Is that the right question?

In his recent piece, "Are colleges too liberal?" Connor Wood remains true to his tendency to make assumptions seem far more notable than they are. Even if you assume the basic premise is correct it begs a number of other questions and issues that never seem to cross his mind. He also never notices the contradictions he himself references. For instance, he gives verified numbers of the ratios for liberal to conservative professors that do not match the ones in the conservative hack-job that originally inspired his own piece. He also never bothers to question in any significant way whether the personal views of the individual professors translate in any way into the instruction the professors provide their students. I'd be willing to bet there are studies showing that conservative professors get caught trying indoctrinate classes far more often than liberal ones. (I'll have to look into that)

So, is the original question the only one let alone a meritable one? NO. Why not follow it up with other questions? Is higher education "liberal" by its nature. I don't suppose he's ever noticed that the liberal mind-set tends to be more inquisitive or at least less likely to oppose inquiry. That seems like a very important aspect of education. Or, perhaps he should ask why conservatives are asking about the political/ideological leaning of education but not other fields. Is business too conservative? Doesn't the economy favor the wealthy and powerful? Aren't they more able to afford the cost of higher education. And, wouldn't this contradict them on their devotion to markets? If student still pay for Higher education would that, by their own thinking, imply it isn't "too" anything, ideological or what not.

Though he provides a number of references to validate various other points he attempts to make they are very little value. Most of the sources he relies on have a track record of not being fact based. Quite a few are sources I often agree with but am frustrated by. As often as not I think they do reach the right conclusion on a given issue, or are at least in the right area. However, they do little to back themselves up. It is a bit ironic that Wood makes use of them since they general do not fit his favorite pre-determined notions. I have previously pointed out that his blog is mislabeled. "Science on Religion" should be reversed since he almost always views science through the tainted lens of religion.

"...the religiously stranded..."

I will admit that the article containing the phrase in the title above isn't quite as stupid as it first seems.  "Finding a home for the religiously stranded: Marmur" does contain a few decent points. None are new or particularly insightful but worth reviewing on occasion. However,  they do not come any where near compensating for the boat load of stupid that is in the piece. There are far too many logical falicies and general lapses in reason to cover. I will, instead, point out some of the foolish implications of the title that are carried through the body of the article.

As I have pointed out in previous posts over the years I have come to believe two things about most theists. 1. Most theists do not ever bother to think through wher their professed beliefs lead logically; and/or 2. Most theists don't truly believe most of what they claime to (other behaviors and beliefs are too contradictory). The phrase "religiously stranded" seems to be just another example of this. How can you possibly be "stranded" from a belief or set of beliefs? It makes no sense on the surface of it. After think more about the type of beliefs being talked about it becomes even more absurd. Most of the individuals alluded to not only believe in God they seem to believe in the more abstract version of the God concept. If God truly is the perfect and all powerful divine entity they claim how is it even remotely possible to be separated. God would literally be the source of everything and simultaneously present in all things. Even considering being "stranded" would be a contradictions of terms.

Silly nonsensical crap is laced throughout the implications and applications of this phrasing. There is no logical or reasonable way to use "religiously stranded" without revealing numerous philosophical and intellectual shortcomings of any and all religious concepts associated with it.

The sham of multi-faith dialogue

I agree that it is far better for different faiths to get along rather than harass and persecute each other but that does not mean that "interfaith" or "multi-faith" proponents and activists are not full of shit. I'm sure many of the groups that have been advocating for this approach to religion are well meaning but they fail to acknowledge some innate problems with this movement. Ultimately, all religions are divisive. Cooperation can only go so far. A recent post on the Patheos blog Uncommon God, Common God inadvertently admits to this rather important and disturbing flaw.

In the very opening paragraph of "Don’t Compromise on Multi-Faith Dialogue" Paul Metzger states,
"Moreover, while multi-faith engagement seeks to safeguard against manipulation and bait and switch strategies of evangelism, it also seeks to provide compelling reasons why one would/should become an adherent of a particular religious tradition."
Reread that sentence and think about what he's really saying. Right away you should notice the contradiction. The latter part of the sentence is explicitly about evangelizing. So, yes, the approach is at least partially about "bait and switch." Many individuals and groups really are as concerned with converting and spreading their favored faith over all others. That is not cooperative or tolerant. The  truth is that theists view their faith as having more merit and therefore all others are of lesser value. Why else would have continued to be part of their religion?

Interesting use of Mockery

Talia Lakritz' YouTube video, "18 Things Orthodox Jewish Feminists Are Tired of Hearing", is fairly entertaining but a review I came across of the video was a bit confusing to me. Had I never read Antonia Blumberg's take on the video I never would have even considered that it was meant to support the idea that Orthodox Judaism and feminism are compatible. I had assumed based on what I saw that it was intended to ridicule the idea that the two could be reconciled. Watch the video and see if you can find any trace of even a single argument for compatibility. I've re-watched it a few times and still don't see how the creator thought it would be seen as anything other confirming that the two cannot be put together.

After mentioning a number of criticism that Lakritz portrays Blumberg states; "Lakritz challenges these arguments in her video." There's a slight problem with this observation. There's no basis in reality for it. Lakritz essentially creates a dramatized stream of mockery with no real explanations and certainly no argument/counter-argument. And, even if she did the tone still seems to be to mock the beliefs and practices of Orthodox Judaism. The implication is that the Orthodoxy is innately sexist. Changing the mysogynistic elements would basically end a huge part of what separates Orthodox Judaism from its more liberal counterparts. Doesn't that prove they are not compatible? "Things Orthodox Jewish Feminists Are Tired Of Hearing" makes no sense. If Lakritz's intent is as Blumberg describes she may want to do some re-editing.

"God stepped in"

So, according to a certain sub-set of Christians God has to be one of the laziest, most clueless, incompetent assholes to ever exist. The only other possible interpretation (assuming God does exist) of comments from dim-wits like Debbie Dills is that she and her type of theist is willfully ignorant and/or self-deluded to an astonishing level. The Religious News Service commentary "God stepped in, says Debbie Dills, who spotted alleged S.C. killer" is yet another example of how easily religious beliefs can turn peoples brains into tapioca.

The very notion that God deserves any praise for allegedly being involved in any way with the tragedy that occurred recently in a South Carolina Church is disgusting. Why give this supposed supreme being any praise? God "stepped in" to help catch Dylann Roof after he committed murder but what about before the actual crime? Was God playing golf while this scrawny little asshole was plotting the murders? God couldn't get off his ass to give the little bastard a heart attack while loading his gun?

This is the type of thinking that infuriates me. Praise God on one hand and ignore everything else. It isn't just sloppy thinking it is downright fucking stupid. It is contradictory and a clear sign that this type of theist hasn't a fucking clue what they are talking about. Even if you accept this version of the God concept it is a being far from praiseworthy. None of the apologetics that have been tried to cover such a worthless piece of shit comes even close to being coherent let alone plausible. The most common excuse for such tragedies when they are actually questioned is "free will." One of the more irritating flaws in this stupid response, setting aside the innate contradiction with God's perfection, is that the "free will" of one scumbag somehow must out weigh the "free will" of numerous decent human beings.

Dill belittles herself and everyone else who sought to apprehend Roof by crediting a villainous fictional character. It's pathetic

King of Contradictions

It seems that the Pope is looking to earn himself a title similar to one commonly ascribe to Jesus. Instead of the "King of Kings" Francis is vying for the "King of Contradictions." His stance on cracking down on frivolous pampered clergy really does seem to be just a matter of PR window dressing. The Religious News Service headlines for February 10th unintentionally provided an excellent visual reference:

Notice the juxtaposition of "Ousted 'Bling Bishop' makes soft landing in Vatican" with "Pope Francis faces a big week in his effort to reform the Vatican." Umm, what reform? The German Bishop was supposedly fired for his flagrant misuse and abuse of funds. Problem with that line s that he wasn't actually fired. Just so we are clear about the message I will quote a National Catholic Reporter piece from March 2014.

"Pope Francis on Tuesday effectively fired a German bishop who had attracted controversy for extraordinary expenses on a new diocesan center, sending a signal that he is willing to oust bishops who do not align with his vision of a 'poor church for the poor.'"

What really occured was that the Pope set him aside while a new cushier position could be created for this corrupt asshole. According to the "Ousted..." piece shown above, "The post was created for Tebartz-van Elst and has the hallmarks of a “make-work” job because the Vatican couldn’t figure out what else to do with the prelate." What's wrong with doing what they said they'd do: fire his greedy ass.

This, by the way, is just another example of Francis contradiction. Another recent one includes his statements like "Pope Francis Says Catholics Don't Need To Breed 'Like Rabbits'" being quickly followed by "Couples Who Choose Not To Have Children Are 'Selfish,' Pope Says" I have pointed it out before and I'll keep pointing it out that this Pope is only set apart from his predecessors in style. When it comes to substance he really is indistinguishable from other popes.



Irony of "In God we trust"

One of the aspects of the drive to defend and further push the phrase "In God we trust" that I have always found both irritating and amusing is the innate contradiction it embodies. The pin head subset of theists who so zealously advocate for it utterly fail to see the irony. They insist that it must be endorsed by government and non-government institutions and agencies alike. They never acknowledge that by it's nature their drives rely entirely on humans. If they really trusted in God they wouldn't lobby for the phrase so vigorously. After all, if it were god's will wouldn't it just be the way it is. There shouldn't be any need for government endorsement. There shouldn't even be any thoughts of seeking government endorsement. To co-opt another favorite phrase of these idiots, doesn't this approach at least imply that they are "playing God"? Are they not implying that God can't accomplish things without human intervention? Judging by their behavior God doesn't seem to be all that much of a supreme being.

Schaeffer is NOT and atheist

Looks like a question I posed about Frank Schaeffer, "Will the Interview Translate" (March 30, 2014), has now been answered. No. Frank has once again slipped into bizarro world. Somehow he seems to think it's possible to be a theist and an atheist simultaneously. It isn't. By definition you cannot be both at the same time. You also cannot have a square circle. It defies the very definition not to mention reality.

Schaeffer has never had a particularly good grasp on reality. His previous book, Patience with God, made it quite clear that he knows nothing about atheists. Coming across various pieces on his new book and even a short piece he himself wrote didn't really surprise me. It is still sad and disappointing that someone who speaks as well as he does in interviews is so inconsistent and, put bluntly, so bat-shit crazy when it comes to writing.

A few of the pieces on Scaeffer's most recent decent into idiocy:

"Atheist or believer? Frank Schaeffer is a bit of both" Religious News Service

"Meet the atheist ... who believes in God" CNN Belief Blog

An Interesting Contradiction

A recent piece by Nick Sexton on HuffPo was very interesting in its approach. Throughout "'The World Would Be a Better Place Without Religion' -- A Sentiment Common on College Campuses" Sexton relies entirely on personal experience/anecdotes to try to distance what the average theist may or may not believe from what the religion they belong to promotes. To some degree he has a valid point. However, that point can only be taken so far before it not only loses any meaning but also turns into an outright contradiction. Why do individuals belong to a religion they disagree with most of the time? And, how does that let the institution of religion off the hook for any and all unethical/immoral doctrines and practices? It doesn't.

Such odd and indirect contradictions are both interesting and difficult to explain. Having a dark streak to my sense of humor I also find such things amusing. The last sentence of Sexton's third paragraph was particularly notable:
"When large religious institutions promote oppressive ideals, it is the fault of power-hungry, hateful individuals -- not the fundamentals that are most central to the religion."
It never seems to occur to Sexton that some of those "individuals" not only include prominent leaders within a religion (at one point he refers to the Pope) but central or founding figures as well. How can Christians excuse/reconcile the New Testament passages in which Jesus reveals himself to be a hateful and homicidal asshole?

Simply separating what the average believer actually believes from the teachings and policies of the religion they profess to follow does not in any way negate the horrible aspects of religion. If anything it makes the problem more complicated. It also does nothing to disprove the idea that the world would probably be better off without religion. Sexton's piece is interesting primarily for the questions that come to mind while reading it. In and of itself it is rather pathetic. Even setting aside that it is completely constructed on personal anecdotes, it is riddled with various logical fallacies.

"Not What God Intends"

Karyn Wieseman's HuffPo piece, "Not What God Intends", is another example of the innate contradictions and/or self-delusions that exist within faith. Personally, I agree that society and life should be more peaceful but the conclusion that violence and conflict must be against God's intentions does not follow. There are a number of problems with Wieseman's line of thinking.

One of the biggest problems, theologically and philosophically, with her primary assertion is that it is not compatible with one of the main traits of Christianity. If Christianity really is monotheistic then God has to be perfect and all-powerful.* It logically follows that if God is all-powerful we cannot possibly have free will. Every detail of the universe is exactly as it has to be. It would literally be impossible for things to occur that are not caused by God. In this sense everything is as God intends it to be.

There is also the question of whether it is even possible for God to have intentions. To have intent you first have to have a mind. Does God have a mind? How is that possible? Most contemporary theologians don't agree on much but most seem to agree that God does not have a physical body. Since the mind is a product of the brain it seems unlikely that God has a mind from which to form let alone project intentions.

Even for the sake of argument simply accepting God has intentions and that somehow we mere mortals can defy God's will there is still another problem with Wieseman's assertion. How the fuck can imperfect beings possibly know what the intentions of a perfect being are?

I find it hard to believe that most religious people either understand what they claim to believe or believe them to the extent they want to think they do. Most religious concepts are either incoherent or contradictory.

*I've previously written about this. Some previous posts in which I have talked about this include "Monotheism and Morality" (12/10/11), "Monotheism and Christianity" (12/31/11), and "The Same God" (9/8/13).

A Question of Stupidity?

"Who is on God's side of the marriage debate?" If you're a non-believer the answer is pretty obvious: neither. Who can really be on the "side" of an imaginary being? Since God doesn't exist the question is itself moot. For the sake of argument, if God exists the question is still a ridiculous one. God by definition is suppose to be perfect and all-powerful. God is the creator and source of all things therefore nothing can be without God. Effectively God is the debate itself. It cannot exist without God. Both would have to be on God's "side." Yet, neither can be. See the conundrum? Both sides are what they are because they have to be. God has created them precisely in that manner but logically this is an untenable condition since they must simultaneously be both and neither.

If You Have to Talk Yourself into It....

While reading Sarah O'Leary's "12 Reasons Why God is Nice" I got the distinct impression that she wasn't really writing something for others to think about. It sounded more like an attempt to convince herself of things she feels she should and/or wants to believe. In any case, her rationalizations are as naive as they are ridiculous. Nearly all of her twelve "reasons" outright conflict with the most basic definition of God. This is, of course, without establishing whether she accepts the Bible as having any authority or not. If O'Leary accepts the Bible even on symbolic terms her reasons become even more tortured but I'll set that aside.

Sticking with the basic definition that God is the supreme being who is perfect, all-powerful, and the creator of all things all but a few of her 12 reasons fall apart after only the slightest scrutiny.

1.God is NICE, 4.God loves everyone, 5.God doesn't get angry, or hold grudges, 11.God is a huge fan of kindness, compassion and generosity
In each of these O'Leary relies predominantly on the assumption that God has emotional states. How can that be the case when emotions are most certainly flawed. In order for God to experience emotions such a being would have to be flawed and therefore by definition not be God. It can not occur otherwise and still be an emotion. Human emotions are largely understood and experienced in comparison with other known emotion so you cannot have a perfect emotion. Her #1 is also interesting since it seems to imply that there can be no connection between God and hate. Where does hate come from? Wouldn't this suggest that God is not the source of all things?

A few of the above also share a few aspects in common with the next set I found to be inter-related.
2.God doesn't want us to feel threatened by Him, 6. God wants us to find peace, and be happy, 7. God doesn't like people who act like they are closer to Him than the rest of us
These all depend on the idea that God wants or doesn't want us to feel certain ways or  to behave in specific ways. The biggest problem with this formulation comes from the notion of "want." If we as humans want something what does that really mean? Either we lack something or we do not have enough of something. If you have that something then you don't want it. More to the point you can't really want it if you already have it since that would be a contradiction of terms. If God is both perfect and the source of all things what can God possibly want? Nothing.

Again, the above leads into the next point which regards free will. God doesn't have to want anything because everything that is, is a direct result of God. This is also true of our behaviors. If God exists there can be no free will since that would negate God's perfection. God is all knowing and therefore would know what was, is, and will be. God cannot lack any knowledge and still remain perfect. Similarly, as the source of all things God would also be the author of all our ideas and behaviors which means the following are pretty much null and void.
3. God isn't a control freak, 8. God is the only one wearing a watch that matters, 9. God doesn't keep a score.
I should probably clarify #9. Without free will there is no morality which means we really can't be held responsible in any meaningful way. Any ideas about a final judgement with preceding punishments or rewards is moot.

Only two of her reasons cannot be completely refuted by definition.
10. God isn't relaxing in Heaven, He's everywhere, 12. God never leaves us
Even if you are a believer the last two standing are not all that impressive considering how vague and superficial they are. It seems somewhat redundant and unnecessary. To my way of thinking it is the equivalent of simply stating that existence exists. Yes, it does. And? Where is this train of thought going? You have to take the statement further otherwise what is the point of making it.

O'Leary concludes with,
"I believe God lives in our human-to-human connections. The God that is in us is the love that feeds us.
Yes, I'm certain, God is Nice."
It is a pleasant enough sentiment but where does she want to go with it? It really does seem to be a sort of motivational letter to herself.

Simple, Obvious, Contradictory...

It never ceases to amaze me just how contradictory and delusional some theists can be. Greg Carey's "Jesus and the Bible" post, however, seems to have set a new record. This is probably the fastest self contradiction I've read in the past few years. Paragraph two essentially negates the opening paragraph.

Paragraph 1:
"When we Christians are tempted to lob Bible verses at one another like hand grenades, we might do well to consider Jesus' example."

Paragraph 2:
"On a certain day, Luke tells us, Jesus was in his hometown, Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30). He stood up in the synagogue to read, and he was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. Scrolling through, Jesus read from two verses. Actually, a verse and a half."

See what he did there? He failed in not being "tempted to lob Bible verses." To prove his pointed he has to use Bible verses which completely undoes the initial point. It is not completely his fault since it is literally impossible to discuss Jesus in any significant way without referencing the New Testament. He cannot acknowledge that Jesus' very "existence" depends on scripture.

Later he gets into the need to interpret scripture by again using Jesus as an example. Again, he fails to acknowledge where that train of thought has to lead. Since the Bible cannot have any real meaning without massive amounts of cherry-picking and interpretation then it is really no more valid as a source of inspiration and/or authority than, say, Harry Potter.

Blind faith and delusion is quite the combination.

God's Intervention

According to Chamber's 21st Century Dictionary,

"intervene
verb (intervened, intervening) intransitive
1. (often intervene in something) to involve oneself in something which is happening in order to affect the outcome.
2. (often intervene in something or between people) to involve oneself or interfere in a dispute between other people in order to settle it or prevent more serious conflict.
3. to come or occur between two things in place or time."

God's intervention is an important aspect of many theist's beliefs. It is one of those areas that has always confused me to some degree. I have never understood how so many can fail to see the innate contradiction and irrational nature of this view. Many of those who believe firmly that God intervenes on their behalf also insist that God is the creator and source of all things. By definition this would imply that God either does not intervene or is not the source of all things. How do you intervene if you are the source of the effect or interaction in question? Reread the above definition. Does it not indicate a third, previously uninvolved, party? 

It is actually possible to interfere with your own plan or action once it is set in motion but that is not generally what we mean when we use the term "intervene." This also poses a number of other theological problems. If God is the source and then "intervenes" wouldn't this indicate a mistake? Most theists would also agree that God is perfect. If God finds it necessary to interfere with what has been set in motion that would seem to imply that God is imperfect. If you accept perfection as a defining trait of God then intervention becomes a contradictory and untenable view. Rather, it would, if you apply anything resembling critical thinking.

What "God" Wants

It never ceases to amaze me how often theists talk about what God wants or doesn't want. This is both amusing and useful. For me it demonstrates how truly ignorant theists tend to be about their own beliefs. If you accept the basic definition of God as, "The supreme being, perfect and all-powerful," then the whole notion of God wanting anything is preposterous. Think about it. If you want something, anything, what does that really mean. There are only two options. Either you lack something or you do not have enough of something. Otherwise you would not want it. If God is everything and the source of everything what can God possibly lack? Nothing! Quite literally, God cannot "want" anything.

Basically when people like J.E. Dyer* write pieces along the lines of "Does God Want America to Fail?" what they are really writing about is what they believe, or think they believe. Stop hiding behind your imaginary friend and just say what you think. Make your decisions and have the courage and decency to admit that it is your decision. And, please, stop and think before you start spouting off about "what God wants." Even if it were remotely possible for the "Supreme being" to want, which it isn't, how the fuck would a finite being have a clue what that is?

"God wants" is simply an expression of the innate contradictions and fallacies contained in the God concept itself along with the self-serving projections of the theists who use the phrase.



*Dyer's piece on Patheos is just a current relevant example. I do not intend to single him out. There are far too many who have written similar pieces to list or note.