Miscellanea Agnostica

In a development that will — inevitably — infuriate the anti-intellectual religionists who clamor for control over the US, and further convince them that science is sinister and diabolical and hateful to God, the famous British scientist Stephen Hawking recently declared what many have suspected or known for a while: That God is not necessary in order to explain the origin of the universe. The (UK) Guardian reports on his most recent public remarks, which came in the form of a book (WebCite cached article):

God did not create the universe, the man who is arguably Britain’s most famous living scientist says in a forthcoming book.

In the new work, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity.

In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is “not necessary”.

According to Hawking, the force known as gravity is the reason there is a universe:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” he writes. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: “M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find,” he theorises.

A very common religionist-apologetic complaint about the Big Bang theory is expressed in their frequent aphorism, “You can’t have something come from nothing.” Hawking is saying this intuition is, essentially, bullshit. The truth is that this is not really news; for decades now, quantum mechanics has known that — in fact — “something” is always coming from “nothing,” all the time, all through the universe! This happens, for example, in the phenomenon known as “virtual particles,” which exist not only in theory, but have manifested in measurable ways, e.g the Casimir effect.

Besides, the idea that God solves the problem of “something coming from nothing” fails logically, since if one posits that everything must “come from” something before it, one must then explain exactly where God came from, and who or what created him. Good luck getting any religionist to concede that (even if it’s an insurmountable logical point).

I have no doubt that the forces of hyperreligiosity will respond to this by condemning Hawking — and science generally — for somehow trying to “destroy” God. They will scream and caterwaul about how terrible and presumptive Hawking’s statement is, without even once conceding he has any rational basis for having said it. They will ignore demonstrable facts, in favor of their own subjective beliefs; they will, furthermore, dare to order others also to ignore them, and dare also to condemn those who — like Hawking — refuse to do so.

Hat tip: Peter / AntiBible Project Forum at Delphi Forums

Photo credit: nasa hq photo.

Once upon a time, ghost hunting was a rare vocation. The only “ghost hunters” I ever heard of — when I was a kid — were Ed & Lorraine Warren, who happened to live in my home state of Connecticut. Back then, if you mentioned “the ghost hunters,” you were assumed to be referring just to those two people, in particular, and to no one else. Now, with many media outlets hosting ghost-hunting television shows, everyone and his brother and sister and first and second cousins seems to be a ghost hunter.

Until now, I suppose it was harmless … aside from the time, energy, and money wasted on a futile enterprise … but it has finally claimed a life. WBTV-3 reports on a guy who died trying to see a “ghost train” in North Carolina (WebCite cached article):

A man who was with about a dozen people who were looking for a legendary “ghost train” in Iredell County was hit by a locomotive and killed early Friday morning. …

“It’s extremely steep, rugged terrain,” said Captain Darren Campbell of the Iredell County Sheriff’s Office. “The train impacted with one of them before he was able to get off the tracks.”

The train was rounding a curve on Bostian’s Bridge over Third Creek which is located two miles west of Statesville.

Christopher Kaiser, 29, died at the scene and two more people were injured, according to Iredell County Sheriff Phillip Redmond. Kaiser’s body was found below the trestle down a steep incline, Redmond said. …

“During the investigation, witnesses told deputies they were at the site in hopes of seeing a ‘ghost train’,” the Iredell County sheriff’s office said in a press release.

As I read this, this question leaped to mind: Why would someone stay on the tracks when they heard a train coming, long enough that they could not get out of its way? Trains are not known to be silent or sneaky as they approach; quite the opposite, they tend to be thunderous and loud. So I couldn’t figure why these people wouldn’t avoid it. But then, almost as if in answer to this question, I read:

The group of people did not immediately run from the real train because they believed the train was — in fact — the ‘ghost train’ and posed no real threat, sheriff’s officials said.

Yep. It’s true. They stayed on the tracks, even after hearing the train coming, because they thought it was a harmless “ghost train.”

In case you’re interested, here’s WBTV’s news report on this debacle:

Maybe it’s time people used their heads as something other than a hat-rack?

Photo credit: marcoPapale.

P.S. I wonder if the late Mr Kaiser will be given a Darwin Award?

The news out of Iowa these days isn’t good. There’s the salmonella-tainted eggs, which have hit a second producer in that state (WebCite cached article), of course. That’s been news for the last few days. The other Iowa news you likely have not heard about, is the religiofascist bellyaching that’s been going on there, over gays. This story is taking on a life of its own … sad to say.

It all started with a Republican legislative candidate’s idiotic rant about AIDS being God’s retribution against gays, as reported by the Iowa Independent (cached):

When the Bible says homosexuals should be “put to death; their blood shall be upon them,” the blood is really AIDS. Or so says Jeremy Walters, Republican legislative hopeful, in a series of posts on his Facebook. …

Walters uses the old Leviticus 20:13 to support his claim. Evangelicals love to trot out this and other verses as “proof” that God has condemned gays. What they forget is that other Leviticus passages also forbid a great many other things, including the eating of pork (Lev 11:7-8) and shellfish (Lev 11:10-12). Yes folks, that means no shrimp scampi or baby-back ribs for good, dutiful Christians!

As adamant as Walters is about this matter, it hasn’t previously been a cornerstone of his campaign:

On his campaign website, Walters makes no mention of same-sex marriage or gay rights at all, focusing instead on economic issues like property taxes, the estate tax and the state budget, as well as gun rights and education.

To its credit, the Iowa Republican Party has disavowed Walters’s words, again as reported by the Iowa Independent (cached):

Statements by a Republican candidate for the Iowa House that AIDS is punishment for the sin of homosexuality have been officially denounced by Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn. …

“Mr. Walters’ comments are inappropriate and in no way represent the beliefs of the Republican Party of Iowa,” Strawn said in a statement to The Iowa Independent. “HIV/AIDS does not discriminate and our hearts and prayers go out to any Iowa family facing this disease.”

That, at least, is pretty clear and unequivocal. This same story, however, reveals that Walters plans not to back down on his claim:

Walters told The Des Moines Register that he has no plans to remove the posting from his Facebook page, saying it’s only offensive to gay rights advocates, “because they know it’s the truth. Truth does hurt.”

Nonetheless, Walters’s remarks on gays and AIDS have been removed.

Even with the state Republican party clearly weighing against Walters, however, the matter still will not die. A radio host has angrily called bullshit on Strawn’s claim that “AIDS does not discriminate” … again reported by the Iowa Independent (cached):

The gay rights movement has worked hard to convince society that AIDS does not discriminate, but that is a lie, conservative radio host Jan Mickelson said on his WHO-AM show Thursday. …

“For the chairman of the Republican Party to say, ‘AIDS doesn’t discriminate,’ well of course it does,” Mickelson said. “It discriminates against people who engage in stupid behavior.”

“Lung disease doesn’t discriminate, but it’s probably a good idea to stop smoking,” he said. …

Mickelson said it all comes down to God’s law, or natural law, which “also applies to sexual disorders.”

Mickelson’s lung-disease scenario doesn’t quite work as well as he probably thinks it does; there are people who’ve been afflicted by lung disease, caused by environmental factors outside their control. Musician Warren Zevon, for example, died of a form of lung cancer which is triggered by asbestos; as near as anyone can figure, his exposure came during childhood, from his family’s carpet business (asbestos was a component of some carpet fibers until just a few decades ago). He didn’t ask to get lung cancer, and my guess is that no one knew his exposure to carpet fibers would cause it. So Zevon’s cancer cannot be called any kind of natural consequence of willful, “stupid behavior.”

At any rate, Mickelson may have realized he was stepping into a steaming load of manure of his own making, because his remarks after that point are almost incomprehensible:

So, does God punish homosexuality? Does he punish sodomy? Well, no, he doesn’t get off his throne and say, ‘Hey, I’m gonna get that guy.’ Well not directly,” he said. “Most of God’s laws, which another way of saying God’s law would be natural law, that is, law that is consistent with the nature of the universe because it was built in such a way, most of God’s laws are self enforcing. God doesn’t have to do anything. So if you skydive without a parachute, does God punish people who do that? No, but one of his inventions does. Gravity. If you skydive without a parachute, you’re going to die. Should you blame God for that?”

Mickelson kept spewing gibberish, even after callers challenged him on various points around this topic; read the article if you wish to see the depths of stupidity and inanity he stooped to in order to hold onto his religiously-motivated bigotry.

Folks, this is just another sterling example of “the Religion of Love” in action.

Hat tip: Unreasonable Faith.

Photo credit: Marshall Astor.

I’ve had a couple of correspondents ask me what I mean by the phrase “the Religion of Love.” I admit this reference might not be obvious, so allow me to explain. I use “the Religion of Love” as a facetious reference to Christianity, in much the same way that some critics of Islam (many of them Christians, please note!) use the phrase “the Religion of Peace” to refer to that religion.

The reason I do this is because Christians talk as though their religion is all about love … including quoting heavily from 1 Corinthians 13, as though that one chapter of one epistle from one apostle somehow encompasses the entire religion. But then, after propounding on how much they “love” everyone, they go off and do a lot of harsh, intolerant, violent, and insane things to others, in the name of the religion they claim is “Love.”

This is, of course, quite obviously inconsistent on their part, but for the most part, they don’t really care that it’s inconsistent. Some of them are even able to rationalize away the stark failure of “the Religion of Love” to implant “love” into its believers, such as this (WebCite cached article):

How can Christianity be a religion of love when “Christians” so often condemn those whose lifestyle and views differ from their own?

Christianity is a religion of love because Jesus reveals God to be Ultimate Love. The spiritual journey is one of our learning to “bear the beams of love.” That process of transformation is what we traditionally call sanctification, or growing in holiness.

It’s OK — you see — that followers of “the Religion of Love” so often fail actually to be “loving,” because — you see — they’re really trying hard at being “loving” and — you see — you can’t just expect them to be truly “loving,” quite yet; that — you see — would be asking far too much of them. (The poor things!)

That one trite and insipid example is more than I can take, all by itself. Spare me the twisted rationales and the moronic excuse-making. Let’s face facts: Followers of “the Religion of Love” are, all too often, quite the opposite of “loving.” It’s best to admit that, stop excusing it, and start doing better. Until then, I will continue to use this phrase when speaking of Christianity. (Especially since there are so many Christians who, themselves, love to refer to Islam by the snarky phrase “the Religion of Peace.”)

Photo credit: iseethelight.

I suppose that psychics missing their targets is not really news. It happens all the time; I’ve blogged on various such things before, including one example of this phenomenon which disrupted people’s lives. The problem is that “miss” stories are not really newsworthy enough to get any attention. The latest one I’ve come across is this story from Australia, reported by the (UK) Sun (WebCite cached article):

A “psychic” hunting the body of a missing child found the headless torso of an adult woman instead. …

Aboriginal elder Cheryl said: “I had a dream about a little girl being murdered and that her body was about here.”

So the psychic was wrong. Nevertheless, authorities couldn’t seem to just come right out and admit it; instead we have some equivocating:

Det Chief Insp Pamela Young said: “It’s interesting that a woman had a feeling it was worth coming to this particular part of the park.”

You may find it “interesting,” Detective, if perhaps you’re wondering whether the “psychic’s” information hadn’t come from a more mundane source, such as genuine knowledge about the crime (such as having directly seen the dumping of the body, or having been told about it from a witness). I have to wonder, however, if maybe you’re trying to justify having examined the area on the say-so of a “psychic,” only to find something other than what was reported to you.

Authorities have no business taking “psychics’” tips seriously, as happened once — unfortunately — in Barrie, Ontario. (On that occasion, too, authorities attempted to rationalize leaping to action and targeting a family, merely on the word of a “psychic.”)

Beyond that, however, other folks appear also to have no problem whatsoever shoehorning this “psychic’s” tip into the actual discovery; take for example this comment on the Sun article (scroll down the page a bit):

Wether you believe in here soothsayer skills or not, she pointed them to where a body was. Still pretty impressive. Unless of course there are bodies strewn in ponds and lakes all over the country and the chances of finding one is nearly 100%.

Let’s be perfectly clear on this: The “psychic” said she had dreamed about “a little girl being murdered”; this dream also revealed that this particular girl’s body would be found at the spot in question. The “psychic” did not have some amorphous dream about some sort of female person being murdered and dumped there … her dream was, specifically, about “a little girl.” Not about “a woman.”

The psychic was wrong. Period. End of discussion. No amount of rationalizing or shoehorning can change that.

Photo credit: Felix.

In my experience, one of the most common fallacies that people fall into, themselves, or hear and accept from others without noticing it, is two wrongs make a right. This is in spite of the fact that most of us were taught by our mothers that two wrongs do not, in fact, make a right; however, this simple teaching that most or all of us received in childhood, can’t seem to contravene the overpowering emotional effect of seeing someone else do something wrong, thus triggering a sense of an entitlement for oneself to do the same. The frequency with which grown adults — who by definition should all know better — plumb the depths of this fallacy hit home over just the past couple of days, in two ways.

First, CBS News reports on how extreme Religious Rightist and radio host “Dr Laura” Schlessinger used the “N word” on the air, in a barrage aimed at an African-American caller (WebCite cached article):

Talk radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger has issued an apology for saying the N-word several times in an on-air conversation with a caller that she said was “hypersensitive” to racism. …

During the exchange on Tuesday’s show, Schlessinger said the woman who called herself Jade was too sensitive for complaining that her husband’s friends made racist comments about her in their home.

Dr Laura’s reasoning for why this woman was being “too sensitive”? It was the old “two wrongs make a right”:

When the woman asked if the N-word was offensive, Dr. Laura said “black guys say it all the time,” then went on to repeat it several times.

Schlessinger did not direct the epithet at the woman, but said she used it to suggest how often she hears it, and that it should not automatically be cause for offense.

When the caller objected, Schlessinger replied: “Oh, then I guess you don’t watch HBO or listen to any black comedians.”

For Dr Laura, then, the “N word” becomes acceptable to use, because some African-American comedians use it, and because it can be heard on HBO … therefore there’s nothing wrong with the word, and her caller should not be insulted by it.

A second use of this fallacy was one I encountered while reading about the childish Religious Right caterwauling about the Cordoba Center proposal in lower Manhattan (about which I’ve blogged already). Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — who apparently is trying to reintegrate himself into Rightist politics after having shamed himself out of office years ago — has come up with this rationale for opposing it, which you can see him spew in this Youtube video:

Here’s a transcription of his key remarks, courtesy of Reason.Com:

I find it very offensive to get lectured about religious liberty at a time when there are no churches and no synagogues in Saudi Arabia and when no Christian and no Jew can walk into Mecca…. I’d love to have these folks say, “Let’s build a church and a synagogue in Mecca, or rather Saudi Arabia, and that would balance off our having an interfaith mosque [in lower Manhattan].” They’re not saying that. It is entirely one-sided. It is entirely, I think, a kind of triumphalism that we should not tolerate.

For Newt, Saudi Arabia’s religious intolerance means it’s OK for us to prevent American Muslims from building cultural centers where they want. In other words, he thinks it’s a good idea to get into a pissing contest with Saudi Arabia to find out which country can be more religiously intolerant. What he fails to understand is that Americans should do what Americans should do, and not emulate others, just because they feel entitled to do so.

These are but two examples of how “two wrongs make a right” thinking sneaks into common rhetoric. It happens much more often than this. Be on guard against it, and don’t be swindled into thinking or doing the wrong thing just because someone can point to someone else who thinks or does it.

Late last week, a cache of documents released from UK archives revealed that then-Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered a cover-up of the arrival of extraterrestrials, because it would incite a panic in the population.

Or did he?

Certainly that’s what the Ufologists have decided; they’ve blasted the news of this shocking revelation to the Internet (such as this from the International UFO Congress, with a WebCite cached version). Unfortunately, the real story here is far less certain and less shocking than these folks would have you believe, as has been reported in the (UK) Telegraph, for example (cached version):

The former Prime Minister allegedly banned reporting of the “bizarre” incident, off the east coast of England, for half a century amid fears disclosures about unidentified flying objects would create public hysteria.

He is said to have made the orders during a secret war meeting with US General Dwight Eisenhower, the then commander of the Allied Forces, at an undisclosed location in America during the latter part of the conflict.

Even then-General and later President Eisenhower was in on it! Wow! This is incredible! Proof positive of a multinational conspiracy to prevent the people from knowing about extraterrestrial visitors!

But as they say so often in infomercials … “But wait, there’s more!”:

The allegations involving Churchill were made by the grandson of one his personal bodyguards, an RAF officer who overheard the discussion, who wrote to the Ministry of Defence in 1999 inquiring about the incident after his grandfather disclosed details to his family.

According to the series of letters, written by the guard’s grandson who is now a physicist from Leicester, a reconnaissance plane and its crew were returning from a mission over occupied Europe when they were involved in the war incident. …

Apart from telling his daughter — the scientist’s mother — about the incident when she was nine, the bodyguard, who was “greatly affected by his experience”, only disclosed the details to his wife on his deathbed in 1973.

The scientist, also an expert in astronomy who said he developed software for use in “spacecraft thermal engineering”, was told years later by his mother.

So, let’s see if we can follow this. The documents in question were not written by Churchill or Eisenhower. They were not even written contemporaneously. Instead, this allegation took a circuitous path over the course of several decades. The bodyguard overheard the remarks, but did not take part in the conversation in question; he told his daughter about it, an unknown number of years later; she told her scientist child an untold number of years after that; the scientist then inquired with the government about the supposed incident.

Somewhere in all of this, the reliability of this story appears to have gone off the tracks somewhere. That’s not to say that everyone in this “train of recall” is lying about it, nor even that any single person in this chain lied. At any step along the line, the story — which was apparently discussed only in hushed tones — might have been misheard or misunderstood. The “telephone game” provides an example of how honest people hearing a story, then relaying it, can produce an altered account after even just a few “hops” — and without any intention to deceive, at any point. This story, then, is not really “evidence” of much of anything (except maybe that Ufologists are easily excited about stuff that doesn’t really help them.)

That said, even if Churchill had — as the tale implies — ordered a “cover-up,” this hardly constitutes proof the Earth had been visited by extraterrestrials, or that Churchill or Eisenhower were aware that it had happened. They might well have been “in the dark” about the affair, and only ordered the cover-up, if they did, out of uncertainty and caution, rather than out of certain knowledge and malicious intent.

This wouldn’t be the first time the UFO community has made way too much of supposed “government cover-ups,” and I’m sure it won’t be the last.

Photo credit: otisarchives1.

Harold Camping’s organization is actively responding to the Internet buzz over his prediction of the Second Coming happening on May 21, 2011 and their recent nationwide advertising blitz to announce it to those of us who’d been blissfully unaware of it. For example, the Religion Dispatches post that was my own first notice about it, has a number of comments generated by his followers (scroll down the page to see them). And my own humble blog posting on the matter even got some attention from them. I noticed the following on Twitter:

The “j.mp” links are to a supposed news article about the “home church” movement in evangelical Christianity, and to Camping’s organization’s literature Web site. The other links are more obviously to Camping’s ministry online. Apparently my blog posting … and my twitter-blip announcing it … got their attention. Unfortunately they didn’t actually bother to read what I said. They just pinged back with their usual apologetic/proselytizing/repent-for-the-end-is-near bullshit, as though any of it has meaning to me. They took the time to see my blog entry — and took the time to reply, stating so — but did not actually digest anything I said.

Moreover, they sent each tweet 3 times, for a total of 6 responses. As if multiple tweets are more likely to be noticed.

In response I’d like to say to these folks: Stop wasting your time spewing your inane drivel back at me. I’m not stupid, and I’m not even new to this evangelical “end-times” Bible-prophecy bilge. I was once a fundie, and — significantly — I know what your game is. I appreciate that you took the time to respond to me on Twitter, but if you don’t respect what I said enough to respond to it intelligently and respond to its content, then you can’t very well expect me to respect any of your “end-times” garbage, now, can you?

Photo credit: drinksmachine.

Harold Camping, a presumed Bible scholar who runs a network of Christian radio stations, claims he knows when the Second Coming of Christ will take place: May 21, 2011. He and his ministry are so confident in that prediction that they’ve taken out bench advertisements around the country to warn people of it. Lauri Lebo at Religion Dispatches has the story (WebCite cached article):

A friend snapped this photo on the way to work in Colorado Springs:

Apparently, these pictures have been popping up around the country, with sightings from Erie to Waco to the Bay Area.

Lebo points out that Camping’s past predictions have not panned out too well:

This is not the first time Camping has predicted Judgment Day:

On Sept. 6, 1994, dozens of Camping’s believers gathered inside Alameda’s Veterans Memorial Building to await the return of Christ, an event Camping had promised for two years. Followers dressed children in their Sunday best and held Bibles open-faced toward heaven.

But the world did not end. Camping allowed that he may have made a mathematical error.

Camping’s ministry’s Web site also proudly announces the May 2011 date (cached), and he appears to want to beat the New Agers and their “Mayan prophecy 2012 doomsday” at their own game:

We are living at a time when mankind seems to sense that the end of all things is very near. Just about everyone has a theory as to how the world is threatened and when that end might come. The media and the Internet are full of doomsday speculations concerning the New Age “Mayan Calendar” and the year 2012.

The crap about the Mayans predicting the end of the universe in December of 2012 is complete bullshit, as I’ve already blogged. The Mayans themselves couldn’t even predict the coming collapse of their own civilization, which happened around 900 CE, so one can hardly expect them to have been any more accurate about the end of the universe.

Camping and his followers claim he’s some sort of Biblical scholar, however, he — and they — appear not to have read this important verse, concerning the coming of the Son of Man:

But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. (Matthew 24:36)

Thus, the Second Coming cannot be predicted. Anyone who says s/he knows “the day” or “the hour” it will happen, can only be lying, because only “the Father” knows when it is. Jesus admits even he does not know when it will be! It also means the name of Camping’s Web site — “We Can Know” — runs contrary to scripture.

Not only is this not the first failed prediction Camping has made, the history of Christianity is littered with past failed predictions of when “the End” was supposed to have come — but didn’t. James “the Amazing” Randi compiled a list of some of these, and they comprise Appendix 3 (cached) of his Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural (which is available online for free). “End of the world” predictions are common and apparently easy to rationalize away when they fail. My guess is that, on May 22, 2011, Harold Camping will be rationalizing away the failure of his Jesus to show up and vacuum the Christians off the surface of the planet.

Top photo credit: Sister72. Middle photo credit: Religion Dispatches.

At one time I had thought that education — especially pointing out erroneous and fallacious thinking — would help people understand the world better and dispense with ignorance. Over time, though, I haven’t seen that things have improved much. Most people are still as mired in irrationality and fallacy as they ever were, and no amount of fact-teaching seems to make any difference. For instance, the Birther delusion lives on, in spite of it being based on lies and mistaken suppositions. Barack Obama was born in Hawai’i to an American mother, but the Birthers refuse to accept that, even though it’s been factually demonstrated many times over; see this (cached) and this (cached), just for starters. I’d wondered if, perhaps, there are just a lot of mentally-ill people out there, all experiencing the same delusion. But depressingly, the truth about human beings is much worse even than that; it turns out we are hard-wired to reject even irrefutable, demonstrable facts that we find emotionally unsatisfying. The New York Times Idea of the Day blog reports on this sobering revelation (WebCite cached article):

“Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789. But you might want to rethink that axiom, recent University of Michigan research suggests. It “found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds,” writes Joe Keohane in The Boston Globe [cached].

He explains the cognitive studies reviving longstanding concerns about voter ignorance:

In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we choose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information. And then we vote.

Humanity, I fear, is lost. Those of us willing to think critically — and to try to encourage others to think critically — are apparently fighting a rearguard action against an enemy (i.e. emotional thinking) which neuroscience suggests we cannot defeat.

No wonder hyperreligiosity rages on, even in this era of science and technology. No wonder people are embracing New Age gibberish and nonsense like never before. No wonder political partisans steadfastly refuse to acknowledge even the slightest flaw in their own ideology or the slightest virtue in their foes’. No wonder critical thinkers are hated, vilified, and viewed as a threat by many folks.

The classroom of humanity is empty, and it will never be filled. No one cares about “truth” or “veracity” any more; they only care about how they “feel.” And that’s just the way they are.

Missouri Congressional candidate Ed Martin has declared that President Obama and other Democrats are preventing people from acquiring their salvation from Jesus Christ. Yes, folks, he really said it. Fired Up Missouri has the story, as well as the audio (WebCite cached article):

Speaking on the Gina Loudon radio program this afternoon, Congressional candidate Ed Martin told listeners that “we have to be very, very aware” of policies pursued by Barack Obama and Russ Carnahan that will “take away” the freedom to be a Christian. …

MARTIN: … And part of that freedom — when you take a government and you impose, and take away all your choices. One of the choices you take away is to find the Lord. And find your savior.

And that’s one of the things that’s most destructive about the growth of government. It’s this taking away that freedom. The freedom — the ultimate freedom, to find your salvation, to get your salvation. And to find Christ, for me and you.

If you wish, you can listen to the recording, directly from YouTube:

Now, I’m not sure how this works, exactly. If salvation comes from God through Jesus Christ, I don’t quite understand how any human being — not even a president of the United States — could possibly get in the way of it. I know I’m just a cynical godless agnostic heathen, but I just don’t see how anything in the universe can thwart the will of a truly omnipotent being.

Do you?

… Didn’t think so.

Hat tip: Pulling to the Left.

Photo credit: Ed Martin campaign Web site.

As I’ve mentioned before, it appears Oklahoma has become the new Kansas. Writer Thomas Frank famously posited in 2004 — in his What’s the Matter with Kansas? — that the Religious Right had used his home state as a kind of crucible in which to construct a suitable following for its religiofascist agenda. It certainly appears, over the last couple years (as I’ve touched on a time or two here on this blog), that they’ve drifted one state to the south and are now trying to make Oklahoma into a second crucible. The latest example of this militant religiofascism is something known as the Save Our State amendment. Its goal is to prevent Islamic shari’a law from being followed by Oklahoma courts. ABC News reported on this insanely misguided effort (WebCite cached article):

Oklahoma is poised to become the first state in the nation to ban state judges from relying on Islamic law known as Sharia when deciding cases.

The ban is a cornerstone of a “Save our State” amendment to the Oklahoma constitution that was recently approved by the Legislature.

The amendment — which also would forbid judges from using international laws as a basis for decisions — will now be put before Oklahoma’s voters in November. Approval is expected.

There are two problems with this amendment. The most important is that it’s based on the paranoid delusion that Oklahoma courts may soon follow shari’a law. There is absolutely no evidence that this has yet happened, however, nor is there any evidence it’s on the horizon. The Religious Right is going to war over a mirage.

The second problem is that — where American courts following international-law precedent is concerned — that ship has already sailed. It has been done, and it might be done again; and because the US Supreme Court has done it, that means a state constitutional amendment cannot prevent it.

T. Scott Brown, Atheist Examiner for Oklahoma City, goes over this in more detail (including providing a list of relevant court cases).

I’d like to be clear on the fact that I am opposed to shari’a law being imposed on anyone, Muslims included. It’s a metaphysically-based legal system closely tied to Islamic religious doctrines and practices. As a form of justice, it leaves much to be desired. Metaphysically-based legal codes are nearly as detrimental to humanity as metaphysically-based medicine is. I’ve also blogged on the evils — and the follies — of shari’a law. I’ve also pointed out the foolishness of allowing shari’a law in UK courts. So by pointing out that Oklahoma’s “Save our State amendment” is insane, I am not “defending” shari’a law. What I am saying is that passing a state-constitutional amendment preventing something from happening, which is not currently happening and will never happen, is paranoid-delusional thinking, and that sane, mature adults do not engage in this kind of thing.

The hosts of Religiofascism are on the march, folks! They not only have taken over Kansas, they’ve pretty much got Oklahoma in their corner too.

Hat tip: OKC Atheist Examiner.

Photo credit: dustout.