"One has to have the courage of one's own pessimism."
Ian McEwan

Insert head in sand box

Thanks to yet another disaster a number of theists and non-theists are revisiting that age old conundrum of reconciling an all powerful all good God with evil. Personally, I find it foolish to accept it as a conundrum at all. I see it as a pretty simple straightforward choice. Either you accept reality unadorned or you subscribe to a personally/socially constructed fantasy. After all, the "conundrum" is by its own terms irreconcilable. Once you accept that God is all powerful then God has to be the source of everything. How can God be "all good" and yet be the only possible source of evil?

I do understand that choosing between reality as it is and a comforting delusion can be a very difficult and emotionally charged decision. I in no way want to belittle the thoughts and feelings of theists but I also see no reason not to point what seems so blatantly obvious from my own perspective. It also leads to a basic choice on my part when I come across these types of discussions and arguments. I can either scream in frustration or find some type of entertainment and reassurance that our species isn't completely loopy. I prefer the latter.

There were a few sections of a recent Religious News Service piece that did make me chuckle a bit. I came across this little gem in "Where is God when evil strikes?" and had to laugh.

"But they still skirt the central question. Why did an omnipotent God allow Newtown? How can a vicious tornado kill kids when God is good?
There is, alas, no good answer."

Yes, there is. God is a human construction. Sometimes answers can be simple. I still am amazed that such blatantly obvious answers go ignored. If a person shoots lots of people. That individual bears direct responsibility. We as a society may also bear some of the responsibility. Why look beyond those two sources? It has far greater explanatory ability and can be verified. If a tornado tears through a town the damage is directly attributable to that example of extreme weather. Why add the element of an unverifiable highly disputable supernatural agent? What does it really help?

I had to laugh. I don't have enough hair left to risk ripping it out over such foolish nonsense.

And in the Red corner, weighin in at....

It's always fun reading about Exorcisms. It is such a blatant crock of shit that it is truly astounding that so many still fall for that superstitious nonsense. Even more entertaining is that so many find it hard to understand why many non-believers view religion with disdain. Many Christian denominations, not just fringe ones, still officially recognize the devil and demons as being real. Seriously?!! And we're not suppose to make fun of that crap?!

A HuffPo repost of a recent AP story made me laugh. According to Ciaran Giles' "Exorcists Wanted: Madrid's Catholic Church Says It Needs More Trained Priests", "An archdiocese spokeswoman said Friday that Madrid only has one exorcist priest and that it is considering a plan to train more. She spoke on condition of anonymity in keeping with archdiocese policy. 'The devil exists. That's a fact,' she told The Associated Press."

I couldn't help picturing the stereotypical old bearded white guy in a boxing ring with a horned red skinned dude exchanging jabs while bobbing and weaving. Theists really need to get their shit together and make-up their mind once and for all whether God is perfect and all powerful or not. If you assume God exists and that God is perfect then there can be no "devil." Demons are as make believe as fairies and leprechauns. Until the church officially disavows this type of garbage there is no reason not to ridicule them for it.

AN answer, sort of

I have a tendency to be more critical of conservative variations of religion but I do not reserve all my critiques for them. Recently there was a post on HuffPo, a liberal and routine target, that clearly demonstrates how clueless left leaning theists can be. Timothy Kurek's "The Answer to the 'Christian Right'" is a litany of liberal Christian ignorance. What makes it truly ridiculous is that the ignorance displayed is of an inward nature. It focuses on a relatively new website, The Christian Left, that purports to be unique. It isn't.

The truth is that Liberal Christians are not new and are not a minority. There are more left leaning theists than there are right leaning ones. It may not always seem that way since the conservatives tend to be louder and more aggressive. The only way both the founders of this site and its followers could have failed to notice this is by not paying attention. I am by no means saying that the site is poorly constructed and run. It is actually somewhat interesting but it is not all that is being made out to be. It is one possible response to Christian Right. A better one is for all liberal theists to wake up and pay attention to details. I'm not going to count on that happening. It would give them the ability to do what they seem to want; counter the conservative version of their faith. However, I can see such theists hesitating to pay too close attention since it would likely lead to more inward scrutiny than they can handle.

A lot of critical thinking will reveal some unwanted truths. Religion, liberal and conservative, is at its heart incoherent ludicrous crap.

Note: Liberal theistic "spokesmen" routinely appear in mainstream media. Two that immediately come to mind are Jim Wallis and Barry Lynn. They have even appeared on such stalwart conservative outlets as Fox News.

Empty Rhetoric?

Over the past week Pope Francis has gotten a lot of attention for himself over comments about atheists. Though, I appreciate his admitting that we are decent people I was not really all that impressed. After all, it is no different from praising someone for admitting that water is wet. The fact that it generated so much attention is the more notable point. It reveals just how narrow minded and bigoted society can be.

It should also be noted that there are two major assumptions being made by media and society as a whole in regard to the Pope's attention grabbing homily.
1. he is sincere in his statements
2. his statements will translate into practice
As I have previously written ("New Pope, Same as the Old Pope 4/21/13) there are reasons to suspect that this Pope's outreach is simply a public relations ploy. So, though I would like to believe he is being sincere and will actively seek to end the practice of marginalizing and demonizing non-believers I am not going to go on those assumptions.

If the Pope is sincere he should announce some type of policy that would forbid church employees/representatives from smearing atheists. Publicly apologizing for all the nasty shit the church has done and continues to do would be a notable gesture as well.

Just a few of the pieces from this past week:

Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html

Heaven for atheists? Pope sparks debate
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/23/heaven-for-atheists-pope-sparks-debate/

Atheists Like What They See In Pope Francis' New Openness
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/atheists-like-what-they-see-in-pope-francis-new-openness_n_3329548.html