We Need More Mental Evaluations!

I saved for comment this odd story and, thankfully, from what I can tell no one was seriously harmed (no doubt it was emotionally traumatic to those involved).

It seems that in Russellville, Alabama a senior citizen named Jean Timms broke into a family's home and, well, let me quote from the story:

Officials say the homeowner was awakened by the break-in and confronted Timms, who first said he was Jesus Christ and was there to have sex with his wife and daughter. They say that a few minutes later, Timms identified himself as Elvis Presley and pulled his pants down to his knees.

Police were called, and they say Timms ran out but was quickly captured. He was being held without bond at the county jail.

Well, doubtless this fellow has some mental issues, just like the guy I posted about yesterday. So he is now awaiting his mental evaluation.

While I'm sure this will be a controversial suggestion, I have to say that I think mental evaluations are in order for anyone claiming to be divine. Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Marshall Applewhite all made claims to be Jesus, and they led others with them to premature death because of their delusions of grandeur. These tragedies could have been prevented, but usually nothing is done until an actual crime has been committed.

Wikipedia has this interesting list of people who have claimed to be Jesus. It is worth looking over and following the links just to get an idea of how harmful to the general welfare this problem is.

And I have to go further and say I worry about those who claim that God talks to them. Maybe like Oral Roberts and Pat Robertson, they will do nothing more than bilk the gullible out of their hard-earned cash - which is bad enough and should be criminal. But who knows how far a megalomaniac will go?

I don't wish to come across as anti-religious. I'm not. But there are elements in religion that deserve more scrutiny than they get because, especially in our nation, the subject holds such a lofty place in the public imagination and is deemed almost beyond reproach. With that I strongly disagree.

Who Does God Talk To?

Thirty-eight year old Norman Leboon is being held without bail while awaiting a psychiatric evaluation. The self-proclaimed "son of the God of Enoch" made and posted to Youtube a video threatening the life of Rep. Eric Cantor, Republican whip in the current Congress. According to one news story Leboon's video contained this warning for Cantor:

Remember Eric ... our judgment time, the final Yom Kippur has been given. You are a liar, you're a Lucifer, you're a pig, a greedy (expletive deleted) pig. You're an abomination. You receive my bullets in your office. Remember they will be placed in your heads. You and your children are Lucifer's abominations.

And according to this report Leboon has made other threatening videos aimed Barack Obama, the movie studio behind the movie Babe (Babe, he tells us, was "created by Lucifer"), federal judges (with this warning: "You will lose your first born sons as you sleep. I did this to the Pharoah."), and white supremacist David Duke.

Now I want to ask in absolute seriousness: why is it suspected that Norman Leboon is off his beam? Why the psychiatric evaluation? Don't get me wrong - I do think people who believe God talks to them are somewhat delusional (I won't go so far as to say crazy, but there is something definitely abnormal about this type of thing).

My reasoning is as follows: I don't believe in an anthropomorphic deity that would be capable of talking to anyone. For that reason, I reject all alleged divine communications from all sources. I may be wrong, of course. But at least I'm consistent.

On the other hand, for all those who believe in a personal God, a God who is concerned about mankind and life's drama, who believe that God is "in control" of what is going on and has revealed his will to his creatures, I don't understand how they can accept one purported revelation and reject another.

It is worth noting that this God of Enoch is the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And what separates these three groups is the issue of divine revelation. Christians believe that later prophets added to the revelations given to Moses and the prophets of Israel (Jews don't believe this), while Muslims believe that a later prophet, Muhammad, received additional revelations that superseded Christianity and Judaism (Jews and Christians don't believe this).

The whole trouble is, if you believe God did talk to your religion's forefathers, how can you deny he spoke to those of other religious traditions? This is a thorny problem that rarely gets an airing.

There no doubt are those who would agree with Leboon that Cantor is a greedy liar. Some would agree he is a pig. Would that make it easier to accept Leboon as a prophet of God?

The usual response is for a religious believer to say that their God wouldn't say this or that. "My God wouldn't tell a person to do that," we are told. But again, how do they know? If you believe any of the holy books of the big three religions, for example, you find God telling people to do a lot strange things that would be totally unacceptable according to modern ethical standards.

If indeed there is a God who speaks to man, it follows that no mental evaluation could possibly prove or disprove that. And who is to say that God does not keep giving additional revelations and that these revelations might not seem contradictory to prior revelations?

This whole thing is a very big door that once opened seems impossible to close again. But 'tis not a problem at all for my religious philosophy.

The Dead Heroes Club

I'm thinking today about - for lack of a better name to call it - hero worship.

What is it about the human animal that causes so many of us to idolize and want to be just like others? You see this everywhere you look. Just think about it.

I love to read the comments section of items I find online. One of the more obnoxious aspects of this is seeing all the screen names of people who "assumed" the identity of other well known humans (Darwin, Voltaire, Martin Luther, Thomas Jefferson, Buddha, etc.). Is their thinking that this somehow lends validity to their views?

"What would Jesus do?" we are often asked to ponder. I wonder why it matters. Jesus, I suppose, is important to many because he is thought to be the Son of God in some unique sense that others cannot be. Some think that not only is he the Son of God, but that he is God also (try to figure that one out). Therefore, the logic goes, one shouldn't have an opinion that is out of harmony with his (although, when you think about it, there is so little known about what he did think about this or that, and, so far as we have been able to determine, he left nothing of his own thoughts in writing and what we do have written about him by others is hopelessly contradictory and perhaps just plain wrong).

We are often asked to think about what our Founding Fathers would think about this or that issue. Does it matter? Like Jesus and every other historical figure, they spoke to their own times. Some principles may be timeless, it is true, but so also is this fact: people change and adapt to new circumstances. Except when they are dead and have been for long periods of time.

What would Jesus have changed in his teaching had he the benefit of seeing the past two thousand years of history and no establishment of the Kingdom of God which he thought was "at hand" and would be established while some of his disciples were still living?

Can we believe that our great presidents like Jefferson and Lincoln, were they still living, would have maintained their belief that the white race is superior to the black? Would science-minded American greats such as Jefferson and Franklin have altered their views about the Creator and Nature's God had they lived in a post-Darwin age? I think so, at least somewhat - and who knows how much more?

We do ourselves a great disservice when we forget that history's people of renown had feet of clay just as we have. And while there are a lot of these folk who inspire us today, we shouldn't have them up on a pedestal (figuratively speaking) above the great minds of today. In the distant future, others will stand on our shoulders and rise above us.

In my mind, hero worship stands in the way of progress. The question shouldn't be what would this or that person have done back in their day or if somehow they lived in ours - the question is, what should we do now?

And please don't get me wrong. I draw inspiration and often marvel at the incredible wisdom and foresight of some of our predecessors. But their contemporaries were well aware of their shortcomings and humanness. Should would be less aware of their limitations?

GOP is God's Own Party?

It didn't take angry letter-to-the editor writer Rebecca Rochat very long to outline the major philosophical wrongs of the modern Republican party. Scroll down this page until you find "Things to believe to be a Republican." In one short blast she points out that according to Republicans

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but corporations can make decisions affecting millions without regulation. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex. Global warming is junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools. Driving up the deficit to fund a war based on lies will keep us safe, passing health care legislation that is cost effective and makes health care more affordable to Americans, is socialism.

It just makes no sense, does it?

What leads to this state of affairs in the GOP? An unwillingness to question their religious biases? Let's face it: religion is a key element in most of their platform these days. There is even a book on the market that makes the case that capitalism is God's own plan. And if you think the Iraq invasion thing is out of place in my suggestion, just recall that President W originally referred to his "war on terror" as a crusade. Although he later went out of the way to make the case that American is not at war with Islam, the Republican base clearly is.

Here is my take: modern Republicans = Christian Supremacists (with very few exceptions).

The Lust For Lies

Okay, with the brief respite of yesterday's idealistic post behind me, now it is time to return to the real world. And let me set this one up with a brief quote usually credited to that incomparable wit and freethinker Voltaire:

Despite the enormous quantity of books, how few people read! And if one reads profitably, one would realize how much stupid stuff the vulgar herd is content to swallow every day.

How true. How true.

I thought of that as I examined this news story about public opinion of President Obama.

Would you believe (at least according to a new internet Harris Poll) that 40% of Americans believe Obama is a socialist? Maybe that shouldn't be surprising when you consider that probably upwards of 90% couldn't define socialism!

But most Americans could probably tell you what the Antichrist is, and 14% (what's that, about 1 in 7?) think Obama could be him. That moves up 24%, or about one out of every four, when considering what Republicans think about it.

The following list is taken directly from the story I linked to above:

38 percent say he wants to take away Americans' right to own guns.
32 percent say he is a Muslim.
29 percent think he wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government.
29 percent think he has done many things that are unconstitutional.
27 percent say he resents America's heritage.
27 percent say he does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do.
25 percent say he was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president.
25 percent say he is a domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitutions speaks of.
23 percent say he is a racist.
23 percent say he is anti-American.
23 percent say he wants to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers.
20 percent say he is doing many of the things that Hitler did.

Hey, what chaps my cheeks about this is that it shows that people are letting others do their thinking for them. It wouldn't take endless hours in a library or performing internet research to get to the truth of these matters. People who buy into such slander just aren't informed. They aren't informed because they don't bother to read and to think for themselves.

There is another thing at work here, I think. People for the most part don't want the truth. What the majority want are justifications for believing what they want to believe. It is a most difficult thing for us humans to accept things solely for what they are, rather than what we think or wish them to be. That is true for politics, religion, for things in general, I believe.

I'm a big supporter of the right of free speech. But I sure do wish freethinking would go hand-in-hand along with it. However, as Nazi propagandist Joesph Goebbels pointed out: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." If you wonder how the German people could have gone along with the Nazi atrocities, you will find your answer in the way some big liars here in the United States are stoking the fires for another "revolution." The lies are already being swallowed in large quantities.

The truth is usually not so sensational. Sadly, those of us who use reason will not have as large an impact as those who "go for the gut." We can hope that calmer heads will eventually prevail, but I am more than a little concerned about the present trend. Our nation is in serious trouble, and it is mostly due to the willingness of so many to accept what is being force-fed down our throats by power hungry thugs and immoral opportunists.

Reading is fundamental and so is thinking about what you read. If more people did that, if more people were intelligently informed, if, if, if...

A Better World

I'm going to - no, I need to - switch gears today. It's very hard to remain upbeat and optimistic in a world such as ours. The last two posts have really brought me down. The world is far from perfect because people are far from perfect. Okay, that's a given. But there are things that those of us who really care could do to make the world a better place. Here's a little poem that suggests how I think things ought to be:

The World Would Be The Better For It



If men cared less for wealth and fame,
And less for battlefields and glory;
If writ in human hearts a name
Seemed better than in song or story;
If men, instead of nursing pride,
Would learn to hate it and abhor it;
If more relied
On love to guide -
The world would be the better for it.

If men dealt less in stocks and lands,
And more in bonds and deeds fraternal;
If Love's work had more willing hands,
To link this world with the supernal;
If men stored up Love's oil and wine,
And on bruised human hearts would pour it:
If "yours" and "mine"
Would once combine -
This world would be the better for it.

If more would act the play of life,
And fewer spoil it in rehearsal;
If bigotry would sheath its knife
Till good became more universal;
If custom, gray with ages grown,
Had fewer blind men to adore it;
If talent shone
In good alone,
The world would be the better for it.

If men were wise in little things,
Affecting less in all their dealings;
If hearts had fewer rusted strings
to isolate their kindred feelings;
If men, when wrong beats down the right,
Would strike together to restore it;
If right made might
In every fight -
The world would be the better for it.

W. H. Cobb

One Man's Terrorism Is Another Man's Patriotism

A volatile mixture: mass American stupidity plus right-wing rhetoricians.

I suppose the healthcare reform soap opera is the capstone. The Obama presidency has from its beginning faced, I believe, unprecedented hatred and opposition.

The top story on NBC's Nightly News last night was the increasing retaliatory violence against those who supported the efforts to bring reform to healthcare. Here's a link to an Associated Press story about the matter.

Maybe these extremists don't speak for the majority of Obama's opposition (but come on, Republican Congressional members were actually fomenting the anger of the ignorant masses who had gathered to oppose the Bill's passage!). But this division in America has gotten out of hand. It is mainstream now, thanks in no small part to the likes of Fox News, Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and a host of other tough-talking bullies.

Some people take such great pride in the so-called Tea Party movement. I've never heard so many people talking about the Constitution and what is supposedly unconstitutional. (I wonder how many of these folks have actually read that document?) If you are like me and wonder where these folks were during the bad old days of George W. Bush's presidency, we have but to consider the position of right-wing rhetoricians. The things President Bush did to defend and protect us from the threat of violence and terrorism - in other words, supposedly, to "keep us safe" - were seen as extreme but necessary.

In light of these recent developments, I have to assume that violence and terrorism are perfectly okay if the cause is right(wing). If these increasing acts of patriot-style terrorism here in America are not Constitutional, so what? As Barry Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism said, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!"

And these "patriots" are too dumb to see the connection between themselves and Al-Qaeda.

Hateful Fear-mongering

They say you learn something new everyday. I learned something new yesterday I wish I hadn't learned. Or maybe I should say I learned something I wish weren't true. In fact, I find it incredible that it is true and not some sick joke or over the top satire.

I received an e-mail from Human Events and on behalf of a group called Public Advocate of the United States with the subject line: Do you support the Homosexual Agenda? I had never heard of this group nor of their president, Eugene Delgaudio. The Washington Post, however, considers Delgaudio a key leader in opposition to the gay rights movement.

The stuff in that long, rambling fund raising appeal is unreal. I have no link to guide you to this noxious piece of trashy lies and I wouldn't waste the space to include much of it here. But let me share some of the lowlights and see if this doesn't infuriate you as well.

It seems Mr. Delguadio is concerned about "radical homosexuals" having a petition drive aimed at Congress for the passage of this much talked about "homosexual agenda." If Congress were to listen, very soon the following will happen:

Radical homosexuals will terrorize day care centers, hospitals, churches and private schools.

Wedding-gown clad men smooching before some left-wing clergy or state official is just the beginning.

You'll see men hand-in-hand skipping down to adoption centers to "pick out" a little boy for themselves.

High school children will learn perverted sex acts as part of "safe sex" education.

I'll be honest here. I'm just as straight as straight can be. But I have to say the people who spread this type of hate scare me far more than the most radical of gays ever could.

I have and have had many gay friends, and I have gay relatives. I've never known a gay terrorist. In all these years I've never seen one of my male gay friends or acquaintances don any kind of female apparel. On the other hand, I have seen some of my male heterosexual acquaintances put on a dress, wig and make-up "just for fun" as a joke. And what is it with these guys who don't understand the difference between a gay person and a pedophile? What's more, I'm quite certain some of today's high schoolers could already tell me a few things about "perverted sex acts."

Do I support the homosexual agenda? I've no idea what that is. But I do support extending to gays the full rights and privileges the rest of us have. At the same time, I loathe people who spread hate and those too ignorant or bigoted to see the hate for what it is.

Basic Biology: Accept Christ Or Go To Hell!

If that post title leaves you scratching your head and wondering what the study of biology could possibly have to do with an evangelical appeal, read this little article.

There is a large movement among conservative Christians to withdraw their children from the Godless public school system, where the "religion of Secular Humanism" is supposedly taught, and educate them at home.

One popular biology textbook designed for such a purpose is published by the notoriously backward and fundamentalist-to-the-core Bob Jones University. Their textbook Biology: Third Edition states in its introduction: “Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling. This book was not written for them.”

That truly is unconscionable in something alleging to be a science textbook. But the following quote from its chapter “History of Life” is even more unbelievable: [The]"Christian worldview ... is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is."

Truly it is said, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

Who Is A Freethinker?

I have been thinking about the comments I received on Saturday's post How About A Little Freethinking? Of particular interest were Diane's and Rainlillie's.

Freethinkers often get a bad rap, I believe. Accused of intolerance and arrogance, they tend to catch criticism from all sides. Perhaps rationalist would be a better tag than freethinker.

I included what I thought was a good definition of what a freethinker is. I still think so, although it was concise.

Freethought doesn't mean thinking that is free from the rules of logic. Freethinkers have to go with what is reasonable in light of what we understand about the way the universe works. Here is a link to a good article about scientific testability. It's focus is on Intelligent Design versus Evolution, but it is relevant to matters in general. Let me repeat its key paragraph here for those who don't want to bother with following the link and reading that entire piece:

Whilst a hypothesis is never completely confirmed, if repeated experiments show that a hypothesis is true, it becomes accepted as fact. This process has fulfilled all of the conditions of testability and falsifiability and it is therefore scientific. A theory will always remain falsifiable at some point in the future, however compelling the present evidence.

So there we freethinkers stand. As F. B. Barton, an nineteenth century freethinker, well wrote:

Freethinking implies the being opposed to credulity and superstition—the rejection of what is improbable and unnatural—the disbelief of what is contrary to facts of science, the course of general experience, and the universal and immutable laws of nature, and the incapacity to ascribe to infinite rectitude and goodness conduct in open violation of the principles of justice, love, and mercy.

Wikipedia has a good entry for Freethought found here. I like their definition:

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.

So it is here where the freedom of freethought is expressed: freedom from authority, tradition, and dogma, not freedom from the rules of logic and reason. Open-mindedness has to do with the willingness to honestly examine the evidence, not in the believing that anything is possible.

Then there is the most popular misconception about freethought, dealt with by Susan Jacoby in the introduction of her history of American freethinkers, appropriately titled Freethinkers:

American freethought derived much of its power from an inclusiveness that encompassed many forms of rationalist belief. Often defined as a total absence of faith in God, freethought can better be understood as a phenomenon running the gamut from the truly antireligious - those who regarded all religion as a form of superstition and wished to reduce its influence in every aspect of society - to those who adhered to a private, unconventional faith revering some form of God or Providence but at odds with orthodox religious authority.

So freethought is not atheism using a milder label. It has always been the case that there were more believers in God among the freethinkers than there were outright atheists. Pantheists, Deists, Rational Theists, etc., were always part of the mix.

In truth and in short, what makes a freethinker is the method a person uses in arriving at their worldview.

A Solution To The Terrorist Threat? No Thanks!

I was reading a local paper and stumbled upon a letter to the editor that laid it out for me in simple terms that I could understand. Go to this page and scroll down to Pray for best, prepare for worst to read the entire letter.

Here's the fun part:

Proverbs 30 praises ants as "extremely wise" for storing up many months of food. The Bible says to prepare for the future. Leviticus 26 tells us what to expect in the future for countries like America that disobey God. God will allow sudden terror, diseases and food shortages, etc. If they continue to disobey he will give them seven times more troubles.

Proverbs also says to "answer a fool according to his folly" (26:5), but I digress....

So here is the deal in a nutshell, at least according to our letter writer:

Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.

If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;

Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.

And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time: and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely.

And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land.

And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.

And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you.

And ye shall eat old store, and bring forth the old because of the new.

And I set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you.

And I will walk among you, will be your God, and ye shall be my people (Leviticus 26:1-12).

On the other hand:

But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments;

And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:

I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.

And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you.

And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.

And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:

And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits.

And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins.

I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.

And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me;

Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins.

And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.

And when I have broken the staff of your bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver you your bread again by weight: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied.

And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me;

Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.

And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.

And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.

And I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours.

And I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it.

And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste (Leviticus 26:14-33).

I will break it off there, although there is much more. You see, once the Bible God gets to smiting ... well, let's just say he doesn't know when to stop.

Well, this is Bible-thumpin' at its finest. Right on down to completely ignoring the context of the passage that is being thumped upon.

This passage - ludicrous as it is - has no application to our day, to our nation. Verse 13 points out "I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, that ye should not be their bondmen; and I have broken the bands of your yoke, and made you go upright." God made no such covenant with our forefathers, so we may safely put away our swords.

But there is something I find interesting in the letter writer's theology. If you notice, he wrote "God will allow" these things to come upon us. The Bible, however, plainly says of God, "I also will do this unto you...." Always an attempt to soften Bible God's image to make him more acceptable to modern minds.

It just won't work.

How About A Little Free Thinking?

Eruesso kindly sent this link in comment to yesterday's post. Thanks, Erusesso, it was a perfect fit.

Follow the link and you will be taken to a picture of a church sign that reads:

A FREETHINKER IS SATAN'S SLAVE!

It's odd that Christians would think - could think - that freethinkers are somehow in league with Satan. The freethinkers I know and am aware of are as critical of belief in Satan as they are of belief in the orthodox God. On at least a couple of occasions I have devoted a post to my non-belief in Satan. I'll reiterate that here: I believe Satan is only a myth!

In my library I have a very old three volume New Century Dictionary that gives this excellent definition of "freethinker":

One who forms his opinions independently of authority or tradition, esp. in matters of religion: as, "A freethinker I will be, and believe nothing but what I know and understand" (Kingsley's "Alton Locke," v,).

So we aren't slaves to any mythical symbol of evil, nor are we slaves to dogmatic theology.

On the other hand, as Moody's little anecdote which I shared yesterday demonstrates, the orthodox Christian should not even entertain a doubt about his faith.

So who is the slave here?

Those Damnable Infidel Books

Unarguably the Billy Graham of the nineteenth century was Dwight L. Moody. With his hand-picked song leader Ira D. Sankey, Moody preached to thousands both here in America as well in successful campaigns in England. The Moody Bible Institute was founded by the evangelist, although it was only renamed in his honor after his death. In fact, one of my favorite modern Bible scholars, Bart D. Ehrman (check out some of his books if you want some real insight), studied there. Such was Moody's impact that his autobiography is still in print over a hundred years after his death, and his name is still well-known to Christians everywhere.

There is an anecdote Moody liked to share that I think is typical of the conservative Christian mentality. I was raised this way, as I've written about on my blog. If you want to keep a closed mind, here is how to do it:

If you stop to ask yourself why you don't believe in Christ, is there really any reason? People read infidel books and wonder why they are unbelievers, I ask why they read such books. They think they must read both sides. I say that book is a lie; how can it be one side when it is a lie? It is not one side at all. Suppose a man tells right down lies about my family, and I read them so as to hear both sides; it would not be long before some suspicion would creep into my mind. I said to a man once, "Have you got a wife?" "Yes, and a good one." I asked: "Now what if I should come to you and cast out insinuations against her?" And he said, "Well your life would not be safe long if you did." I told him just to treat the devil as he would treat a man who went around with such stories. We are not to blame for having doubts flitting through our minds, but for harboring them. Let us go out trusting the Lord with heart and soul to-day.

When I was a teenager I read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. In it he wrote about how he had studied the anti-deistic writings of certain Christian scholars. What came about was that Franklin found the arguments of the Deists, which had been lengthily quoted in order to refute them, stronger than the refutations. I had the same experience with what Moody called "infidel books."

I had been warned about the wicked writings of "Tom" Paine and Col. Ingersoll. I had been led to believe these men were vile beasts. But my curiosity eventually got the better of me and I read Paine's Age of Reason and Ingersoll's lectures and found - to my astonishment - that these were good men, compassionate men, men of great learning. Their anti-Bible writings were geared toward freeing the human mind from the bondage of fear and superstition - their goal was to make better men and women out of their fellow humans.

Charles Darwin to this day is seen by certain religious folk as a Satan incarnate, who unleashed a theory that became the root of all modern evil. I have seen tree diagrams in Christian books that attempted to trace racism, eugenics, genocide, and all manner of sin, rebellion and debauchery back to Darwin's theory. I think such things are better linked to ignorance.

I mentioned Bart Ehrman at the beginning. Isn't it ironic that he once studied at Moody Bible Institute but finally abandoned Evangelical Christianity for agnosticism and now writes what Moody himself would have considered "infidel books"?

But as far as the pejoratives like infidel go, it is helpful to point out the early Christians were considered atheists by the pagan Romans and are considered infidels by modern Muslims. Hey, maybe, just maybe, I could be considered a Bible-thumper myself (just perhaps in reverse) because I sure talk about it and even quote it alot!

Labels aside, shouldn't we all seek to be honest and open-minded?

Antiscience And The Public Welfare

Less than one hundred years ago in my old home state of Tennessee there was a state representative who feared the teaching of human evolution could turn his children and the children of others into raving atheists. The obvious solution to him was to outlaw this teaching in the public schools.


This man, John Washington Butler, was an admirer of anti-evolutionist champion William Jennings Bryan. His "Butler Act " was passed in 1925 and was promptly challenged by the ACLU. The story of the "Scopes Monkey Trial" is well enough known. The clash between agnostic attorney Clarence Darrow and the before mentioned religious conservative Bryan is legendary.

Here is the bill's text:

AN ACT prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.

Section 2. Be it further enacted, That any teacher found guilty of the violation of this Act, Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be fined not less than One Hundred $ (100.00) Dollars nor more than Five Hundred ($ 500.00) Dollars for each offense.

Section 3. Be it further enacted, That this Act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it.

Passed March 13, 1925

Isn't that something?

The Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee upheld the constitutionality of the Butler Act in 1927!

It was much later, during my childhood, May 17, 1967 to be exact, that Tennessee Governor Buford Ellington put his signature to the Act that repealed the Butler Act.

I can't see that the public welfare was damaged in any way by allowing Tennessee public schools to be forcibly dragged into the modern age. Conservative Christian homes and churches have kept anti-evolutionism alive and thriving in Tennessee and throughout the Bible Belt.

Why are ignorance and superstition not feared while scientific knowledge is?

A Very Vague Hope

Check out this letter to the editor, at the top of this page from a local paper, that expresses the vague terms of the Christian hope, at least as it is commonly expressed.

After noting the hard economic times the USA is facing, the high unemployment, the mortgage crisis, the general emotional malaise, the writer tells how he was comforted by a song he heard the night before. It is a familiar Bill Gaither tune, very appropriate for the Easter season, Because He Lives.

The letter writer then quotes these words from the song:

Because He lives, I can face tomorrow.
Because He lives, All fear is gone.
Because I know He holds the future.
And life is worth living the living, just because He lives.

I'm not trying to be snide in wondering in what way Christians have the advantage in this life over non-Christians. Having been raised in this mindset I do understand what is being said. But once I got old enough to think for myself and to question, it occurred to me that nothing this-wordly was being factually expressed.

How is Jesus a solution to unemployment? Well, individually a believer who finds a job during tough times will give Jesus credit. Nonbelievers will count themselves fortunate. But how does this help the country's high unemployment rate? I believe history will bear out that political solutions are better than religious solutions. When all else seems to fail, nature will eventually take its course and return balance.

How could Jesus having been raised from the dead solve the mortgage crisis? In the next life, perhaps, but what about the here and now? Again, this doesn't seem to be a religious problem at all.

As stress relief? Okay, I don't deny that some people find great comfort in various religious beliefs. Of course, again not trying to be snide, comfort is also sought and found in drugs and alcohol. And those who choose those approaches, I can't help but notice, are usually more devout in their method than the former! Meditation, sex, and exercise are other ways to relieve stress. In fact, there are a of number non-Jesus methods that appear to give good results.

"Jesus is the answer" we are often told. But empirically speaking, the believers don't seem to have an advantage over the unbeliever, at least in this life. The "afterlife" is a problem created by the Bible. With a naturalistic worldview, the problem doesn't exist and thus no "solution" is necessary.

Okay, this my take on the matter and it is an unpopular one. It is a minority view in the United States. For all the times I've heard ministers advance that Jesus is "the answer" to all our problems, for all the Presidents I've heard end speeches with "...and God bless America," despite the myriads of individual Jesus believers who have echoed the sentiment of the above letter writer, I've yet to find any reason to believe this idea has any tangible value at all.

The Christian Hopeless

In yesterday's e-mail I received Barna's study about how American society understands Easter. In this great melting pot of ours 67% were still able to recognize that Easter is "some type of theistic religious element."

But then it was found that only 42% of Americans could identify the meaning of Easter as having to do with "the resurrection of Jesus or that it signifies Christ death and return to life."

Okay, but let's talk about the Christians.

The Barna group reports that:

Those who identify Easter explicitly as a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus were most likely to be evangelicals (73%), large church attenders (60%), born again Christians (55%), active churchgoers (54%), upscale adults (54%), and Protestants (51%).

The born-againers are the fundamentalists. The Bible-thumpers. Yet they don't grasp the importance of Easter as much as the evangelicals do. Then why all the thumping? I do find that a bit surprising. I was raised as a born-againer and could have explained the meaning of Easter when I was seven years old.

I was also a bit surprised to find "just one-third of Catholics listed the resurrection as the meaning of the holiday (37%)." Do they not listen to their own Pope?

It's not overstating the case to say the resurrection of Jesus is the linchpin of Christianity. The Apostle Paul wrote:

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable (I Corinthians 15: 17-19).

I don't know about you, but I find it amusing the way so many Christians pin their personal hopes on their religious belief and yet don't understand that belief well enough to justify the hope they claim they have!

I guess I'm also shocked that in a indisputably religious nation like ours, so many citizens not only are ignorant about comparative religion - many are ignorant about their own!

Flowers Of My Youth

The trees outside the window in front of my desk are still brown and dead-looking. Although the below average temperatures of this fast passing winter have moderated, I've yet to see the buds of spring on my trees.

I love spring. I relive my youth during spring. In my mind I'm always taken back at that time of year to the childhood home where I lived from ages 1 to 7. My first memories were formed there. My first experiences of the world around me occurred there. As a child I loved playing outdoors.

At the edge of the rather large (to me as a child) porch was a rose bush. I always took the first rose that bloomed to my mother. She likes to tell about that. It seems when I was a child and got excited and called for her it was always "Mommy, Mommy, Mommy!" Always in threes. When I saw that first rose on the bush it was always "Mommy, Mommy, Mommy, I brought you a flower," and I would bring her that rose. Roses, I suppose, are my favorite flower. The scent of a rose still takes me back to those early experiences.

In back of the house, beside a small tree under which my brothers and I played, was a patch of daffodils. That was my dad's favorite. I never see daffodils without thinking of him. And sometimes Mom would cook a special supper for Dad and make a bouquet of flowers that included some of these daffodils to set on the table.

I never see daffodils but what I don't think about my father and remember Robert Herrick's poem:

To Daffodils

Fair daffodils, we weep to see
You haste away so soon;
As yet the early-rising sun
Has not attain'd his noon.
Stay, stay,
Until the hasting day
Has run
But to the evensong;
And, having pray'd together, we
Will go with you along,

We have short time to stay, as you,
We have as short a spring;
As quick a growth to meet decay,
As you, or anything.
We die
As your hours do, and dry
Away,
Like to the summer's rain;
Or as the pearls of morning's dew,
Ne'er to be found again.

The poet Herrick's constant theme, like in his poem above, is that life is short. So it is, yet I haven't lost that childlike sense of wonder when I experience nature's beauty.

Your Devil Is My God

Chapter nine of Helen Ellerbe's helpful book The Dark Side Of Christian History is titled Alienation From Nature and is exactly what that title suggests - an exploration of the ways in which the Christian Church has alienated its followers from the natural world around them. This Heavenly-mindedness continues as a basic tenet of Christianity to this day (although, in fairness, most Christians I know, and perhaps those you know as well, seem to be about as terra firma-minded as the heathen!).

Ellerbe writes on page 140:

Nature was instead seen as the realm of the devil. The Church chose the image of Pan, the Greek god of nature to portray the devil. The horned, hoofed, and goat-legged man had been associated with a number of fertility figures and had previously been deemed essential to rural well-being...His name, "Pan," meant "all" and "bread." But particularly after the turn of the millennium when the Church authorized specific portrayals of the devil, the vilified Pan came to evoke terror or "panic" as the image of satan.

Rather than be satisfied with leaving this negative symbol unchallenged I want to give a rather long, but I think helpful, passage from C. T. Stockwell in his very old book New Modes of Thought Based Upon The New Materialism And The New Pantheism:

Pan was a god of Grecian mythology, and is represented in books of reference as " the god of shepherds, guardian of bees, a patron of fishing and hunting. He is usually represented as having the head and trunk of a man, with the legs, horns and tail of a goat, and as playing on the shepherd's pipe, which he is said to have invented." This picture of the god Pan will not appear inviting to any one who fails to catch the idea for which it stands as a symbol. May we not suppose that the shepherds, by virtue of their calling from generation to generation, had become the most sensitive of all classes of people to that all pervading something which we term the spirit of Nature? It may fairly be supposed, I think, that the shepherds represented, as a class, a larger element of the poetic than that of any other class of their fellows. The poetic sense had, in them, by their close and constant contact with Nature, been eminently developed. If, now, we should couple with this poetic sense their daily observation of what may be called the vital principle in Nature, or Nature's common vitality, we shall have material in abundance out of which would naturally come the picture of the god Pan, "which was merely their way of expressing that kinship between all things wherein the one universal life manifests itself — the brotherhood of plants and flowers and beasts and birds," and so forth. And it seems reasonable to assume that this is the adequate germ out of which has come the modern conception of the brotherhood of ourselves with the lower forms of life not only, but with Nature in its fullness and completeness, — a sort of identity wherein man and Nature meet and mingle in a common world-soul. Having once really felt the touch of this spirit, we may then ask, with Byron: —

"Are the mountains, waves and stars a part
Of me and of my soul, as I of them?"

And it is this "spirit of Nature" which I believe is best capable of giving us the understanding of what true spirituality is and the means of unifying God's creation.

Let's Tell Our Kids The Truth About Conservatives

There is a circus underway in Texas over a school board attempting to rewrite history, as one of the board members in the minority put it. With a two-thirds majority - and partisan - vote, conservatives have given the ol' thumbs up to a social studies curriculum that will be

...stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

Conservative board member Dr. Don McLeroy feels they are only "adding balance" because history has supposedly has been given a leftward slant by Academia.

There is much more to this wacky story and you will need to follow the above link to get the full gist of what is going on. But facts ARE facts, and the facts are that conservatives are mostly just obstructionists. History proves that. Every time some effort was made to introduce new ideas for improvements into "the system," the backward conservatives got together to obstruct.

We hear much today about the Reagan Revolution. But what was that except a return to the Gilded Age of America, where monopolies (like our current insurance industry, for example) flourished and stuck it to the poor, big industries pretty much did what they damn well wanted to do because there was no proper government oversight, the few had amassed the overwhelming majority of the nation's wealth leaving the majority to scramble for the crumbs, and tycoons were revered and considered Oracles? Sound familiar?

For a more accurate view of history and the conservative's role in it, consider the little parable Joe Conservative. How can a conservative school board put a positive spin on that without outright lying?

Fatalist Unattraction

If my readers will indulge me for one more determinism post, I want to clarify what I have put forth and at the same time address the fears of fatalism.

One of the best concise explications of Fatalism is found in Jennifer Bothamley's handy Dictionary of Theories, page 197:

The view - beloved of Greek oracles and their adherents - that the future, or part of it, will be what it will be, irrespective of our desires and actions. If we try to evade what is destined, our actions will always be frustrated and somehow turned so as to bring about the fated result.

Whenever I try to explain causal determinism someone will always confuse it with fatalism. This confusion creates a blinding negative bias.

I often hear the phrase "everything happens for a reason." I absolutely don't believe that. I believe things do happen because of a reason. But I disagree with what most people mean when they say "for a reason." Most people believe there is some divine plan. It is commonly believed that God alone chooses to bless a person, to send sickness and health and trials and tribulations (usually, it is said, for the strengthening of character), to send one's perfect mate along, and, of course, decides when and how one is to exit life's stage.

The preacher at my stepfather's recent funeral said as part of the funeral service sermon: "When it is a person's time to die, all the doctors, all the medicine, all the medical knowledge in the world will not change it." Sitting immediately to my mother's right, I remember turning to see her reaction, which was positive. She smiled slightly and nodded her head in agreement.

Not lost on me was the fact that my stepfather was 88 years of age, had been in serious health decline for several years, and most tellingly had been suffering from stomach pains for nearly a month before he finally agreed to seek medical help. By that point it was learned that he had a diseased appendix which had ruptured and emptied massive amounts of poison into his system.

Fatalism? Divine will? I can say that by that point only a direct intervention by God through a suspension or reworking of the laws of nature could have saved the man. I definitely do see cause and effect. I do see that this thing happened due to a reason. But as for a chess playing God, to borrow from Laplace, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

There is a story in the Bible of Moses and his efforts to free the slaves of Israel from the brutal service to a certain Egyptian Pharaoh. God working through Moses sent plague after plague upon Egypt in an effort to persuade Pharaoh to let God's people Go. Strangely, God told Moses "I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them" (Ex. 10:1).

Determinist that I am I could never propose anything so shocking. Or, for that matter, the reasoning of the Apostle Paul, who wrote:

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory..." (Romans 9:14-24).

Now if you want to talk about fatalism, that seems to fill the bill.

But I do believe this cuts right to the heart of the fears most people have about determinism. There is this specter that perhaps one's thoughts and decisions aren't authentic and meaningful. I believe people use the words "free will " in a careless manner. Even according to my understanding of a causally determined universe, I believe my thoughts and actions are uniquely mine. They are determined by the causes of my basic intellectual and mental hardwiring interacting with my environment, but at least they aren't the result of God's hardening or softening my reasoning faculties. If I reject certain religious philosophies it isn't because, for example, Jesus didn't choose me (John 15:16), but because my mind cannot accept the truthfulness of the philosophies in question.

In other words, just like every one of you, I am totally a product of my nature and nurturing. That is freedom enough. At least we needn't fear being a chess piece on a capricious God's master game board, that we can be hardened and softened by THE POTTER constantly messing around with us. I believe CHOICE IS REAL, and a determining factor in life's little melodrama. I DON'T believe we are puppets, acting according to the string pulls of a MASTER PUPPETEER. We are indeed pulling are own strings. But we are doing it according to the physical laws of the universe of which we are a part.

This isn't fatalism. WE ARE FREE to be exactly what we by nature are, without any meddling from outside the system. And we all will act exactly according to our natures. What could be more authentic?

Ghostly Ethics And God's Political Affiliation

Two items of goofola are on my mind this morning, so I'll combine them into one short outburst.

First is this story from New Zealand where there is a bid going on for two ghosts which have been captured and bottled in holy water.

The story states that this has generated a bit of debate (hopefully not much) about "the ethics of selling someone else's captured immortal essence." Frankly, I'm more concerned about the ethics of attempting to rip off people this way.

Some may find this quite sensible. I find it idiotic. Sorry. I don't believe in ghosts and I don't believe in holy water and I don't believe that the buyer will be able to pour the contents of these bottles into a container for the purpose of allowing them to "evaporate" in their home. I don't believe for reasons I have written about quite often here.

Don't get me wrong. I love a good ghost story. It's fun to take a break from the realities of this mundane world and settle back into a little suspension of belief. But to the foolish bidders I would just say: caveat emptor!

Then there is this story about Hugo Chavez "outing" God's political affiliation. He is currently in a bit of political hot water - Chavez, not God - because of electricity rationing due to drought conditions. But he is confident "it's going to rain ... because God is a 'Bolivarian.'"

Well of course every politician would love to have the Almighty's endorsement. Due to the difficulties of obtaining it outright, it is customary to just claim it as fact the way Chavez has done it.

In the end, El Nino weather patterns will have the final say rather than some Bolivarian God.

Do you suppose Chavez really believes his own rhetoric?

Dougyism

I'm really not sure I spelled that right - is it Dougy or Douggy? Lots of people (including my mom) take it upon themselves to call me that, which is fine by me. I'm not big on nicknames and don't answer to them - with exceptions for derivatives of my name. My older brother, now deceased, used to call me Dougger.

However, the post title idea was suggested to me by one of my coworkers from long ago. He loved discussing - really more like arguing - religion with me. He was something of a charismatic (tongues- speaking, divine healing. i.e.) Christian and I ... well you know about me.

Reading my blog might make you think I'm a quarrelsome, in-your-face type of contrarian. Not so. I'm just a contrarian. But lots of people enjoy talking with me, and the young man who coined "Dougyism" to describe my philosophical outlook (I'm more tempted to use "rationalist," for lack of a better label, since labels are so handy), once pulled up a chair beside me at lunch and said, "I don't know what it is about you - I think you're crazy, but I'm drawn to you." I always took that as a compliment.

I don't go about my business trying to convert people to Dougyism - although I think the tenets of Dougyism would help everyone along their way. Dougyism is about questioning, rigorous thinking, enjoying the ride of life rather than just floating helplessly along the stream of conventional wisdom. I know people think I'm a bit odd, but I'm happy nonetheless.

In any given week I am told I should get out more (party, become a gadabout), should think about settling down (by which they mean getting married; I already consider myself "settled"), should believe in something (by which they mean join one of the "conventional" religions). But who is best able to decide how I should live my life? Believe it or not, I have had a few people begrudgingly tell me they envy my freedom. Nice. Then may I recommend Dougyism to you?

Dougyism knocks out the middleman in religion. "Deal directly with God yourself," is my message. For that matter, it knocks out all middlemen and false authority, recognizing for authority only one thing: truth as we are best able to determine it though investigation and diligent applied thinking. In other words, I walk by sight, not by faith. Give me evidence and logical proofs, not wishful thinking or sophistry. My mission is geared towards teaching people how to think, not what to think.

Dougyism is not inconsistent with altruism or civilized society. I am civilized, just not a conformist. I play by the rules, although I argue to all who will listen that some of the rules badly need to be upgraded. I believe in doing my part, i.e. contributing my fair share. But I believe in having enough elbow room to live my life according to the dictates of MY conscious, and allowing others the same space. This shouldn't be inconsistent with polite society.

In other words, Dougyism is really youism. We are a group of people. But we are (or should be) a group of individuals. Dougyism embraces that. Come to think about it, Dougyism isn't anything new or novel at all. There have always been Douggies. I like to think our nation was founded by rational individualists who believed we could function as a group anyway. Somehow somwehere along the way this ideal seems to have been misplaced.

I'm So Very Glad You Asked Me That!

Commenting on my latest post on causal determinism, Diane asked me: "Why is this topic something you grope with? Or is it a topic you feel others do not grope enough with?"

Let me start with the last question first. Here are the results of a Gallup poll, taken in February, 2009, dealing with how many Americans believe in evolution:

Believe in theory of evolution - 39%
Do not believe in evolution - 25%
Have no opinion - 36%

What does this say about the over half (51%) who don't understand science well enough to accept evolution? Considering that even the Catholic Church accepts evolution and quite a few Evangelical Christian thinkers believe that evolution does not conflict with their faith, it is amazing that only slightly more than a third of us understand the issues well enough to accept it.

Biology, geology and astronomy are some of the sciences that would quite quickly get rid of any notions that the universe is between 4,000 and 10,000 years of age! I submit that as a nation we are quite dull, educationally speaking.

Is our universe an orderly, harmonious system governed by laws and principles discoverable by the scientific method? Or is it a huge morality play directed by a sovereign God who regularly intervenes in order to "work his will?" I don't say acceptance of scientific truth puts God totally out of the picture, but certainly science has something to say about what kind of God isn't believable.

In 1936 a grammar school student wrote Albert Einstein a letter asking if scientists pray. Einstein responded (in part):

I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.

This is what I believe and try to express in my blog.

How many Americans - in light of scientific ignorance - believe homosexuality is a rebellion of "freewill" against the command of the Almighty? The God of the Bible calls it an abomination and his minions believe gays are in rebellion. But even more stupidly, they believe that acceptance of gays will cause homosexuality to spread and threaten the institution of heterosexual marriage. They warn of gay school teachers "recruiting" everyone's children. This makes perfect sense to those who maintain that being gay is a choice.

Turning from this divisive issue to look at another, an understanding of causal determinism could help us improve our prison and justice systems. Let me share a little something from Human Rights Watch:

Prisons were never designed as facilities for the mentally ill, yet that is one of their primary roles today. Many of the men and women who cannot get mental health treatment in the community are swept into the criminal justice system after they commit a crime. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 56 percent of state prisoners and 45 percent of federal prisoners have symptoms or a recent history of mental health problems. Prisoners have rates of mental illness-including such serious disorders as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression-that are two to four times higher than members of the general public. Studies and clinical experience consistently indicate that 8 to 19 percent of prisoners have psychiatric disorders that result in significant functional dis­abilities, and another 15 to 20 percent will require some form of psychiatric inter­vention during their incarceration.

Hey, we have even legally executed mentally retarded convicts! "Get tough on crime" philosophy is a poor substitute for real problem solving. If we are going to spend an enormous amount of our tax dollars on the problem of aberrant behavior, shouldn't we try to get help for those who truly need help? The sad truth is that little effort is made to separate those who can possibly be rehabilitated and made into responsible citizens from those who are incorrigible. Understanding deterministic factors, the science of behavior, could be a big help.

Human relationships perhaps would receive the biggest boost from an attempt to understand that there are things that are in person's control and things that are not. The problem people have with accepting that is a fear that it makes excuses for bad behavior. But this confuses explanations and excuses. One can explain something without condoning it or dismissing it as insignificant.

I've been supervision for a quarter of a century now. And not to toot my own horn, but I have always gotten good results. That is because I have been an ardent student of human nature and always made an effort to really understand the people who work for me. The person who does what I do for a living and approaches it a from a standpoint that everyone is equal in abilities and temperament (inherently and through no fault of their own) is bound to have difficulties.

Understanding deterministic behaviorism makes it possible for me to accept the failings of others. As a supervisor I have never, ever been a follower of the butt-chewing approach to dealing with my people's mistakes. I have learned that if I have a good, conscientious employee who makes a mistake, even a dumb one (and who of us haven't had our lapses of judgement from time to time?), it will only do more harm than good to chew them out. And if I have an employee who frankly doesn't care about their job performance or personal reputation, all the butt-chewings and written warnings in the world are not going to make that person into a conscientious employee.

Understanding determinism has also helped me tremendously in my personal life and would benefit anyone else. What's the alternative? We see people spending big bucks on self-help seminars that have as a thesis, YOU CAN DO IT! Well, maybe you can and maybe you can't. There's more to it than just name and it claim it. The modern New Agey philosophy known as The Secret - quite popular from having received Oprah's approval - is one of the most baseless and irrational notions to come along since, I don't know, maybe Hubbard's Dianetics.

I can tell you the second prayer I was taught as a child by my mother (the first was "Now I lay me down to sleep...."). It was the serenity prayer. I have a special place in my heart to this day for it:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change those things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

Now I no longer say that as a prayer. But I do act on it as a way of life. The tough part is having the wisdom to know the difference between what is doable and what is not. Sometimes we really don't know for certain until we've made an honest effort. But why unwisely invest time in unrealistic expectations?

Having been raised in the religious environment that I was and living as I do in the Bible belt, where unacceptable behavior is more often chalked up to sin and rebellion against God rather than to mental disorders, I can tell you that all the preaching, all the witnessing, all the warnings to "turn or burn" in the world are not going to make a "sinner" into a "saint." The problem goes much deeper than that.

The freewill concept that one can just change their mind and therby change their behavior just like - snap!- that flies in the face of all reason and scientific study of human behavior. But it does indeed explain why there are so many religious hypocrites who "talk the talk but can't walk the walk." It's more difficult than that.

Getting off the behavioral aspect of determinism but staying on the religious, yesterday's post and the incident I wrote about would still be tragic but perfectly understood by naturalistic cause and effect. The laws of nature make exceptions for no one. More difficult to explain is why a putative God who approves each fall of a sparrow to the ground (Matthew 10:29) cannot (or perhaps will not) protect a child who is being raised in a church atmosphere by parents of faith.

Instead of religious nuts trying to assign blame to the victims of tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunami's and such things they feel are "acts of God," they would better study the natural sciences. Again I say naturalism gives the better interpretation than supernaturalism.

I've only skimmed the surface and that in a very scattered manner. But I hope I've demonstrated why a proper understanding of the law of cause and effect is no mere idle interest. It has far reaching implications - but not those usually assigned to it by those who don't fully understand. Most people are religious believers of one sort of the other, but whether God exists or whether God does not exist, we live in a world ruled governed according to natural laws and principles. Yet the poll I referenced at the beginning clearly shows that most don't understand that.

I would like to see that changed, for the good of us all. After all, that is what Groping The Elephant is all about - going beyond the "conventional wisdom" to look a bit deeper.

Dear God!

What else can be said in response to this horrible, horrible story which I first heard about on the local news last night.

A little one-year-old baby choked to death when a piece of a rubber ball became lodged in this throat. Sadly, this happened during a church service. This would have been tragic no matter where it occurred. But for believers in a sovereign God this has to be especially painful to the soul and hard to understand.

Of course, my first thought is for the grieving parents and family members. Death is always unpleasant, but especially sad when it occurs to one who has just begun to live. To believe that God has a specific plan for each human life makes coming to terms with these types of things extremely difficult. Are such children born just to die?

My second thought was of the pastor, who found himself in a unique situation. The pastor is seen as the spiritual leader for his church family. He is God's messenger and keeps watch over the souls of his flock. I saw him interviewed on the news last night. He spoke very little if any English so had to use an interpreter. He said he spent the night with family talking to them and praying with them.

What do you say in a situation like that? God will yet bring good out of it? God will use the tragedy to bring the family closer to God? God loves children and needed another little "cherub" in his heavenly setting? We'll understand it better by and by?

It seems to me that believers have no advantage over the rank unbelievers in this life. I suppose for believers comfort might be sought and gained in the hope that in Heaven "God will wipe away all tears from their eyes." Perhaps that is straw enough to grasp for.

Christian apologist and philosopher C. S. Lewis once wrote: "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains; it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world."

Some of us just become more deaf to all the shouting

How I Chose The Deterministic View

My blogger friend Doug Robertson gave me the honor of having one of my posts highlighted on his blog. The subject was causal determinism and his witty title is Then Again, Maybe Determinism is Why I Wrote This Post and I am Wrong Thinking I Freely Willed to Do So.

It is altogether fitting to ask whether the deterministic outlook is the result of a conscious decision we make or if it is a matter of preordained fate?

The truth is, I wasn't a natural born determinist. In fact, I never thought about the subject at all until while still a believer in Christianity (which also wasn't a natural born thing) I came to study Calvinism and his doctrine of decrees. I rejected his view out of hand, but only because of the bias from my Arminian religious upbringing.

As you know if you are a regular reader, I ceased being a Christian shortly thereafter - the product of broadening my intellectual scope with more reading and thinking. But still the matter of freewill versus determinism stayed on the back burner of my mind until I was in my mid-twenties and a coworker, who was very much into science and physics, introduced me to Einstein's concept of a God who didn't play dice with the universe (the view I now hold as correct; but I came around to this much latter). Over countless weekend discussions celebrated with beer and fast food we debated this issue. Having abandoned my childhood theology, I was more or less left with only my intuitive feeling that I acted freely. Of course intuition alone is what once made popular the notion that the earth is stationary and the sun and moon revolves around it. I quickly realized that I needed much more knowledge of science and philosophy to think about this thing properly. This I have tried to the best of my ability to gain since that point in my life.

The problem with Doug's R's understanding of my view is that he seems to mistake causal determinism for fatalism. I'm not a fatalist in that I too believe choice is a causative factor. This post I'm now writing would never have been written had Doug R not written his post, and he in turn would not have written that particular post had I not first written something that compelled him to think about it and write his. All these were choices we made, but not in a vacuum of non-causation.

But let me take it further. Most people probably don't understand determinism because they haven't been conditioned to. By way of example, had I lived my live in a remote rural setting with no formal education and no efforts to educate myself, being functionally illiterate in other words, in an environment without educated family or friends, never having been introduced to physics, I say I wouldn't have had the causation necessary to become a determinist. To borrow William Jenning's Bryan answer to Clarence Darrow while being cross-examined during the Scopes trial: "I do not think about things I don't think about."

Neither do you, dear reader, and neither does anyone.

Now that I have you thinking about this (whether you really want to or not!), it would be helpful to ponder for a moment the way our brain - our very organ of thought - works. Our brain, like every other organ in our body, and for that matter like every other thing in the universe, is subject to the laws and principles of nature. Just because we don't understand or are unaware of all the factors involved in our thinking and decision making processes doesn't mean there are no factors involved. Our minds, that is to say our very essence, is the sum of our innate intellectual capacity interacting with our environment.

Indeed that is why I write at all. I'm trying to enhance everyone's mental environment.

There is much more to be said about determinism. But this already is a long post. I just want to get across this one point: to even begin to understand the issue it is necessary that it first be framed correctly. I hope this explanation has helped at least a little in that regard.

Here's A Scary Afterlife Thought

Here's a scary, very scary, thought for those of you who believe in the "standard" (here in the western world) view of the afterlife.

The amiable William H. Taft, former president, reluctant president, finally found happiness years after leaving the White House when President Harding appointed him Chief Justice for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Francis Graham Lee, in the commentary section of The Collected Works of William Howard Taft, wrote:

Upon being notified of his nomination, Taft reportedly said to Harding: "I love judges and I love courts. They are my ideals on earth of what we shall meet afterward in heaven under a just God."

Now that to me would be a horrific thing to look forward to. Our legal system lacks so much to be desired if justice is the goal. What could Mr. Taft have been thinking?

And if you think the dockets are jam-packed here, just think of what the afterlife scene would be! Would there be plea bargains there to speed things along? Ever since I became old enough to really think about things, I found the idea of a divine judgement bar kind of daffy. I thought it was a good thing eternity is such a long time, because a good portion of it would be spent waiting your turn at the bar. But I digress.

Personally, I love neither courts nor judges and try as much as possible to avoid both. If something even remotely resembling our courts awaits me in the hereafter, I'd just as soon sleep on.

I Am Alice

It never ceases to amaze me the way people of seemingly normal intelligence can apparently buy into poorly conceived ideas, myths, ancient "wisdom" and sundry legends as truth.

For example, just the day before yesterday one of my friends, a beginner in the art of critical thinking, came to me to tell about a discussion he was having with several of his co-workers concerning the "fact" that once upon a time human beings routinely lived for hundreds of years, as per Noah, Methuselah and others in the Old Testament. The graspings at straw of his coworkers in defense of something that, to say the very least, would be contrary to what we presently know about biology, was something in itself.

Another example, also from this week: A friend of mine who is very much into magical thinking and defends the validity of Voodoo asked me the strangest thing. She told me she is aware that a bird that flies into your house is a harbinger of an impending death. What she experienced was a bird that flew through a hole in her window screen and became trapped between the screen and the window glass. Then in all seriousness she asked me: "What is that a sign of?" I told her, equally seriously, that it was a sign that she had her window closed, thus preventing the bird from entering her home.

On a routine basis I talk to people who look me dead in the eye and tell me I am wrong to deny such incredible stories and magical tidbits (along with scores of others I could relate).

It takes me back to Lewis Carroll's Through The Looking Glass and this dialogue between Alice and the White Queen:

"That's the way it's done," the Queen said with great decision: "nobody can do two things at once, you know. Let's consider your age to begin with -- how old are you?"

"I'm seven and a half, exactly."

"You needn't say 'exactly'," the Queen remarked. "I can believe it without that. Now I'll give you something to believe. I'm just one hundred and one, five months and a day."

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

I am Alice. I can't believe impossible things and will always stand on the side of reason and science.

Ignorance Is Us

Yesterday I wrote that life is predictable, in theory at least. The problem we have is not knowing enough about the fine details.

Sadly, and to their detriment, the majority of people either don't or won't accept this.

For all of science's discoveries and explications of the built-in laws of nature and the abundant proof of the regularity of the cosmos - which is what makes science possible - some will still find room for divine intervention, luck, synchronicity, Karma, etc.

In other words, metaphysical "cheaters" abound in the strange universe of the gullible majority. This leads to an unrealistic worldview filled with magical thinking.

I believe scientists one day will be better able to predict earthquakes than they are now by pointing out fault lines and warning of eventual disasters that loom somewhere in the near or distant future.

Yesterday I used weather forecasting as an inexact but still impressive endeavor which demonstrates predictability. Countless lives are saved and made easier by exploiting our ability to predict likely outcomes. We see this all the time with regard to meteorology.

Likewise, the issue of human health sees massive benefits from science's increasing skill in disease prediction and the understanding of the course of various diseases. With further understanding of the human genome more accuracy in predicting future diseases will be possible on an individual basis. Many people now ponder the question of whether they would choose to know if this or that disease lies ahead for them or if they would rather remain ignorant and "face it as it comes."

Extending predictability further, who can argue that the devastating economic recession we have recently endured was not obviously inevitable? Likewise the Great Depression of last century. Of course, there are always the magical thinkers who would rather believe that "luck" can and will hold out, and that there is no real need to read the handwriting on the wall - but again, those are the ones who disaster is most likely to overtake.

History is littered with examples of great disasters that were brought about by warnings not heeded and stop signs ignored with hubris. This often done while the masses were drunk on willful ignorance.

A good current example of group willing ignorance is the debate over man-made global warming. While there is still much to learn and fine points that can be debated, science has given us abundant evidence that we are facing a situation that desperately needs attention. I'm much disturbed by an argument I see with increasing frequency that goes like this: Are we really supposed to believe that God will allow man to destroy his handiwork, even if he could?

Then there are those who, for one reason or another, simply don't like the facts and attempt to discover contradictory "facts."

There is so much we have yet to learn about the universe, is it necessary that we ignore what we do know in order to bask in the short term happiness of denialism? After all, payday always comes eventually.

It isn't harmless fun to believe in miracles and luck. There is nothing charming about magical thinking. How is it even possible that in the past thirty years our nation was led by a man who worked around his astrological chart and another who believes God coerced him to be president for the purpose of changing "the powers that be"?

The only answer I have is that homo sapiens are more emotional than sapient.

Predictability

Well, yesterday was a strange one here where I live. As I left for work yesterday morning it was snowing and raining, with a temperature of 35 degrees. I watched the local weather before leaving and the forecast was for snow slowly changing over to rain and a predicted high of 41. Snow accumulation: one inch or less snow in the low lying areas.

About an hour or so after I got to work I looked outside to see the largest snowflakes I've ever seen falling from the sky. I'm not kidding, they were huge, nearly fist-sized. By lunch we had closed shop and sent everyone home because there were two inches of snow already on the ground and the roads were slushy. Not only that, now the weather forecasters were hedging on the high temperature, speculating it might not go up much higher than the 33 the thermometer was then reading.

Another snow day. I can't remember when we've had so many incidents in one winter. An obvious sign that global warming is a hoax, as most of the locals will tell you. It snowed for two more hours and then stopped. The surrounding area received anywhere from an inch to seven inches. Checking my deck, I estimate about three inches total here.

And then the sun came out briefly. The temperature suddenly surged up to the predicted 41 degrees, and by nightfall most of the snow was gone.

Twice recently we had been suckered by inaccurate forecasts that called for little but in the end saw much. It looked like this would be a repeat. Had we just stayed put, however, the commute home would have been no problem. This freakish event was only bad for several hours and then dissipated quite quickly.

Now if we can just hunker down and look ahead, the forecast is for temperatures to hit the low sixties this weekend and into early next week. Hooray!

Despite everyone's constant grumbling, weather is quite predictable. For all the miscues, weather forecasters get it close to right far more often than they miss it altogether. And what causes miscalculations is just not knowing all the variables that may affect any given forecast. Most of the major trends are known and trackable, but there are always surprises. But mark you, these surprises are only due to variables about which we are ignorant.

Originally I was planning to use this to illustrate how causal determinism is true, how life in general and human behavior are - in theory - very predictable. But just like weather forecasting, it is problematic because of hidden variables that at first blush seem to indicate possible breaks in the great chain of causality. Yet this also is only the result of our ignorance of some of the factors involved.

I'll leave it there and invite my readers to think about it.

Que sera, sera.

Too Much Stuff

For awhile, but I confess not steadily, I've been chipping away at my excess possessions. I have more things than I need and certainly more than I want at this point in my life.

Sentimentality is probably the biggest factor in my abundance. I'm a collector of bits and pieces of my life that I've been reluctant to let go of. Old love notes and mementos from loves long gone, childhood baseball cards, the collar from my first pet (a chocolate and tan Chihuahua named Mitizi), all kinds of cards and trinkets that have been given to me by friends and family - all these occupy almost an entire room. This will be the hardest thing for me to get down to a manageable amount.

My books ... ah, like Jefferson I can't live without books. But I literally have a library. The sad part is I have lots of books that I haven't cracked open in literally years. Yet I've kept them because sometimes I get an urge to reread or research something. Guess that's what the public library is for. I have been giving these away, throwing away others that I would not be comfortable giving to others because of the contents (and this isn't pornography, but mostly assorted religious books and booklets that have no redeeming value), and boxing up more in order to trade in. But instead of getting more books I will probably apply the credit towards cds and dvds, which are not a space problem. Not yet anyway!

Clothes. I'm embarrassed to say that I have clothes I haven't worn in years. Mostly kept because I thought "hey, I might need that someday." I saved some from when I wasn't as heavy as I am now and thought I might lose back down to that size. Hasn't happened yet though. I've slowly been weeding through these things. But the more I think about it, the more I just don't need that many clothes. I have three sets of work outfits that I rotate. That's been plenty for over a year now. I've been making do with one pair of "nice" jeans and one or two "nice shirts" for weekends or going out. I have one pair of dress slacks and too many dress shirts. I plan to eliminate all but two (maybe three) of the dress shirts. For around the house in the cooler months I have two sets of sweats. I think I will add one more set to cut down on washings. In the warmer months I wear shorts and t-shirts. I plan on getting that down to three sets. Not being a wearer of pajamas is a plus in this regard. But I need to get my socks and underwear organized and down to a reasonable minimum. Many of these items are stretched and/or threadbare. I don't know why I have so much trouble throwing out clothes that "still have wear in them."

Miscellaneous stuff. Old telephones I have replaced but only need new batteries. Haven't bought them yet. New phones are cheap enough, so they need to go. Tons of old instruction manuals (some for items I no longer own), odds and ends such hundreds of pens and pencils, rubber bands, and sundry odds and ends. They've just been accumulating like a snow drift because "I might need it someday." I have an old VCR player I haven't used in years and the tapes to go it with it. Various gadgets and old cell phones that are obsolete. Why I've kept these things, I don't know. I guess it was just easier to stick them away someplace and avoid making the decision to toss them.

Musical instruments. I own four guitars and a banjitar. I used to play out years ago. No more time for that and really no more desire. I want to sell my acoustic/electric nylon string guitar and my electric hollow body jazz guitar, but in this economy the money isn't around. The banjitar was a gift, so I don't know....But all this stuff takes up space.

In the kitchen, I have far more dishes than I need. I can really do some streamlining in there with no ill effects. I have a sandwich maker I rarely use. I will give that away. And I have two toasters. One is old and ugly. It will go in the trash.

I have lots of ideas. Looking back on what I've written, by far my biggest challenge are the personal mementos and my books. This will take some soul searching, but I think I'm up for the task. Or soon will be. I used to joke that I was saving for my future memorial museum. That won't be necessary I now see. Do I really need all these things to jog my memory? No. And should I ever lose my memory through senility, I don't see that they would be much help.

All of my furniture is old now. I will replace some of this with used but newer and smaller items. I'm thinking of downsizing from a full to a single bed. That would give me more room space and not involve any great discomfort. I mostly sleep in one spot anyway. Why the overkill?

Lots of ideas. Only thing to it is to do it, as they say. It will make house cleaning a breeze, not having to work around clutter. Actually, aside from the books and mementos, my place is kind of Spartan already. But I'm not done yet!

Yes, the hardest part will be dealing with the mementos and books...