The Stupidity of Adam and Eve

In his New Republic piece, "Scientists Try to Reconcile Adam and Eve Story, Whiff. Again.", Jerry Coyne does an excellent job dismantling the Adam and Eve narrative. He not only points out a variety of reasons why the "literal" story is idiotic crap but also shows why it is just as stupid in symbolic/metaphoric terms. Unfortunately, many theists will never fully give up on such fucking ridiculous garbage. To some degree Christians can never fully distance themselves form that type of supernatural superstitious absurdity. All the basic doctrines that make Christians an identifiable religious group rely on them. Adam and Eve are so intimately bound to original sin and therefore Christ's "sacrifice" and "resurrection" that there is very little to salvage without it. The only possible work-around I can think of is to focus entirely on Jesus as a symbol of ethics and morality stripped of all the supernatural elements. Of course, that would rely on a whole other set of delusions to make it work (unique ethics, historicity, single figure).

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.

Rhetoric is not Doctrine

I was hoping that by now the fawning over Pope Francis would have subsided but the media seems insistent on proving just how inept they are. The coverage of this Pope has been, right from the start, as overabundant as it has been superficial and downright idiotic. A number of outlets now are latching on to the false notion that the Pope either has or might change Church doctrine on Homosexuality. Why? Because he said a few things that are not as harsh as previous Popes? That is nice and it could be a step, though a very minor one, in the right direction.

Even when it is acknowledge that words do not always translate into actions many reporters, commentators, and pundits still seem to think Francis' more polished PR style is somehow an amazing feat. Have they forgotten previously reported items that referenced the fact that the Church has been more careful about public statements or that it has hired different PR individuals and firms to handle their image? As I've said before the only real difference between the present Pope and previous ones is simply a matter of personal style. It is superficial.

They aren't Magic, Are they Sacred?

I don't doubt that Matthew Bowman knows more about Mormons than I do. I've never bothered to do that much research on them, though I have read the Book of Mormon cover to cover. He may be right that the average Mormon no longer believes in magical undergarments but that does not change the fact that is still part of their official doctrine or that they have done nothing to mothball that ridiculous notion.

I do find his assertions somewhat suspicious since a few of the examples he gives of similar ideas among other religions are rather faulty. For the sake of brevity I'll stick with one in particular. In his "Mormon Temple Garments -- They're Not Magic" piece he implies that most Catholics no longer believe in the power of Saints. If he thinks he know Catholics as well as he knows Mormons than he is delusional on both counts. Veneration of Saints is alive and well among Catholics, and not just among the most conservative ones. I know plenty of Catholics who have various Saints medals/pendants, among other accessories. It is not for aesthetics. Most of those medals are rather ugly. Plenty of Catholics either pray to or reference saints in there prayers. Pilgrimages are still being taken. There are at least four major websites devoted to Medjugorje alone. If Bowman thinks people are visiting these sites out of sense of culture/tradition he's not only delusional he's an idiot. I've actually been to a few of these sites (ex. Saint Anne deBeaupre in Quebec, Canada) and I can tell you I was one of the few who was interested solely in the architecture/art. Hundreds if not thousands were praying and making offerings. Many were looking for cures to various ailments. Basically, his casual dismissal of things like the, "stories of the relics of Catholic saints curing epilepsy or blindness" does not match reality.

In the end, I find apologists like Bowman rather disingenuous. It is important to note how the average believer views their own faith but it is equally important to be aware of what the official doctrine of the religion they follow is and what the leadership says is essential to that religion. Criticizing critics for noting how ridiculous a specific doctrine is seems like a rather weak dodge.