Another free pass for for religion.

We all know at least a little about some children that were removed from the Texas ranch of a “religious sect”. A guest on FOX news this morning suggested that we should be sensitive to the idea that the child rapists in this case are after all, only exercising their first amendment right to practice their religion. This of course does not take the girls’ view or wishes into any account. But why should it? Our major religions have always placed women at the mercy of their men. (I do not know for sure that this is a truth about the sect; my commentary is about the FOX comment).
We can’t call nonsense nonsense because it is religious in nature? Why do we shield religion from scrutiny? What other human endeavor gets this free pass? Because we indoctrinate ourselves to belief that anything proclaimed as spiritual or religious is beyond reproach or even simple illumination. Because it is taboo. Because we don’t want to offend the person who believes God wants him to procreate with kids.
Let’s open religion to scrutiny. Let the religious try to prove the case for God and all that comes with it. If God is a true God, the scrutiny will only reveal him, and perhaps some of the fringe excesses of behavior and dogma would be trimmed. What in the world can’t be improved with genuine investigation and introspection?
Meanwhile, pray for some girls in Texas.

A Foxhole Atheist

Here’s a sad story about a soldier being harassed and harmed simply because he doesn’t believe in imaginary friends in the sky. It also proves that there are, at last, atheists in foxholes.
It’s interesting and troubling that the religious are usually, in these matters, the ones that are intolerant and punishing. All else equal, shouldn’t it be the heathens who are immoral? But that is not the case. What then, does their religion provide for them in the moral sphere? Isn’t it obvious by now that when you truly literally believe you have God on your side, you are capable of anything? Perhaps that would explain how our own president is on record stating that he does not consider atheists to be citizens. And we all know that that is far from the worst of behavior from faith-heads.
If you don’t believe in God, you are likely to be: despised, feared, pitied, misunderstood…how ironic and what a shame, especially since “being an atheist” requires only one thing: a lack of belief in God. It says nothing about what you do believe (many atheists count themselves among secular humanists, me included).

Something Deepak Chopra said
I’ve cut this from another website. Enjoy the comedy! While it might be nice (maybe) if what Chopra claims is true, there can be nothing offered as evidence. How would such a kooky theory be arrived at? The faithful would say to me, “prove Chopra is wrong”. Well, I can’t! I have little idea what happens when we die, but I would bet anything that this ain’t it! That this guy is a household name and somewhat respected as a self-help guru, is chilling to the bone.
“PRIME GOBBLEDYGOOK FROM DEEPAK
This is a transcript of a CBC/Canada interview with the well-known quack Deepak Chopra. One sequence rather caught my amused attention:
Q: What happens when you die, Deepak?Chopra: What happens when you die, is you return to where you always are. If you realize right now that there’s no such thing as a person, you’ll be all set.Q: What do you mean, I’ll be all set?Chopra: Then if you shift your identity to that consciousness that is differentiating as observer and observant, you’ll know there’s nothing to fear.Q: You have no fear of death.Chopra: No Sir! Why? Because I don’t exist in the first place!Q: Can you get reincarnated as a soul?Chopra: [Sighs] Wisps of memory and threads of desire, which are specks of information, latch onto specks of consciousness and show up as recycled human beings. But in the bigger picture, the observer, the observed, the process of observation, is a single reality.Q: So… Deepak Chopra, as I know him [questioner taps the sitting Chopra solidly on the knee for effect] my friend Chopra… doesn’t exist?Chopra: A transient behavior of… the total universe.I hope that’s all clear now…?”

I am finishing Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell. Lots of great ideas as usual from Dennett. Probably because of its placement near the end, I remember especially well his discussion of the “illusion” society creates which equates spirituality with goodness and materialism with evil. The idea that “we materialists are the bad guys, and those who believe in anything supernatural, however goofy and gullible the particular belief, have at least this much going for them: they’re on ‘the side of the angels’.” Note I am not talking about materialism as in “he with the most toys wins” sense, but philosophical or scientific materialism.
One particular example he discusses is the contemplative monks in Christianity and in Buddhism, who maintain a largely contemplative lifestyle. “In what way, exactly, are they morally superior to people who devote their lives to improving their stamp collections or their golf swing? It seems to me that the best that can be said of them is that they manage to stay out of trouble, which is not nothing”.
Dennett writes about the catch-all word, “spirituality”, and what it implies and his studies on what people actually mean when they claim to be for example, “spiritual but not religious”. Simply, spirituality equals, when pressed to describe it further, “you know, like, it’s like paying attention to your soul or having deep thoughts that really move you…spirituality is really caring…”
My two cents: Please world, stop saying “I’m spiritual but not religious”. It’s saying nothing, especially when your spirituality probably has little to do with entities or special powers. Just say you’re deep for crying out loud! For God’s sake! You’re confusing the conversation!
Some final thoughts, aside from the Dennett work. I know that in our post-modern world it’s cool to be open to everything and multi-cultural and welcoming of ideas, but let’s still offer up a little critical thinking too, eh? We can reject ideas, yes even out of hand, that don’t deserve our attention, without that implying that we are closed-minded. After the sixties, nobody wants to be closed-minded anymore! Well, I’m here to say, its OK. Not in a general way, and of course I’m being silly. But if someone tells you that they are capable of having two-way conversations with plants, your response should not be, “well if it’s true for you…” It should be “bullshit; do you need some assistance”. And you’ll still be an open-minded, hip person.
In my next post, I will discuss the merits of atheism and the skeptic viewpoint on its own merits, not just as it stands in opposition to something.