Exploring the fundamental flaws of fundamentalist thought
Science and Religion
Did the Devil Make You Do It?
Nov 16th
There are probably few topics which have been more contentious in religious discussions than that of the nature of evil. Are we essentially good beings that are led astray by a malevolent influence, or are we naturally evil creatures who require divine guidance to become good? This question has plagued humanity since we first became cognizant enough to ponder the true nature of good and evil. If we examine the mythologies of various cultures throughout human history, it becomes quite apparent that this philosophical quandary has been personified through any number of deities, spirits, demons, heroes, and villains.
In our modern western culture, this conflict has perhaps been simplified to its purest form through our depictions of a benevolent god and malevolent devil locked in some sort of endless conflict for our immortal souls. Although this allegorical concept may be satisfying on a dramatic and poetic level, I believe it to be inherently dangerous to society.
In order to explain this point, it is necessary to briefly discuss the question of the origins of religious belief.
This is by no means an easy question to answer, as religion seems to have always been a part of humanity. We can attempt to trace the evolution of belief back through our history, but its origins become obscured in the fog of antiquity. In many ways, it seems almost counterproductive. In evolutionary terms, it is quite expensive and yields no obvious benefits to our survival as a species. However, the fact that it seems to be an intrinsic aspect of human nature implies that its origins must have somehow been beneficial to our species at some point in our development.
Anthropologist Pascal Boyer provided an excellent theory on this subject. In an effort to understand the evolutionary origins of religion, he distilled the mythology, dogma, and philosophies of all religions down to their most basic components. He payed particularly close attention to the beliefs of preliterate cultures, as their beliefs were less likely to have been cross-contaminated with those of others. After a great deal of work, he was able to find only one unifying theme that permeated all known religious beliefs, both past and present.
What Boyer found was that all religions contain a belief in “the presence of unseen agents in the environment”. These agents were often used to explain the causation of certain natural phenomenon. However, the most prevalent beliefs seemed to imply that these spirits were malevolent entities that wished to bring some sort of harm to their unsuspecting victims… much like the devils and demons of our modern mythologies.
It is this simple fact that shines a light on the evolutionary origins of belief. Like all primates, sight is our primary sense. We do not have the heightened sense of smell or hearing that so many of our mammalian cousins enjoy. Since our species evolved in the canopies of African rain forests, sight proved to be the most effective sense to use from our high vantage points. As such, our ability to survive was entirely dependent on our ability to see potential dangers. If we could not see predators in time to take the necessary evasive actions, we would not survive to pass on our genes to the next generation.
This obviously put our ancestors at a distinct disadvantage in situations in which they were not able to see potential dangers. In darkness or in the dense foliage of the ground, they were little more than an easy meal for any of the larger, faster, carnivorous creatures that preyed upon them. Essentially, that which they could not see could easily cause their gruesome demise.
The connection to Boyer’s “unseen agents” now becomes quite clear. The primates who had an innate fear of the invisible did not venture into situations where their sight would be limited, whereas those who had no such fear didn’t survive for very long. In this instance, natural selection favored a primal form of superstition. Millions of years of selection hard-wired it into our ever growing hominid minds.
From an evolutionary point of view, old habits die hard. We’ve been bipedal for a few million years now, yet we still suffer from many of the problems caused by our transition from our ancient quadrupedal forms. In much the same way, our giant sentient brains still fall prey to one of our most basic primal fears… unseen malevolent entities.
Our modern understanding of psychology has shed a great deal of light onto what we have traditionally categorized as good and evil. The human brain has an unparalleled ability to experience empathy, an intellectual understanding of the feelings of others. It is our ability to feel empathy that has formed the very foundation of human society. By understanding the wants and needs of others, we are able to peacefully function in larger communities. This leads to the sort of individual specialization that allows us to function as a greater whole and achieve far more than any individual member of our species ever could alone. By utilizing our advanced sense of empathy, we commit acts of altruism which often benefit others more than ourselves. This is, in essence, what most would define as “good”.
In contrast, we still possess our primal instincts (the aspect of our psyche that is often referred to as “the lizard brain”). This is an even more ancient form of hard-wiring. It represents the most basic needs an organism has to survive and pass on its genes. The lizard brain gladly kills, steals, and rapes to serve its own self-interest, as it does not concern itself with the needs of others. In modern humanity, we define these characteristics as “evil”. While they served our very ancient ancestors, they are detrimental to a species that is dependent on its need to function as a society.
When we examine good and evil in this light, it becomes quite easy to see why the belief that evil is caused by the influence of an external, malevolent entity is fundamentally dangerous. By personifying evil as something which exists outside of ourselves, we provide ourselves with the false comfort of believing that it is not an intrinsic part of our psyche.
Given the right set of circumstances, any one of us is quite capable of abandoning our sense of empathy and reverting to our most primal instincts. It is essential for us to realize this and understand that we alone bear the responsibilities for our own actions. When we cling to our archaic notions of demons and devils, we create a sort of loophole. We tell ourselves that the evil that we do is no fault of our own… that we are somehow little more than the hapless puppets of some imagined demonic entity. Once we become convinced that anything else bears the responsibility for our actions, there is no limit to the atrocities we could allow ourselves to commit.
Many of the faithful will surely argue that they will never commit any such atrocities, as their faith in an all-powerful benevolent entity shields them from the influences of evil beings. This sort of thinking is even more dangerous, as the believer has engaged in a sort of magical thinking. The belief that our attachment to a good being protects us from the influence of evil is an incredibly dangerous rationalization… “Because I have faith, I am righteous. Because I am righteous, I am good. Because I am good, my actions are not evil.” This is the twisted logic that has led to countless atrocities committed throughout human history in the name of any number of gods.
We have reached a stage in our evolution in which we have the cognitive ability to understand the true nature of evil. It is not something that is forced upon us by malevolent entities, but rather the result of any number of factors which damage our psyche to an extent to which we abandon our empathy and revert to our more primal nature. It is time for us to cast aside the imagined ghosts of our primitive ancestors and embrace a rational view of what makes us good or evil. Only by doing this can we hope to overcome the demons of our minds and strive to create a world in which we truly embrace that which is good for all humanity.
The wisdom of children
Jul 12th
Today was a beautiful day in Philadelphia. Like all beautiful Sundays in the summer, I went down to the farmer’s market on Second Street. After walking through the market, I like to sit by the fountain and enjoy a cup of coffee.
It’s always fun to see the pure unadulterated joy children experience while at play. I defy anyone to not smile while watching them shout with glee as they twirl through a plume of water on a sunny day. Kids wear their emotions on their sleeves. They have yet to develop a barrier between their conscious and subconscious.
This led me to ponder the inquisitive nature of children. They are natural scientists, always observing and questioning the world around them. In fact, I have heard that children ask an average of half a million questions by the age of five. It seems that this type of critical inquiry is an inherent aspect of human nature.
Why, then, is this tendency so often suppressed as we get older? At what point do we begin to simply accept easy answers and stifle our need to ask more questions?
I suppose it might have something to do with the regimented, institutionalized fashion in which children are educated in our society.
I know I’m not making an argument that hasn’t been made by thousands of others before. There are many people in our society who are fighting to change the way our educational system works. However, I think there are far more people who simply accept the way our schools have worked for decades (if not centuries).
The inquisitive nature of children is a clear indication that education is an incredibly organic process. Children want to learn. They want to understand the world around them. Why do we not simply encourage this and guide them when necessary?
Instead, our traditional methods of schooling have a strict curriculum that dogmatically clings to a very specific list of things that we have decided children are supposed to learn at a specific age. Instead of nurturing their natural thirst for knowledge and guiding them towards these things, we line them up in rows, subdivide them by our perception of their intellect, and force feed them facts. Is it any wonder that so many children begin to despise school at such an early age?
Of course, schools that take a non traditional approach to education do exist, but they are unfortunately usually reserved for the privileged few who can afford them. The children of the poor and working class are usually just filed through a generic, sterile, rubber-stamp school system. It’s little wonder that these students rarely excel, often failing to even complete their schooling. This is an incredible tragedy that repeats itself on a daily basis in our society.
Nothing will ever change until we, as a society, decide that the system must change. Sadly, we often seem to be too self centered or apathetic to take an interest in such things. We rarely foster a sense of responsibility for others in our society.
There is, of course, another killer of a child’s natural inquisitiveness… the dogmatic juggernaut we call “religion”. In my humble opinion, it’s almost criminal to answer a child’s questions about our universe with “God did it”, “It’s all part of God’s plan”, and “Don’t question the will of God”. Essentially, religion is the natural enemy logic, reason, and progress… the very qualities we should be fostering in children.
There’s a saying that’s quite popular among atheists: “Philosophy is questions that cannot be answered… Religion is answers that cannot be questioned.” A truer statement has never been uttered.
In reality, every answer we find creates more questions. This is a good thing, as we must always strive toward a greater understanding of our world. However, people are often far too happy to avoid the ongoing quest for knowledge by forcing themselves to accept easy answers. Personally, I have never understood this. The universe is far too amazing to dismiss as the creation of an omnipotent being.
Children know this. They have the drive to understand everything. They know that every answer creates more questions, and they fearlessly ask these questions.
Why would we want to program them to stop this quest? Why would we want to crush them with dogma of religion and the drudgery of institutionalized education?
Maybe it’s simply easier for us. However, the fact that it is easy doesn’t make it right.
Gay marriage vs. nuclear physics
Jun 10th
I am going to start out this post by assuming that you are scratching your head in some futile attempt to figure out how there could be any possible correlation between gay marriage and nuclear physics. I don’t blame you. Until today, I had absolutely no idea that the two subjects were related. It seems that I was, in fact, quite wrong.
I was enlightened by a brilliant analogy put forth in an op-ed piece written by Timothy Dalrymple, an evangelical contributor to Patheos.com. He so eloquently expressed why gay marriage is not only wrong, but apparently violates the laws of physics…
We can no more revise the basis of marriage than we can revise the laws governing atoms. Societies may shape marriage differently, but the intrinsic need of male and female for each other is written into the created order.
Did that statement just make your brain hurt? Don’t worry if it did, as that is only an indication that you have a healthy, rational mind. Apart from being little more than typical theological drivel, it contains one of the most egregiously false analogies of all time.
First, let’s examine exactly what marriage is. It is not an intrinsic aspect of nature. It is not governed by any natural laws. It is a societal construct. In essence, it is not a thing that actually exists by itself. It only exists because we, as a society, accept that it exists. Therefor, marriage is what any given group, be it a community, a church, or a government, defines it to be.
If we want to bring natural laws into this debate, then we should be clear about one thing. Natural laws do not govern marriage… they govern sexual attraction. It is true that the most common form of sexual attraction is between a male and female. If this were not the case, our species would have died out long ago. However, male/female sexual attraction is by no means the only form. Attraction between two individuals of the same sex is quite common throughout the natural world. While it does not serve the vital role of perpetuating the species, it is not harmful to the species as long as a sufficient breeding population is maintained.
I understand that this is by no means a flowery or romantic description, but we have to make one thing perfectly clear… we are talking about natural law here, so we have to reduce the concept to its most basic components.
Now let’s move on to the other half of the analogy… “the laws governing atoms”. What exactly are the laws governing atoms?
The answer is quite simple: THERE ARE NO LAWS “GOVERNING” ATOMS.
There is always a great deal of confusion when we talk about scientific laws. These laws are not some sort of codes imposed by an invisible nether-world government which instruct atoms how to behave. They are the result of our attempts to observe, understand, predict, and explain how atoms behave. The actual behavior of the atoms is, in fact, intrinsic to their nature. They do not think, and therefor do not care, about what these laws are.
So let’s put all of this together and look at exactly why this analogy is ridiculous. Since marriage is a societal construct, its nature is completely dependent on the society defining it. Although many religious fundamentalists may argue that the common “one man and one woman” configuration is the result of natural laws, it is not. It is the result of cultural influence and personal beliefs, and is therefor simply one possible subjective view. As a result, any laws we make defining it are attempts at imposing a single point of view on our society as a whole.
Atoms, on the other hand, simply don’t care what our point of view is. They pay no mind to our religious belief. They don’t sidestep our cultural taboos. If we were to pass a constitutional amendment banning protons from the nucleus, the protons would still be in the nucleus. These “laws” are constant and immutable. Atoms are what they are.
So why did one silly little analogy bother me so much? The answer is simple. In our society, there is far too many examples of theology being presented as something more than it actually is. In this one statement, Mr. Dalrymple has attempted to blur the lines between politics, science, and religious belief, stating his personal theological views as immutable fact.
While I don’t agree with his personal beliefs, I can at least respect his right to hold them. I cannot, however, respect his attempts to present theology as anything more than it is… mythology and dogma.
To paraphrase a popular t-shirt slogan, “Don’t bring your faith into our science, and we won’t think in your church.”
AFA brings out one “Heck” of a straw man
May 11th
It’s always loads of fun to see the American Family Association take on the world of science. It’s one of their three natural enemies (the other two being some hideous phantasm known as “the gay agenda” and basic common sense).
Today, they treated us to an astute criticism of evolutionary immunology by a gentleman named Peter Heck. I naturally assumed that he was one of Ken Ham’s lackeys from Answers in Genesis… but it turns out that Mr. Heck is the host of a two hour right wing Christian radio talk show in Kokoma, Indiana.
His article, entitled “Darwinists’ swine flu science”, attempts to critique an article in Live Science magazine which explains how evolutionary science is critical in understanding the evolution of a virus (as if one would use any other sort of science to understand the evolution of an organism).
I began to read the article and was treated to one of the most epic opening paragraphs ever written. Mind you, it wasn’t epic because it was powerfully written. It wasn’t epic because it made a valid point. It was epic because I believe it set a new world record…
The number of straw men one can cram into a few short sentences.
I present this paragraph to you, in all of its strawy goodness (please… no open flames within the vicinity of this paragraph).
It never ceases to amaze me how intellectually condescending evolutionary naturalists can be. Keep in mind, these are folks who believe that an indescribably tiny wad of nothingness exploded into a fully functional, structured, and ordered universe of orbiting planets and complex creatures without any supernatural agency involved. They are the ones who cling to a theory known as spontaneous generation – the notion that dead matter can just suddenly pop to life. They are the ones who champion a man (Charles Darwin) who suggested that Africans were more closely related to gorillas than Caucasians. They are the ones who believe that a wolf-like animal with hooves took to the water, lost its legs, and morphed into a whale (Cetaceans). If anyone should go easy on the intellectual condescension, it’s these people. But they don’t.
First of all… he makes the statement that we believe that “an indescribably tiny wad of nothingness exploded into a fully functional, structured, and ordered universe of orbiting planets and complex creatures without any supernatural agency involved.” This is one of the most intellectually dishonest statements I have ever read. Notice that he begins with an incredibly glib description of the Big Bang theory, then quickly goes on to imply that we claim that every other natural process, from the formation of stars to the evolution of complex organisms, just happened randomly from there. I know of no scientists who would make anything even resembling this claim. This is a clear example of the dishonest tactics used by creationists to defcredit science.
He goes on to claim that we cling to the theory of spontaneous generation. Really? We do? That’s odd… I thought that spontaneous generation was an ancient and archaic theory that was finally abandoned after Pasteur’s experiments in the mid 19th century. I assume that he is attempting to cause his readers to confuse spontaneous generation with abiogenesis, the modern field of study which attempts to understand the formation of complex proteins and how they combined to form DNA, leading to our world’s most primitive life forms some 2-3 billion years ago. You don’t need to be a biologist to understand that abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with spontaneous generation. You need only read up on the subject and apply a bit of common sense.
Heck then goes on to employ one of the favorite tactics of the creationists… slander Charles Darwin. I’m going to play devil’s advocate on this. For one moment, let’s assume Darwin was a racist. Let’s assume he was the biggest, most bigoted racist who ever lived. What, exactly, would this have to do with his work as a scientist? Would this automatically invalidate his theory of natural selection? No, it wouldn’t. I suppose this tactic is not quite a straw man. It’s more of a red herring… the squirmy little friend of the straw man.
Of course, I was by no means conceding that Darwin was a racist. In reality, he saw little distinction between the so-called races of humans, arguing that there was often more diversity within a race than between races. An excellent critique of the “Darwin was a racist” idea can be found at http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm
So… are we “intellectually condescending”? At times, yes. I will not even attempt to argue this point. However, I would like to point out that we don’t start out that way. We become condescending when faced with absurdity masquerading as science. We become condescending when people base their knowledge of the universe on the mythological ramblings of Bronze Age scribes.
And we certainly become condescending when conservative Christian talk show hosts spew forth a heady mixture of straw men, red herrings, and pseudo-science.
Thank you, Peter Heck. Thank you for making our job so damn easy. Thank you for providing such a brilliant example of everything that is wrong with contaminating science with religious thought.
Although it doesn’t spontaneously generate form the back end of a bull, it certainly does from the mouths of the religious right.
Again with Darwin and the Nazis…
Mar 16th
I think we’re all aware of the fact that religious fundamentalists love to make the rather absurd claim that Charles Darwin’s revolutionary work was the foundation for the acts of genocide committed by the Nazis. In the past, I’ve generally laughed this off as the ridiculous joke that it is. However, I recently had a conversation with someone I consider to be an intelligent and rational individual who felt that there was merit to this argument. For this reason, I’ve decided to briefly address why this idea is a blatant falsehood.
In order to do so, we must first take a quick look at exactly what natural selection is. Essentially, the theory states that an organism which possesses advantageous traits will be more likely to survive long enough to pass these traits on to subsequent generations. Such traits are born of genetic mutation, but become a dominant trait within the species when they allow the organisms which possess them to excel and multiply.
Let’s look at bipedal locomotion as an example. This is a trait which sets us apart from our primate brethren, so we can safely assume that our ancestors were in an environment in which this was clearly superior to quadrupedal locomotion. Being bipedal is useless when you spend most of your time swinging around the forest canopy, so it is unlikely that this would become a dominant trait through natural selection.
However, we know that around the same time primate bipedal locomotion developed there were some major changes in the environment in which our ancestors lived. Many areas which were previously rain forests with lush tree cover began turning into grasslands. We could no longer spend our entire lives in the tree tops safe from predators. We had to climb down out of the trees and traverse large fields of tall grass in order to get to the safety of the next closest tree.
Since these thickets of grass were often the hunting grounds of rather large, nasty cats, this was most likely a death sentence to the poor little primates forced to charge blindly through on all fours. However, a select few had a mutation which allowed them to run significant distances on only their hind legs, which allowed them to keep their eyes above the grass and see oncoming predators. The quadrupeds became kitty chow, while the bipeds lived on to reproduce. This is a beautiful example of natural selection.
In contrast, we have to take a look at the idea of artificial selection. One of the clearest examples of this is the domesticated dog. Natural selection gave us wolves, which are predators which are ideally suited to their environment. However, humans began to keep some of the more docile wolves as pets and bred them to be more desirable to us. Thousands of years of artificial selection gave us lovable dog breeds like pugs and poodles. While they might make wonderful pets, they would be lucky to survive for more than a day when released into the wild. In this case, we have undone the work of natural selection through selective breeding.
So… How does this relate to Darwin and the Nazis?
The fundamentalists would have us believe that the Nazi idea of a “master race” was based on Darwin’s theory of natural selection. In reality, the Nazi ideas contradict natural selection and represent artificial selection.
The Nazi ideal of the superior human was a Caucasian with blond hair and blue eyes. They believed that these characteristics were indicative of a genetic makeup that was superior to the so called “inferior” races. For this reason, they actively sought to breed individuals who possessed these traits while eliminating other races from the gene pool. This is NOT natural selection, but artificial selection.
If they were following the teachings of Darwin, they would know that if these traits did provide any real genetic advantage, they would already be dominant traits throughout humanity. The allegedly inferior traits (brown hair, dark skin, brown eyes) would have been eliminated through natural means. Essentially, the traits embodied by their “master race” provided no clear advantage and were in no way indicative of genetic superiority.
From a Darwinian perspective, the fact that other races have survived and prospered is an indication that they are NOT inferior.
I understand that this was a rather glib, quick, and dirty explanation of some rather complicated ideas, but I think it communicates the essential points. The eugenics and genocide of the Nazis were NOT based on Darwin’s theory of natural selection… they were acts of defiance of it. The were a truly horrific example of the arrogance and prejudices of mankind.
Kind of like religion, eh?
Darwin Day and the march of the fundies
Feb 13th
I have been a bit preoccupied with other things as of late, so I haven’t had the time to maintain and update this blog as much as I would like to.
That being said, I want to let everyone know that Penn Museum here in Philadelphia will be holding its annual Darwin Day and Evolution Teach In this Sunday, February 15th. This event is free and open to the public, so I suggest that all of you try to make it. It’s a wonderful museum and a fun activity for the entire family!
On another note, one of my old posts seems to have suddenly attracted some attention from creationists who claim that science has been unable to refute the brilliant theories of pseudo-scientist and convicted felon Kent Hovind. Please feel free to visit the post and leave all of your happy little links to actual scientific sites that illustrate just how “brilliant” Hovind’s ramblings… uh, I mean… “theories”… are!
Original post: “Kent Hovind… a martyr?”
The things we can learn from Jack Chick
Jul 30th
I am honestly starting to question the sincerity of Jack Chick, creator of the infamous “Gospel Tracts”.
I used to take him at face value, assuming that he was a misguided fundamentalist who used his moronic creations to brainwash America’s youth.
Recently, however, his tracts have become so utterly absurd that I can only assume he is a brilliant atheist satirist. Seriously… his work is a far greater mockery of Christian thought than any freethinking humorist could ever conjure up.
A brief glimpse of two pages of his most recent tract “Who Is He?” will make this point abundantly clear.
We’ll begin with page one, which is a realistic depiction of how various cultural groups view Jesus…
Ah, what a rogues’ gallery Jack has assembled for our reading pleasure!
In the center of the panel, we have a psychotically evil (and apparently sub-human) Arabic gentleman shouting about Jesus being a Muslim. Next to him, we have a generic bow-tie clad black man (who I am sure only coincidentally resembles a prominent African American religious leader) who has the audacity to suggest that Jesus was a PERSON OF COLOR that expressed revolutionary ideas. In the bottom right corner, we have an individual who may or may not be a buck-toothed Asian claiming that Jesus was the cousin of Buddha (who lived a few centuries before Jesus). I also have reason to believe this gentleman may be an elitist, as he is holding a martini in his hand.
Which brings us to the star of the page… a shadowy, hook-nosed figure who informs us that everybody HATED Jesus. I will make no guesses as to what ethnic group this individual is supposed to represent, but I will point out that he bears a striking resemblance to many of the shadowy, hook-nosed characters who called for the death of Jesus in some of Jack’s other tracts.
Now we can get into the most amazing page of this tract. Actually, I will go so far as to say that this is the MOST AMAZING PAGE EVER PUBLISHED IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY.
How can I make such a bold declaration? Well, what else can you say about one tiny page that explains ALL THE SCIENCE IN THE UNIVERSE?!
There you have it, folks! The first panel explains everything there is to know about cosmology and biology, while panel two explains all the laws of physics. It’s so simple that a drunken chimpanzee (who is in no way related to humans) could have dreamed it up… SO IT MUST BE TRUE!!!
Thank you, Jack Chick. Thank you for providing countless hours of entertainment to sane and rational people. Thank you for making it so damn easy to illustrate the utterly moronic absurdities of fundamentalist thought.
Keep ‘em coming, Jack! But please…
Keep this crap away from children.
ALERT: PBS to air program with FACTUAL INFORMATION!!!
Jul 22nd
Oh, the HUMANITY!!!
Our worst fears have come true, ladies and gentlemen. We are precariously perched at the brink of oblivion, staring headlong into the abyss. The satanic liberals of academia are prepared to use the venerable PBS program “Nova” to do the unthinkable…
Use legitimate scientific and historical research to present the TRUTH about the Bible!
Please, I beg of you… Please remain calm. Step away from the window. Put down the gun. Pull your head out of the oven. There is still hope, my friends… the AFA has released an action alert to stop this sanity!
They have provided a short sampling of the evil truths Nova plans to present…
• The Old Testament was written in the sixth century BC and hundreds of authors contributed.
• Abraham, Sarah and their offspring didn’t exist.
• There is no archaeological evidence of the Exodus.
• Monotheism was a process that took hundreds of years.
• The Israelites were actually Canaanites.
• The Israelites believed that God had a wife.
It’s bad enough that PBS has used programs like Sesame Street to brainwash our children into believing that “A” is for “Apple” and that 2 + 2 = 4, but now they have the unmitigated gall to challenge the historical accuracy of mythology! Next they will be teaching our youth that thunder is the result of millions of rapidly heated gas molecules spontaneously breaking the sound barrier and not the sound of Thor’s mighty hammer striking a cosmic anvil.
I remember the deleterious effect PBS had on me as a child. They filled my impressionable mind with a variety of wicked facts that contradicted the Bible…
- The Earth orbits the Sun, and neither one of them is located at the center of the Universe
- Human beings cannot walk on water without the assistance of some sort of flotation device
- Illness is caused by microbes, not by a vengeful deity
- The Earth is BILLIONS of years old
- Dinosaurs and humans were separated by tens of millions of years
It is clear that we cannot allow this government funded assault on irrational and delusional ideas continue. Please follow the example set by the American Family Association and DEMAND that congress stop spending our tax dollars on educating the populace.
If this continues, our children are in danger of catching up with the children of all other industrialized nations. We can NEVER let this happen.
Remember… Ignorance is power!
Rising oil prices: An opportunity for fundies
Jun 16th
We’re all aware that fuel prices have been on the rise for quite some time now. Whether we drive or not, the costs are being passed on to us in some way, shape, or form. While this may seem like a negative thing to many of us, I see it as a golden opportunity for fundamentalist Christians to win us over once and for all. Their crowning victory draws near, my friends! Simply put, it is time for them to put up or shut up.
I suppose most of you don’t really see any logic in my cryptic statement. I assure you that it makes perfect sense. Please indulge me for a moment while I explain.
This all began with an action alert posted by the Association of Fascist Assholes. It seems that they feel that the blame for rising fuel costs rests squarely on the shoulder of some sort of environmentalist cabal which has an evil stranglehold on congress. If such a cabal exists, I am not aware of it. I can only assume that my membership card was lost in the mail.
We are warned that gas prices will soon reach $10 a gallon if we do not petition congress to allow oil prospecting on environmentally protected lands. It seems that any concerns we have about our planet’s natural ecosystem must take a back seat to our insatiable lust for black gold. After all… why would any group professing an unwavering support for a creator want to show any respect for his creation? I can only assume that Jesus hates renewable resources almost as much as he hates them there gay homosexuals!
This leads us to the opportunity I mentioned earlier. Fundamentalist Christian groups like the AFA have spent years trying to convince us of the existence of their deity. They have touted the virtues of faith and reviled the wickedness of science. And now it seems that gas prices also fall within their divine domain as well.
There is one simple thing that they can do to solve all of these dilemmas. They can prove that God exists… they can prove that faith conquers science… They can defeat the rising oil costs! How?
Build a car which is powered by faith.
This shouldn’t be a very difficult task. There are millions of evangelicals in this country who loudly proclaim their piety and drone on endlessly about the power of their faith. Why not put this power to some sort of practical use? Imagine the potential for this limitless resource!
Of course, as a godless heathen I have no idea how this car would work. The actual design should probably be left to the brilliant scientific minds at the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis. I imagine the engine might be cross shaped, glowing with the golden light of faith. Perhaps they could achieve greater horsepower through some sort of Homophobia Injection System, and improve the car’s handling with Abstinence-Only Steering. The possibilities are limitless!
Then they would have the final word. They will have finally proven to us that their faith was not just some sort of self-righteous delusion. We non-believers would be stuck wallowing in the fetid trenches, suckling at the foul teat of the hideous bitch-goddess Oil, blinded by the brilliant reflection of faith from the silver fish emblem on their holy bumper, all the while being mocked by their sacred bumper sticker which proudly proclaims, “God is my copilot… AND MY FUEL SOURCE!!!”
So that’s it, folks… Put up or shut up. Prove that you are as pious as you claim by giving us the Faith-Powered Car.
I almost forgot… You’re going to have to make sure it’s street legal. I’m certain that Kent Hovind can make you a license plate. He must be getting pretty good at it by now.
A brief perspective on the bullshit industry
Apr 16th
Tom McMahon of The Berean Call ministry has a warning for us all. It seems our souls are in deep peril once again. The source of this particular spiritual peril is none other than New Age guru Deepak Chopra, who has the audacity to claim that Christ is not a deity, but a state of enlightenment. Christian fundamentalists seem quite certain that Mr. Chopra is the false prophet that heralds the coming of the Last Judgment. In all fairness, Christians have made this claim about nearly everyone who has expressed an opinion contrary to their beliefs over the last two thousand years… but this time, they really mean it!
This reaction to Chopra’s words is quite understandable. In our modern society, consumers have an unprecedented selection of bullshit from which to choose. It’s getting harder and harder each day for the traditional bullshit mongers to peddle their wares. It’s only natural that they would resort to some good old-fashioned negative advertising to attempt to bury the competition.
Competition in the bullshit market is nothing new. Thousands of years ago, societies believed that shit came from many different bulls. Cities and villages were filled with a wide variety of bullshit vendors, and the average consumer could pick and choose from this vast array of bullshit to meet their particular needs. It was a buyer’s market, so the bullshit sellers bent over backwards to entice their customers and convince them that their particular bulls did indeed produce the greatest shit.
This didn’t last forever, though. Many vendors began to claim that all shit came from one giant bull. Initially, this was not a popular idea, and these retailers were losing out to the traditional bullshit merchants. This all changed when a Roman emperor realized that the single bull theory showed great political promise. After all, if the public believed that all shit came from the same bull, then the man who controlled access to that bull’s rectum controlled the hearts and minds of the bullshit-hungry public. His plan was a phenomenal success. For many centuries, the corporation founded by this emperor held a monopoly of the bullshit industry.
That is not to say that there wasn’t any competition. In the near east, there was a guy who began selling a new brand of bullshit. For the most part, these people kept to themselves and offered no direct competition. This all changed around the end of the first millennium. The pointy-hatted CEO of the company selling bullshit in the west began to perceive the new company in the east as a threat, so he sent some of his corporate goons out to Jerusalem to work these guys over. Over the next couple of centuries, the two companies repeatedly clashed over who got to control the city of Jerusalem. No one is quite certain of exactly why this was so important to the shit vendors. We can only assume that they believed that if you controlled this city, your shit didn’t stink.
In addition to the turf wars in the Middle East, the western bullshit merchants faced a new challenge back home. It seems that one of their vendors decided that he no longer liked the bullshit formula the company had been using for so many years. In a bold move, he announced that he was forming his own company by nailing a list of ninety some odd changes he was making to the traditional bullshit recipe to the door of a local factory. This caused a division in the company which has not healed to this very day. Ironically, his bold new recipe was little more than traditional bullshit with a dash of nutmeg.
As the years passed, it seemed as if new varieties of bullshit were popping up every day. In the 1960′s, for example, a rebellious generation infused traditional eastern philosophy with psychedelic imagery, giving birth to what is now known as “New Age Bullshit”. Also in the twentieth century, an incredibly bad science fiction author came up with some bullshit about brainwashed alien ghosts living in our heads. This was some very high-end bullshit, and was generally only purchased by rich and famous people with more than sense.
Heading into the twenty-first century, our cities were once again filled with a wide variety of bullshit options for consumers. In addition, the growing popularity of science and reason threatened the bullshit industry as a whole. Seeing their monopoly slipping away, manufacturers of traditional western bullshit made some desperate marketing ploys.
They came up with an exciting new product called “Pseudo-Scientific Bullshit”, which added artificial science flavoring to their classic recipe. A museum was built in the Bullshit Belt which depicted the universe being created from a bull’s sphincter. An aggressive advertising campaign was launched using B-list celebrity spokesmen like Kirk Cameron and Ben Stein. Although this product was wildly popular among consumers of traditional bullshit, it failed to bring in any new customers.
They did have a certain degree of success in the entertainment industry. In 2004, a high profile Hollywood film maker released a bullshit movie. The film was essentially two hours of a bull’s only begotten calf literally getting the shit beaten out of him. Although the film was a huge commercial success, it drew sharp criticism for perpetuating negative stereotypes about matadors. This was not helped by the director’s DUI arrest, in which he launched into a drunken anti-matadoric tirade.
Another controversy emerged when a Danish newspaper published a drawing of a bull taking a shit. It seems that while certain people devote their lives to bullshit, they have a strong objection to seeing depictions of the bulls who produce said shit. Some of these people are so full of shit that they have been known to explode, killing themselves and dozens of innocent people. Don’t get me wrong… westerners are equally full of shit, but they prefer to throw their shit on innocent people from far away using high-tech weaponry.
So what does the future hold for the bullshit industry? Analysts believe that the outlook is somewhat bleak. Bullshit sales are rapidly drying up in Europe. While bullshit is still selling pretty well in America, studies have shown that over 20% of those under the age of thirty no longer buy bullshit. Even among the 80% who are still consuming bullshit, many have come to prefer the cool, refreshing flavor of “Bullshit Lite”, which is homophobia free and contains 75% less dogma, shame, and guilt. In addition, consumer advocates like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are educating the public about the dangers of consuming bullshit.
Tom McMahon and Deepak Chopra probably shouldn’t worry too much. While the golden age of the bullshit industry may be behind them, there will always be a segment of the population which remains hungry for their bullshit.
While I prefer rationalitarianism (a diet containing no bullshit), I understand that it is not for everyone. To these individuals I would strongly recommend sticking to Bullshit Lite. Like all things, please enjoy it in moderation.