Word of Mouth

I don't recall what led to our discussion, but the other day at breakfast my wife Lydia mentioned in passing how her almost life-long freedom from belief in a supernatural being had always given her a sense of freedom. But instead of using the term "supernatural", she accidentally said "unnatural". We both laughed at this linguistic lapse. However, we got to thinking that perhaps when it comes to religious faith there's not that much of a distinction between those two words after all.

For what could be more unnatural than belief in a supernatural entity for which there is no proof of existence, or in an imaginary spirit world and the return of the dead to life? What could be more unnatural than perpetuating these superstitions and myths from generation to generation and by doing so hinder the progress of humankind's enlightenment and development? What could be more unnatural than killing and maiming and destroying property and resources in the name and at the behest of a fabled supreme being?

In short, isn't atheism then the most natural and rational mindset? Isn't accepting the universe on its own terms more realistic than trying to change it by fruitlessly praying for miracles? Isn't attempting to achieve a deeper understanding of nature through scientific inquiry more natural for adults than childishly making up stories to explain what we don't understand?

I hope that Lydia (or I) will make more slips of the tongue like the above. In doing so, who knows what other connections we'll uncover in the pursuit of knowledge and awareness?

Decmber Reflections

It's just amazing that in this day and age anybody with at least half a brain can still believe the Christmas story. Yet obviously millions still do despite the advances of science over the centuries and the resulting rational explanation of religious "miracles". That in itself is enough to make Christmas a day of mourning for free- thinkers and progressives everywhere.

Nowhere perhaps is this more evident than here in the Philippines, a predominantly Roman Catholic country. I admit that some of the festivities surrounding this holiday here can be very enjoyable, especially the special foods that are prepared especially for this season. But it's astonishing how most people here regardless of advanced educational status wholeheartedly accept the story of the birth of Jesus as an historical event in all its literal detail. However, I will say that most Christians in the Philippines do not try to force their beliefs on others. So life for me as a Jewish nontheist is relatively uncomplicated in that regard.

Unfortunately, such is not the case in the U.S. where every year, Christian fundamentalists complain about the non-existent "war on Christmas". Predictably, they rail at restrictions on religious displays in government offices and become confrontational with merchants who, in terms of interaction with customers, don't share the extremists' perspective on observing this holiday and have little regard for non-Christians and less for atheists' refusal to celebrate Christmas.

What can free-thinkers and non-Christians do about this? Just hold the line and keep on pushing for our rights as Americans. The last time that I looked there is still a Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state and an establishment clause to back it up. It may be a protracted struggle to make our presence known and respected especially in the month of December , but it's a fight that we must never give up.

Required Disclosure

In compliance with FTC requirements which became effective this year, I am disclosing the following information.
This policy is valid from 24 December 2009


This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. This blog accepts forms of cash advertising, sponsorship, paid insertions or other forms of compensation.

The compensation received will never influence the content, topics or posts made in this blog. All advertising is in the form of advertisements generated by a third party ad network. Those advertisements will be identified as paid advertisements. The owner of this blog is not compensated to provide opinion on products, services, websites and various other topics. The views and opinions expressed on this blog are purely the blog owner.

If I claim or appear to be expert on a certain topic or product or service area, I will only endorse products or services that I believe, based on my expertise, are worthy of such endorsement. Any product claim, statistic, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer or provider.

This blog does not contain any content which might present a conflict of interest.


To get your own policy, go to http://www.disclosurepolicy.org

Religious Extremism: Israel's and America's Threat from Within

If ever a prize for and chutzpah and religious hypocrisy were ever awarded, a top contender for first place would be a fanatical Orthodox Jewish extremist group in Israel, the haredim. Members of this sect do not work for a living and instead spend their time in prayer and Torah study. On one hand this fringe group have no problem accepting welfare and financial support from the Israeli government. Yet on the other, they do not recognize the state of Israel because according to their belief, it is only upon the arrival of the Messiah that Israel will become a nation.

In their anti-Zionist zeal, haredim were apparently the ones who went so far last week as to rip out pages from prayer books at the Western Wall that bless the State of Israel and members of the Israeli military--from which by the way haredim are draft-exempt. I'm certainly no fan of prayer, but I find such rudeness detestable. Can you imagine the outrage that would ensue if a secular or atheist Jewish group did such a thing? If such incivility weren't enough, the haredim also have rioted and stoned those outsiders who enter or pass through their neighborhoods on Saturdays and who do not follow haredim rules for observing Shabbat. Also just a few weeks ago, they rallied on Shabbat against the opening of a parking lot in Jerusalem that took place on a Saturday. In other words, these fundamentalist desecrate prayer books in the name of Torah and violate the Sabbath in order to save it.

Women in the Orthodox Jewish world are at best second class citizens. In Israel, on special public transportation bus lines set aside for haredim, women must sit in the back. On Nov. 29, a woman who dared to assert the notion of women's religious equality by donning a tallit (prayer shawl), wearing a kippah (skull cap) and carrying a torah scroll at the Western Wall. According to strict tradition, only men are permitted to perform these rituals. So she was arrested by the police for her act of defiance. These are perfect examples of the disproportionate power being held by the Orthodox minority in Israel.

It's just mind-boggling that the Israeli taxpayers have been putting up with and supporting these radicals, so it's good to see that more rational people there are at the end of their patience and are beginning to push back by staging protests against Orthodox repression. May the day soon come that they take back the legislative power to reign in extremists.

***

Israel's problems furnish a lesson for Americans: This is what happens when religious fundamentalists are granted special privilege or take power. We had a taste of this scenario under the Bush Administration. For example, during that era, because of Bush's religious beliefs and those of his hack political appointees, life saving stem cell research was almost completely shut down. Significantly, Bush and his Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, justified the war in Iraq as a "holy Christian crusade". The Bush regime also saw an intensification of hostility in the U.S. against teaching the theory of evolution in public schools.

Currently, right wing Christian extremist and far right political groups such as "teabaggers" and "birthers" along with their radio commentator allies are manufacturing outlandish myths about President Obama, and some members of these groups are even praying for his death.

Then there is the prospect of Republican Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee running for president in the 2012 elections. Gov. Huckabee is an unapologetic Christian theocrat who believes that America should be governed according to biblical commandments. And don't even get me started on Sarah Palin, another possible 2012 contender.

In short, at the end of the day, when religious interests take control of a country's government no matter what religion or country, its citizens can kiss freedom good bye.

Addendum: Dec. 14. It turns out that the situation in Israel is even worse than I indicated above. A friend of mine sent me article today that reports Justice Minister is proposing the imposition of Torah "as the binding law of the nation" Click here for the story.

Good Morning

Even though my wife and are retired and don't have to follow a schedule, I like to arise every morning around 5am, and spend much of the next hour in contemplative activities such as reading philosophy or watching the dawn light up the sky just before the sun finally appears on the horizon, and enjoying the relative calm and quiet before the daily distractions of life in begin full force.

As it is for most people this is the time of the day when my mind is freest. Awareness, thoughts and emotion are most intense. So another kind of meditation that I often practice during these fleeting minutes is reflecting on such wonders of nature as the infinite vastness of the universe and the complexity of the web of life that has evolved on our humble planet which itself is less than a speck in the grandeur of the cosmos. And given the staggering odds against the likelihood of humankind's existing in the first place, does life have—can it have—any meaning? There is no evidence of a divine force who will furnish the answer for us. Personally, I agree with the humanistic psychoanalyst Erich Fromm who said that there is no meaning to life other than what we give it. But whether this is a viable conclusion is something that each of us must decide for him or herself.

I urge those of you who are not already doing so to set aside a few moments out of your day at whatever time is best for you, preferably in solitude and in as quiet an environment as you can find to explore your mind and see where your innermost thoughts take you. By doing so you may well gain a new and enriched perspective on the world around you that you never thought possible.

Repair Job

On Saturday I attended Shabbat services at the synagogue here in Metro-Manila. It so happened that there was a guest speaker who spoke about tikkun olam. This is an ancient Hebrew phrase referring to the Torah and Talmudic teachings which acknowledge that the world is imperfect, and so it is the duty of each Jew to try to repair it. (Side note: So if the world is imperfect, then that reflects on an imperfect and therefore non-existent God?).

Interestingly, the lecturer, a rather engaging speaker, was an Orthodox rabbi. Yet in the course of his address, I don't recall that he mentioned God even once. But even if he had, it wouldn't have made a difference in light of the subject matter. For historically, not only traditional Jews, but progressive and radical Jews as well have identified with or may well have been influenced by the creed of tikkun olam. This can be seen in the works of such great Jewish historical figures and thinkers such as Spinoza, Marx, and Freud, (none of whom were theists). In American history many Jews were active in the U.S. labor, civil rights, the anti-Vietnam war, and feminist movements. They likewise personified this precept and and although their respective paths were controversial to many people, they did try to make America and the world a better place.

As an atheistic Jew, tikkun olam is a principle in which I too have long been interested, and I believe that it is something that all of us, Jewish or not, can practice. It doesn't necessarily require a great personal sacrifice or struggle. It can simply entail such actions as living decent, humane lives, and respecting the environment, or as in the words of the Jewish sage Hillel "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor".

If nothing else, it's in our own self-interest to to try to improve society and in turn benefit from these efforts. Moreover, through such responsible living perhaps people will mature ethically and will outgrow the need to look to an imaginary supreme being for guidance. Under these circumstances, "God" will wither away, and civilization can then advance, liberated at last from the constraints of theism.

The world will never be perfect. But what is there to lose by striving to leave it a better place than we found it?

Atheism: The Essence of Morality

On Sept. 17, the Philippine Daily Inquirer ran a story about a rookie cop in Manila who found and returned to its rightful owner a lost wallet containing a large amount of cash despite, as the police officer acknowledged, the temptation to keep it for himself. Given the usually deserved reputation for corruption which police and other officials are known for and with the overall high crime rate here in the Philippines, it was refreshing to hear about this display of honesty.

Despite the high crime rate in this country, the influence of the Roman Catholic Church is extremely influential (which is not as paradoxical is it may seem at first glance*). So it was not surprising that the reason stated by the officer for his good deed was fear of God's punishment if he kept the money. So as honorable as his actions were, they truly driven by morality? In the conventional sense of the word, most people would say yes.

As an atheist, I would disagree. The reason is that in my opinion true morality has no intrinsic tie with religion and exists independently from it. Good behavior that is based on the fear of or the desire to score points with God or even on a belief in karma is a really a shallow, self-serving ulterior motive for acting decently. Without fear as a motivating factor, theists would have no reason to inhibit the beast within.

This turns on its head the concept of atheists as being more likely to indulge in criminal behavior than theists. I would like to think that I too would have returned the wallet but for an entirely different reason from that of the police officer. I believe that virtue is its own reward. Performing such a deed is simply the ethical thing to do for its own sake and in the interest of a just and progressive society.

(*See myFeb.28, 2009 post,Corruption And Religion: Not Such Strange Bedfellows)

A Disgrace for Yale University

Yale University Press recently compiled a publication called "The Cartoons That Shook the World" but in doing so, decided to exclude caricatures that offended Muslim sensibilities. This omission was done under the threat of violence by Islamic extremists (is that a redundancy?) if the cartoons in question were published. By caving in to such extortion and then censoring its publications accordingly , Yale has jettisoned the concept of a university as a haven for inquiry and exploration of ideas.

But here is the bigger issue: What gives any individual or group, especially religious organizations, regardless of what they consider provocation, the right to dictate to others what they may say or write? However, it takes two to tango: It's a slap in the face of intellectual integrity for this institution to kowtow to these fanatics, who having now seen what they can get away with, most likely won't stop with an act of intimidation against just one American school.

Shame on Yale for setting such a disgraceful precedent against academic freedom in this country.

President Obama: In the Shadow of a Prairie Giant

As the country prepares to observe Labor Day which was created to honor the American working people and their contribution to society, some questions need to asked regarding a basic entitlement of workers and for that matter of all Americans: universal health care.

First of all, it’s disgraceful how the campaign to reform the health care system has turned into a 3-ring circus. Why on Earth has President Obama allowed the Republicans to hijack and sully the debate on this issue and the drag the of concept nationalized health care through the mud, especially in view of the fact that the Democrats control both the Senate and the House?

But the bigger question is why has the U.S. , despite the negative experiences of so many people here under the present system historically refused to face up to the need for access to affordable health care for all its citizens as the rest of the industrialized nations have done? Indeed, why have Americans failed to recognize that such access to health care is a human right, not a privilege and that the insurance industry has made total hash of the providing such coverage thanks to its greed for profits at the expense of the insured and uninsured alike?

President Obama, of course, ostensibly favors health care reform. But if he truly believes that Americans deserve a better deal in this matter than what we’ve been getting, he should take out a few hours and see the movie “Prairie Giant: The Tommy Douglas Story”. Douglas, as depicted in this production and in real life, came from an ordinary background but almost single-handedly brought nationalized health care to Canada first on the provincial and eventually the federal level in the face of entrenched special interest groups including those in the U.S. who fought tooth and nail against this his program. He succeeded by sticking to his guns and refusing to give up in the face of this powerful opposition. Douglas eventually came to be hailed as that nation's "Greatest Canadian."

As a leader, rather than trying to please all sides in this cause, Obama needs to emulate Douglas' determination by getting a pair of balls and putting the necessary pressure on Congress to get the job of overhauling health care done, once and for all. Failure to do so which was a blemish on the Clinton Administration is not an option this time—not just for the sake of Obama’s standing and reputation as President but in the interest of the American people.

Toxic Traditions

I recently read two news items that were published on the same day and which appeared to be unrelated to each other. But the more I thought about it, the more I noticed a similarity in their content.

In India there is a custom—probably a symbolic child sacrifice ritual—practiced by both Muslim and Hindu parents, in which they throw their babies off temple towers into makeshift nets (actually taut bedsheets) near the ground. The purpose of this act is that according to local beliefs it will assure the health and good fortune of these infants. And supposedly, since these babies are caught before they hit the ground, none have suffered any physical harm. But even if such a"perfect" record were true (which is extremely doubtful), who knows what psychic damage they may suffer. According to my wife who is a child psychologist, such trauma can be profound. Falling—especially from a great height—is one of the most traumatic events that the mind can register, no matter how young the victim. So it's no surprise that according to the article the infants were said to be screaming during their plunge.

In the other news story, a father in Wisconsin was convicted in the death of his seriously ill daughter. He withheld medical attention from her in favor of faith healing as a cure, which of course failed to save her. The victim's mother was also convicted a few months earlier on the same charge. Incidentally, have you noticed that it's almost always children and never adults who die as a result of being "prayed" to death instead of receiving medical care. If there are any adults who have died as a result of withholding medical care from themselves and opting for faith healing instead (and I haven't heard of any), it's their own choice, and not forced on them by other adults.

That is the point of this post. Regardless of culture or society, children are powerless and must rely on their parents or guardians to look after their welfare. When those in control use religion as an excuse to inflict harm on their children, whether actively as in the form of physical and emotional violence or passively by refusal to provide medical care for illness or injury, this is out and out child abuse. And it's no less the case than if committed in an alcoholic or other drug induced rage, or because of the sadistic character of the perpetrator.

What would the world be like if children were spared their elders' superstitious ignorance and brainwashing done in the name of a supernatural being or beings? Yet how can such relief ever happen when in most countries it's unlikely that there will ever be a generation of parents (and perhaps one is all that it would take) who are willing to break the chain and not hand down or inflict such warped nonsense on their offspring in the name of religious tradition? In this regard there's not much that America can do about the rest of the world, but in the U.S. , a small step in that direction would be publicizing and confronting faith-based child abuse wherever or whenever it's known to occur and never allowing religion to be used as a legal justification for such behavior, especially by parents or other guardians.

But do atheists have a better track record in raising and disciplining their children because they don't resort to punishments and fear-mongering in the name of a likely non-existent supreme being? If so they need to become more vocal and present these child-rearing methods as superior to that of traditional theist parental practices of control via threats of divine retribution. In fact, there should also be extensive scientific studies as to which group has a better success rate in bringing up their children to become socially responsible and emotionally healthy adults.

However, the results or at least strong indications may already be in on this one: Supposedly atheists make up only a small percentage of the U.S. prison population. And as indicated in my Feb. 28, 2009 post in this blog site, Corruption And Religion: Not Such Strange Bedfellows, enlightenment and good conduct by their citizens are salient features of secular cultures such as Finland, Denmark, and New Zealand. As might be expected, such countries also have strong social safety nets and public programs that benefit their children, who as a result grow up to be productive citizens of those societies. It is this virtuous cycle as practiced by these countries in nurturing children and directly or indirectly minimizing their exposure to religious abuse that may serve as a beacon to the rest of the world.

But as so many other countries throughout the world are still shackled by the interrelated evils of governmental corruption, private greed, and religious zealotry, most children face a lifetime not just of material deprivation but of irrationalism as well.

Five Reasons Not to be Impressed by Religious People

When prominent American Jews get arrested or are have found to have committed dishonest deeds (think Bernard Madoff), the first reaction of law-abiding members of the Jewish community is "what will the goyim (gentiles) think of us?" This reaction is a defense mechanism that has been instilled in us almost to the genetic level as a result of centuries of persecution.

But when I read about the five Orthodox rabbis in New Jersey who were recently charged with alleged money laundering and other crimes, and who were arrested along with corrupt public officials with whom they were doing business, my feelings ranged from indignation, to amusement and sense of vindication for my hypothesis that public corruption and religious officials often mix (See my Feb. 28, 2009 post "Corruption And Religion: Not Such Strange Bedfellows".)

Orthodox rabbis? and five of them at that? And according to the news story, there may still be more in Brooklyn who are involved? Sheesh, didn't these guys have to pass some kind of ethics test to graduate from the yeshiva? (Orthodox yeshivas do teach that stuff, don't they?) But then if you have an inherent sense of right and wrong wrong as do most humanistic Jews and other atheists, you don't need an ethics course. Not to put too fine a point on it, but when was the last time that you heard of a Humanistic or a Reform rabbi being charged with nefarious deeds of this nature or caught up in such a scandal?

So to my fellow Jews who might feel a sense of shame over what these rabbis did, consider this: If they don't care about their behavior and have no sense of personal responsibility, whose problem is that? Certainly not yours.

An Open Letter to Senator Max Baucus

Senator Baucus,

If you're so afraid of a government sponsored health plan, why don't you give up the one that you have as a senator? Why shouldn't all Americans have the kind of insurance that you and all the other federal employees enjoy?

One reason that my wife and I left the country is that we couldn't afford U.S. health care insurance premiums after I retired (I'm too young for Medicare).

Employer sponsored health plans are a joke. What about those who are unemployed or work for a company that doesn't provide that benefit? Employees who work for companies that do have insurance often become trapped in "job lock" because private insurance premiums are prohibitive. I know. I've been there.

If private health care is so much better than a government sponsored plan, then why can't the two be allowed to compete and let the people decide? Isn't that the American way?

Get real, Senator.

In Search of a New American Revolution

As Americans celebrate Independence Day, we must ask ourselves whether we are free as long as our society is shackled by theistic religious beliefs.

It cannot be overemphasized that the founding fathers of our country were primarily deists if not outright atheists. The American Constitution makes no reference to a supreme being. And the separation of church and state is enshrined in the First Amendment, which shows the importance that the creators of this wonderful document placed on that concept. Thus it is outrageous for religious fundamentalists to insist that America is a "Christian nation" and who accordingly want to turn the government into a theocracy. In the last 25 years or so, science and reason have been subjected to attack by Christian zealots to the point that as the result of political pressure from the creationist movement many public school districts in the U.S. have become reluctant to teach the theory of evolution, a well-researched principle for which there is overwhelming evidence and which is the cornerstone for not just for biology but for other sciences as well. This failure in education may well result in a generation of Americans who are ignorant in the origin and history of human life.

Until America achieves a secular society on par with countries such as Denmark and New Zealand, we will remain a nation with First-World trappings but with a Third-World mentality steeped in narrow-mindedness and superstition.

Faith By the Numbers

One thing that has troubled me for a long time is the phenomenon of "faith by the numbers". Why did it take the Holocaust for many Jews to finally question God's existence? During the 1800's alone, thousands of our people were slaughtered in the pogroms in Russia. Yet in the face of this destruction, for most Jews both in Russia and elsewhere during that time it was business as usual as far belief in God and failure to stand up to such persecution.

So why is 6 million deaths a magic number in terms of questioning God? Where was Jewish doubt about God's existence before that time regarding the circumstances and events that served as a precedent and led up to this horror? Why did so many Christians through the centuries blindly believe the blood libel and other myths to justify killing Jews?

And in more recent history where was collective Jewish indignation against the mass murder of other people such as the Cambodians and the Tutsis? Were they any less worthy of our compassion just because they were not Jews ?

The D-day invasion 65 yeas ago was the beginning of the liberation of Europe from the Nazis and ultimately the deliverance of the death camp victims. When will reason invade the mind of humanity and liberate us all from baseless faith and the tyranny of blind obedience to a non-existent God?

Blogsite Title Tune-up

I have changed the title of this blogsite from "Towards a Rational America" to "Towards a Rational America and An Enlightened Judaism". This expansion was made in order for the name to more accurately reflect the scope of my posts—past, present, and future.

When I began this blog last year, President Bush was still in power and wreaking havoc on America. Many of the issues concerning the then socio-economic-political scene in our country at that time, about which I wrote (or ranted about, depending on your point of view) are being addressed by the Obama Administration. This is not to say the crisis is over; the economy is still in shambles and the unemployment rate is over 8%. But President Obama is moving forward on such important issues as health care, workers rights, and restoring science to its rightful place in education and government decisions, such as the policy on stem cell research. Perhaps these steps are the beginning of a movement towards an enlightened America.

But I want to make it clear that as a concerned American Jew, I also want to see Judaism in the U.S. reverse its right wing drift and become more progressive and enlightened as well. One way to do this is to eliminate an unprovable supreme being from the picture, as for example the Society for Humanistic Judaism (SHJ) has done. Very importantly, in an enlightened Judaism, the Orthodox wing would not be so arrogant as to proclaim itself the sole authority vs. other Jewish schools of thought, or if it did, it would be vigorously challenged by the other branches for such chutzpah. The problem is that many if not most non-Orthodox Jews have an inferiority complex about their own practice of Judaism. So they look up to the Orthodox as the authentic, true Jews who should be given as much leeway as they want to decide who and who is not a legitimate Jew.

But this kind of liberation is easier said than done when for example the Orthodox Jewish Yeshiva University President Norman Lamm told the Jerusalem Post that it's time to say Kaddish (prayer for the dead) over the more moderate Conservative and Reform concepts of Judaism due the their shrinking numbers (when in fact the latter branch is actually growing). He further said that Reform Judaism "is out of the picture, because they never got into the picture". I would counter that as the result of his arrogance, Lamm doesn't even get the picture.
Finally, for a rational America to become a reality, the key is secularization. In such a political and social framework, the individual may choose to accept or reject the notion of a supreme being as he or she sees fit. However, no sectarian group would have the power to dictate its belief to others regarding a deity or to demand special privileges from the government. In my opinion, this would be a truly just society for non-believers and believers alike and would bring the non-establishment clause of First Amendment of the Constitution to full fruition.

The Irrationality of Prayer—Pascal's Wager Revisited

Over the past several months, I've experienced a myriad of health problems, which have required various treatments, surgery, endoscopic examinations one of which was invasive , medications, and a trip to the emergency room. Despite a number of scares that the symptoms were indicative of a serious illness, the results turned out favorably. But needless to say, the experience was very stressful.

Yet during this period, not once did I consider prayer as an option, either as a form of consolation or a plea for healing from a (likely non-existent) supernatural being. What is, is. This is not fatalism. Whatever the facts of the matter are, they can't be denied by wishing them away. The outcome of my recovery depended on my doctor's skill and my body's ability to respond to treatment. There is no proof that a supernatural force was involved in the determining the outcome of my condition. This should not be construed as bragging on my part regarding my commitment to the principles of unbelief when the chips were down. It was just exercising common sense.

In the tradition of Pascal's wager, let's say for the sake of argument that there is a supreme being to whom prayers can be directed. If this supreme being/ God is all powerful and omniscient (which by the way may be considered a contradiction in terms), then (s)he has already decided the future of the universe, including of course every one's destiny. Therefore, prayer is just a futile waste of time.

If God has not yet predetermined the future and arbitrarily decides on people's welfare based upon their beseeching him/her for help, then in effect (s)he is a sadist, just by dangling the prospect of granting a supplicant's wish. This all powerful Almighty's message comes down to this: "If you grovel and beg, maybe I'll grant your prayer, but then again maybe I won't, so go ahead and debase yourself. I'll just sit here and watch." That response to the petitioner and the relationship that it implies between God and man flies in the face of humanity's self respect.

That's why if you reflect on that passage "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Praise be the name of the Lord", you can see what a humiliation that is and the violence it does to the dignity of mankind and our ability to reason and create. If there is a "sky daddy" who has that kind of power, then why should man bother to make an effort at self-improvement or at bettering the world? Why bother, period? In the end, man is powerless, and what will be, will be. That is fatalism, and given these conditions, an understandable perspective.

Atheism and nontheism on the other hand simplify life. There's no outside force to reckon with, no otherworldly crutch to lean on whatever the circumstances in which we find ourselves. It is up to us to strive as best we can and take initiative and responsibility to help ourselves and each other. A fully developed human being does a good deed for its own sake and not for the ulterior motive for scoring points with a deity in order to "go to heaven". At the end our lives, the only immortality is a good name by which we will be remembered based on whatever contribution that we made to the world. In that sense, virtue (as in virtuous living) is truly its own reward.

We cannot control the random events that happen to us during the course of our lives such as illness or other misfortunes, but we can control our responses to them. By not wasting time and energy chasing after a phantom "sky daddy" to lean on or to solve our problems, we can be more clear-headed and achieve a more realistic relationship with the world around us.

Another Smear Campaign Against Atheists

In today's Atheist Revolution blog, there was a report about a Baptist pastor who posed as an atheist and left hateful commentaries on the site Unreasonable Faith. The content of these posts which appeared to be written by a non-believer were intended to make atheists look like monsters, reinforcing the negative image that unbelivers already have in the eyes of the rest of society. Talk about bearing false witness against one's neighbor!

The pastor's disinformation campaign is reminiscent of "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion", a forgery written by the Russian Secret Police during the czarist era in order to falsely depict the Jewish people as fomenting an international conspiracy to take over the world. This tract became a worldwide best seller that is popular among anti-Semites even today.

The point is that all it takes is a well placed, well timed attack to do severe damage against a cause or a people that results in long-lasting or permanent damage. Fortunately this time the perp was a bit player and was busted early on, but what about next time?

Corruption And Religion: Not Such Strange Bedfellows

Did you ever notice that the most corrupt countries in the world are the also the ones whose populations are the most "devout"? The Philippines and Latin America where the Catholic Church wields tremendous power are perfect examples of this phenomenon. I have a hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between religion and corruption in almost any given society. It seems that the greater the degree of religiosity in a country, the more dishonesty in its government.

In the U.S., during the Bush and Reagan Administrations which were controlled by Republican Conservatives and were marked by an emphasis on Christian religious values, the amount of corruption and dishonesty in the executive branch went through the roof.

In the matter of controlling crime, conservative Republicans are strong advocates of law and order. Yet according to The God Delusion (p229) by Richard Dawkins in which he quotes Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation", the crime rate in the American (Republican /Christian conservative) "red" states is greater than the Democrat /Liberal) "blue" states. George Bush's "red" home state of Texas where he served as governor is blessed with three of the five most dangerous cities in the U.S.

But such sleaze and hypocrisy aren't confined to Christian-majority nations. Israel, where the Orthodox Jewish establishment has disproportionate clout to its numbers, also has that problem. As I understand the Orthodox religious parties are among the most corrupt of all the political organizations there. Conservative rabbis have called for the dissolution or privatization of the government supported Chief Rabbinate of Israel due to corruption and favoritism in that office.

Muslim countries, which are controlled or influenced by Sharia (Islamic law), also have a high rate of corruption in government. And as for the excuse that poverty causes corruption, keep in mind that Saudi Arabia for example is a wealthy country. What's their excuse?

If anything, corruption causes poverty. In countries such as the Philippines where the wealth is concentrated in the oligarchic hands of a few wealthy and publicly pious families, so is ownership of the government and control of the treasury which has become their own piggy bank to do with as they wish. This financial abuse in turn diverts economic resources from the rest of the people. (Speaking of public piety, President Gloria Macapgal Arroyo of the Philippines has the distinct (dis)honor of having a higher perception of corruption than all her predecessors in that office. One of my favorite news photos is that of President Arroyo with her hands sanctimoniously clasped in prayer.)

On the other hand secularly oriented nations such as Finland and Denmark have a low rate of government corruption. True, there may be individual officials in these countries who are dishonest, but there is not the endemic systemic rot that is found in religion-based countries where dealings with government and law enforcement officials at almost all levels involve grease money to the point that corruption and concurrent human rights abuse have become a way of life and an integral part of the culture (or as referred to in the Philippines "guns, goons, and gold".)

One possible explanation for this phenomenon in Catholic countries is the popular belief that such sins can be absolved through the act of Confession, wherein the penitent in effect washes his / her hands through absolution, leaving him or her free to repeat the cycle of repentance and recidivism ad infinitum, ad nauseum. In Judaism, there is no such ecclesiastical escape hatch for immoral behavior. So I'm puzzled as to how an Orthodox Jewish official in Israel (or anywhere) can square indulging in corrupt practices on one hand with a belief in God and the tenets of the Torah on the other. Perhaps one answer is compartmentalization, but I don't find that to be a fully satisfactory explanation.

But don't take word about the tendency towards corruption in religion-centered societies vs. honest conduct in government in secular countries. Let's look at the numbers as furnished by Transparency International. This organization ranked 180 countries in their 2008 CPI (Corruption Perception Index) Three countries with the best scores were the secular nations Denmark, New Zealand, and Sweden (all tied for first place). The U.S. scored 18th; Israel: 33rd; Mexico: 72nd; Saudi Arabia: 80th; Philippines: 141st.

Interestingly, Russia and some of the former Soviet block countries scored poorly in the CPI. An apologist for traditional religion might say that during the decades of the Communist regime, these were atheist led countries. So doesn't that show that religion has no connection to corruption? Not really. These countries have a history of religious authoritarianism in their cultures. So, for example, in Russia, which was Eastern Orthodox dominated for hundreds of years, the Bolshevik Revolution simply replaced the Church with the State as a focus of worship. In other words, Communism became the new national religion. But even then, the power and influence of the Orthodox Church never completely disappeared, and this institution is making a comeback in that country. The same is true for Roman Catholicism in Poland. And Romania is a total basket case. According to the article "Secular Humanism Comes to Romania" in the Augst / September issue of the magazine "Free Inquiry", this country is dominated by the Romanian Orthodox Church; yet it has the highest corruption level of all the European Union countries.

So why are people in progressive states less inclined to believe in a supreme being or at least less inclined to have religion run their lives ? Perhaps the national character of these countries has matured to the point that they have outgrown the childish dependence on a sky daddy (plus a clergy) who dispenses favors through prayer and material wealth as a sign of grace. Consequently, these countries seems to exhibit a more rational and humanistic spirit and a concern for the welfare of the collective (nationalized health care for example) and for the world itself, inasmuch as a decrease in narcissism and greed result in a reduction in destructiveness against oneself and others, hence a better human rights record. It's interesting that in enlightened countries such as Denmark and Holland, Muslims have sought and received asylum from inter-tribal persecution in their native countries. Many of these refugees have shown their gratitude by verbally attacking and even murdering those in the host countries who dare to criticize or question the refugees' customs that are incompatible with religious and cultural diversity. This destructiveness is similar to a child's temper tantrum. Well, no surprise there. Such behavior in adults is the logical outcome of any fanatical religious indoctrination that preaches supremacy of its followers over other groups.

In countries where religion rules, there seems to be a tendency towards greed and narcissism and a total indifference to the common good. The perspective in the Philippines for example is (and these are the words of that a Filipino actually used to describe his feelings to me: "My family first and the hell with everybody else". Crime here is rampant not just among the poor. It seems to be even just as bad or worse among members of the middle and upper middle classes. Yet, since appearance is important, they flock to weekly Mass. In the U.S. especially during the Reagan/Bush era as previously noted the culture was permeated by a "greed is good" mentality. This theme is also the hallmark of many American televangelists.

With the international financial meltdown, the chickens have come home to roost for the free-market economic order that celebrated this avaricious approach to living. But in the current crisis there is a now an opportunity for enlightened thinkers, philanthropists, educators, writers, et al in America and the rest of the world to step up to the plate and insist on inclusion in rebuilding the system. This includes increased funding for education with an emphasis on rationality and critical thinking. The media needs to do its part in encouraging its readers to carefully analyze its coverage of current events, especially news about religion. Atheist and Humanist organizations need to become more agressive in advocating the cause of nonbelievers who are persecuted for their convictions. Above all, free thinkers everywhere must fight the anti-intellectual conditions and moral hypocrisy that foster the ignorance and denial that breed religious the twin evils of zealotry and corruption—and in turn, the ties that bind them.

Confronting A Sleazy Strategy

Why are American religious fundamentalists so sneaky about trying to use public policy to impose their beliefs on others? It seems that if they can't advance their political agenda through the front door, they attempt to do so under the radar.

When the courts ruled that creationism is a religious doctrine and has no place in public school biology classes, the religious right repackaged this biblical myth under the name "intelligent design" as a "scientific alternative" to the theory of evolution. But to paraphrase the expression here in the Philippines, it was just the same old dog with a new collar. Whom did the fundies think that they were fooling? Certainly not the scientific community nor for that matter the judiciary who eventually shot down this ruse as well.

More recently, there's the "moment of silence" (Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act) that a legislator managed to have introduced into that state's public schools. The law offered students a choice of personal reflection or silent worship, so that supposedly the latter was not compulsory. However, this was really enforced prayer in disguise, notwithstanding that state sponsored prayer in schools was banned years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Proof of the stealth intention of this lawmaker is the language of the act, which required teachers to indirectly encourage pupils to use this time to pray.

Such tactics on the part of these right wing religionists are not only politically deceitful and underhanded but intellectually dishonest. Aren't followers of traditional religion supposed to set an example in the practice of ethics?

Fortunately, a federal judge ruled the Illinois law as an unconstitutional breach of church and separation, but the matter isn't finished if the State Attorney General decides to appeal this decision.

Contrast these devious methods of "God-squads" in promoting their interests with the open and direct approach that atheists and other secularists use to advance their cause. Perhaps this is because the legal filings in the interest of non-sectarianism are usually reactive in nature, i.e. in response to an abrogation of religious neutrality in a law or other decree. In other words, when non-believers protest against "prayer in public schools" for example, we do not object to students quietly praying on their own as individuals. Our complaint is against mandatory or sponsored prayer led by teachers or other school officials who as authority figures are directly or indirectly coercing all students to participate.

If American religious extremists think that they can get away with trying to violate the rights of non-believers without being detected, they are as misguided in this notion as they are in the belief that their dogma entitles them to legal special privileges. Based on the signals given in President Obama's inaugural address, there is hope that unlike in the days of the Bush administration, these zealots will no longer be able to ride roughshod either overtly or covertly over advocates of freedom of religion—and freedom from religion.

Pastor Warren: The Best Reason for a Prayer-Free Inauguration

Even though I stand by my position that the election of Barack Obama as America's first African-American President represents a breakthrough from which atheists also may one day benefit, (see my Nov. 9 post "A Step Forward For American Atheists?") I am disappointed that he chose Pastor Rick Warren, a homophobic Christian fundamentalist preacher, to deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration. Perhaps this is Obama's attempt to "atone" to his critics for his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose anti-American rhetoric upset many people and which Hillary Clinton for example described as "hate speech". Yet isn't this likewise an appropriate designation for Warren's comparison of gay marriage to incest?

It turns out that besides Warren's intolerance towards certain groups, there is another issue: the possibility, perhaps even the likelihood, that in his prayer he will invoke Jesus' name which would be in keeping with his religious convictions. If he does this, it will upset a lot of non-Christians (myself included). For one thing, making such an entreaty at this event would symbolically imply endorsement of Christianity as the national religion.

However, would it be rational to expect a fundie like Warren to pass up the chance at such an occasion to "strut his stuff" and NOT to call upon Jesus at such an occasion? After all, wouldn't one expect an atheist who is just as true to his /her principles to omit deistic references in delivering an invocation address?

But even if Warren were replaced with another more moderate speaker who would be willing to seek a more neutral blessing from some universal divine being, in the final analysis no matter there is really no such thing as a non-denominational prayer anyway. What deity would be the object of such a prayer, "To whom it may concern"? Prayer by its very nature implies an appeal to a "higher power" and as such is a religious act. Therefore, its inclusion at such an event as an American presidential inauguration violates the spirit (no pun intended) of the Constitutional separation of Church and State.

If ever there were an opportunity to show that America can truly become a nonsectarian society, elimination of the Presidential Inaugural prayer would be a great symbolic step in that direction.

The Fixed Income Myth

When I worked as a bill collector, a common excuse among senior citizens for their inability to make their payments is that they were having a hard time due to being on a "fixed income", usually social security. At the time I didn't understand the significance of that phrase, but I suspected it was a bogus alibi.

Now that my wife and I are retired and are the ones collecting social security (which is about 90% of our total income) it turns out that I was right. First of all, we both just received an annual 5.8% COLA increase to our benefit's effective this month. Secondly, as a percentage that number is greater than what I sometimes received when I was employed. Finally, social security is a guaranteed income, unlike wages which of course terminate when your job ends.

I recall once reading a complaint in a newspaper from an elderly woman on social security who said that she was hard up and her favorite restaurant—where she goes for breakfast every morning—didn't offer senior citizen discounts. Goes for breakfast every morning? If she's so damn poor, why is she spending money on dining out daily? And where is it written that senior disocunts are a right?

When I was working, my wife and I were lucky if we went out to a restaurant once a week. Now that we're no longer employed, and our income has been reduced accordingly, we have to be even more careful than before with our expenses. Just because we're older doesn't give us license to behave irrresponsibly or demand special treatment.

In short, the only thing that's "fixed" in receiving this type of income is the rigid outlook and misplaced entitlement attitude of some of its recipients.

The Absurdities of Christmas

I'm hardly the first free thinker, and I certainly won't be the last to note how gullible religious believers are in America, especially during the Christmas season. Yet it just never ceases to astound me how even intelligent people can give credence or even lip-service acknowledgment to such notions as virgin birth (a de-evolution to asexual reproduction) and the star of Bethlehem (the reduction of a sun, one of nature's true wonders and incomprehensibly large and intricate bodies) to the size and function of a super-trooper spotlight. Then of course there's the main character of this myth, a "savior" who would redeem mankind from "original sin" (another crackpot perspective about humanity which itself has done incredible harm to the progress of rational Western thinking, but that's a topic for another blog) who would later die and rise from the dead like a human phoenix. (BTW, if Jesus was the son of God, wouldn't that make Joseph one of the most famous cuckolds of all time?)

Then there's the designation of Christmas as a federal holiday (and I daresay on the state, county and municipal levels throughout America), which not only violates the separation of church and state but in doing so gives preference to a particular religion. Some might argue that with the popularization of such symbols and widespread customs as yule trees, parties, and Santa Claus, that this is now a secular holiday in America as well. But, folks, it's still Christmas ("Christ mass"), and here I would agree with the fundies that "Jesus is the reason for the season".

So I suggest that we make this a truly nonsectarian celebration by changing the date to December 21, the first day of winter, and renaming the holiday "Solstice". That way, come December 25, those who want to observe Christmas can do so privately in their own homes and churches and not impose their beliefs and rituals on others. Speaking of 12/25 as the birthday of Christ, was Jesus a “born-again Christian”? Western Christians celebrate his birthday on that date, but the Eastern Orthodox Church claims it was Jan. 6. How can that be? If he did perform miracles, popping out of Mary’s womb twice has to be the biggest one of all.

May there come a time when there truly is peace on Earth, good will and critical, rational thinking to men and women, the sooner the better.

In Remembrance of President Kennedy

It's hard to believe that 45 years have passed since President Kennedy was assasinated. November 22 (which was November 23 here in the Philippines) is a day that those of us who were at least old enough to understand the world around them will not forget.

It seems that in the last several years, much of what we have heard is the dark side of his personal life. But his flaws do not change the fact that Kennedy inspired a generation of Americans to become socially and politically involved. One such example was the Peace Corps, which was his creation. Another was the battle for integration and voting rights in the South, in which many students, white as well as black, who felt encouraged to become active by JFK's exhortation to "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country".

So I can't help but wonder what would have happened if JFK had carried out his term (or terms). I like to think that he would have been rational enough to eventually see the folly of further involvement by America in Vietnam and would have reversed course. I don't think that he would have implemented the failed "guns and butter" policies of his VP successor, Lyndon Johnson, which is what led to the radicalization of the anti-war and the civil rights movements.

Today we have a president-elect whose youth, charisma, and ability to inspire others are similar to that of JFK. I only hope that Obama can deliver the goods. If he does, America will prosper in more ways than one, just as the country very possibly might have done under the uniterrupted presidency of John Kennedy.

A Step Forward For American Atheists?

To put it mildly, I am over the moon that Barack Obama will be our next president and Joseph Biden our next vice-president, not only because their progressive positions defeated that angry old man McCain and his looney-tunes running mate Palin, but in doing so Obama has also placed the rabid Republicans in disarray—at least for the time being.

Moreover, Obama's win as a black man represents a giant step forward for American minority groups. As many others during the course of the campaign have pointed out, when Obama was born in 1961, African Americans were still struggling for the right to vote in many states. What a difference forty-seven years have made.

While the situation for atheists in America is not as dire as that of blacks in the segregation era, we are still not accepted as equals in society. For instance can you imagine what would happen if a professed non-believer ran for president?

But who has to imagine how even being labeled an atheist can hurt someone who is running for political office in America? A concrete example of such anti-atheist bigotry is an incident that occurred in and may have determined the outcome of the senate race in North Carolina. Candidate Kay Hagan sued the incumbent Elizabeth Dole for picturing Hagan as "Godless".

It wasn't enough for Hagan to just say that Dole was wrong (which she was) or to even challenge Dole to prove her assertion. Hagan was so insulted (or perhaps just pragmatically concerned that simply denying the label would cost her votes) that she filed a court action over the matter. In the end, Dole's "accusation" appears to have backfired because voters didn't believe her, and if that wasn't the sole reason that she lost the election, it certainly contributed to her defeat. Yet Dole apparently felt that given the negative image of atheism, this campaign tactic was a chance worth taking.

The point of this digression is that in America, especially in the South (no surprise) belief or non-belief in God is a obviously a major issue and being "accused" of atheism can be the kiss of death for a politician. Yet, although Obama is a religionist, I would like to think that the atmosphere for non-believers, secularists, and other advocates of rational thinking in America will be less toxic than what we have had to breathe through now, especially under the faith-based, theocon- dominated Bush administration. One basis for my cautious optimism is Obama's speech in 2006 , "Call to Renewal". Although this speech address deals with his belief about the importance of religion in the public sphere, at the same time Obama addresses pluralism as a fact of life in American society and the dangers of sectarianism.

In short, maybe—just maybe—Obama's victory has opened the door so that one day it will become possible for an atheist in turn to be elected president. However, that may still be several decades away. According Your Friendly Neighbourhood Atheist, a Newsweek article published in 2007 shows that 62% of registered voters said that they would not vote for an atheist.

But if and when a non-believer achieves that office, America will have matured to the point that it can truly call itself the land of equal opportunity.

The Other Culprits Behind the American Economic Meltdown

The 7 hundred billion-dollar Wall Street bailout has riled many Americans, and rightfully so. If there had been genuine benefits in that agreement for the middle and working classes to equal those for the wealthy and businesses that greedily fed at the hog trough of deregulation, it might be easier for us to swallow the bitter pill that President Bush is ramming down our throats. But as usual, what we have is a case of state socialism for the rich and social Darwinism for everybody else.

But think about it, even though many of the GOP Congress initially voted against the bailout before doing a 180 on the second presentation, it was Bush and other rabid Republicans such as Phil Gramm that through the years--beginning with the Reaganomics of the 1980's--who have pushed for the removal of many necessary government controls and regulations. This led to the collapse of the S&L's in that decade and eventually to the train wreck of the present financial system. And in many instances it's not that the regulations were not there, they just weren't enforced. For example, as discussed in the Yahoo! News Article of "Battered financial industry faces more oversight" why was the mortgage industry allowed to get away with making high risk loans in which the borrower's income was not even verified?

It's likely that none of this would have happened if the rabid Republicans had not been elected. It's true that President Clinton made mistakes, such as signing North American Free Trade Agreement, but the federal budget ran a surplus under his watch, and his appointees such as Robert Rubin and Madeleine Albright were qualified for their positions, unlike the incompetent hacks that Bush appointed based solely on loyalty.

In turn, this leads to the question: Who voted for Regan and Bush? And aren't those voters who did so just as responsible for the present crisis as the incompetent and greedy executives and politicians along with home buyers who speculated that the bubble would never burst and bit off more mortgage than they could chew?

It wasn't as though the Reagan and Bush Father and Son, deceived the electorate on about their positions on finance and the economy. They painted government as the enemy and untrammeled free enterprise as salvation. And millions of naive Americans fell for it. If you were one of the ones gullible enough to elect these clowns and are now facing foreclosure or loss of your job, investments, 401(k), etc. as a result of their policies, then ultimately you have no one to blame but yourself. If Al Gore had not been cheated out of the presidency in 2000 or if John Kerry had not allowed himself to be "swiftboated" in 2004, we would likely have a more enlightened and prosperous America.

I make no apologies if I'm coming across as a self-righteous s.o.b. Obviously I can't stand the rabid Republicans and what they've done to our country. But more to the point, their policies have had a very negative impact on my life beginning in 1984 (see my post "Real Estate Meltdown--When Bad Loans Happen to Good People") . Along with the S & L fiasco of that era, there was leveraged buyout craze, which ultimately led to the loss of my job at a company where I had worked for several years. In turn the company that bought out my employer later filed for bankruptcy because the assets that they leveraged were worth less than what they paid for the deal. Perhaps the executives who engineered this takeover had considered that eventuality, but it's doubtful that they lost a minute of sleep over it. In a worst case scenario for the company and employees, they would still rake in millions in golden parachutes.

In this decade, as part of the mismanagement of the government, we saw Bush cut taxes for the wealthy and create the largest federal budget deficit ever. We saw ignorance promoted in the rabid Republicans' and religious fundamentalists' attempt to abolish the Enlightenment and turn this country into a theocracy. We saw the U.S. start a war in Iraq that was built on a lie.

So when you cast your vote in November, ask yourself if America has become a better place in this decade, and consider what the future holds for America and yourself if the rabid Republicans are allowed to stay in power.

Existence—What a Concept!

With the imminent activation of the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland which will try to replicate conditions of the universe immediately following the Big Bang, we stand on the threshold of a breakthrough in our understanding of the universe. This new knowledge will likely lead to an enhanced perspective—possibly even a rewriting of the laws of physics as science now understands them.

Yet even if the LHC experiments reveal how the universe came into being, it can't tell us why. Perhaps this is something man will never know. Yet by rephrasing the issue, it's fascinating to speculate on the words of the Seventeenth Century philosopher and scientist Gottfried Leibniz : "Why is there something instead of nothing?" In other words, why does the universe exist?

This question is tackled by Adolf Grunbaum in his article "Why Is There a Universe at All Rather than Just Nothing (Part 1)" which appears in the June /July issue of "Free Inquiry". He states that according to Leibniz and Christian philosophy, everything exists only contingently, and the default state of the universe is non-existence. What brings the universe out of the void and into existence is an entity that is a necessary being whose reason for existence is self-contained and is eternal. Obviously, this entity is God. Furthermore, the universe could not continue to exist without God's perpetual intervention. It would lapse into nothingness.

Grunbaum turns this supposition around and challenges the logic that the de facto state of the universe is nothingness. He asks why can't existence— "something" rather than "nothing" be the default state? Further, why is God necessary and not contingent? By the way, this last question indirectly touches on the issue of first cause, for if God is a contingent entity , that renders moot that age-old riddle: If God created the universe, who created God?. And besides, the concept of a "manufactured" world is not universal. Many cultures past and present view the universe itself as eternal without having been brought about by an outside force.

I agree with Grunbaum, and as for the notion that the Universe requires constant support of a supreme being in order to stay in existence, I am reminded of the Deist philosophy of the Enlightenment. The great thinkers of that era who were not out-and-out atheists or agnostics believed in the existence of God, but only as a "watchmaker" who created the universe and then left it to run on its own. Carrying this line of line of thought further this implies that even if God exists, he has "retired" and is irrelevant in the affairs of humankind.

One one hand, cosmologists no longer accepts the "steady state" theory that the universe has existed forever. Instead, there is good evidence that the Big Bang occurred about 14,000,000,000 years ago. There is no evidence that this was the act of a supreme being. Perhaps this beginning was the result of something that occurred in a larger metaverse. Or perhaps our universe is one of an infinite number of parallel universes, each in a different dimension. Or possibly every instant in time is a point of departure that itself creates an infinite number of alternate worlds.

On the other hand, in several billion years there may be a "Big Crunch" in which creation will stop its present course of expansion and collapse back in on itself, only to start the cycle of a Big Bang, expansion, and eventual collapse again. So maybe our current universe is one in an infinite number of cycles that have happened and will continue to do so forever. To that extent maybe it is these universes as successive events that are eternal after all.

But just because we don't know all the answers to these questions and perhaps never will is no reason to continue clutching to the belief of a "big daddy in the sky" no matter how emotionally comforting such a myth might be.

There's Something Happening Here

Some events that have unfolded recently have made it possible for even an old skeptical curmudgeon like me to feel some hope for our country's future and to consider the possibility that the grip on American culture by the rabid Republicans and their ilk may be weakening.

For example, according to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, slightly more than 50% of Americans do not want to mix religion and politics. What's significant is that the for the first time in 12 years those favoring this split were in the majority. Even more notable is that the biggest shift was among conservatives themselves. For more on this fascinating study, see "More Americans want church and politics separate: poll".

Another encouraging development is that American organized labor has put aside its differences and has joined together as a solid front to rally for the Democrats in the November election. (See "Organized Labor Reunites to Vote for Obama"). Apparently the previously antagonistic factions realized that the dire situation of the American worker called for burying the hatchet and for working together. This is not to say that the American labor is blameless for their erosion of power. Could the likes of Reagan and George Bush been elected without the vote of union members?

Then there is the speech delivered by Obama's wife Michelle at the opening of the Democratic National Convention. Her address was unmistakably populist in content—not a word in praise of Capitalism or the free economy. And there was the stirring address by Rep. Dennis Kunich which was strongly progressive. Finally, there was Hillary Clinton throwing her full support to Obama and Bill Clinton's speech likewise also endorsing him. It was gratifying to see the Clintons−as galling as it might have been for them− taking the high road for the sake of party unity.

But we are not yet out of the woods as long as President Bush is in office. He will likely continue such Rabid Republican policies to the bitter end of his term, such as making hash of the concept of Americas' privacy (See A New Rush to Spy. )

Further, there is a socially reactionary development in California. As reported in "Gay marriage foes mobilize for ban in California", religious religious fundies there are working to overturn the State Supreme Court Decision's legalizing gay marriage by placing a proposition on the November ballot, which would outlaw such unions in California by means of a constitutional amendment.

So the November election will be pivotal on many levels. I really believe that we are at a crossroads. If McCain wins, he will finish the job that Bush started, and with the rest of the rabid Republicans he will put America on the road to hell from which only the wealthy and the well connected will be protected. If Obama wins, he may not live up to all his promises, but I think that he will set America on a new direction of political and economic redemption that will give all Americans an opportunity for a decent future.

What's God Got To Do With It? Fallacies of Theistic Belief

Last night, I happened to watch an episode of "Crossing Jordan" in which Jordan encounters what appears to be the resurrection of a man who Jordan, as a medical examiner, knew for certain had died. As the plot unfolds, Jordan gives the impression that she is an atheist or at least a skeptic, believing instead in the power of science to explain the apparently inexplicable. Using her forensic skills she solves the mystery of the "revived" corpse --up to a point, and she agrees with a priest friend that the unanswered portion of the riddle is indeed a miracle. It turns out that Jordan is not really an atheist after all. She's just angry at God for taking her mother from her when Jordan was just a child. With counseling from the priest, Jordan forgives God, accepts his will, and returns to the fold.

This theme is similar to a TV-movie that I saw a few nights before called "The Christmas Visitor". The story is about a family who loses interest in attending church, at least on Christmas after the son, a soldier, is killed in battle around the time of that holiday. Their acceptance of God's will is restored one December when a young hitch hiker who enters their life has uncanny knowledge about their son and may in fact be their son's spirit who has come back to help them get past their grief and regain their faith.

The common thread of these two shows that drives me ape-shit is not so much the "miracle" that revives the characters' religious sentiments (after all, this is American commercial television fare, folks). Rather it's how the characters, just like people in real life, have no problem believing in a supreme being, usually a benevolent one, until something tragic happens to them or a loved one. This line of "thinking"(?) conscious or otherwise can best be summarized: "As long as a disaster, no matter how horrible, happens to Joe Shmoe down the block or to his family and not to me or my people, God exists and is good." Is this failure to question God's grace or existence when misfortune strikes outside a believer's immediate circle (the "other") a form of narcissism or just the built-in weakness of theism itself?

The flip side of this typical outlook of most God-believers who survive a calamity (e.g. a natural disaster or a plane crash) in which many other people died is "God saved me but not the others. Therefore, I must be special in His eyes". Instead, why do they not think "I'm alive but my neighbors (or fellow passengers) didn't make it. Why? Didn't they have just as much right to live as I do?" Or if they do ask that question, they likely do so in the form of "survivor's guilt" rather than as a tribute to the humanity that they shared with the deceased.

By removing the notion of a supreme being from the equation, bad events become understandable (although this is usually little comfort to the bereaved). These natural phenomena and their resulting casualties can be rationally explained as the result of physical laws and randomness (being in the wrong place at the wrong time.) For example a killer earthquake such as the one in China a few months ago is not an act of God, but simply the result of natural forces involving stressed tectonic plates many miles below the earth's surface, the shock waves from which radiated out and upwards and struck what happened to be a densely populated area of the planet. Similarly, illness is not a sign of a God's displeasure but simply the result of pathogens or a genetic flaw.

Then there are disasters that involve both nature and human responsibility, such as the shipwreck in the Philippines last month that took over 700 lives. Aside from the typhoon itself that overturned the vessel, there were man made errors as well, such as engine failure at the height of the storm, likely the result of poor mechanical maintenance. Added to this was the decision by the captain, along with possible malfeasance and incompetence by the company that owned the Ferry and by government authorities who allowed the ship to sail under such severe weather conditions in the first place (See "Philippines Ferry Sinking: Recurring Disaster").

And let us not forget those who carry "lucky charms" (not the cereal, but talismans which are just about as useless and without the flavor of the former) such as rosaries, believing that doing so will protect them from harm. A fat lot of good those amulets did for the shipwreck fatalities who were holding them and praying to God for deliverance as the ship sank (no doubt there were many, as approximately 85% of Philippines population are Roman Catholics, most of them hopelessly so.)

The category of tragedy that is probably the most difficult of all for someone to come to terms with is the loss of a loved one as the result of deliberate violence by others. To give an extreme example, I can't imagine a greater sorrow or horror than for parents to lose a child as the result of a willful act by another, such as a sexual predator. How much more is their grief compounded if they believe in a God who they question for "allowing this to happen", pray for an answer, and are met with stony silence. But A different perspective on this terrible occurance is that there was a chain of events that led up to the death of of their child, all of which were natural and / or man made, beginning perhaps with the molestation of the killer him/herself when (s)he was a child. None of these links are traceable to a supernatural being.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, if we there is no supreme authority to appeal to or blame when things go wrong, then wouldn't it stand to reason that there is no such entity to praise or thank when things go right? Take for example the good fortune of winning a lottery. There is no more evidence of a God who favored or intervened for them any than of one who "cursed" or "turned his back" on their luckless counterparts in the aforementioned ferry disaster. In the case of a lottery winner it's simply the random luck of the draw. Assuming the contest wasn't rigged, some participant simply wound up with the ticket that had the right combination of numbers, no matter how many lottery players prayed to God to make him/her that individual.

As for those who experience good fortune as the result of their own merit and receive recognition awards for their achievements, these people earned it. There is no need for them to thank a God (think Oscar awards) when it was their own efforts that got them where they are. The same goes for success in a any venture in which a person put forth his or her best effort.

There is a popular clichè "let go, let God". But in his books Man for Himself and Psychoanalysis and Religion, the late Erich Fromm, a renown humanistic psychoanalyst discussed the powerlessness and helplessness that people undergo when they surrender their personal sovereignty to a "higher power". I wholeheartedly agree. Like the vast majority of Americans I also believed in the existence of a supreme being for most of my life, and during that time I found personal difficulties harder to bear than after I gave up that credence. In turn I discovered that it's easier to tolerate life's hardships when there's no supernatural entity to blame for them or fruitlessly pray to in order to make problems go away. I must deal with them realistically and solve them by myself or with the help of other people, here and now. And by the way, my skepticism about God's existence was not due to a sudden loss of faith over any particular incident. Rather it was a gradual awareness (thanks in part to Fromm's influence) that grew over a period of years.

Throughout the world, there are many societies comprised of millions of people who are not dependent on a belief in the God that our society envisions, and they get along just fine. In fact, they are just as civilized if not more so than theistic cultures. America and the Philippines are supposedly God-centered societies (notwithstanding their respective Constitutional separations of church and state). Yet both countries have an extremely high rate of violence. Further, the former has the world's highest rate of incarceration, and the latter is fraught with endemic and systematic corruption. On the other hand, Japan and Scandinavia are very peaceful regions, have a low crime rates, and are not chained to religious dogma. In fact, Danes who also have a very low rate of church attendance are very peaceful and according to a survey, extremely content with their lives (see "Denmark "world's happiest nation"). China, Taiwan, and South Korea are other examples of countries that are not god-dependent and have orderly and developed societies. Contrast these societies with devout Muslim countries which are very backward and from which so much terrorism has sprung. Central to the terrorists disregard for human life is their belief that God is on their side and they will be rewarded in heaven for furthering the cause of Allah against the "infidels". Yet, this is no more absurd than the notion of eternal rewards and damnation which prevails in many so-called "Judeo-Christian" countries.

There is no more proof of an afterlife than there is of a supreme being. Personally, the greatest reward when I die is to leave a good name, i.e. to be remembered as someone who made a positive contribution to the world or at least did what he could to try to make it a better place. I consider that as the true meaning of immortality. On the other hand, the greatest "eternal punishment" is to be forgotten as though I had never existed or to be remembered unfavorably. One doesn't have to believe in a supreme being to understand and follow the adage: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. " Virtue is truly its own reward. Perhaps in time, humans will evolve to a higher level of reasoning. At that stage, we will not be dependent on any power higher than our own minds and hearts, a power that will enable us to achieve universal justice and peace for no other reason than for the sake of advancing world civilization, its simply the right thing to do.