Is Atheism a Religion?

Caught this from The Immoral Minority. "My new mantra."  For a change I read all the comments, some of them are hilarious!  The post introduced this:

"Atheism is not a religion, it's a personal relationship with reality." (source)

Even before going to the source I saw this as humorous, as in how many people like to try and define their religion as a 'personal relationship with  . . . pick a deity of your choice.  In the comments a couple of other analogies were mentioned that I might be using in the future:

"Atheism is a religion like "bald" is a hair color.
Atheism is being religious just like NOT playing guitar makes one a musician.

Caught a few more from the source:

Atheism is a religion, like off is a T.V. channel.
Like good health is a disease
Like abstinence is a sexual position -Bill Maher
Atheism is a religion as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby- Penn Jilette
[Like] Mute is a musical genre

Many of the comments devolved into a common argument that Atheism is some sort of religion.  All you have to do is look up the definitions of both Religion and Atheism and you can see the differences.

Religion (Merriam-Webster):
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group 

Atheism (Merriam-Webster):
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

I am sure one of the anti-atheists will point to the third definition of religion and say something like "See, I told you Atheism is a religion", but I say not so fast!

When you are having a discussion, context is probably more important than any specific definitions that might exist.  I mean look at the definition of the word 'base'.  There are 9 different categories of 'base', everything from the 'opposite of an acid', a Air Force location, to the 'four corners of a baseball diamond'.  Context is what determines what definition applies to a given conversation.  More importantly, the context should remain consistent in a conversation in order for actual communication to occur.  

I mean can you imagine a baseball announcer saying "Jones just slid into third base, and while he was safe, the pH level of the base burned his exposed skin badly!" Huh?  Changing from one definition to another in mid-stream is a tactic . . . usually of the gutter variety . . . in order to try trip people up.

Let's look at the first definition of Religion:

"the belief in a god or in a group of gods"

When you are talking Christianity, Hindi, Muslim . . . or any of the thousands of Religions that exist, or have existed, this definition certainly applies.  Does this definition apply to Atheism?  Don't change any of the words . . . look at the definition!  No it cannot!  So when discussing the two, if you are keeping the context coherent, Atheism is not a religion, according to this definition.

Now for number two:

"an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods"

While I would say this is more for 'Organized Religion' than just 'religion', let's ask the same question, does this apply to Atheism?  No, it does not.  As soon as you mention worshiping a god or gods, you cannot apply this definition to Atheism.  Atheism is not a religion, again according to this definition.

Now for number 3:

": an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group "

Yes, this definition can apply to Atheism . . . but look how vague and general it is.  This definition can apply to damn near anything!  According to this, Baseball is a religion . . .OK that might be a bad example because I know some folks who do think baseball is a religion!  But look again, the Girl Scouts are a religion, according to this definition.  Hell's Angels, a High School band, a game of Stoop-Ball (NYC reference) . . . the club some of my buddies and I formed when we were 8 years old qualifies as well, our doctrine was "No Girls Allowed!".  Got a weekly poker game?  You didn't realize that it could meet the definition of a religion as well.

You could say some of these things aren't 'very important', but that would be an opinion.  I follow the NY Mets . . . but I don't consider Baseball to be very important . . . others don't share my interest and still others place a much higher value on it.  My club when I was 8 was of critical importance at the time, after girls had cooties :-).  I know a couple of guys who take their weekly poker game incredibly seriously, to the point of threatening their marriages and jobs!  It's up to the individual as to what level of importance something is, not anyone on the outside.  That's why this definition is pretty useless.

Why useless?  Think about context -- and look at the third definition again.  How many theists would use that to define their religion?  Be honest!  Therefore you cannot use this definition to make an apples-to-apples comparison between Atheism and Religion because theist wouldn't use this definition to frame a conversation about their religion.  It's too general to be useful.  That and all the bennies they get in the way of taxes and other things might dry up if belief in a deity wasn't involved, right?  

But as you read the comments from Gryphen's post, you see this sort of bait-and-switch happening. Some of the Anonymous comments certainly show that when discussing their beliefs, they are using definition one or two . . but when trying to claim Atheism is a religion, the only definition they can use is the third . . . which does nothing for their case.  They simply change the context, whether deliberately or without realizing it.

So, in my opinion, Atheism is not a Religion in any sense of the word.  It espouses no belief, it is not organized, there are no Churches establish for the non-worship of a non-deity.  Yes, there are some groups of like-minded people who have banded together, but while you can define them as a social or cultural group, they are not a religion any more than the live audience of America's Got Talent is . . . by definition.

One thing I haven't addressed is why, in my opinion, do people try and equate the two.  That's pretty easy.  When you artificially equate two things, you can more easily argue against one or in support of the other.  It's the same tactic calling Evolution 'just a theory', changing the definition of a scientific theory to the definition of the colloquial use of the term 'theory' is an effort to degrade what a scientific theory really means.  Calling Atheism a religion is a similar tactic.  Claiming a non-belief is actually a belief artificially equates the two and makes it easier to argue.  What theists who make such argument fail to realize is how amusing it is to watching the pseudo-logic you use to justify your position.  Gotta love things like:

"I think religion can be simply defined as a "system of beliefs". Under that definition, atheism is a system of belief that consists of "I only believe what can be proven"."

Look how the theist had to come up with their own definitions in order to equate the two! How entertaining is that?  Their definition of religion is nearly as useless as the third one from above, and their definition of Atheism is nonsensical.  Seriously, if that were the definition of Atheism . . . and Atheism is the polar opposite of Religion . . . then the theist's belief in a religion would be "I only believe in what cannot be proven." and be even sillier than their professed beliefs.

For the record I do not categorize myself as a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic.  I am an Apathist.  In other words, I don't care about your religious or non-religious beliefs -- well not until you try and force them on me.  Funny, I think I discovered another difference between the Theist and the Atheist, guess which one keeps trying to force me to comply with their beliefs?  You get one guess and it's not the Atheist.

Yes, I am sure some Theist is going to claim that Atheist efforts to remove mention of a deity from government-sponsored events is forcing their Atheistic 'beliefs' on me . . . but remember, who pushing their religion into those events in the first place?  For example the American Pledge of Allegiance did not originally include the phrase 'Under God' until 1954!  How many times have theists been pushing to have their religion taught in Science class or even History class , , , yes History as in the foolish claim that The US was established as a Christian Nation . . . that History.

While I do think that some Atheists go a little overboard.  I mean Christmas is more of a secular holiday nowadays, so whining when someone says "Merry Christmas" is a bit ridiculous.  But for decades Theists have pretty well had a free hand to define so many things with regard to their religion and forced other people to comply . .  like blue laws . . . I am one that hopes common sense eventually wins out, but looking at the current crop of politicians, I doubt it.

But back to the main point.  Atheism is not a religion and anyone who makes such a claim is building a strawman in order to take pot-shots at it.  Which means, at least to me, you have no actual argument and certainly no real defense for your theist beliefs . .  so you have to create artificial arguments in order to justify your belief set.  Good luck with that.

Is the Universe an Awful Waste of Space?

You know the Discovery Institute can pretty much take anything and turn it into a binary set, either it supports Intelligent Design (ID) or it doesn't support ID.  Case in point this little missive from one of my favorite ID sources, little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer and the DI site: Evolution 'News' and Views (EnV) 'Objection to Intelligent Design -- Universe Is Too Big, with Too Much "Wasted Space"'.

The DI has taken an old comment of Carl Sagan's and tried to turn it into a strawman critique of ID and then they demolish the strawman and claim another victory for ID.  The original quote: 

"The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space." (Carl Sagan: Contact)

It was from Sagan's book 'Contact' and also used in the movie of the same name. It is an interesting thing to say and something that has provoked a lot of thought.  Now, did Sagan state it as an argument against God?  Not that I recall, but I might have to re-read Contact to make sure.  But in all honesty, whether you want to adhere to the Creationist explanations or the scientific explanations, if we are the only life in the universe, it is pretty wasteful, isn't it?

Of course, waste is an opinion, a point of view, right?  Think about an 8 oz glass with 4 oz of wine.  To some the glass is half-empty, to some others it's half-full.  To an engineer, it's too much glass and to a very good friend of mine, it's not nearly enough wine.  So whether or not you consider the entire Universe wasted space is pretty much an opinion, one that I happen to agree with, but it's still an opinion. 

But before going any deeper, I would like to point something else out, something the DI likes to pretend isn't important.  Yes, my single favorite topic when discussing the DI, their religion.  The original article klingy is referencing included this quote, one he didn't use for some reason:

"It’s a strange question, isn’t it? Chances are it’s never even occurred to you. But I like it anyway, not because it’s an especially profound thing to ask, but because it leads to some really encouraging thoughts about God’s greatness, His power, His glory — which He wants to share with us all, even though He doesn’t have to. God can afford that, too."

In fact, the article mentions God 15 times in a very short article.  The source is a website called 'The Stream', which, if you haven't guessed, is a faith-based news site.  Yes, if the DI, and their pet version of Creationism is not a religious proposition, why is klingy using an article that is very specific about its intent, and it's certainly not science.  So, as usual, klingy, and the DI, use religion and religious sources of information, but any religious connotation is supposed to be ignored?

OK, off my favorite soapbox for now.  You know me, I'll probably mention it again.  What I do find interesting is that klingy seems to go out of his way to avoid using the word 'God'.  Does he think he's fooling anyone?  Seriously?

OK, back to klingy's article, which is nothing new, like this:

"this argument points to the unique fitness of the universe and of our planet for upright bipeds like ourselves. The whole thing appears set up for us, and only for us."

Ah yes, the privileged planet argument, also frequently put forth by the . . . DI.  Yes, this is nothing more than a restatement of a premise they have yet to support with anything . . . anything at all.

What I don't get is how they don't realize how self-limiting this argument is, especially when you consider how little of the Universe we have explored yet.  The instance we do discovery any form of life, especially one very different to us, this whole argument is flushed.  In my opinion this argument is nothing but an expanded God-Of-The-Gaps argument.  Think about it.  What justification do they make with this argument?  That we have yet to discovery life anywhere else, in other words . . . a gap.  But like all gap arguments, as soon as we learn something new about the subject, it's done.  To an ancient Greek, Apollo might have been the answer, but it's done.  To close-minds like kennie ham, Creationism is responsible for everything . . . aside from a cultural/political argument, it's done!  That's what will happen to the whole privileged planet argument.

I'm sure Creationists will survive, they will simply evolve new arguments, after all, isn't Intelligent Design an evolution of the Creation Science argument?  Nothing new, just a change to try and make it sound less religious.  It hasn't worked well, but it is an evolution, much as they probably hate that being pointed out.

Then klingy does something pretty common for the DI and their mouthpieces.  He tries to claim any opposition is using tactics that, in reality, the DI is using.  Look at this:

"ID critics often end up playing the role of naïve theologian: What they "seem to want is a metric with The Human Body as God Would (or Should) Have Made It at one end of the measuring stick."

Yes, some ID critics have looked at the human body and determined that if the human body was designed by a deity, that deity is a lousy designer.  But who is really telling God what he/she did or did not do?

Isn't that what Creationists do every day?  Look at the DI, or any of the Creationists groups.  They repeatedly say "An Intelligent Designer/God Did This!" and offer no actual support, just the usual conjecture and wishful thinking.  At least when ID is criticized, the rationale for the criticism is offered so you can understand it. 

Even back to the original argument, is the Universe mostly wasted space?  I don't know . . . yet.  But one day we will know more and more.  It we are the only life that exists, or that ever or will ever exist, then I will consider it a huge waste of space, regardless of what religious rationalization the DI wants to spin on it.

This Certainly Would Explain a lot!

So shortly after posting the SMBC post (Why Teaching Biology may be Harder than it Needs to be!), I added it to my comics list and after dinner I open up my comics list and read this gem from Non-Sequitur:

What a day for comic strips!  I've posted from Non-Sequitur before.  They seem to drive right to the heart of an issue, as they certainly did here.  I do wonder if someone won't renounce their religious beliefs, would they be let in?  Imagine little kennie ham showing up and seeing that sign!  I would have to think he would go sulk somewhere and then try and start his own Heaven, one where he can exclude just about everyone else and declare himself as a deity.  After all, he's pretty much established his own religion there in Kentucky, hasn't he? 

It does remind me of an old joke.  "A man dies and goes to Heaven.  After gaining entrance he's being shown around and everywhere he sees Jews working with Muslims, Pentecostals playing with Lutherans, Buddhists, and Methodists.  He was amazed until he gets to one area where he find a tall brick wall.  He asks his guide, "What's with the wall?"  His guide says, "Shhhhh!  That's where the Evangelicals are, they like to think they are the only ones here."

Note to Non-Sequitur:  I did copy your comic image for inclusion here in case the image link doesn't work in the future.  I've had that problem on a couple of other sites.  If you object, please let me know and I will change it to a link.

Why Teaching Biology may be Harder than it Needs to be!

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is an online comic strip that I think I don't look at nearly often enough.  To the right is an old one that was recently passed to me.  It was too good not to pass on.  Have you run into someone so entrenched in their position, nothing in the way of logic or evidence can possibly dissuade them?  I know I have! It does illustrate that it can be hard to get some points across, particularly when the person you are talking with has been indoctrinated in their view that evidence gets summarily dismissed.  I do enjoy, as odd as it might sound, driving believers to the point where they have to invoke their deity to keep their belief set in play.  Check out panel 4: "Put here by Satan to fool non-believers". Funny, I have heard two versions of that.  On the one hand it was placed by Satan to fool folks, however more often I have heard the evidence was placed by God to test people's faith.  The end result is the same, the believer denies the evidence.  But sometimes I want to put two of them in the same room and let them duke it out to determine who 'planted' the evidence.  It always amazes me the lengths people will go to to maintain their delusions! It's not just theists, but people who believe in other supernatural foolishness, homeopathy, climate-change deniers, and -- of course -- the whole anti-vaccination movement.  Evidence is only meaningful if it can be twisted to support their entrenched position! Hopefully there isn't an actual 'Creation History Foundation', but you never know.  How often have we spoken about the Discovery Institute re-writing history? Think about how their pseudo-historian Michael Flannery, for example, has been telling us how Darwin is responsible for racism and Hitler -- regardless of the fact . . . and I do mean fact . . . because Hitler claimed to have been given a divine inspiration! While many Christians hear that and get upset, claiming that Hitler wasn’t a Christian that he just used the Bible as an excuse to justify and rationalize his actions. I agree! But then why does the DI insist that Darwin’s work caused the Nazi atrocities? Sounds a little self-serving and more than a little dishonest. Here is a something from Main Kampf just to prove my point: " . . . [Jews] very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God's image in His creation." (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt) History re-writes abound, things like the whole 'The US was established as a Christian Nation' to the DI re-baptizing people who are safely dead as 'Intelligent Design' supporters.  I commented on that a few years back in "Social Studies next on the firing line?" and Laurie Lebo had an article in 2011: "Fundamentalist-led Texas History Standards get 'D' from Conservative Think Tank."  There she reports that: "Texas’ new standards are evangelical-led revisionist history" So while there may not (yet) be a 'Creation History Foundation', one may come to pass.  I will be pretty confident that it will have as much to do with history as the DI has to do with science and it will probably be based in Texas . . . sorry Texas! I hope that you enjoy SMBC as much as I do, and as much as I plan to do on a more regular basis.  I do have a link to a short list of comics I do read daily.  That list includes XKCD, Dilbert, and Jesus and Mo.  I will be adding SMBC to that list. Note to SMBC:  I did copy your comic image for inclusion here in case the image link doesn't work in the future.  I've had that problem on a couple of other sites.  If you object, please let me know and I will change it to a link.

Just what is "Higher Meaning and Value" anyway?

A philosophy professor, Gary Cutting, has proposed a re-definition of Pascal's Wager in a New York Times opinion piece called: "Pascal’s Wager 2.0".  It's a fairly long piece, although since we are talking philosophy maybe this wouldn't be considered long.  It boiled down to Gary believing that everyone in the world cannot lose by wanting some level of "higher meaning and value" in their life that apparently can only come from belief in a "beneficent power beyond the natural world".

When I first read it I had trouble separating "beneficent power beyond the natural world" from a God, and I guess I still do.  What it looks like Gary has tried to do is water down the specifics of a deity until you reach a point where the concept is pretty much ubiquitous regardless of what religion you are talking about, but I think you are still talking religion.  But I guess calling is a 'Generic God' wouldn't sound so good.  Would he/she were a white robe with black block lettering?

I originally had a question, why does Gary insist on it being 'beneficent'?  It took me a minute to realize that he's not making an assumption, as I originally thought, he's simply moving the goals posts where he wants them.  Think about it, why should anyone want a relationship with an uncaring power, so assuming beneficent is a selling point.  At first I was a little confused, but once I realized that it was part of Gary changing the concept around, it made sense . . . well at least it was understandable, making sense . . . might have been too strong an expression.

So, now that I think I have a handle on it, I have to pare things back to the purpose.  Something I was taught a long time ago, always keep your purpose in front of you.  It was originally taught me as part of various communication courses.  For example if you are writing a speech, determine the purpose of the speech and keep it in front of you while you write the rest of the speech.  It tends to help you focus on what you are after and helps avoid meanderings into areas that don't serve the purpose.  Yes, there are many other aspects, but everything should be driven by the purpose.

My experience is that you can pretty well apply the idea of 'purpose' universally.  I find myself applying it to understanding the purposes of others.  It helps me place the things they do within context.  So when I read something like this, I like to try and determine their purpose, or at least examine their stated purpose and see how things mesh with my thinking.

Gary pretty well seemed clear on his purpose.  He sees no negative issues with a belief in a "beneficent power beyond the natural world" because he thinks it means even the most hardened atheist wants to have "higher meaning and value" in their life.  That's where things started moving out of true for me, I mean what the hell does 'higher' mean?

When you use such a categorical statement, you usually have to place it within some sort of context.  The ONLY context that seems to fit is a religious one.  What exactly is higher within Gary's context?  I can't get a handle on it, other than Gary thinks it's desirable.  Do I, and yes, I am speaking personally, do I need a higher meaning?  If you think the answer is yes, please tell me why?  I believe my life has meaning and value and I believe I created it through living my life and taking the actions that I took.  But where does 'higher' come into the picture?  Is supporting a charity higher?  If so, then I qualify.  If the ONLY definition of 'higher' involves the need to invoke one deity of another, I am missing the purpose!

Did I have a deity, or even a 'beneficent power beyond the natural world' holding my hand through it?  I haven't seen any evidence of it and while many offer their opinion, they offer no evidence to support it.  For example, I have often been told meeting my wife was a act of God, but in reality it took a trip to Mississippi.  When I say things like that they sorta recoil and come back with something like "But the timing, what is she wasn't there?"  My response, "Well then I guess we wouldn't have met." usually meets with a recoil now in horror.  "But you two were destined . . ."  and my usual response is either "Bullshit!" or "Prove it!" depending on whether I want the conversation to go on.  You see, there is an awful lot of opinion on the actions of this 'beneficent power beyond the natural world', but no evidence to support it, only conjecture.  If meeting my 'destined' spouse is an act of a deity, then that deity better get off his/her/their asses because damn few marriages go any distance any more. 

Like meaning, I believe my life has value, and I hope my family believes so or I won't be eating the meatloaf tonight (family inside joke)!  I also believe my life has meaning, but when it comes to both of those, 'higher' means exactly what?  There is one of my dilemmas.

'Higher' could mean anything!  Higher than myself, as in Society?  Does my life have meaning and value in the terms of Society?  I would hope so.  I work, earn a my living, operate within the economy, save for retirement, donate to charities, vote . . ..  Do I have value to Society?  I have to say yes, since I am a member of that society, I, and my actions, are part of it.  While I question, I try not to destroy.  I operate within societal norms, at least I think I do.  I don't claim sainthood, but I figure I am pretty  . . . hmmm, I hate using the word 'normal' here, but it seems to fit.  I usually say that 'Normal' is a setting on the dryer in my house, but in this case, I guess I am pretty much 'normal..

I'm sure you can see where I am going.  I do not agree that having a higher meaning and value in my life requires the acceptance of a beneficent power, generic or specific.  So, as a result, I don't feel the need to take up Pascal's Wager or Gary's supposed upgraded version.  I doubt too many people would be impressed because those who believe, don't want a generic deity, and those who do not aren't going to consider it seriously anyway.   Those who claim to be 'spiritual' rather than religious might appreciate the 'new' wager, but I doubt it.  I think I gave it more thought that it needed, but then I am silly that way.

Gary also made another statement:

"Denial of God means that I simply close the door on the hope that there is something beyond the natural world; "

I'm not sure I agree with that. Any denial I have is more the 'I really don't care' variety.  There may or may not be something beyond the natural world, but since no one has offered any supporting evidence, other than fanciful stories, I don't let that possibility drive my life.  I further believe people shouldn't let it drive their life, but that's my personal opinion.  I actively oppose people trying to use their beliefs to drive my life!  Freedom of Religion also means Freedom From Religion!

OK, enough on this topic.  If someone has some ideas of 'higher meaning and value' that does not involve to requirement to invoke one deity of another, I would be interesting in hearing it.  But for now, I will continue to live with the meaning and value my life currently has, irrespective of the involvement of a deity, no matter what stories anyone wants to believe.

Jesus and Mo

An oldy yet a goldy from Jesus and Mo.  If they had gone with the DI, the word 'God' would have a strikethough and instead of offering to pay, they would hit you up for a donation.

Is Science Broken?

This is an honest question, not an easy question, but an honest one.  Finding an answer will take more than just asking a bunch of people and polling the results.  Gathering results like that would get you data, but would it answer the question?  There is a big difference between an answer and just having data.  You also have to pay close attention to many variables and still you may only end up with a small part of the eventual answer.  There are a lot of reasons, but the bottom line, science isn't easy to do.  It's also not always easy to explain.  Even trying to answer a question like this can show you that it's really tough.

Supposed you went to the Discovery Institute and polled people who worked there, what do you think the answer would be?  Their poster, Kirk Durston, would certainly tell you everything that he thinks is wrong with science, real and imagined, and certainly describe any negative until it's insurmountable.  Of course he doesn't offer any suggestions, his focus is to make people scared of science.

I came across an interesting article, "Science Isn’t Broken" by Christie Aschwanden.  It unflinching looks are some of the real problems within science and, more than Kirk ever did, explains how and why some of them occur.  She also goes into some of the changes that have been happening to help improve science and scientific methodology.  It's a long article and one well worth a read.  It repeats something that anyone who is objective about science realizes, that while it's not perfect, it s a self-correcting activity.

On the opposite side is an article on Evolution News and Views which grabs one of the examples Christie Aschwanden discussed and tries to turn it into some backhanded support for Intelligent Design, "Some Scientists Say Intelligent Design Isn't Science -- Until They Have to Use It Themselves."  One line really caught me:

"Many scientists claim intelligent design is not science"

That's a lie!  What almost all scientists say is that Intelligent Design is not science, they do not say that intelligent design isn't science.  Intelligent Design (ID) is a movement, a modern re-telling of the Watchmaker Analogy.  ID is not the same thing as intelligent design.  In all honesty, if we built buildings using Intelligent Design, I doubt they would hold up for very long, even if they could stay up long enough to be finished.  Think about it, let's use concrete that performs based on the wishes of a deity instead of the intelligently designed by real science formula and processes that make the many types of concrete we use in construction. 

Human beings design things all the time, some intelligently and some less-than-intelligently.  Many things work, but then I drive past a car jacked up 36 inches in the air running on 14 inch tires at 70 miles per hour on the freeway and all I can do is ask "What were they thinking?"  Architecture and Engineering run on intelligent design, but it has very little to do with Intelligent Design.

It's really funny how whoever wrote this one tried to twist around the idea of intelligence and design into an effort to support Intelligent Design.  There was no identified author, which isn't too uncommon.  I do wonder why no one takes credit for this one.  But aside from that, do they really not understand the difference between intelligent design and Intelligent Design?

Seriously?  The DI doesn't recognize the difference between something intelligently designed and their teleological argument for the existence of God?  Science works, the only thing intelligently designed about Intelligent Design is the marketing campaign.  Honestly, it should be taught in marketing classes, not so much as a success at selling their ideas, but from the point of view of how well-funded nonsense can do some actual damage to science and science education.

So back to the original question, is Science broken?  No!  It's not perfect, it has issues, but what doesn't, religion?  it's going to take people interested in improving science to fix issues as they happen.  What they will certainly do is intelligently design processes and changes to help deal with issues within science.  But just because these changes will be intelligently designed doesn't mean that they will use Intelligent Design.  What doesn't help are organizations that inflate real issues to the point they sound catastrophic so they can try and wedge their religious ideas to take the place of real science.

Poetry in Truth

Normally poetry gets classified along with ballet and opera to me. It's not that I don't get the story or emotions being conveyed, but the whole rhyme and rhythm thing seems to me that it should be set to music. For some reason the impact of it being poetry seems to get lost on my ear. My loss no one else's and I recognize that.

But once in a while a poem transcends the medium to me and the message is so clear that I want to keep a copy of it. Here is one a new friend over on Topix posted and I thoroughly enjoyed it. So with a sincere Thank You to Lissa Marie who posted these words of Richard Bamford, here it is for you to enjoy.

My god can beat up your god.

Do you know his name? Sure you do. He talks to you every day. You could not live a normal life without him. You believe in him, whether you like it or not. Unless you abandon him completely, you cannot deny he exists.

My god is a more personal god than yours can ever be, for if you have enough sense to understand these words, my god lives within you. He lives within us all, to some degree. A heartbreaking few cannot understand him, but this is not their fault. The real tragedy is the multitudes who ignore much of his counsel, particularly when he questions your god too deeply.

My god has been around longer than your god. He was here before the many other gods that preceded your god. Though you will likely scoff at the notion, my god was the father of your god, as he was to all gods. But that was long ago when he was young and not yet sure of himself. Though many of your god's followers try to hold him down, my god grows stronger and more independent each day.

When your god expelled us from paradise for eating an apple, my god taught us to grow our own fruit.

When your god forbade knowledge, demanding we live in ignorance, my god created books.

When your god smote cities like a tantrum-prone child, my god helped to rebuild them.

When your god insisted the world was flat, my god showed his followers it was round, to their peril at the hands of your god's followers.

While your god watched in silence as children sickened and died, my god created medicines to make them well.

When your god winked and nodded at slavery, my god argued passionately against it.

While your god represses half the human race, my god considers woman to be the equal of man.

When your god only helps those who help themselves, my god rolls up his sleeves and actually does help until your god decides to join in, and then steals all the credit.

When your god inspired great buildings and great art, my god made them possible.

While your god says we are all born sinners, tainted before we even draw breath, my god says we are all born innocent; a clean slate with limitless potential.

While your god offers dubious allusions of an afterlife, my god provides for us here in this life.

While your god makes amazing promises, but offers not a shred of proof, my god performs amazing deeds, and the proof is there to be seen by all.

While your god demands blind faith and obsequious obedience, my god encourages questions, even about himself.

When your god says "Thou shalt not," my god says "You can do anything."

My god is reason. He does more in a day than your god will ever do.

I enjoyed it and I hope you did as well. Lissa Marie also sent me this link on Richard Bamford's work if you are interested. He has a few thought provoking limerick's on there as well.

As for the Ballet and Opera, I think it's more a matter of taste. I like to watch dancing, but the old fashioned me prefers something more classic than classical. The sheer athleticism in ballet dancers is incredible, but the dancing just doesn't move me. Opera is the same way. the talent is impressive, but the medium just sends shivers down my spine, the nails on a blackboard variety. My wife loves it, but I would rather watch an old movie musical than ballet or opera. It drives my wife nuts because she knows I love classical music and even ice skating. but prance out in the ballet slippers or take the deep breath of a soprano and I would rather be listening to Linda Eder or Brad Paisley!