I have posted on this topic on a handful of occasions. The first such post was November 6, 2011. Unfortunately, not much has changed. The topic keeps popping up with the same old misunderstandings and misdirections. Among the recent examples is a post on on the Patheos aggregator. Connor Woods March 5, 2012 post, "Religious Americans: science is mostly okay", rehashes a few specific fallacies but also adds a slightly new perspective to one of them.
Despite the blog being titled Science on Religion, it is rather light on the science. Wood falls for the assumption that if most Americans are religious and most believers in America claim to be supportive of science then the conflict between science and religion must be overly hyped. Not necessarily. As I have previously pointed out the fact that individuals can find ways to reconcile different and contradictory views does not mean there is no conflict. Even though individuals can and do find ways to mitigate these contradictions in their own minds does not mean that science and religion as institutions are not still by their nature opposites. They do clash and must clash.
The interesting twist doesn't seem to be fully understood or even noticed by Wood. He points out that the average American supports science right up to the point that scientific findings fail to fit their personal beliefs. It never occurs to Wood that this actually indicates the opposite of what he is trying to demonstrate. Supporting science only so long as it does not make you uncomfortable is not really an affirmation of science. Science is intended to be as objective as possible. The scientific method does not change to accommodate your feelings.
I don't want anyone to become less supportive of science but I also see no reason to make false claims about public support for science. To my way of thinking this confirms that the two institutions and ways of thinking are not compatible. The "a-la-carte" approach to religion seems fairly common and does not seem to reduce the effectiveness or appeal of faith. On the other hand, this approach outright negates scientific study.
Religion is still entirely subjective and unfounded. It continues to be a top down institution that resists change and encourages ignorance. Science still remains the only method capable of leading to an outlook that is as objective and verifiable as humanly possible. They are not equals and they are not compatible.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Bad Advice even Hypothetically
Even if you take Birdsong's advice hypothetically it is still horrible. Setting aside that over the past decade or so more and more Americans have become fed up with politicians interjecting their personal faith into public policies, Dan Birsong's take on "civil religion" is idiotic and his insistence that Romney is somehow not religious enough is just as wacky.
In his CNN Belief Blog post, "My Take: How Romney could transcend Mormonism with civil religion", he lays out five main points. Each is at best misguided nonsense. I find it interesting that a political science lecturer could fail to understand the Constitution so thoroughly. The first few points he makes are made in complete ignorance, or possibly defiance, of some of the most basic principles our government in founded on.
"1.Talk about a sacred Constitution."
No! The Constitution is of great importance but is not sacred. The framers of the constitution intended it to change. Sacred scriptures are intended to be unchanging. It is also important to note that God/Divinity are not mentioned once in the entire document. That was not by accident. Despite claims from the religious right, our government was intended from the very beginning to be secular. There are only two references to religion in general and both are cautionary. The last paragraph of Article VI states "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." And then there is the more familiar First Amendment that does provide the basic concept of separation of church and state.
"2.Present himself as America's patriarch."
Again, no. I already have a father, whom I love dearly, and I don't need another one. In this context patriarch could easily be interpreted as an authoritarian figure. It seems to have slipped Birdsong's mind that we fought a war to establish our independence. Technically, Britain was no longer a monarchy at the time but the King of England was a potent symbol for tyranny that we used to recruit soldiers.
"3.Use civil religion to compensate for his Mormonism"
It is highly debatable that Religion can ever be truly civil. As for mixing religion in to politics, the results are almost always bad. It is also completely unnecessary and by its nature divisive. Does Romney really need to "compensate for his Mormonism"? If he does, what does that say about religion? If he makes it clear he won't use his personal religious views to make policy that impacts the rest of us it should not matter. Basically, keep religion out of public matters and everyone will be the better for it.
"4.Follow the lead of previous presidents."
Because they never fuck things up. Birdsong throws in a few quotations that don't really mean much and completely ignores the type of statement that show how horrible religion can be when it comes to "civil" matters. During a campaign stop in Chicago on August 27, 1987 George H.W. Bush stated in an interview answer, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." What a wonderful example to follow.
"5. Look for a 'Book of Mormon' moment"
This section makes me suspect that this whole piece may be a joke. If it is meant to be satirical it is a little too subtle in the above sections. He doesn't seem to get that the Book of Mormon musical is intended as a farce. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone involved in the study of politics and/or the media could be so utterly clueless.
If this is a joke it is a really bad one. If it isn't then I have to conclude that Birdsong is one of the most ignorant and incompetent political scientists and campaign strategists on the face of the planet.
In his CNN Belief Blog post, "My Take: How Romney could transcend Mormonism with civil religion", he lays out five main points. Each is at best misguided nonsense. I find it interesting that a political science lecturer could fail to understand the Constitution so thoroughly. The first few points he makes are made in complete ignorance, or possibly defiance, of some of the most basic principles our government in founded on.
"1.Talk about a sacred Constitution."
No! The Constitution is of great importance but is not sacred. The framers of the constitution intended it to change. Sacred scriptures are intended to be unchanging. It is also important to note that God/Divinity are not mentioned once in the entire document. That was not by accident. Despite claims from the religious right, our government was intended from the very beginning to be secular. There are only two references to religion in general and both are cautionary. The last paragraph of Article VI states "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." And then there is the more familiar First Amendment that does provide the basic concept of separation of church and state.
"2.Present himself as America's patriarch."
Again, no. I already have a father, whom I love dearly, and I don't need another one. In this context patriarch could easily be interpreted as an authoritarian figure. It seems to have slipped Birdsong's mind that we fought a war to establish our independence. Technically, Britain was no longer a monarchy at the time but the King of England was a potent symbol for tyranny that we used to recruit soldiers.
"3.Use civil religion to compensate for his Mormonism"
It is highly debatable that Religion can ever be truly civil. As for mixing religion in to politics, the results are almost always bad. It is also completely unnecessary and by its nature divisive. Does Romney really need to "compensate for his Mormonism"? If he does, what does that say about religion? If he makes it clear he won't use his personal religious views to make policy that impacts the rest of us it should not matter. Basically, keep religion out of public matters and everyone will be the better for it.
"4.Follow the lead of previous presidents."
Because they never fuck things up. Birdsong throws in a few quotations that don't really mean much and completely ignores the type of statement that show how horrible religion can be when it comes to "civil" matters. During a campaign stop in Chicago on August 27, 1987 George H.W. Bush stated in an interview answer, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." What a wonderful example to follow.
"5. Look for a 'Book of Mormon' moment"
This section makes me suspect that this whole piece may be a joke. If it is meant to be satirical it is a little too subtle in the above sections. He doesn't seem to get that the Book of Mormon musical is intended as a farce. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone involved in the study of politics and/or the media could be so utterly clueless.
If this is a joke it is a really bad one. If it isn't then I have to conclude that Birdsong is one of the most ignorant and incompetent political scientists and campaign strategists on the face of the planet.
Flipside Jesus: The Divider
The image of Jesus as a peaceful unifying figure doesn’t make much sense since he, according to the New Testament, routinely and actively sought to divide people. The Jesus present in the scriptures frequently displayed an “us vs. them” mentality.
These are just two such examples of his divisive manner:
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” (Matthew 10:35)
“And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive one hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” (Matthew 19:29)
It seems pretty clear that Christ is demanding believers sever all ties with non-believers. It even implies that Christians should more actively turn against non-Christians no matter what the previous relationship may have been. That is pretty divisive. Unfortunately, the “Savior” of mankind was not satisfied with creating conflicts where none need have existed. Jesus found the need to go the extra mile.
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
Commanding his followers to round up and then slaughter anyone unwilling to submit to his rule goes well beyond simple divisiveness. This passage makes Jesus a cold blooded mass murderer. No amount of semantic gymnastics and apologetics can explain away such a blatant verse.
Rather than being viewed as the “Prince of Peace” he should be labeled a homicidal tyrant.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
A question of Need
I like the perspective Jacob Kovacs presents in his Freethought Today (December 2011) piece, "A Different approach to religious debate" Even when non-theists bring up the idea of the need for religion it is usually focused on the theistic side. We tend to be preoccupied with either pointing out that theists don't really need such supernatural nonsense, or when that fails we ridicule their apparent insistence on the crutch of religion.
I like that Kovacs turns it around. Showing clearly that we do not need religion. The fact that all our personal need can be met, are met by other sources does seem to be a more palatable and effective approach.
I like that Kovacs turns it around. Showing clearly that we do not need religion. The fact that all our personal need can be met, are met by other sources does seem to be a more palatable and effective approach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)