taken a more prominent role in my life and I have refined my positions on a great many subjects. So, when he and I discussed my leaving the Church we covered quite a bit of ground, most of which I would not post on a public blog due to privacy. But one topic came up which I think is relevant and I don't think he would mind if I addressed it here: Mormonism is a good way to raise kids.

His position, as I remember it, is that Mormonism is good for kids in that it helps teach them right from wrong, offers a good social frame work, etc, and yet as his kids grow older he will allow them to make the choice for themselves to stay or leave the church. Either possible outcome will not diminish his love for them. My immediate response to this position is that whether or not the church does good is irrelevant to its truthfulness, which is my primary concern. But upon further consideration, I don't think I can even give him that much ground that the church is good for kids. Any good done by the Mormon Church seems to come at a price.

The Mormon Church is especially divisive towards those who do not follow their rules--regardless of religious affiliation. The more Mormon rules an outsider does not follow (and why would they?) the less likely Mormons are to associate with them. This is a mentality which is taught at a very young age and is reinforced with great zeal during the teenage years. A good Mormon is taught to not spend time with those deemed as "bad influences", lest they be led down a path of sin and damnation.

This concept breeds divisiveness and ostracises many non-Mormons who live in strong Mormon communities. Do you really want to raise your kids in such a narrow-minded manner? Sure, this view of sin may allow them to avoid parties with drugs and alcohol and pre-marital sex, but this also makes it difficult to make the distinction between "smoking is bad" and "people who smoke are bad", since god apparently makes no such distinction.

Furthermore, the religious concept of right and wrong is not morality, but rather it is simple-minded obedience. According to his closest followers, god does not want automatonic robots, but issuing a list of "do's and don't's" is exactly how such robotic minds are molded. The only fundamental difference between a robot following orders and a religious person following a list of commandments is that the religious person volunteers to subject themselves to these commandments and forfeit their freewill (argued by some religious people as our greatest gift from god and therefore it is our greatest sacrifice).

Why would god give us freewill and then tell us that the only appropriate use of such a gift is to voluntarily give it up and never use it. And how does any of this actually teach children how to make a moral assessment of a situation? This way of thinking does not promote morality--it is the circumvention of moral thinking. This is what Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg meant when he said:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Teaching unquestioning obedience to children--or that disobedience leads to damnation--is the opposite of moral.

Another topic related to this one, which I will save for another day, is whether all the apparent benefits of Mormonism (i.e. social network, morality, charity, sober living) can be attained without adherance to the religion. The answer, by the way, is "yes".

BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is a link to an excellent article by Richard Packham on raising children in the Mormon Church even if it is not true. Here are some of the topics covered by Mr Packham:

Perfection through Obedience
Moral (Sexual) Purity
Truthfulness
Education and Knowledge
Belonging and Being "Special"
Choosing What To Do In Life
Developing a Moral System

Here is Christopher Hitchens on lying to children:

VERY NAUGHTY BOYS

The following is from a 1979 BBC talk-show on Monty Python's "Life of Brian", which is one of the most profound and influential satires on Christianity ever produced. I find it interesting that so many of the topics John Cleese and Micheal Palin address are still thrown into the arena of intellectual debate by religious folk.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

BLESSINGS INCOGNITO

 A few weeks ago I wrote about the sharp shooter logical fallacy (counting hits, ignoring misses), and how people will often apply this to the efficacy of prayer. Well, today I came across another example of this from my own mother as she explained how blessed she is to have a son serving a Mormon mission. I am not interested in completely destroying her argument (which, honestly seems to be pretty unrelated to my younger brother's mission), but I will explain how one of her examples of being blessed is a broader example of a sharp shooter fallacy.

According to my mother: "[Taylor] was able to go 6 weeks early because his Visa came through early. In a recent letter Taylor said that only ONE Elder arrived in the Brasil MTC, the day Taylor originally was scheduled, November 28th. That is because of the Storm (Sandy) that was on the East Coast. Taylor said the storm closed a major consulate office,making it harder to get Visa, so many Elders had to go to the Provo MTC instead of the Brazil MTC. That would very likely have included Taylor."

Now, my brother is the youngest of my mother's 5 sons, and all of us served missions. My youngest brother is the only one of us who left early, narrowly escaping the horrific fate of having to wait a little while. What if the rest of us had had to wait--would this have been a sign of God's contempt for us?

It is obvious that my mother sees this as a blessing, but what of the mothers of the other missionaries who had to wait to go to Brazil? Does this mean God does not care for them as much as my brother, or is at least arbitrarily withholding blessings from them?

What would my mother say if my brother had had to wait with the others in the Provo MTC? Perhaps it would have been a blessing in disguise, which opened doors he would have missed had he gone straight to Brazil. Maybe the blessings of going to Provo instead of Brazil would be greater, in which case my brother would be the one who missed out. Would this prove God loved the other missionaries more than my brother?

I can take this further than mere conjecture, as one of my closest friends found himself in this very position on 9/11, as he had to wait some time before going to the exact same mission as my brother. And what did he say about having to wait? Well, pretty much what I said above--it was a blessing in disguise (he also admitted it was kind of annoying).

I recall several instances, usually at church, where people have said things like, "There are miracles all around us, you just have to look for them." I understand the positive effect this way of thinking can have on a person's attitude and general outlook on life, but how is attributing things to God, which could easily be coincidence, any different than seeing what you want to see? Without explaining how God actually suspended the natural order on your behalf, how can you definitively say, "God did it?"

And aren't miracles supposed to be more than just mundane or even significant happenstance? I thought Jesus healed the sick, walked on water, and raised the dead--all of which are claimed by religious people today! Miracles are supposed to be supernatural. If an unlikely thing occurs, like, say, winning the lottery, is it a miracle? No! Unlikely things do not need divine intervention--they just need time, as the laws of probability tell us.

Going back to the example of my brother, it was rather lucky of him to leave when he did, but I see no reason to think it was divinely arranged--some times people just have things go in their favor. In fact, it would be more remarkable to me if not a single person had some stroke of luck out of the whole experience. It would also be more improbable for unlikely things to never happen; so, would a lack of anything unusual, lucky or unlikely ever occurring for a single person mean God is making it so?


BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is Richard Dawkins using probability to show how coincidences are meaningless:

Here is a video of a guy who left the Mormon Church, in part because he realized God failed to perform miracles as promised (the opposite of the sharp shooter fallacy):

(and this was going to be a quick post....)

RIDE ON

"The Horsemen are drawing nearer
On the leather steeds they ride
They have come to take your life
On through the dead of night
With the four Horsemen ride
Or choose your fate and die."
--Metallica "The Four Horsemen"



In the past 10 years or so there have been a number of books published about atheism and various religious beliefs, many of which were spurred on by the attacks on 9/11. Out of these have risen a number best-sellers by four authors, in particular: Sam Harris (The End of Faith), Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon), and Christopher Hitchens (god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). These four men of different scholarly backgrounds have collectively become known as The Four Horsemen (some times called the "New Atheists"), due in large part to their books which seek to dismantle the supernatural claims of religion. As much as I highly recommend these books, this post is actually more about the religious responses to these books and other efforts of the New Atheist movement's push back on religiosity.

Rather than going through specific rebuttals to the books listed above (such as Alister McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion), I want to address some of the arguments which religious apologists and theologians use to counter atheist arguments. For instance, one of the key aspects of the books above and one of my own arguments against religion is a lack of evidence supporting their claims: "Without any evidence for the extraordinary claims you make, I have no choice but to withhold belief." Because of this, some apologists have responded with books about supposed evidence for god and how atheists are either in denial of the evidence or are too stupid to understand it.

One such response is from the infamous Ray Comfort (Banana Man), in his book You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think. The funny thing about Mr Comfort's book is that his "evidence" seems to be that atheists really do believe in god but deny his existence. Furthermore, while he ridicules atheists for denying his evidence for god, he also explicitly states that he knows for a fact that god exists, and that no evidence was necessary for him to come to this conclusion, nor would any evidence against god be sufficient to convince him otherwise. So, really his book should be titled 133 Pages of Ray Comfort's Theological Hypocrisy.

Another argument which comes up from time to time, is that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer, as proclaimed by Bill O'Reilly to Richard Dawkins:

Setting aside the obvious logical fallacy presented by Bill O'Reilly (argument from ignorance), what I find most interesting about this argument is that it belittles the virtue of faith while attempting to insult atheists for utilizing it. It is a flip-flop matched only by certain, recently unsuccessful politicians. Apologists know that evidence is more convincing than faith, and so they try to borrow the credibility of science without actually implementing its principles (i.e. testing, falsification, duplication, etc.). This is especially so in the on-going intelligent design vs evolution debate.

Of course, the primary reason they try to pin atheists with a faith-based position is to level the intellectual playing field (as well as to add insult to ignorance). But by so-doing they have passively admitted the weakness of their own faith-based beliefs.

If faith really is a virtue, why would they seek evidence of any kind? Wouldn't having less empirical support make them more virtuous?

Here is theologian Frank Turek further explaining how he doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist (I'm only posting the 1st of 5 videos; you can look up the rest if you are interested):

As with Mr O'Reilly, Mr Turek's argument is as self-defeating as it is ignorant.





BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is the Atheist Experience ridiculing Ray Comfort's book You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think:

And one of Ray Comfort actually calling the Atheist Experience:

Here is religious apologist and "Ex-Atheist" Lee Strobel talking about his best-selling book, The Case for Christ:

Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens on the existance of god:

And finally, the Four Horsemen talking together about their books:

DEBUNK-A-DUNK

For those who don't know, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) has issued a fabulous prize of one million dollars (see left) for anyone who can provide conclusive evidentiary support for any paranormal or supernatural claim. It doesn't matter if it is telepathy, homeopathy, dowsing, astrology, mindreading, bending spoons or keys, talking to the dead, or proving the existence of god, ghosts or invisible pink unicorns; if it is paranormal or supernatural and you have proof that it is real, the JREF will give you one million dollars. So, how many people have won this prize? Zero people...

Despite having some form of this challenge since 1964, the JREF has never had anyone provide indisputable proof of anything supernatural or paranormal, but not for lack of applicants. Here is James Randi explaining the challenge:

James Randi, a successful magician himself, has ruffled feathers for years among his colleagues as he has exposed a number of them as charlatans and frauds, who willfully deceive gullible audiences with claims of being true-blue mystics and psychics and the like. Just as he did to psychic Uri Gellar on the Johnny Carson Show (on live TV!), and a few years later, the imfamous Christian Evangelist Peter Popoff:

Mr Randi is not the only magician seeking to expose opportunistic frauds who prey on the credulous. Here is Criss Angel (successfully) taunting "paranormalist" Jim Callahan with his own money on live television (note: Uri Gellar, who was previously exposed as a fraud by James Randi, is also on the show, and wouldn't you know it, he believes Mr Callahan is the real deal...):

Good stuff, and even better television. One more: Here is dynamic-duo, Penn and Teller, debunking astrology (explicit):

So, why am I spending all this time on debunking supernatural mumbo-jumbo, malarcky, and jibbery-joo? Because the same tactics used by illusionists to defame charlatans can be used to debunk many, if not all, religious claims. For me, atheism is a logical extension of my skepticism. I have no more reason to believe in god than ghosts, star alignment, or the boogey man. Provide me with a rational, empirical reason to believe in god, and I will not only believe, but I will submit your proof to James Randi and give you the money you deserve. I may even eat my hat.


BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is musician, comedian, and atheist extraordinaire Tim Minchin pretty much agreeing with me:

And one more from Mr Minchin on confronting a "New Ager":

AMBASTARDS

"Just as feminists wince when they hear 'he' rather than 'he or she', or 'man' rather than 'human', I want everybody to flinch whenever we hear a phrase such as 'Catholic child' or 'Muslim child'. Speak of a 'child of Catholic parents' if you like; but if you hear anybody speak of a 'Catholic child', stop them and politely point out that children are too young to know where they stand on such issues, just as they are too young to know where they stand on economics or politics."
--Richard Dawkins (author, "The God Delusion")






In high school I was very active in my church, and due to my involvement with certain prominent extracurricular activities, most of my peers knew this of me. My faith became part of my identity, at least from the perspective of others. This was mostly encouraging to me, but at times it also built a lot of pressure to be an "ambassador" (see left) for my church. If I really believed that my church had some divinely revealed truth that other churches were missing, then I had better act like it...

I some times laugh when I think about the role-reversal I have taken when compared with other people I grew up with--especially some of the more popular kids who apparently hit rock bottom (or got kind of close) and found Jesus. A few people from my graduating class are now pastors, of which only one was predictable at the time. Other kids who were not the least bit religious back then are now avid Christians of one variety or another, many of whom are quite vocal about it, as well.

It's strange, though, that those who go the other direction, such as myself, are much less likely to be vocal about their change-over. I have thought many times about confronting some of the louder religious friends of mine, in hopes of engaging in an intellectually provocative discussion. And perhaps I will some day, but in the mean time I have been examining some of their views which they present so publicly. And to be honest, I don't find what they have to say all that thought-provoking, since they tend to either preach to the choir or use old, tiresome arguments which I have already addressed on this blog many times.

One such person is Wes Dunn, who was a rather boisterous Evangelist in high school, so it is no wonder that he is now a Youth Pastor for a large church in Seattle, called City Church. In the videos below, Wes talks about a few things pertaining to his position and offers encouragement for the youth, etc. He mentions a couple of things which I want to address. As preparation for a possible upcoming confrontation (i.e. debate), I will use a standard letter format, addressed to Mr. Dunn.

Dear Mr. Wesley Dunn,

First, I find it odd and slightly menacing of you to tell sexually repressed teenagers that one of the things which helps you stay "fresh and inspired" is having sex with your wife. You say you are being "candid", and I assume you are also trying to paint an encouragable picture of a proper, traditional marriage; but if even I, an atheist, felt a bit put off by your statement, I can only imagine what it might do to a young teenage boy--filled to the brim with testosterone--who recently discovered masturbation, and even more recently discovered it is a sin... But who knows, perhaps you are part of one of those new-fangled "progressive" Christian churches which doesn't spout the usual list of damnable natural urges.

Second, you speak about morality and good versus bad reasons for doing the right thing, which in the beginning had me agreeing with you, but your final conclusion lost me entirely. As commendable as it is to do good things without the promise of a "paycheck", the very next sentence, "There is only rewards in heaven", confuses the idea of doing good things without reward. Aside from having to wait a while longer for your compensation, how is this mentality of heavenly rewards as a motivation to do good things any different than doing these things for money?

The expectation, I would argue, is even more contemptible since people who believe this kind of thing usually think of heaven as being far more grand than an earthly paycheck. In fact, I would say it is more moral to do good things for a finite paycheck, than an eternal prize after death. And along the same vein, how much more moral would a person be who knew they were going to hell and still did good things? What about a person who thinks death is the end of existence, and yet, does good things? Clearly, since they are not doing it for a prize or compensation of any kind, these people would be the most moral of all.

Lastly, you spend a great amount of time talking about "honoring" leaders and trusting God. Yet, you also qualify your advice with obviously amoral exceptions, like slavery and abuse. The interesting thing about this is that the Bible which you hold dear advocates slavery and actually tells slaves to obey their masters. It goes further by giving instructions to slave-masters as to how hard they can beat their slaves (within an inch of their life). So, you seem to be cherry-picking the moral advice you derive from the Bible.

I am curious how you differentiate between the moral and immoral parts of the Bible. If you say the "Spirit of God", then I would ask: Why does the perfect word of God require such divine inspiration to discern the morality of what is supposed to be the "Good Book" from which Christians claim to get their morals. Why all the confusion? How do you know it is actually the "Spirit of God" and not your own mind? Isn't it more likely that you are just rationalizing your own moral compass with what you read in the Bible? Furthermore, if all Christians claim to use the "Spirit of God" to properly interpret the Bible, why are there so many arguments about things like gay rights among Christians, all of which cite the same Holy Book? How do you know that you are interpreting it correctly?

I look forward to your response, but let's be honest, you are never going to read this, let alone respond to it.

Skeptically Yours,


Circle Squared





OK, here are the videos:

Part 1

Part 2

WEAK SAUCE

Troy: "Let me ask your a question. People have been clowning me about this jacket since I got here. If I take it off to make them happy, that just makes me weak, right?"
Jeff: "Listen, it doesn't matter. You lose the jacket to please them, you keep it to piss them off--either way, it's for them. That's what's weak."
Troy: "Whoa... You just wrinkled my brain, man."
--excerpt from "Community"





When I moved to Utah some 10 years ago, everyone I knew here was Mormon. A large part of this was due to me attending BYU (a Mormon university), where practically everyone is Mormon. Even the handful of non-Mormon students at BYU have to attend certain religious classes where they mostly learn about Mormonism and many become members. This is not surprising, though, since it seems unlikely that anyone not at least mildly interested in joining the Church would attend BYU.

As I gradually stopped going to church, I found that there are quite a few non- and ex-Mormons in Utah--even in Provo (where BYU is located). Sadly, many of them are disgruntled, disaffected and alienated the closer you get to BYU.

I have even noticed a trend among them that they will often go to great lengths to wear their non-Mormon-ness on their shoulder and intentionally do things just because a Mormon would not do it. Things like drinking alcohol and coffee, smoking cigarettes, using illicit drugs, getting tattoos, piercings and "unique" haircuts, growing facial hair, talking like a sailor and sexual promiscuity are sure-fire ways to make people doubt you are a Mormon.

While I don't really have a problem with people doing these things on moral grounds (as many religious people would argue), I see no reason to engage in such activities just to prove to passersby that I don't pay tithing or wear funny underwear.

Unlike many people around me who have also left Mormonism, I do not feel compelled in the least to change my lifestyle. In fact, I haven't used religion as a reason to not drink or smoke since I graduated from high school. There are much more convincing arguments against these sorts of activities which have nothing to do with religion or morality--like, say, health.

Because of the fact that in many ways I still live the "Mormon lifestyle", people often think I am Mormon. I don't really have a problem with this confusion, although, some people seem to think I should. Being associated with Mormons, even accidentally, is insulting to some people. Personally, I see it as an opportunity to challenge social norms and show that religion has nothing to do with being healthy, clean, sober and the sort of person you wouldn't mind bringing home to your parents.

For me, one of the best aspects of being an atheist is the ability to make decisions on my own, rather than taking the word of authority figures with self-appointed credentials. I believe people should live their lives the best way they know how, however bland and typical and ordinary it may be. If you find yourself doing things just to prove that you are not religious or part of a particular group, you are allowing other people to determine how you live your life. Make your own decisions--you will be much happier this way.

WHAT WOULD DIDYMUS DO?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."
--Christopher Hitchens






What is the difference between "faith" and "gullibility"? The same thing that war is good for: absolutely nothing ("Good God, Y'all").

Let's define some terms:

Gullibility: tendency to believe too readily and therefore to be easily deceived. Noun: credulity, innocence, naïveté, blind faith, credulousness, simplicity. "She must take part of the blame for her own gullibility".

Faith: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Strong or unshakable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence. Noun: confidence, trust, credit, conviction, assurance, dependence, reliance, credence. "She had placed a great deal of faith in him".

Upon reading the above definitions, I hope you noticed that the only real difference between the words "faith" and "gullibility" is the connotation that "gullibility" is inherently negative, and therefore, undesirable. Keep this in mind as I attempt to show that the two words are essentially the same in meaning.

John chapter 20 is the story of the resurrection of Jesus and his subsequent appearances to various people, including the infamous Doubting Thomas (aka "Didymus"). Famously, after Thomas put his fingers in Jesus's side and felt his wounds to verify that the man before him was, in fact, the resurrected Christ, Jesus is quoted as saying to Thomas:

"Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

Here Jesus is setting the standard that believing the testimony of other people is a valid reason to believe a given claim, and is seemingly more favorable in the eyes of god than withholding belief until one can verify the claim through empiricism and evidence. In other words, taking some one's word for something is just as good--if not better--than actually experiencing it firsthand. God will allegedly bless those who believe without good reasons to do so.

As absurd as this sounds, it is reinforced again in the Book of Mormon as Jesus appears to the Nephites in 3 Nephi 11: 14-15. Here Jesus instructs an entire multitude of people to touch his wounds to verify that he is the Christ. In the very next chapter Jesus again affirms that those who believe without seeing him themselves will be blessed.

The thing which strikes me as odd is that both instances are preceded by accounts of people actually seeing Jesus with their own eyes! In the case of Thomas, every single other apostle saw Jesus the week before. The reason he is called "Doubting Thomas" is because he did not believe the outlandish tale of the other apostles that Jesus had resurrected from the dead, without first seeing some evidence. If he had believed them, based only on their word, then he would have rightly been labeled "gullible", because he would have had no reason to accept their extraordinary claim.

As with Thomas, the Nephites who did not actually see and touch Jesus would have no reason to believe such an event had occurred, and would similarly be counted as "believing too readily", thus making them gullible. Would this be commendable or desirable?

Sometimes, critics of Christianity will point these things out to Christians and ask the question, "If Jesus appeared to Doubting Thomas (or the Nephites), why doesn't he appear to people who question his existence today?" This is similar to asking, "Why doesn't god prove his existence to everyone once and for all?" The most common response I have received for asking these types of questions is that if god or Jesus did prove their existence, it would remove the need for faith, and we would all become automatons and robots--devoid of free will, and slaves to our knowledge (or some other nonsensical gibberish).

There are several problems with this argument. For instance, unlike god, I know that police exist; does this knowledge remove my ability to break the law? According to Christian theology, Satan knows that god exists, and yet he continues to rebel. Will we have a perfect knowledge of god's existence in heaven? If so, does this mean there will be no free will in the afterlife, or that we will be angelic slave-bots? Did the apostles (and the Nephites) lose their agency when they saw and touched Jesus?

The proposition of losing free will upon gaining knowledge is unsatisfactory, and does not stand against even the most mild scrutiny. Why then does god not grant all people with knowledge of his existence? Wouldn't withholding information which would save billions of people from experiencing eternal torture implicate the person with that information as being among the most despicable and wretched creatures in existence? Does god get a "pass" here?

Hebrews 11:1 says:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

As I understand this passage, faith is hoping for something for which you have no evidence. This is consistent with the definition of "faith" at the top of the page, but the definition provided in the Book of Mormon adds some important information concerning "faith":

"...faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." [emphasis added]

This passage implies that you can only have faith in something which is true. The problem with this is that in order to verify that a given claim is true, you need to provide evidence, which in turn removes the need for faith all together.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the accounts of Thomas and the Nephites are true. After having seen and touched Jesus in this way, these people no longer have faith, but knowledge of Jesus's existence. This makes Jesus's comment to Thomas that he should "be not faithless, but believing" nonsensical, since Thomas had empirically confirmed Jesus's existence just moments before.

Believing something to be absolutely true without evidence, however fervently, is a contemptible state of mind. This kind of rationale gives way to holding similarly unjustified beliefs. If you can posit the existence of Bigfoot without evidence, you can equally posit the existence of pixies, Santa Clause, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Raptor Jesus (see left).

Those who utilize this way of thinking will not be "blessed" as Jesus has twice promised. Rather, it will cloud a mind's ability to make rational decisions, thus making people susceptible to "believing too readily and therefore be easily deceived".

A god which rewards gullibility over rationality is not worthy of worship.



BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is the Atheist Experience discussing Doubting Thomas and gullibility: