Can You Hit It With A Hammer?

Yesterday I had a lengthy discussion with a friend of mine concerning Déjà vu. She is very much into all things mystical and paranormal. I am fascinated by these things, but being grounded in a scientific worldview I tend to find naturalistic possible explanations more plausible. Far be it from me to say such things as Déjà vu are impossible. For all I know with a certainty there may exist some form(s) of extrasensory perception. At the same time, I know the mind plays a lot of tricks on us and that fact can't be discounted.

She described her experience of having walked into a home in which she had never visited but of being able to describe the furnishings therein to a tee. This made the grandest impression upon her.

When I asked my friend - who has never been to my home - to describe my living room, of course she admitted she wasn't able to. There has been much study on the subject of remote viewing (which I think might be one possible paranormal explanation for this particular Déjà vu experience of hers) and the general scientific consensus is that such a thing is not possible. I'm open to conviction, but remain skeptical about how such a thing would be possible given our understanding of how nature works.

There may be other ways of explaining my friend's experience paranormally, but she wasn't able to offer to anything other than "I don't know how such a thing is possible."

The recently deceased Oxford philosopher Antony Flew used to ask the question, "Can you hit it with a hammer?" when attempting to precisely define things. He wrote a masterful little piece on Theology and Falsification that is well worth the time to read (and reread occasionally). I think that essay gives a good look at the problem encountered when trying to speak rationally with someone who holds an esoterical worldview.

And this is always the mysterian's answer: we don't know everything. Which is true, I freely admit. But look at all the things we do know and have discovered about the universe. I think it is a fair question to ask whether we naturalists are wrong for not being more open-minded or if the mysterians are wrong for building a worldview out of the wind. I think Flew's essay is great food for thought when pondering this.

Need A Fix?

Kesha's song Your Love Is My Drug, with its words

I don't care what people say
The rush is worth the price I pay
I get so high when you're with me
But crash and crave you when you leave,

is quite accurate it seems.

Anyone - and I suppose that is almost everyone - who has felt this way know it's true. But for this ol' boy, the price of such strong emotions are not worth it. The problem is, dabble with it at all and you are very likely to get the addiction. I have room in my life for deep friendships, but the fireworks of a romantic entanglement are things I try to avoid.

I've blogged about the topic of romantic love before, but a new study by researchers at Stony Brook University, which was written about in the most recent issue of Journal of Neurophysiology, demonstrates a similarity between the brain states of those who have suffered the breakup of a romantic relationship and cocaine addicts. You can follow this link and get the details. It is a long article, but one I found interesting.

This romance thing is, as the article states, " a developed form of a mammalian drive to pursue preferred mates," and so I think it's safe to say it is not going away. Still, I think it helps to call things what they are, to understand what is really going on with us.

Romantic love is an addiction, and like all addictions, can be quite detrimental. When it's good, it's good. When you are separated from your drug it can impact your life in the most negative of ways.

Call me a killjoy, but life can still be sweet and enjoyable without this imagined need for a love rush. Our society and modern culture are saturated with reinforcements for the supposed need to have that special someone or quest to find one's "soul mate." I think it is all overrated and that this time would be better spent in self-devolpment. If a person can't be happy on their own the addition of another will not somehow balance out things. My advice: self first, then others.

Governing By The Book

My neighboring state of Tennessee will soon elect its 49th governor. One of those running for the position is Zach Wamp, a very popular politician and current U. S. congressman. Wamp has been reelected to his congressional seat easily time after time, routinely with well over 60% of the vote (last time he nearly hit 70%), although the latest polls I've seen for the governor's race put him in second place behind Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam.

I've noticed his latest campaign commercial (which interrupts my evening news every day). He gives this spiel about how God is the center of the universe and we were made to serve him. This type of talk goes over real big here in the Bible Belt. Well, let me give you his exact words and a link to an article about this ad titled "Here's My Heart":

I believe God is the center of the universe. He made us to serve him and to serve others. We must restore America to its Judeo-Christian heritage and our Constitution. This can start here in Tennessee. So I want to be your governor.

You'll notice, of course, that our Constitution came behind our Judeo-Christian heritage (which the Constitution says absolutely nothing about!).

If those words don't get your attention, take a gander at this bit from a recent talk he gave at Kingston, Tennessee's Higher Ground Baptist Church:

When anybody says to you that they want to be in politics or government or elected office instead of asking them the first question, 'Are you pro-life?', 'Do you believe that a man and a woman should be married to each other?', and those are important questions, ask those second and third. Ask them this one first: 'What is your worldview?' and just wait for an answer. Because if they can't tell you that my worldview is that God is the center of the universe - not man, He made us to serve Him and to serve each other, that the Bible is inerrant, every single word of it is true, it is the foundation, it is the beginning and the end, and it is the only thing that will stand the test of time. And that every policy should stand on those truths. Praise Him.

Wow, that's scary! Every policy our government makes should stand on the truths of this "inerrant" Bible. But as I said, this type of talk is extremely popular here and in large portions of our nation.

I can only attribute that to mass ignorance regarding both the Bible and the Constitution.

Signs Of Jesus' Return

Here's a church sign I spotted along my way. It's just another of those rhetorical questions that some Christians are in the habit of asking those of us who are unchurched. I'm certain the logic is meant to be something like this: You aren't living the church life, so if you knew Jesus would return to earth tomorrow to judge the living in the dead, what would you do?

I like to try to give serious answers to questions when possible, so let me post a few thoughts.

First, not to be a smart aleck or anything, how would it possible for anyone to know such a thing?

Okay, it's hypothetical I know, but if we could truly gain such knowledge we ought also to be able to discern which sect of Christianity (assuming for the sake of argument the other religions of the world are all wrong), out of the thousands making truth claims, correctly expresses the will of God.

The fact is Christianity is a mass of confusion. My personal opinion is that the study of Christianity as a historical movement that started within ancient Judaism yields the best understanding. Rome, under the guidance of Emperor Constantine, exploited the new religious movement for its own purposes, and power and money hungry priests have been exploiting it every since.

That Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who believed in the imminent end of the world, the overthrow of earth's kingdoms, chiefly that of the Romans, and establishment of God's Kingdom on earth seems obvious from the Gospels. It is difficult to read the New Testament honestly and come away with any other conclusion than the Jesus movement was just another in a long line of failed Messianic movements. It was the ancient Roman Empire that breathed new life into the Jesus myth and as noted, made its political usefulness apparent. Even in our day, in our great nation, Christianity is wedded to politics (and really always has been, as a study of our history confirms) and is used to mentally manipulate the masses.

But Jesus apparently did not expect to have to wait two thousand years to return. He explained to his disciples:

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:27,28).

The church sign question makes no sense in light of this. If Jesus' contemporaries - who I suppose all reasonable people will concede are no longer alive - died without witnessing the promised return of the Messiah, the judgment of man, and the establishment of God's kingdom, it would seem to follow that we are dealing with a nonevent. The question is moot.

We have Jesus' answer about the timing of his return and it simply couldn't be tomorrow or any time in our age. For more on Jesus' view of the future one should read Matthew chapter 24. Jesus had predicted the total destruction of the temple at Jerusalem (which did take place in A. D. 70). His disciple then asked him, "Tell us ... when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" Without quoting this lengthy passage in full (I hope you will take time to look it up and read Jesus' answer), Jesus mentioned a number of indicating signs and then said:

Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away (Matthew 24:33-35).

But that generation and many, many more have passed without Jesus' return, and the question on the church sign and the many loud sermons currently being preached about the end of the age and the return of Jesus is further proof that Jesus was mistaken.

Well, the question was asked. I feel it is quite nonsensical in light of what the Bible plainly says.

They're After Me

I turned fifty years old back in February and I swear it seems every other day's mail brings me another packet from the AARP wanting me to join. I'm not much of a joiner, anyway, so I'm not tempted to sign on, even if I were convinced this is a worthwhile thing to do (which I'm not).

First, it appears to me they are using their clout to make money from our ethically flawed insurance industry. If they fail us oldsters here - on one of the primary issues facing us, how to pay the expense of treating failing health due to aging - how do they justify their existence? The nifty little articles about age related subjects in their official magazine are nothing that isn't already available in popular magazines that cover a broader range of issues. In fact, I already receive these types of articles in the brochures regularly sent to me by insurance company and 401k holder.

Second, it amazes me they spend so much of their time and money on promotional efforts. I may have exaggerated the frequency of their packets, but they do arrive in my mailbox on a fairly regular basis. The printing and postage expense must be staggering. Why the extreme promotion for a nonprofit organization? This just doesn't sit well with me. Couldn't those funds be better spent?

Lastly, and I guess this is the biggest thing with me, how rude to constantly remind someone that they are going over the hill? I haven't asked anyone for help for anything yet, nor have I sought the comfort of others in the same boat I'm in. I'm fine and not aware I need the support of fellow aging Americans.

Leave me alone AARP!

These Lazy, Hazy, Crazy Dog Days

It was either the summer of '66 or '67 when I first remember my parents talking about the Dog Days of summer. I knew nothing about constellations or the Dog Star, Sirius. But I knew they were talking about the miserably humid and stifling hot time of year. I childishly thought it had something to do with that lousy smell that dogs - like our pooch, ol' Two Spot - gave off when the air the was heavy and their coats were full of dirt and fleas. Dogs during this period, I had noticed, lounged around in the shade the way humans did (sans the iced tea, colas and snow cones).

My dad was an old farm kid from way back and was well versed in the Farmer's Almanac. Mom was a city gal, but had grandparents who imparted to her much knowledge of the old ways. My parents were never into astrology as it is popularly conceived of today, but, curiously, they believed such things as the old wives' tale that when the zodiacal sign was in the head a dentist couldn't numb your pain. Almanacs were consulted when a trip to the dentist was needed.

The ancients had some odd beliefs about the Dog Star, Sirius. Just as lunacy was thought to be influenced by the moon, the Dog Days were thought to be a portent of dire things to come, as Homer wrote in his Iliad:

Sirius rises late in the dark, liquid sky
On summer nights, star of stars,
Orion's Dog they call it, brightest
Of all, but an evil portent, bringing heat
And fevers to suffering humanity

For most of us this has been a very hot summer. Yesterday my area was treated to a brief but substantial rain shower. You couldn't have called it a storm, but I did hear the thunder rumbling in the distance. After the shower I went out to smell the freshly washed air. I inhaled deeply the fragrance of the saturated earth. The ground had greedily soaked in the welcome moisture. The rain had been invigorating.

Summer isn't done yet. There's a lot more heat in store for us. I'm thankful now for the air-conditioning that I didn't have as a child Back then we toughed out summers with fans and cold drinks. When my brothers and I were outside playing we sweated mercilessly. Dog days might just as well been called that because we smelled like dogs during that period. The Mr. Bubble Mom bought for us I now know was not so just a treat but a practicality as well.

Now these Dog Days will make the first hint of autumn all the sweeter to me. And that will come in due time, even though summer seems endless right now. Come November, however, I will no doubt miss this warmth and my tea will be heated, not iced.

The Politicization Of Religion

I wrote a little something about church and state just the other day. See my Slay A Sacred Cow post from two weeks ago. I ended that post with the observation "the majority of churches double as political clubs." Then just yesterday I was out running errands and snapped the following picture from a church along the way.



There it is ... the Diplomats are coming to hold an old-fashioned singing! Actually, this is a rather well known southern gospel singing group, not a band of government employees, and I'm just having a little fun.

Jokes aside, the politicization of religion or religionization of politics, whichever, is a trend I find tiresome. I also saw yesterday a bumper sticker that read: "Jesus saves ... Obama spends". Funny. Zach Wamp is running for governor of Tennessee and he has a political commercial that plays around here featuring several musical artists (among other notables), one a well known contemporary Christian music performer, endorsing him. The Christian points out to us that Wamp is a man of deep personal faith. Personally - and I know I seem to be in the minority here in the U. S. - that is a negative to me. It means the candidate is not a man of reason.

Usually I take to task the Christian fundamentalists here for their unreasonableness, but I've noticed, no doubt in response to these conservatives, that liberal Christians are increasingly getting in on the political act. Back when I had my political blog (in the days before I abandoned hope and became more or less apolitical) I did a post linking to a website that proclaimed that Jesus is a liberal. I've now come to see that is as ill-conceived an idea as that he was conservative Republican.

The truth is, if we are to take seriously a study of the documents that make up the Judeo/Christian Scriptures, Jesus was a theocrat. And though it might pain my liberal friends to acknowledge it, Jesus was more of a fundamentalist than a liberal thinker.

Quoting from the Jesus Is A Liberal website:

We created this website because we believe the historical, Biblically documented teachings of Jesus Christ clearly show that Jesus is a Liberal. His philosophy, based in compassion, equality,inclusion, forgiveness, tolerance, peace and - most importantly - love, is 100% Liberal.

And further:

Webster's dictionary defines a Liberal as one who is open minded, not
strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or
ways. Jesus was a pluralist Liberal who taught that one need not
conform to strict and orthodox views of God, religion, and life. He
rejected greed, violence, the glorification of power, the amassing of
wealth without social balance, and the personal judging of others, their
lifestyles and beliefs.

Now it is possible, I'll admit, to get such a picture of Jesus out of the Bible ... if you are willing to engage in the same sort of cherry-picking of texts that the Christian conservatives are famous for! But how honest is that?

Here are some examples of how Jesus Is A Liberal attempts to support their ideological beliefs, taken directly from the page I linked to above. Under The Death Penalty, they reference Matthew 5:21, where Jesus directly quotes from the Mosaic Law, as proof that Jesus was against the death penalty. But this no more proves such a thing than that Moses was against the death penalty. That same body of law also endorsed capital punishment for a variety of offenses. This is dishonest and just won't do.

Under Crime and Punishment we are referred to the story of the woman taken to Jesus after being caught in the act of adultery. Jesus does not dispute the Mosaic sanction of stoning to death for such an offense, but recommends that the one without sin should be the first to cast a stone (see John's Gospel, chapter 8). How that would prove that Jesus was against the Mosaic Law I fail to see. It is just as reasonable to assert that Jesus saw that this was a mere "set up" by his enemies and simply refused to play along (not to mention the fact that Jesus was not a law enforcement officer).

One could go through all the examples step by step and see the shallowness of such an approach.

Perhaps when Jesus is compared to the Pharisees he comes off as a liberal. It should be borne in mind, however, that his chief beef was that the popular tide of the day was "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7,8), which Jesus termed vain worship, for in so doing they had laid aside the "commandment of God."

Neither did Jesus teach inclusiveness. He taught strict obedience to the Law of God and that he was the only way to God (John 14:6). That is the narrowness of fundamentalism, not liberalism.

The idea that Jesus was all about love is erroneous, at least according to the sacred texts. He preached repeatedly about Hell and extreme suffering there for those who did not repent and accept his message. He taught that families should be abandoned and subordinated to him and his teachings. Jesus and his followers did have their enemies and they were accursed.

And as for greed, it is true that Jesus denounced the riches of this evil world system which he taught was soon to pass away. But anyone who has ever read of the splendor of the Jerusalem's temple in its heyday or prophecies of the New Jerusalem with its gates of pearl and streets of gold, should be forced by honesty to admit that God and Jesus has no problem with wealth per se.

Now I could go on but this post is already very long and tedious. My point is that people today are teaching a religion about Jesus rather than the religious outlook that Jesus actually taught.

This isn't an attack on Jesus or Christianity as such. My point is that Jesus' teachings are a poor basis for modern democracy. It is wrong when conservatives use him this way and it is equally wrong when liberals do it. Jesus did not care a whit about the kingdoms of this world, but preached about a coming Kingdom of God that would supplant all others, that would be governed not according to democratic ideals, but by Law of God.

My thesis is that religion and politics must be kept totally separate.

I'm Baaack!

First, I want to thank my reader friends who offered words of support to me concerning my recent sorrow as explained in my last post. The biggest hurt was not being able to be there in person for my friend's last trial, but I realize the bonds of love and friendship transcend distance.

That was certainly enough to keep my mind occupied last week, but in addition I have been under a heavy workload on my job, putting in quite a few overtime hours. And at the same time I had to help my mother move the rest of her stuff (well, all that we could) from her former home - some thirty miles away - to her present home. Mom was under court order to remove her belongings before the end of the month, so this was something that had to be done. I had to make arrangements quickly. Yesterday my brother and I had to take time off from our jobs to gather up and move the last of her stuff.

It was nice to spend some time with my younger brother and play catch up with him, although he has so many problems healthwise and financially that it was a bit depressing.

With so much going on at once I had little time for groping elephants or anything other than my pillow at night as I tried to grab a few hours of sleep.

Hopefully things will begin to settle back into normality for me. I've missed my blog and my friends here.

I sometimes wonder if it's worth it (my blog, I mean, not life). Most of what matters to me and that I try to put into words here are things that are out of the mainstream. Even I have trouble putting all the loose threads of my ideas into a neat little ball. But that's okay, life isn't an orderly sewing basket in the first place. I tend to think that life is somewhat absurd and it is up to us put what meaning we can into it or to make out of it.

I certainly don't have it all figured out. But neither do any of you, either. The most boorish and irritating people of all, in my humble opinion, are those folks who swear they do. They are the fundamentalists among us, and I include both secular and religious fundies in that.

Well, be all that as it may be, what I'm saying is that I'm going to try to resume my blogging efforts, starting today. So for those of you who might enjoy or be stimulated into deeper thought by my offbeat observations and opinions, brace yourselves ... I'm back!

A Time To Live And A Time To Die

I've taken a few days away from my blog because, quite frankly, I've been in an emotional funk since finding out that a dear, dear friend, a lady I have known and worked with for years, a woman I loved like a sister, has died after a short illness.

Marilyn and I had not been in touch recently because she had taken a job elsewhere a year or so ago. We banked at the same bank and would often run into each other there. In fact, the last time I saw her, not so long ago, was at that bank. I was leaving the drive through window and heard someone call my name. She was in a car at the window beside me, waving, smiling warmly, and telling me hello.

That smile. She always smiled. She laughed and joked her way through every situation.

Unfortunately I was pressed for time that day and couldn't stop so I waved back, said hello and drove off. And I thought then, and from time to time afterwards, that I should give her a call and catch up. But I stay so busy. I work a lot, sleep a little, and take care of mom every day. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

I had just settled into my work day Monday when another friend came and told me Marilyn had died. Her memorial service was that afternoon. My friend told me she had read Marilyn's obituary that weekend. She said it had a nice big picture of her, smiling warmly as she always did. We really had no details until another friend that had worked with us stopped by later in the day to fill us in.

Marilyn, we were told, became ill a few months ago and went to doctor. It was determined that she had cancer throughout her body. One doctor told her chemotherapy would be useless. She went to another who advised her to go ahead and have the treatments. She took two, which made her very ill. Having been given perhaps a year to live in a hopeless situation, she made the decision to forego any more treatments and simply make the best of what time she had. She made it about another four months.

How I wish I had known. How I wish I had had a chance to go say good-bye, to hug her again and tell her I loved her. Not that she didn't know that already. We had never had a cross word between us. She was a faithful friend, a constant defender, probably my biggest fan, and I'm going to miss her for the rest of my life.

I can only imagine why she didn't call me. Perhaps she got too sick too quick and was just too busy making preparations. She had children and grand children. She also took care of her elderly mother. There was lots on that dear lady's plate. Like me, perhaps she was thinking "I'll do it tomorrow." I'm fairly certain she would have wanted me to remember her the way she was. I would have chosen to have a chance to say good bye to her. Life sometimes doesn't turn out as tidy as we would like.

These past few days have been spent in meditation, reliving the times Marilyn and I shared together, and just pondering nature's cycle of life and death. Today I mourn, someday - maybe soon, maybe a bit later - it will be my turn to go and to be mourned. The now is what really matters ... we should live, laugh and love for tomorrow we die.

Nature Rules

I get a little tickled sometimes listening to the fundamentalists around me speak of how man should exercise his dominion over nature, as if somehow he stood apart from it. Basing their thinking on the opening verses of Genesis, they take the arrogant view so common among revealed religions that we humans are the sole reason the universe exists. I, however, incline more to the view that we are mere cells in a vast organism.

A Bible verse such as Genesis 1:26

And God saith, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth" (Young's Literal Translation)

loses meaning in modern times when we have so ravaged the environment. Moses (or whoever authored Genesis) would, I'm sure, be shocked if he could take a look around today. I wonder what he would think of the fast food hamburger industry? What would he think of how man has exercised his dominion in the Gulf of Mexico as regards the oil spill catastrophe? Would he be a man-made climate change denier? We haven't ruled at all. Instead we have carelessly and greedily pillaged.

Yes, we could have done better. We can do better now if only enough people would learn to care. Nature, not man, is the one with dominion. And nature will have the final say. But it would be so much easier on us if we cooperated.

I was reading the reviews at Amazon.com for the book Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired By Nature, written by Janine Benyus. One in particular caught my eye, submitted by a J.W. K of Nagano, Japan. He wrote:

For starters, nature runs on sunlight and creates no waste. To me, this alone is reason enough to mimic nature, since our profligate energy use has caused a global eco-crisis. Not only does the combustion of fossil fuels pollute the air breathe (leading to some 3 million deaths from air pollution annually according to the WHO), but it also floods the atmosphere with CO2, leading culprit in the greenhouse effect. Moreover, being that the supply of crude oil is finite, the very foundation of our economy will one day run dry. Nature, on the other hand, runs on the unlimited bounty of sunlight. Unlimited clean energy is just one example of the genius of nature which author Benyus points out in this book.

I like that: "the unlimited bounty of sunlight." The ancients were right after all in that so many of their cultures worshipped the Sun.

Another book sounding this theme is Robert Allen's Bulletproof Feathers: How Science Uses Nature's Secrets to Design Cutting-Edge Technology. I haven't read this one yet, only recently finding out about it through the pages of Scientific American, but it looks interesting.

I'm warned constantly by my fundamentalist Christian friends and acquaintances that I should not worship the creation over the Creator. By that they mean the God of Judeo-Christian tradition. Personally, I'm not big on worship PERIOD. But I am certainly in awe of the majesty of nature's laws. I'm totally blown away at the efficient and economical designs found in nature, from which we may learn much.

Fair Enough: Let's Not Deny the United State's Christian Heritage; But Let Us Admit It Never Made A Difference

It seems that the most of the folks where I live think that if somehow the United States returned to its Puritan roots, everything would be swell.

A letter writer to a local newspaper, a gentleman 91 years of age, deplores the situation we find ourselves in as a nation. His letter can be read in full on this page. His biggest concern is this:

Most insidious are denial of Christian heritage: 82 percent believe in God today. Fifty-five of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were avowed Christians; the last three appointees to the president’s circle are not. A day of prayer was declared unconstitutional. Government speakers must cover Christian insignia. Armed forces are denied the privilege of speaking in Christian surroundings.

“When we deny one nation under God we will be a nation gone under.” — President Reagan.

I have to ask: How did Colonial America demonstrate the blessedness of the people of God better than our nation today? Did they have no problems? To the contrary, I think we have it much, much better than our forefathers ever had it, in so many different ways. If I were a theist I might say we are more blessed today than ever in our history.

There are and have been throughout history theocratic states that were nothing short of Hell on earth.

The problem I have with most people is that they speak without thinking, and then say so much that means so little.

(Side note: I wonder how many signers of the Declaration of Independence believed in the superiority of the white races?)

Want To Annoy An Atheist?

Truth be told, atheists are rare in our country, very rare here where I live. I can't imagine why anyone would want to annoy an atheist, or for that matter anyone. But that is the way the conservatives think, I suppose.

I received the following message in my email box yesterday:

Dear Fellow Conservative,

Fed up with smug atheists claiming that the Bible is full of intolerance, hatred, and outlandish fables?

Then you must get your hands on this free book. It’s the antidote against the secularist onslaught from mockers, skeptics and deniers.

Engaging and well-researched, it sets the record straight with archaeological and historical evidence to prove that the Bible is true.

So next time you talk to an atheist be prepared with this complete guide. Get the details here.

Sincerely,

Thomas S. Winter
Editor in Chief, Human Events

That link, the "details," takes you to a page where you can get Robert J. Hutchinson's The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible for "free" just by subscribing to the conservative rag Human Events for $39.95. Frankly, I think this a screw job. They say this book is a $27.95 value. Yet Amazon.com reports the list price as $19.95, and their price is $13.57.

Perhaps the pages of the Politically Incorrect Guide can somehow justify lying this way. I don't know; I haven't read it. I have read the Bible. It says that all liars have their place in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8).

Okay, maybe this isn't a lie lie. Some people distinguish between regular lies and little white ones. I've never seen that distinction made in the Bible, but....

Now this is a molehill, I know. Still, it's obvious to me that if you take away lies, deceptions, and distortions, the conservative propagandist loses his stock-in-trade.

The Chicken Came First

It's official now. The answer to that age old imponderable "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" has been definitively given.

Scientists in England have demonstrated that the protein ovocledidin-17, which plays a key role in shell formation, can only be produced inside a chicken. Therefore the chicken came first!

Perhaps it was because I was a creationist the first portion of my life, but this just never seemed like such a tough question. But for those who have been scratching their heads, now we know.

This what I like about science. It's helpful for getting to the bottom of things. If you're wondering why this question was worth exploring, Sheffield Professor John Harling explains:

Understanding how chickens make egg shells is fascinating in itself but can also give clues towards designing new materials and processes. Nature has found innovative solutions that work for all kinds of problems in materials science and technology. We can learn a lot from them.


As a side note, I love when scientists talk that way. Nature does this or that.... It's as if you could substitute the word God for nature in these instances. That's the way I think of it. The creative force of nature is what I consider God to be.

Misdirected Hate

I saw this story on the national news last night. Some Muslim groups are wanting to develop a mosque and community center at 9/11's ground zero in New York.

Needless to say, this isn't going over very well with many folks. Some "patriots" feel that even suggesting such a thing is a smack in the face.

As a nation it seems we have trouble putting blame where it is properly due regarding those dastardly terrorist attacks. In response, somehow the patriots were able to persuade enough of the right people to force our nation into an invasion of a nation that had no connection with said attacks. Neat trick. And all these years later we are still in that nation, dying and spending money that could well be spent on other things.

The average American also seems to have trouble distinguishing Islam from radical Islam. Some feel it would be sacrilege for Muslims to have a mosque there. The bigotry displayed in this controversy is outrageous in a land that is supposedly religiously tolerant.

The terrorists have certainly inflicted a damaging blow on our nation.

Slay A Sacred Cow And Help Balance The Budget

My personal opinion is that politics is one of the most hypocritical enterprises there is.

I'm just gonna come out with it and say that I can't take any politician of whatever party seriously when they speak of balancing the budget and haven't the intestinal fortitude to mention the outrage that religious properties are tax exempt and address what should be done about it: end this special privilege.

Can anyone imagine the political firestorm that would result if a United States President did as U. S. Grant recommended over a century ago when he said to Congress:

I would also call your attention to the importance of correcting an evil that, if permitted to continue, will probably lead to great trouble in our land...it is the accumulation of vast amounts of untaxed church property...I would suggest the taxation of all property equally, whether church or corporation.

In 1875, when Grant made his suggestion, these properties amounted to approximately $1 billion. Can you imagine what that total would be in these religiously inflated times a hundred and thirty-five years later?

The revenues that would be generated by the proper taxation of religious enterprises would go a long way towards easing our budget imbalance. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to be put on the table. Surely the politicians would be cutting their own throats because the majority of churches double as political clubs.

And so it goes....

Burnt Feet And Life's Lessons

Once the stuff of fakirs, firewalking, I've noticed, has become the domain of motivational seminars.

Alessandro Di Priamo, a motivational trainer, says

Firewalking helps people overcome their fears, seek new challenges and understand that most of what they see as their limits are self-inflicted.

Unfortunately, one of his exercises went awry recently, leaving nine of his clients with burnt feet.

Firewalking is a stunt, a trick. Like any stunt it can go wrong if not properly performed. Di Priamo has blamed this misfortune on the wrong kind of wood and charcoal being used without his knowledge.

I guess that serves as a good example of how many of our limits are imposed on us by the nature of things, rather than being self-inflicted.

And to think that people paid good money (and no doubt a good bit of money) for this.

Satan Revisited (Or Rationalism Versus Irrationalism)

I love the comments from my readers. They really make me think. Diane added a good one to yesterday's post about the literal existence of Satan:

And why don't lawyers use the Satan defense? Then our prisons could be emptied!

Good question, Diane.

Why haven't lawyers used this device? Given the widely popular notion that the major of source of evil in the world is Satan, this should be much easier than say the "twinkies defense." There is already a vast amount of literature on the subject of demonic possession, many written by professional psychologists and the like, and the Christian religion being so popular, what with its angels and demons, finding jurors who believe should be a snap. So what's the problem?

I suppose I could be snarky here and suggest that lawyers are well educated individuals, and the more educated and learned one is the less likely to take mythology literally.

I could, but I think the answer lies deeper. We receive our various worldviews from our environement, our parents and family in most cases. Our earliest experiences are the underpinnings of our psyche. It is a very difficult thing to reprogram yourself. For all the things I've attempted to change about my understanding of the universe, there is still a constant interplay between my efforts and my earliest worldview.

But I see I'm drifting, as I often do.

I've no doubt that lawyers, too, for all their education, have beliefs in the supernatural. If something on the order of ninety percent of Americans believe in God (and that often entails belief in Satan, demons, and angels), it is assured that that judges and lawyers as well as the citizens who compose juries are mostly believers.

So again, why not more of the "Devil made them do it" defense?

Certainly mental health facilities are more popular than exorcists. Antipsychotic drugs seem to get better results than prayer.

My observation is that most people are doublethinkers. They want to think of the themselves as rational, enlightened humans and at the same time hold on to irrationalities. Which isn't to say that I believe it is irrational to believe weird or unusual things, per se. But when you lay side by side the findings of scientific inquiry and superstition, there is more harmony about the former than the latter. As Ingersoll once said, "One fact will fit every other fact in the universe." At the same time I notice that believers in weird things are short on details and long on anecdotal evidence. That's the nature of fantasy and belief. Reason need not get in the way.

But in the real world, even believers (fanatics excepted) will put their beliefs in the back-seat when it comes to certain things, like court or health care, for example. Most of us would rather buy antivirus software for our computers than rely on prayer and the laying on of hands. And most of us take our cars to a mechanic rather than a shaman when there is trouble.

No one it seems draws the line between the rational and the irrational in exactly the same place.

On The Reality Of Satan: Is That The Best You've Got?

Look, if Satan is a real life enemy of mine and all mankind, I want to learn all about the subject I can and so, too, it seems should everybody. To the extent that religion is supposedly a truth claim it deserves serious investigation. This most people who want to impose their religious outlook, their worldview, onto everyone are unwilling to do.

One of America's leading religious authorities, the Reverend Dr. Billy Graham, answered the question of Satan's literal existence in this column. I recommend you read the entire brief piece of fluffery, but I want to look at some of the highlights (I use that word lightly, by the way).

Yes, Satan is real -- and we see evidence of his evil workings every day. How else can you explain the irrational acts of violence and terrorism that ravage our world? How else can you explain the way we fall for his temptations -- although we know they’ll only bring us disaster?

Is Dr. Graham writing for children? Has he never read anything about psychiatry and psychology? Could anyone but a dolt be satisfied with this explanation?

Not to mention the fact that for those inclined to believe in a higher power, this idea makes their God out to be kind of a smuck.

Dr. Graham explains further:

But the most important fact about Satan is this: He is a defeated foe. Yes, the battle continues -- but the final outcome isn't in doubt, because by His death and resurrection Jesus Christ defeated death and hell and Satan. Some day, the final battle will be fought and Satan will be defeated forever.

So, we are expected to believe, God defeated Satan over two thousand years ago but has decided to let him have a little(!) fun at our expense for who knows how long.

If a worldly leader of one nation had so overwhelmed another nation in war that surrender was inevitable, but yet he refused to accept surrender and instead allowed the carnage of war to go on indefinitely, would we not say that leader was criminally insane?

Yet that is what Dr. Graham wants us to believe about God. And the majority of people I talk to on a daily basis believe exactly that. Then they want to try to convince me that I have a spiritual deficit. Go figure.

Spider Bitten?

This is funny (to me at least). I have a friend at work who knows I have a rationalist bent and she has fun sharing with me her offbeat tales. It seems she is forever seeing these cryptozoological creatures at her country home in Georgia. Yesterday when she arrived at work she said she had to tell me about this weird crossbred spider she saw on her front porch the night before. It had a large, furry body but the long, skinny legs of a daddy longlegs spider. She said she thought of me right away, then got her camera and took a picture.

"Well, did you bring the picture?" I asked.

"No, I deleted it," she said.

Me: "What? Why?"

Her: "Because I called my husband out to show him and upon closer investigation he found it was large, hairy spider eating a daddy longlegs."

I still would have liked to have the picture. After all, it would have served as a great illustration of one of my favorite explanations for strange things. I do believe people see weird things. I have seen weird things myself. I just believe people most often misidentify what they see. I've seen "ghosts" that upon reflection I thought could better be explained naturally. I often wonder how many Bigfoot sightings have really been bears standing on two legs in the dark. We all know how easily UFOs sightings can be explained by natural phenomena.

I'm just saying: maybe we shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions. Why is it - or how is it - that so many people seem to know so much more about the unknown than the known?

I'm not a hyper-skeptic and not suggesting we should be. But I think the less we know about things in general, the less we have studied nature, the less critical we are in our thinking, the more vulnerable we are to being hoaxed and scammed.

I'm Tired Of Idiot Politicians (Especially Those Who Claim Not To Be Politicians)

Ever hear of Jody Hice? Neither had I until yesterday when I saw his controversial billboard on my local news. It seems Hice is a Southern Baptist preacher, host of his own radio show, and also is running for Congress from my home state. Here's a link to his officials site.

For those who don't want to bother chasing links, here is a description of his billboard:

Had Enough Of Obama's Change?

That may not seem that far out, but the controversial part is the C in change is red and in the shape of a hammer and cycle.

Oh well, free speech and all that. We are adults and able to read between the lines. Hice in one of those who feel that President Obama is a socialist (hey, no crime is being so ignorant as to not knowing what socialism is - our Congress is already full of such people, evidently).

Where I live I'm being bombarded right now by political commercials from like-minded individuals. All deploring deficits (where were these folks when President Bush the last was going through the surplus President Clinton left?). All bellyaching about something called "Obamacare." All wanting to "take back our country." So uniformed and unintelligent. So willing to go backwards to the kind of leadership that has brought us to the bring of collapse.

No, I'm not tired of Obama's change. Bad luck to you, Jody.

America's True Christian Heritage

A husband and wife letter-to-the-editor team dashed off a no doubt well intentioned but blatantly ignorant epistle for one of my local newspapers. You can read the whole thing at this page. Here is a portion:

When people say they want their country back, could it be that they want their godly heritage back? Let the truth be known and proclaimed that this great country of ours was founded on Christian principles.

Prayer to God Almighty by our Founding Fathers and citizens was and is essential for its survival. The Holy Bible was and is to be the guiding light and compass of the people of the United States.

It's not about being a Democrat or a Republican; it's about being an American who believes in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America and that our government was formed to protect the rights of its people and not to rule over them. It's all about reclaiming the history of what made this country great.

Perhaps this is a young couple who have been pumped up by one of our local theocratic pastors. Perhaps not, but at the least this couple obviously haven't read from start to finish the two documents they mention. The position they represent is a false history, a revisionist version widely popularized by the likes of the late Presbyterian pastor D. James Kennedy.

When these folk say they want to take back their country they speak from a position of profound ignorance. The Founding Fathers were not a gang of Bible-toting fundamentalists. The documents in question, especially the Constitution, the most important and relevant of the two, instead show the influence the Age of Enlightenment had on our founders.

Freedom and independence are not Christian principles - far from it. The teaching of the New Testament is that believers in Jesus are slaves to God. The slave motif features prominently in the Christian Bible and serves as the model of divine salvation.

The institution of slavery almost led to the rending of our nation. It did lead to a very bloody and divisive war. And the defenders of slavery, including the president of the Confederate States, strongly held they acted in defense of a divine institution.

The United States is not now and never was a nation founded on Christian principles.

Another Evolutionary Find In The Bible Belt

This story has been all over the local news the past couple of days. A Tennessee man digging in his yard for a swimming he is installing found the jawbone of a predecessor of the modern elephant.

A conservator from Memphis' Pink Palace Museum, Roy Young, estimates the age of the fossil find as between 30, 000 and 2 million years old. A wide guess, but still well beyond the allotted years of earth history according to biblical creationists.

This should be good for a number of those anti-science sermons and maybe some pro-creationism letters to the editor (I'll be watching the local papers), although I sense that young-earth creationism is fast falling out of fashion. Intelligent design is the new wave for thinking conservative Christians and some are broad-minded enough to embrace some form of theistic evolution.

The biblical creation story understood as religious myth is truly a thing of beauty. The point being that humankind is special, the capstone of creation, the very image of the gods. Understood as literal history it doesn't at all mesh with scientific knowledge. It may sadly be observed that the human race as a whole has disgraced the story understood mythically.

Ignorance Is God

An Associated Press story tells about an Egyptian farmer whose cow has birthed a two-headed calf, which was proclaimed by said farmer to be a miracle. (If you follow that link you can see the rather poor picture of the "miracle" calf.) The farmer, Sobhy el-Ganzoury, is planning to keep the calf as a reminder that "God is able to do anything." More like, I believe, God has a twisted sense of humor....

But my point is that people of limited learning still take "God did it" as the default position when something out of the ordinary takes place. When natural disasters strike, God must be angry. I'm tempted to believe that a lot of clergy who publicly take such a stance are surely not as scientifically ignorant as to believe such; perhaps it is likely they are exploiting the ignorance of their followers.

I'm a man of fifty years of age, yet I can remember in my youth seeing the adults in the church my family attended praying for and casting demons out of people (allegedly). There were smoking demons who caused the tobacco habit, drinking demons who created sots, headache demons, backache demons, financial demons, you name it and there was an imp creating the havoc. This type of thing still goes on here in our enlightened (ahem!) country, but hopefully it is as much out of the mainstream as are the religious snake handlers.

It seems to me there is more of an either/or, both/and approach. Educated people are forced to admit the achievements of science, but still believe God can and does intervene on a regular basis. Perhaps so. We can't prove there isn't a deity (or deities) behind the scenes pulling hidden cords in order to impose a change of direction on the usual orderly course of nature. But I'm going with knowledge over ignorance and assuming that nature is the sole answer. What evidence is there to the contrary?

Therefore, I think el-Ganzoury's calf can be understood biologically, demon possession is a psychological disorder, natural disasters can be understood using the sciences, etc. There is still much, much more about the cosmos we don't understand or don't yet understand fully. We may never understand everything fully. Our species may end before such a time comes. But down through history it has been the case that we have driven superstition out repeatedly with knowledge, and I've every reason to assume that will continue.

I've noticed in conversations with true believers in the supernatural that their reasons are always ipse dixit: it's so because I said it is so ... don't ask why. I suppose there is an intuitive conviction that there is more than meets the eye in this orderly universe of ours. Even the greatest of minds have grappled with the uncanny orderliness of the universe. Why should it be that way? Why does order exist rather than absolute chaos? There's no definitive answer to that one.

But saying "I don't know" doesn't bother me. Saying a supernatural God did it does. I've yet to find a persuasive reason for believing there is anything beyond the natural. That is the reason for my pantheism.

Introducing Bible Thumper: Going From One Extreme To The Other

Now I'm not one to keep up with the latest technology. I only became a cell phone carrying American seven or so years ago because I noticed the corner pay phones were getting scarcer than hen's teeth. To this day I use the cheapest cell phone the company I do business with makes and have a no frills package. That is because I rarely have use for it. But it is there in case I need it.

Others do a lot more with their phones and keep up with the latest gadgetry. More power to them.

There is a new application for iPhone, iPod, iPad called Bible Thumper. It is described as

...the perfect Atheist bible companion! Next time one of those bible thumpers starts proselytizing, you will be able to answer in kind with the juiciest quotes straight from the holy bible. Included are a selection of the most funny, irrational & strange quotes from the bible.

Anyone who has read my blog for very long has probably noticed that I'm not above severely criticizing the Bible thumpers. At the same time I have tried to maintain a decent respect for the ancient writings known as the Bible. After all, don't know if anyone noticed but I listed the Bible first in my list of favorite books on my profile page. It has had a big impact on my life and on my country, in fact on Western civilization period. A book of religious history (which isn't always the same thing as history properly understood) and storehouse of human observation and wisdom, the Bible is an endless source of interesting study.

The Bible thumpers and proof-texters have trivialized it. I have to say that I have just as much condemnation when rationalists use the Bible in the same way. Is it really likely a true Bible thumper will throw his book into the fire just because he is shown some contradictions, idiocies, or crude cultural customs? The Old Testament, with its cruel and violent warring is not so different from what we see in our day. The God of the Old Testament is not at all different from the earthly despots of yesterday (after whom he was fashioned) or of today.

Lastly, if an atheist or freethinker needs an application like this to use, it seems to me that person isn't well studied enough to be arguing his case in the first place. What is more disgusting than listening to someone attempt to discuss a subject of which they don't have a good grasp?

Anyway, this would seem to me to be a waste of money. Do your own study, I suggest, for free.

The Approaching Fourth Of July

No Independence Day post will be forthcoming from me this year. No, I don't hate my country or any thing like that. But honestly, I sometimes have trouble being enthused with the direction we have taken.

We can't seem to break our addiction to war. Our leaders are great at getting us into these no win situations, where in order to save face or "not fail to finish our mission" we deplete our financial resources and lose on foreign battlefields our beloved fellow citizens.

Meanwhile, back at home, unlike every other modern industrial nation we fail to meaningfully address national health care. This "great nation" of ours somehow can't see its way clear to view basic medical care as a human right.

"In God We Trust" may be our national motto, but the God that really rules over us is Mammon. How many people realize just how much we are controlled by the wealthy?

Our culture is fast going to hell in a handbasket. We are content to dumb ourselves down in so many areas of life and not enough people seem to be concerned about it.

Nope, I'm just not in the mood for flag waving.

Do We Really Need Blasphemy Month?

Personally, I've come to think of blasphemy as a much overworked subject. In this diverse world of ours, with its many religions and gods, it is nearly impossible for anyone to avoid committing blasphemy some time or another.

I see that a group of Facebook atheists have come up with the idea of recognizing July as Global Atheist Blasphemy Month. One atheist spokesperson, Staks Rosch, has explained this as an effort "to show how ridiculous blasphemy claims really are."

Okay, call me a pessimist, but I doubt this humble effort is going to do the trick.

It seems to be much more than believers versus unbelievers; it is also believers against other believers of a different system of belief.

The atheist Rosch winds down with "Atheist Blasphemy Month might at the very least teach religious believers how insensitive they actually are when they push their religion into every aspect of life."

Totally unrealistic, I believe. That's what all of us tend to do: promote our worldview. And, honestly, we also at the same time tend to insult the intelligence of those who believe what we think of as oddball things.

Atheists, I'm sure, would disagree with what I just wrote, as they claim to be "beliefless." That's probably generally true, except I think most tend to hold to their materialism rather dogmatically. I'm not suggesting they are wrong (just that they may be). I just have my personal doubts whether we fully understand what matter is.

So blasphemy is here to stay, so long as faith holds such a lofty place in the human psyche.

I Love Virginia Gregg

Confession is good for the soul they say, and I'm confessin' I've fallen in love with actress Virginia Gregg. How did it happen, you might wonder? I'm sure I don't know. I'm a big Dragnet fan (which comes on here everyday at 5:30 p.m.). It was there I first noticed her. She did quite a few episodes. Jack Webb knew talent, and if you watch his old shows he tended to use the same actors over and over in various roles, as a performing company of sorts. But I always find myself looking forward to the episodes with her in them.

I was seeing her on there so much and appreciating her acting skills, I went to the IMDB to find out what else she did in her career. And it turns out she did lots - just check out that link. Thirteen episodes of Webb's Dragnet 1967 alone. No wonder I spotted her there so much. I was pleased to find her on the old Alfred Hitchcock show, too, which I collect on DVD. Awesome. She did westerns, crime, comedy, drama, you name it. What an actress! She also did voice work for cartoons. Another hobby of mine is collecting cartoons on DVD. I have a number of episodes of the old cartoon Calvin and the Colonel, on which she did the voice for Maggie Belle Klaxon, one of the main characters. I think she adds so much to the show. I have found out that before her television work she had a lengthy radio career as well.

I have to say, I think she was quite a looker too - both when she was young as well as after she began to age. Sadly, I never became a fan of hers until after her death from lung cancer, in 1986. Seems I'm a quarter century too late to dash off a fan letter and request for an autographed picture, which I surely would do were she still alive.

As so often happens in cases like these, I can't say exactly why Gregg has made such an impression on me. I like lots of the old-time actors and actresses (I'm less impressed with most of the current actors), but somehow she has her own unique place in my heart. Its comforting to know she will ever be as near as my DVD player.

Weird, all this, I suppose. The last time I was smitten so by an actress was when I was five years old and Lost In Space premiered. I fell in love then with Angela Cartwright. For some reason that crush didn't last even until junior high school. Who can understand this type of lunacy?