“Prosperity Gospel” makes my blood boil
The Time article “Did God Want You to Get That Mortgage?” is exactly the kind of thing I mentioned in the comments here that disturbs me greatly. Do the pastors that preach this personally take responsibility when things go wrong for their parishioners who take this kind of advice? Of course not. Either the individual wasn’t devoted enough to God (thus their own fault), or God has a plan (thus God’s fault), but never the individual’s fault (who was stupid enough to believe this shit), or the pastor’s/church’s fault (for pushing it).
Just a week or so ago our pastor was pumping for additional donations, and said that God has already blessed him with $120 towards the extra financial commitments he had made to the church for the upcoming events/year. Give the money you don’t even have, because God will give it to you.
Makes me sick, but it is prevalent in Christian theology since the early Church. God blesses the faithful, whether that is military victory, money, land, punishment of enemies . . . it encourages the faithful to take risks they otherwise wouldn’t take on the belief that God will save/support them, unless he doesn’t, in which case they are just wretched sinners anyway and deserved it, but God will beam them to Heaven after death.
If the God of the Bible (or of the Koran, or whatever) exists, and is a just being, then surely he will give a pass to all those who turn away from Him based on the behavior of so many who purport to follow Him. Maybe that’s guilt by association, but you can barely find a church (or other place of worship relating to the associated diety) today that doesn’t preach exclusivity, favoritism, intolerance. Things that drive wedges between individuals and cultures. Until they become like us, that is.
I hate living in a battleground state,
but it does make for some interesting scientific education about what motivates us:
6 Brainwashing Techniques They’re Using On Your Right Now.
How many of these have you seen lately? (No, I’m not talking about #1 . . . You’ll get that when you get there).
If you hear there will be discussion in front of your school board about “Teaching the Controversy” . . .
this year, or in the next couple of years, it will probably involve materials coming from the Discovery Institute, Christian fundamentalists’ front group for trying to tear down evolution. Here is one example of “Teaching the Controversy” this year from NC, but you know it is happening elsewhere.
In the wake of the Dover Disaster (a disaster for the Discovery Institute specifically and creationists/fundamentalists/evangelicals in general) the Discovery Institute has gone about trying to find ways around textbook requirements in order to get their ideas into public school classrooms. That tactic? “Supplementary materials”. As noted by John Timmer (introduced below), supplementary classroom materials often don’t have to meet the same standards as textbooks.
ArsTechnica recently brought in . . . whatever term you use for someone with the following credentials:
John got a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry (yes, that’s possible) from
Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology
from the University of California, Berkeley. He’s done over a
decade’s worth of research in genetics and developmental biology at
places like Cornell Medical College and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center. In addition to being Ars’ science content wrangler, John
still teaches at Cornell and does freelance writing, editing, and
programming, often with a scientific focus.
to review the Discovery Institute’s new Supplementary Materials.
I would quote the rather damming final summary paragraph, but that would only distract and take the focal point away from the fact that the body of the review is a masterpiece in disembowling of these substandard “educational” materials. Here is a sample:
This presentation can also be considered a “bait and switch”—take a
real scientific controversy, tell your readers that it exists, and then
substitute in the controversy you’d like them to think exists without
comment. This is obvious in the section on the fossil record, where the
Reply section contains a long list of academic discussions of the
limitations in our collections of fossils. That section wraps up by
claiming these limitations, “have led some scientists to doubt that the
fossil record supports the case for common descent.”Who are those scientists? Well, poor Malcolm Gordon (who actually wrote
in favor of common descent) gets dragged out again, but the rest aren’t
actually scientists, nor are their publications peer-reviewed science.
Instead, there’s a book by an Italian creationist and another by
Discovery Institute Fellows, including some of EE’s authors. The bait of real issues has been switched to a statement that isn’t actually supported by the footnote.
As a libertarian and someone who believes in the principles of federalism, I am generally in favor of decisions relating to educational standards being handled as locally as reasonably possible. However, as a strong believer in the principle of the separation of church and state, I believe there is a valid rational prohibition against either overtly or subtly trying to insert religious instruction into public schools, and that’s exactly the direction, the kind of pandering, that these materials support.
If our local school board, or the state educational board, started flirting with these materials or the DI, you can be certain I will be circulating this article to them. Just say to no non-science (in this case the similarity to nonsense being intentional) in science class.
What a wonderful world we live in.
CFI: It’s time for science and reason
Hat tip to Pharyngula. The message this video has to convey is important, and so I’ll let it speak for itself.
Why are our political ideas so entrenched? Science offers clues.
Thought this was a fascinating article on the correlation between fear and politics:
Political views ‘all in the mind’
You hear a lot of people talk about the “politics of fear”, and it turns out there may be something to that when dealing with the Republican base, and I’m saying that more observationally rather than critically (despite the fact that there are critiques to that approach).
What I don’t like about fear is that it isn’t part of a calculated, considered assessment and response. When you react purely out of fear, your almost random action is just as likely to exacerbate a problem as solve it.
Not being afraid is not the same thing is being stupid. For example, you hear about people fearlessly going into wild animal areas at zoos, and generally that kind of stupidity doesn’t end well. But there are people standing outside the zoo cage who aren’t afraid, but nonetheless conclude that it isn’t a great idea to climb into the hippopotamus habitat at their local zoo. I think this point gets lost on some people in political debates. Libertarians with an isolationist bent when it comes to military deployment are often accused of, essentially, pandering to terrorists–that if we aren’t afraid of terrorists to the point where we are willing to expend vast sums of money to go invade and violate the sovereignty of foreign nations then we must be stupid. Or that our calculated decision that these types of military actions aren’t in our best interest will only egg terrorists on because the terrorists will believe their fear tactics are working–that surely we are reacting out of fear and appeasement of terrorism than out of rational analysis.
Of course, fear isn’t always a bad thing. There isn’t always time to make detailed calculations and analysis; sometimes conviction and action in the face of fear provides an invaluable initiative. It’s just as true of humans as it is of flies (hat tip to io9.com for the link). When dealing with a life-or-death situation, or any highly time-sensitive issue, having conviction and making a fast first move based on stereotypes and other preconceived notions can can be the difference between victory and defeat. Fear can trigger this kind of non-thought action. In other words, victory in such a manner under imminent life-or-death circumstances has its own framework of moral justification, but not so much in other circumstances. A certain demographic or segment of the population believe don’t make that distinction–they believe that winning, in and of itself, is all that is important regardless of principle. But the bottom line is that initiative has deep roots in evolutionary biology, it’s just that the thresholds of fear vary significantly across individuals. And apparently have some direct correlations to our political views.
Fascinating stuff.
What’s the draw of pre-apocalyptic stories?
I read with interest io9.com’s article on the growing popularity of pre-apocalyptic movies, compared to post-apocalyptic movies. The post-apocalyptic concept had big audiences during the Cold War, sparked in my thought by the relative newness of the suddenly-potentially realistic possibility of total nuclear obliteration. Before that, probably the only thing people “realistically” thought could wipe out the entire world was God.
The io9 writer ascribed greater meaning to pre-apocalyptic stories this way:
We may or may not be living in a pre-apocalyptic world right now, but most of us are definitely not living in a post-apocalyptic one. The only thing post-apocalyptic stories tell us is that some of us may survive the end of everything, in whatever reduced circumstances. But pre-apocalyptic stories have a lot more meaning — they tell us how to use our last days, and whether it’s worth struggling against the looming disaster.
I would have gone one step farther than that in the first sentence. I believe one of the biggest draws to pre-apocalyptic movies is not that we may or may not be living in a pre-apocalyptic world, but that from a subjective perspective every day we live is a pre-apocalyptic experience to our ultimate individual apocalypse–our death. Pre-apocalyptic stories about the world are a macro-level view of our own internal dialogue about what we do with our life every day.
A lot of the stories described deal with the knowledge of a future event that is perceived as either unavoidable, or avoidable only at great effort. It’s date may or may not be known. Even in the Termiantor movies when the date “Skynet” was switched on was a known quantity, that was only an “end date” . . . the protagonists had up to that time to affect change, but not more unless intervening events provided more, and quite possibly a lot less. I think our lives are viewed much the same way. I may not know the day I’m going to die, but I know what my life expectancy is (roughly), so I can’t count on having much more than that time, and I may have significantly less time.
In these pre-apocalyptic stories, the protagonists are often trying to, obviously, prevent the apocalyptic event with the kind of fervor that we don’t normally run around with trying to stave off death. But not always true . . . Deep Impact comes to mind, where the apocalypse, at least for some, becomes unavoidable, and how do people deal with that. I think stories like that tend to be more uncomfortable, because they hit closer to home. We are all going to die, and we would rather watch movies about how heroes go about preventing the inevitable than movies about people trying to deal with the inevitable (unless they’re doing something very heroic while grappling with the inevitability, and even then that’s generally frowned upon as not being happy-ending enough). Let’s face it, most of us are, at best, heroes in small ways rather than big ones. Being a good parent, or a good friend, or being a volunteer, or a charitable contributor. Rescuing a dog.
I don’t think it’s necessary to invent artificial apocalypse scenarios, whether it is putting faith in ancient Mayan calculation, or the Biblical warnings of the end of the world (which was originally supposed to have come shortly after Jesus’ death), but I do think it is important to ascertain potential apocalyptic events that have their basis in fact, such as the potential consequences of global warming or how to deflect a giant asteroid, or, if humanity lasts far into the future, how to escape Earth permanently.
At the end of the day, we are all living in our own pre-apocalypse. If you would be unhappy with your legacy if you died tomorrow, then what is holding you up?
One of the earliest stories that made my question my religion.
When I was young, I was a voracious reader. Particularly science fiction and fantasy, but pretty much anything I could get my hands on. I read the Dragonlance Trilogy . . . the whole thing . . . on the way to Florida in the car. I loved the Thomas Covenant series, among others. But science fiction writers really just took a blender to my imagination. I read Bradbury, Clarke, Asimov, and I loved in particular anthologies and collections of short stories. The medium of the short story, and the skill of particularly adept authors–to take a single idea and turn it into a powerful communication of that single idea within just a few pages–always amazed me.
Asimov was by far my favorite science fiction short story author. I have a tattered old copy of a collection of his short stories in my basement that is practically falling apart from use. In that specific and particular book is my favorite short story of all time, The Last Question. It challenged my preconceptions of religion, about what could be. And it does it in a way that is framed, in retrospect, subtly against the backdrop of everything you learn growing up. That is, in part, the genius of it, its introduction of minute dischord. Make it too foreign to your culture, to your frame of reference, and an idea will slide off like water off the back of a duck.
So many things, as we age, turn out to be not as good as we remember them. This short story has always to me bucked that trend. It could be because of the personal value I attach to it, but I read it today and the last lines still make my arm hairs raise on end.
So, if you have the opportunity, I recommend taking a quick read of The Last Question. I am not naive enough to think that it will in any way change the perspective of an adult, entrenched in their thinking–either it will be preaching to the choir, or beating on the brick wall–but you may just enjoy it for what it is, a short story of excellent quality by one of the best writers of the 21st century.
I admire PZ Myers.
PZ Myers, author of the science blog “Pharyngula”, has “desecrated” a Eucharist wafer, some pages of a Koran, and several pages of The God Delusion, as part of a cause over a story that you can catch up on under the first link below, if so inclined. I know he would likely say that what he did is not a cause for admiration, but he has certainly stood up for what he believes in the face of physical threats to himself and his family, pressure to have him fired from his job, and significant criticism from the religious community.
I don’t have anything to add that hasn’t been added in one of the many 1000+ comment threads that have appeared on his blog about this issue. My own two cents is that I agree, its just a cracker, and its just pages from books. Hell, from Dawkins’ perspective it was probably a win-win because PZ couldn’t have discarded pages from the book unless it was purchased, right? 
The Start. (Bonus points for use of the work “frackin’”)
There is a, uh, “fair bit” in between if you have several hours of reading to spare.
Dr. Myers and I share little common ground in political stance, but I am a big proponent of science. Prove by scientific method that the cracker is more than a cracker, and I’ll be all ears.
Strange but true!
Wow! You are truly a student of the Bible! Some of the questions were difficult, but they didn’t slow you down! You know the books, the characters, the events . . . Very impressive!
Strange but true! 75% isn’t 100%, but puts me where I feel is on pretty comfortable ground to discuss the Bible. Never went to Catholic school or received formal religious instruction, so this is just informal reading and research. At least it can’t be said that I’m a religious know-nothing
Someone keeps deleting my comments. Too bad they can’t delete my blog.
I’ve been dabbling in reading through some of the religious-tagged blog entries on WordPress.com, such as here or here. I honestly love a good, spirited discussion, and I find religious and spiritual topics tend to encourage good brain exercise.
What tends to rub me the wrong way is people who delete comments. I understand that if someone has a blog, how they operate it is their rules. But if you’re going to have a public blog with an open comments section, and someone isn’t posting something wholly inappropriate (adult language comments in a blog targeted at children, for example), then don’t be a tool and run around with a heavy hand of moderation. The whole point of a public blog with open comments is that you’re utilizing the Web the way it was intended, as a two-way communications medium, and not simply as a soapbox that comes equipped with a pair of earplugs.
Which brings me to “mom’s musings“. The author, who may even be the author of the book at the top right hand column, I can’t tell for sure, posted a blog entry surrounding the following story:
As Marie and some of the other young people were riding in a boat, they looked up, and to their surprise and fear, they spied a snake. One of the young men flung (?) it into the water and away from them.
The author then proceeded to pontificate as to various religious lessons that could be learned from this story, such as:
None of the young people knew whether the snake was poisonous or not. However, they didn’t want to take any chances so they (or one of them) hurled it away from them. Isn’t that profound? Sometimes you can look evil right in the face and not recognize it.
My comment was that since none of the kids knew whether the snake was poisonous or not, wouldn’t it make sense for the kids (and anyone else hearing the story) to take away a lesson regarding ignorance? If you educate yourself as to snakes, or how to cope with potentially scary situations in nature, maybe they could next time have a positive interaction with nature and not simply react out of fear and ignorance.
I even said in my comment that, given their state of ignorance as to the snake, they may have done the only thing they could think of to do, so it wasn’t as if I was bagging on the kids. I was just saying that this story should highlight to everyone that it is better to be informed, better to know, than to continue to live in ignorance and react by fear. That is much more profound to me than encouraging someone to perhaps unnecessarily push things away in the future. If the snake actually posed no threat in its default state, then the kids may have been increasing their risk when someone reached out to grab it and hurl it away, plus they may have unnecessarily harmed or killed the snake. What would the point of that be if you could know in advance whether the snake was a threat?
I don’t even think that what I said may have been that far off what she said. She said:
Sometimes you can look evil right in the face and not recognize it.
Well, ok, besides a rather blanket comparison of snakes to evil, which may be religiously accurate (froma Christian perspective) but is not factually accurate, wouldn’t you then want to do the work, do the research, do the learning, so that the next time you will recognize it? Or recognize when it isn’t? What is so patently offensive or scary about the pursuit of knowledge?
I guess it was just too much, or whatever. I made two comments, both were deleted. Not here. Take stories like this as lessons in why it is important to be educated as to the natural sciences if you know you will be exposed to such situations. Even something as simple as having a resource as to local wildlife so you can say “We’re heading out, what should we do if we see a creature that could be dangerous, like a bear, or a large cat, or (drum roll please) a snake?”
