God Found! He's in your genes

The Evolution of the God Gene

There have been a couple of shots-across-the-bow directed at the neo-Atheists and others who delight in kneeling at the altar of reason. The above article points up the growing evidence that religion and spirituality have imparted an evolutionary advantage to our species:

...This and other research is pointing to a new perspective on religion, one that seeks to explain why religious behavior has occurred in societies at every stage of development and in every region of the world. Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.

Here's the part that will sting the biological determinists (oops, I mean neo-Atheists):

...For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. If religion is a lifebelt, it is hard to portray it as useless.

But don't feel so self assured, devout monotheists:

...For believers, it may seem threatening to think that the mind has been shaped to believe in gods, since the actual existence of the divine may then seem less likely.

Now Pagans, Rejoice :

...But the evolutionary perspective on religion does not necessarily threaten the central position of either side. That religious behavior was favored by natural selection neither proves nor disproves the existence of gods...

Carl Sagan was right when he said in "Cosmos" that the interior of the cell nucleus housed the 'holy of holies'. But I've quoted too much from this excellent article by Nicholas Wade. Please give it a read. There's also Karen Armstrong's book "The Case for God":

...The time, in other words, is ripe for a book like “The Case for God,” which wraps a rebuke to the more militant sort of atheism in an engaging survey of Western religious thought. Karen Armstrong, a former nun turned prolific popular historian, wants to rescue the idea of God from its cultured despisers and its more literal-minded adherents alike. To that end, she doesn’t just argue that her preferred approach to religion — which emphasizes the pursuit of an unknowable Deity, rather than the quest for theological correctness — is compatible with a liberal, scientific, technologically advanced society...

Amen! Er, I mean--Amon! Armstrong argues for a point of view which many Pagans are familiar with (and something I've discussed here and on other blogs):

...Both modern believers and modern atheists, Armstrong contends, have come to understand religion primarily as a set of propositions to be assented to, or a catalog of specific facts about the nature of God, the world and human life. But this approach to piety would be foreign to many premodern religious thinkers, including the greatest minds of the Christian past, from the early Fathers of the Church to medieval eminences like Thomas Aquinas...These and other thinkers, she writes, understood faith primarily as a practice, rather than as a system — not as “something that people thought but something they did.” Their God was not a being to be defined or a proposition to be tested, but an ultimate reality to be approached through myth, ritual and “apophatic” theology, which practices “a deliberate and principled reticence about God and/or the sacred” and emphasizes what we can’t know about the divine...

What we do, or how we act, is more important than what we believe.

Holiday Wars

Missing atheist sign found in Washington state

I've been trying to avoid commenting on this, but it's getting wide coverage. The "Freedom from Religion Foundation" took it upon itself to have a sign posted near a nativity scene in Washington State. The sign reads:

"At this season of The Winter Solstice, may reason prevail..."

Sounds good to me, but then:

"There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world..."

Well, that seems a little tasteless to be hung near a nativity scene. And I could quival about semantics. But I have to come down on the side of 'free speech' in this case. But then the brilliant minds at the Freedom From Religion Foundation have to end their Holiday message so:

"...Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

Well, Merry Christmas and Happy Yule everybody! What a cheery message from the so- called 'brights'. I don't find religious themed holiday displays offensive at all. I wish those sick individuals who choose this time of year to pick silly fights and war with symbols would just get a life.

What really bothers me is this statement from the head of the FFRF:

"...It's not that we are trying to coerce anyone; in a way our sign is a signal of protest," Barker said. "If there can be a Nativity scene saying that we are all going to hell if we don't bow down to Jesus, we should be at the table to share our views."

Will someone explain to me how a Nativity scene is "saying" we are all going to hell if we don't bow down to Jesus? I certainly have bones to pick with many Christians and monotheists and their attitudes. But heck, when I see a Nativity Scene, all I see is Isis, Osiris, and the little baby Horus! Heh! A while ago, a local politician contacted our coven wanting to know if we were interested in protesting a local Nativity scene that was set up on semi-public property. We thought about this long and hard, and decide it was not worth it. I really don't think plopping a Pentacle down next to someone's religious display does anything for our cause.

I was an Atheist for many years. It was a good safe place to be. But I wish the current crop of 'NeoAtheists', 'Brights' (Grrr!) or whatever they are calling themselves would find some other ways to generate publicity. I wonder if feeding the hungry, helping animals and the environment, and some old fashioned community service ever crossed their minds. You'd think so, as they claim 'reason' is on their side.

Hitchens comes out for Obama!

Vote for Obama: McCain lacks the character and temperament to be president. And Palin is simply a disgrace.

This article by Christopher Hitchens has gotten wide coverage, but since I've taken issue with this iconoclastic atheist's opinions a number of times, I think I owe this to him. It's wonderful to see such a great writer cut about a dozen new arseholes into the McCain/Palin ticket:

...The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin...

I don't want to quote any more, as that will dilute this enjoyable acid tongued critique of all things McCain. I wonder what the NeoCons are thinking of Hitchens these days?

Burning Times, the Do-over

In the comments section of a post about Knoxville, Riverwolf relates the story of having the windows shot-out of a church he was visiting.

Nothing that frightening has ever happened to me. But coming out of a Goth/S&M club one night with a friend (I use to be active in that community), some character pitched a beer bottle at us from a passing car while yelling 'FAGS'. Certainly not comparable to gunshots, but at least somewhat unnerving.

While attending a horror convention in Denver in the mid-1990's, I remember discussing my fear that the Religious Right would focus on "the BDSM scene". Soon after my quasi prediction, such attacks came to pass. Hotels hosting BDSM events became the targets of boycotts. Cranky letters were published in local papers, "Do our neighbors know the Marriott Hotel is playing host to rapists, wife beaters, and perverts?", that sort of thing. Soon, Dominionist websites invested bandwidth to demonizing the lifestyle. S&M'ers became the poster children for all that's wrong with this country. (For some strange reason, the specifics of fisting and blood play held special fascination for the Religious right. This lead to some unintentionally funny reading, btw.)

Fortunately, the organization the National Organization for Sexual Freedom formed, an organization devoting battling misconceptions and propaganda aimed at the lifestyle. (But that's another story.).

I'm concerned our community (the Wiccan/Pagan one) is going to suffer increased attacks in the coming years. Just look at the recent flood of anti-Harry Potter hysteria. In the film "Jesus Camp" when the lead Dominionist brings up Harry Potter to the youthful crowd, she shouts (I'm paraphrasing), "You know what would happen to Harry Potter if he lived in the days of the Bible...HE'D BE PUT TO DEATH!". Dominionist literature pushes a horror film caricature of our belief systems, in order to scare people into believing we are crazy and dangerous.

But the Religious Right is not entirely alone in this. Atheist blogs often stereotype our beliefs, but fortunately they usually portray us as just harmless cranks. Many Atheists and skeptics are focused on the shortcomings of organized religion, so they reserve the balance of their angst for main stream faiths. (In fairness, I have to say I concur with most of their criticisms.) On the other hand, some others (termed Atheist Supremacists) hold a darker view, that being religion is like a disease which needs to be wiped out.

This brings me to the shooting at Knoxville. There's a fantastic piece at CrooksandLiars posted by Nicole Belle, guest blogged by NonnyMouse (a UUA member). I strongly encourage everyone to read it. NonnyMouse describes her church as noteworthy for its pacifism, compassion, tolerance, and welcoming nature towards any race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation. She intelligently acknowledges the man who perpetrated the Knoxville crime as ill and in need of help. He is not the focus of her anger. She finds a more deserving target:

...My anger instead is concentrated on those people who callously use such vulnerable people, stirring up their bigotry and discontent, egging them to acts of violence. People like Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh who have made lucrative careers out of liberal-bashing. People who write things like "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder", "Let Freedom Ring," and "The O'Reilly Factor," - all literature found in Adkisson's home after the shooting. People like Ann Coulter who advocated attacking liberals with baseball bats. The hate-filled spewage from the right-wing media mavens is and should be held accountable for inciting such acts of violence and murder, those heartless, soulless, conscienceless opportunists who have gleefully participated in encouraging the Adkissons of America to take out their anger and hatred and frustration on liberals...

Many of us were struck by the outpouring of support for the Unitarians coming from diverse spiritual circles. We have reason to be proud of our communities. As NonneMouse points out, the Unitarians are models for us all:

...I have never before been so proud to be a Unitarian, as well as a liberal. Those liberals the rightwing continue to denigrate as weak-kneed cowards proved to be anything but...

She describes the heroic actions of those that subdued the attacker, and how the very best qualities of humanity were on display. One victims wife, Amy, described Adkisson as:

...a man who was hurt in the world and feeling nothing was going his way. He turned the gun on people who were mostly likely to treat him lovingly and compassionately and be the ones to help someone in that situation...' How is it, that someone who needs so much help, would turn his hatred on the very sort of people most inclined to help him?

Over at Jeffrey Feldman's Framshop, there is "Taking a Stand against Rhetoric". Feldman is concerned with what he views as tolerance of violent rhetoric by traditional media, and even some left leaning new media. But:

...When female bloggers get an email from a right-winger threatening to rape them...the reaction is to take it seriously and call for it to stop--always...

Feldman then reminds us how everyone takes it seriously when others are targeted, such as African Americans or lesbians and gays. But he ask why is it that threats against liberals, or people expressing liberal views, are somehow taken less seriously? Feldman has a suggests what we can do about this:

...Now is the time for influential progressive bloggers who have not done so to put up a post that is 100% and clearly against violent rhetoric, and to state emphatically that it is an intolerable threat against women, gays, lesbians, people of color, and anyone else who voices their political views...

I agree. But that begs a question: Why is it that so many in the media seem to be downplaying the facts surrounding Knoxville? Why has his killer's choice of reading material been seemingly ignored. When Columbine and other school shootings happened, the media obsesses over what computer games the kids play or what music they listen too.

PZ Myers recently thrust himself into the controversy involving the desecration of a Catholic ritual. Fortunately, a number of people (from across the spiritual and skeptic spectrum) recognized these actions as bordering on hate speech. However, there also was some troubling rationalization (or downright encouragement) evident across much of the Atheist/Skeptic blogsphere. As discussed in Feldman's article, a raging double standard took hold on some upper tier blogs. For example Majikthise, who rightfully went to bat when a female blogger came under attack, came off as too eager to nullify the feelings of others. She decided to frame the episode (rather pedantically, in my opinion) as an exercise in free speech. Over at DailyKos, Darksyde also waxed poetic about PZ's right to free speech and the inanity of anyone taking offense. I guess religious or spiritual people don't deserve a base-line demonstration of human empathy.

We must speak out against violent rhetoric. Wiccans and Pagans are used to being targets of Dominionists. But I fear there is also a problem arising in the 'Atheist Supremacists'. Some seem to revel in an evangelizing Spock-like omniscience and hold everyone and everything to an absolutist philosophy. (Of course, I must point out that many Atheist/Skeptics are not like this. Many "A" bloggers did not post about the PZ Myers incident and seemed to wish the whole thing would go away.)

We need to be proactive. Of course, none of us wants to see more Knoxvilles, or be the target of a hate crime. But I fear--as the election nears--things will get worse. It's frightening to realize there's a big chunk of the US population that's threatened by people who are open and tolerant. But we can't allow our religion to be stereotyped or framed. Speak up if you see someone misrepresenting our views. Post a comment. Provide reference and links.

On a mailing list a number of years ago, I got into a bit of a flame war. The details are irrelevant, but I was told: "How dare you subject us to your open minded views!" How dare I! Well, I do dare. We all should.

EO Wilson, of Ants and Humans

Taking a Cue From Ants on Evolution of Humans

Harvard entomologist EO Wilson just celebrated his birthday. He is in his 80's, yet does not shy away from a fight, although he rarely goes looking for one. But this is an exception:

...The issue is the level at which evolution operates. Many evolutionary biologists have been persuaded, by works like “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins, that the gene is the only level at which natural selection acts. Dr. Wilson, changing his mind because of new data about the genetics of ant colonies, now believes that natural selection operates at many levels, including at the level of a social group....

Soon after Wilson and co-author David Sloan Wilson published this work, they were attacked by Richard Dawkins:

...Their statement evoked a heated response from Dr. Dawkins in New Scientist; he accused them of lying on a minor point and demanded an apology...

You know you must be on the right track, when you illicit personal attacks from Atheist front-man Dawkins! Wilson's hypothesis basically boils down to this:

...It is through multilevel or group-level selection — favoring the survival of one group of organisms over another — that evolution has in Dr. Wilson’s view brought into being the many essential genes that benefit the group at the individual’s expense. In humans, these may include genes that underlie generosity, moral constraints, even religious behavior. Such traits are difficult to account for, though not impossible, on the view that natural selection favors only behaviors that help the individual to survive and leave more children...

This flies in the face of "selfish gene" advocates (like Dawkins) who at best feel religion and spirituality are archaic traits of no use today (such as our appendix), or at worst dangerous virus-like mutations which need to be immunized against.

“...Groups with men of quality — brave, strong, innovative, smart and altruistic — would tend to prevail, as Darwin said, over those groups that do not have those qualities so well developed,” Dr. Wilson said...“I believe that deep in their heart everyone working on social insects is aware that the selection that created them is multilevel selection,” Dr. Wilson said...

Don't you love that a fellow who studies ants (well, admittedly he is the world's leading authority on the critters) can cause such a ruckus!

I always encourage any new Pagan or Wiccan to immerse themselves in the study of nature. Pick some '...ology' and read all you can on it. Birding is great. So is gardening. How 'bout rocks and minerals? But in my humble opinion, the two most valuable fields to embrace are entomology and astronomy. And both are open to people of limited funds and time, and amateurs are welcome and can even make contributions.

Name calling and Bullying II: PZ Myers channels Soupy Sales

It's a Frackin Cracker

Years ago, the TV comedian Soupy Sales cluelessly begged his young audience to search the pockets of their parents for "green paper", and to mail that green paper into him. It got him suspended for two weeks. It appears biologist PZ Myers is channeling Soupy Sales.

PZ Myers, scientist and outspoken critic of religion and all things spiritual, has composed a blog entry that many feel constitutes "Hate Speech". If you are familiar with some of Myer's anti-religious screeds, you knew this was coming. I'm not going to go over his post in detail, but it's the story of a prank-like theft of communion wafers from a University church, and the subsequent brew-ha-ha that ensued. The post is chuck full of Myer's normal rant against religion, using familiar snark and self-important snickering so endearing to his regular readers.

The portion of his screed which many feel crosses the line follows:

...So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out here score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address...

So this is the sparkling truth of Atheism! Now we understand more fully. This incident will certainly help the "A" cause. But I wish some of PZ Myer's ardent defenders would cut out the "he's just being funny" excuse, which is such a favorite of right wing ideologues like Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Can I ask a question of Myers and all his fans? If you miraculously found yourself in Alexandria, at the moment of Hypatia's martyrdom, would you proudly display the bloody abalone shell you hold in your hands?

Sarcasm aside, I wish to assure my NeoPagan friends that PZ Myer's comments in no way represents the behavior of the majority of Atheists.

Myers asks for help from his community, asking his supports to inundate the dean of his college with notes of support, as he's feeling the heat right now. It's ironic that he asks people writing in to "Be polite and rational, too!" The polite and rational thing would be for PZ Myers to apologize.

Spiritual Scientists are speaking up

Science Finds God

Sharon Begley wrote an well researched article, illuminating the debate between science and religion:

...But now "theology and science are entering into a new relationship," says physicist turned theologian Robert John Russell, who in 1981 founded the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. Rather than undercutting faith and a sense of the spiritual, scientific discoveries are offering support for them, at least in the minds of people of faith...

I've discussed before the inappropriateness, on display on many "A" and "ScienceBlogs" (who won't be linked here), of labeling anyone expressing even an inkling of spirituality or agnosticism 'crazy' or 'retarded'. The article addresses that concern:

...Today the scientific community so scorns faith, says Sandage, that "there is a reluctance to reveal yourself as a believer, the opprobrium is so severe...

So, some scientists are spiritually closeted! Wonderful! Grrr... But getting back to the article, it's only a matter of time before evolution raises its head:
...Evolution, say some scientist-theologians, provides clues to the very nature of God. And chaos theory...is being interpreted as opening a door for God to act in the world...

I think I have a better grasp of Chaos Theory, now that I know of the Machine Elves. The fact that Sharon's article appeared in the traditional media (Newsweek) indicates a hunger for the war between science and religion to end, or at least reach a truce.

Hitchens gets Waterboarded!

Hitchens get Waterboarded: Believe me, it's Torture

When I saw this item over at CrooksandLiars, I thought "Oh no, the Dominionists got hold of him!". I mean, all us Pagans would ever have done was slip some shrooms in his tomato sauce! Heh. But seriously, this makes for some intense reading.

We are tolerant, dammit!

Survey Shows U.S. Religious Tolerance

I posted just the other day about misconceptions about Americans' beliefs. Here's another survey showing that Americans are not the religious dogmatists we are often portrayed as by the traditional media. Pew just came out with a survey contradicting many long held beliefs regarding religions and spiritual attitudes. From the NYTimes article:

"...The report, the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, reveals a broad trend toward tolerance and an ability among many Americans to hold beliefs that might contradict the doctrines of their professed faiths..."

So people have a healthy attitude when confronting contradictions in their one faiths. But it gets better:

...70 percent of Americans affiliated with a religion or denomination said they agreed that “many religions can lead to eternal life,” including majorities among Protestants and Catholics...

Now wait a second! Next they're going to claim that vast majority of us are not breathers of fire and brimstone...

...The findings seem to undercut the conventional wisdom that the more religiously committed people are, the more intolerant they are, scholars who reviewed the survey said...

I wonder who is responsible for shoving that 'conventional wisdom' down our throats for the last couple of decades? Could it be...the traditional media!

“...It’s not that Americans don’t believe in anything,” said Michael Lindsay, assistant director of the Center on Race, Religion and Urban Life at Rice University. “It’s that we believe in everything. We aren’t religious purists or dogmatists...”

Wow, that's a truly refreshing factoid. It's hard for me to believe that this is something new. I know that the last George Bush presidency has been a hard lesson in proving the titanic mistake of letting theo-cons run this country. Yet, changes in religious attitudes tend to morph slowly. I just have the strong suspicion, that whenever the traditional media has claimed to be surveying our religious and spiritual attitudes--everything from Creationism to 'separation of church-state' issues--what they have really been doing is 'push polling'. No! The traditional media pushing a dominionist right-wing agenda! Who'd a thunk?

Now here's a part that might have some bearing on all us Wiccans, Pagans, Atheists, and Scientists out there:

...According to that report, more than a quarter of adult Americans have left the faith of their childhood to join another religion or no religion. The survey indicated that the group that had the greatest net gain was the unaffiliated, accounting for 16 percent of American adults...Like the overwhelming majority of Americans, 70 percent of the unaffiliated said they believed in God, including one of every five people who identified themselves as atheist and more than half of those who identified as agnostic.


So, 1 in 5 people who call themselves 'Atheist' believes in God! OK, now I'm confused! Maybe I need a refresher course in what being an Atheist means:

“..What does atheist mean? It may mean they don’t believe in God, or it could be that they are hostile to organized religion,” Mr. Green said. “A lot of these unaffiliated people, by some measures, are fairly religious, and then there are those who are affiliated with a religion but don’t believe in God and identify instead with history or holidays or communities...”

It's fascinating how Atheism is evolving. It may not necessarily imply (or require) a disbelief in God. A healthy "hostility to organized religion" is all it takes. I think that's something that many Wiccan's and Pagans can get behind.

Here's the direct Pew link: US Religious Landscape Survey.

Atheism, the Virus

Christopher Hitchens On Obama and Rev. Wright: When All Else Fails Blame Women

Recently, the increasingly deranged Christopher Hitchens published a hit piece attacking Michelle Obama, wife of Presidential hopeful Barack Obama. An article by Ta-Nehisi Coates does an excellent job shredding Hitchens' screed. The conclusion is precious:

...This is what happens when you don't much care about what you do or who you're doing it for, when you mistake your ability to be really smart about a few things, for the ability to be really smart about anything. You end up confusing speculation that shouldn't make it past morning conversation with your wife, for studied insight. And, perhaps most tellingly, you end up concluding articles by humorlessly mocking the diction of blacks. "Don't be giving me any grief about asking this," he chides us in reference to Michelle. Fair enough, say I. But don't be transcribing your lastest cocktail party ramblings and passing it off as half-intelligent commentary. That it ain't. Good sir.

I've posted about Hitchens odd-ball rantings before, as they're easy to make fun of. But I won't link to the Hitchens piece so properly addressed above, as it's nothing but the ravings of a misogynistic racist bully, picking on the writings of a 22 year old college student.

Atheist joins 'Jesus Camp'...hilarity follows!

An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

John Taibbi's new book "The Great Derangement" details his undercover infiltration into the world of Dominionist and John McCain supporter Pastor Hagee. Taibbi participates in a form of group therapy, where each participant must confess some past hurt or trauma. The tale he spins is bought hook-line-and-sinker:

"...My name is Matt. My father was an alcoholic circus clown who used to beat me with his oversize shoes." I closed my own eyes and kept going, immediately realizing what a mistake I'd made. There was no way this story was going to fly. But there was no turning back. "He'd be sitting there in his costume, sucking down a beer and watching television," I heard myself saying. "And then sometimes, even if I just walked in front of the TV, he'd pull off one of those big shoes and just, you know -- whap!..."

Pretty funny, you might say. But it gets better! During later session, he embellishes the story:

"...I laugh about it now, but once he chased me, drunk, in his Fudgie the Whale costume. He chased me into the bathroom, laid me across the toilet seat and hit me with his fins, which underneath were still a man's hands..."

(image: TheGothamist)

Our Gods take plastic

Appeasing the Gods, With Insurance

This NY Times article explores how even the most ratinal among us emply 'magical thinking' to insure a good outcome, much like the Ancient Greeks tried to appease their gods through sacrafice:

...We buy insurance not just for peace of mind or to protect ourselves financially, but because we share the ancient Greeks’ instinct for appeasing the gods...“It is an irony of the post-Enlightenment world...that so many people who don’t believe in fate refuse to tempt it...”

I've commented before how even scientists believe in luck and rely on 'gut feelings'. But I never envisioned insurance policies as protective talismans, but it seems some people do:

...Even people who consciously reject superstitions seem to have these gut feelings, says Orit Tykocinski, a professor of psychology at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya in Israel. She found that rationalists were just as likely as superstitious people to believe that insurance would ward off accidents...So when we think about passing up flight insurance, we conjure up disaster just as easily as ancient Greeks imagined a thunderbolt from Olympus...

Important Salem Wiccan Discussion

The Wiccan way: No Place for Hate Committee to host panel discussion

Panel discussion on Wicca in Salem co-hosted by Margo Adler:

Salem - The city of Salem’s No Place for Hate Committee will host a panel discussion on April 12 that will focus on practices within the Wiccan faith and the everyday lifestyles of those practicing paganism. Margo Adler (author of "Drawing Down the Moon) will be cohosting a panel discussion on Wicca in Salem...The objective of the event is to inform those in attendance about the religion, lifestyle and culture of those who practice Wicca while also touching on the history and its distinction within the Salem community...

A number of important Wiccan people will be there. Such forms of outreach are very important, as certain groups of people still perpetrate disinformation about Wicca. I'm having a good discussion about Wicca with some Atheists over at MoJoey's blog, in the comments section.

Big win for Cosmologist-Priest

Priest-Cosmologist Wins $1.6 Million Templeton Prize


Here's something that must be pissing off the "A" crowd:

...The $1.6 million Templeton Prize, the richest award made to an individual by a philanthropic organization, was given Wednesday to Michael Heller, 72, a Roman Catholic priest, cosmologist and philosopher who has spent his life asking, and perhaps more impressively answering, questions like “Does the universe need to have a cause?”

I hear a collective grown over at Sciencblogs, heh:

...Michael Heller, 72, winner of this year’s prize. He says science and religion “are prerequisites of the decent existence...”

Well said. I like the concept of 'decent existence'. That's something to live up to. I wish more people were like this man. He is one of a growing number of science positive thinkers who are also deeply spiritual:

...Much of Professor Heller’s career has been dedicated to reconciling the known scientific world with the unknowable dimensions of God. Professor Heller said he believed, for example, that the religious objection to teaching evolution “is one of the greatest misunderstandings” because it “introduces a contradiction or opposition between God and chance.” In a telephone interview, Professor Heller explained his affinity for the two fields: “I always wanted to do the most important things, and what can be more important than science and religion? Science gives us knowledge, and religion gives us meaning. Both are prerequisites of the decent existence...”

Spiritual Atheists

Andrew: When science and faith find common ground

Many of us are familiar with the great scientific writing of 'DarkSyde' over at DailyKos. DarkSyde has come out of the blogger closet with an article attacking the media driven dichotomy of Science Vs. Religion:

...Some of the most popular forms of Creationism attack not just biology, but geology, astronomy and physics with an endless array of recycled talking points, most of which were refuted before most of us were born...

That's a profound difference between science and religion. In science, bad ideas eventually die. It may take time, but eventually the truth comes out. But in religion (and politics), bad ideas take on a life of their own. Many of us who have been battling the Creationist for years keep seeing the same arguments rise from the dead, again and again, like zombies in some cheesie horror movie. But soon Andrew (aka: Darksyde)really hits his stride:

..But Creationism in all its many forms ignores that there are millions of Christians in the U.S. who have found find great comfort in the idea of a Creator that is consistent with science...

Of course, for striking this accommodating and fair tone, Andrew gets flamed by Movement Atheists. Most of it's a waste of bandwidth, except near the end there's and interesting post by someone named 'JanKees'.

Is there religious freedom in the USA?

Is U.S. religious freedom eroding?

Great article on the tradition of religious freedom in the USA:

...One obstacle is a growing tendency on the part of some people to feel that Christianity, the majority faith, should be privileged, and minority faiths only tolerated, if that. This belief is a product of the popular notion that the United States Constitution established a Christian nation. It did not. It created a secular republic committed to freedom of religion and conscience for all...

Agreed. Just attaining a state of "toleration" is not what it's all about. This is a must read article, which hits the right stride. The only crit I'd offer is that mentioning "freedom _from_ religion" would have been a good idea, as that's a viable choice--as Atheism demonstrates.

(via WitchVox)

What is Christopher Hitchens smoking?

We know what Carl Sagan smoked. It's interesting the so-called 'evil weed' had nothing but a good effect on the gentle scientist. But whatever un-Godly concoction Chris Hitchens must torch-up (a crack-meth-DMT combo, perhaps?) has finally killed too many brain cells. Chet Scoville does an excellent job deconstructing Hitchen's latest racist, sexist, religion-bashing, war mongering screed published in the Slate:

...This is the thing that annoys me the most about Hitchens: he's at this point almost nothing but a parrot of the right's talking points. Even his atheist polemics are, as often as not, in the service of some kind of lunatic imperialistic agenda. He gives talks and attends events sponsored by the likes of David Horowitz, and defends his old pal Ahmed Chalabi. He has no sense of social class, and almost no economics. Yet he still fancies himself a leftist, and even a Marxist. He clearly considers himself an important thinker. He's not. He's the crudest sort of right-wing hack, and he doesn't even realize it...

Chet provides some interesting links documenting other Hitchen's foibles, such as the time he called the Dixie Chicks "...fat fucking slags" for having the audacity to question the Iraq War. Well, I suppose it's no matter that the Dixie Chicks were right all along. It's strange how somebody who claims to be an atheist can come-off sounding like a bible thumping Dominionist. Well, maybe not that strange.

Atheists can dish it out, but can they take it?

Atheism as a Stealth Religion II: Let's Get Real

An article by David Sloan, warning his brethren that some of the shrill dialog generated by "The New" atheists sounds dangerously close to religious pontification. Not only that, it's cult-like:

...can there be any doubt that authors such as Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and Sam Harris are trying to start a movement? They even have their own label -- "The Brights", which thankfully seems to be going nowhere...

I guess being a "Bright" implies being in the outs means you are a "Dullard"! Kudos for coming up with a nick that makes you sound cute and smart, yet implies everyone else is dumb. I suppose it's easy to get intoxicated when you delude yourself into thinking truth is on your side, yet Sloan seems more concerned with atheism becoming a'stealth religion':

...I clearly define a stealth religion as any belief system that distorts the facts of the real world (yes, there is a real world out there, and it does not include people sitting on clouds) for the purpose of motivating a given suite of behaviors. Beliefs in supernatural agents are a particular distortion of factual reality and I want to broaden the discussion to include all distortions of factual reality...

In other words, the ends don't justify the means? Those are words you don't hear coming from a Neo-con too often. Further on:

...Sinclair Lewis (recently quoted by presidential candidate Ron Paul) said "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag carrying a cross." To that we can add "and claiming to be supported by science and reason." No, I am not accusing the New Atheists of having a hidden fascist agenda, but I am making the reasonable point that all forms of authority are vulnerable to abuse, as the sorry history of Social Darwinism attests. We need to be suspicious about arguments cloaked in all forms of authority...

Many in the recent crop of atheists make fantastical claims, for which there is scant evidence. My favorite is the "religion is a virus" clap-trap spouted by Dawkins and others and that ultimately, civilization would be better off if religion went the way of the dinosaur. But they offer no proof of this. Even worse, when challenged, they make claims of special powers! Only they have the ability to perceive reality. Their ideas and opinions are not--heaven forbid--BELIEFS. They are based some acid test of for objective reality which only they can perform. Anyone who offers a contrary opinion is contaminated by 'magical thinking' and is a danger to the human race.

As pointed out by some of the commenters to the piece, history is littered with failed social experiments of those who claimed the mantle of reason and science. One comment about the article was to the point (by 'Bateman'):

"...there is a long history of creeds claiming to be wholly "scientific" and rational that lend themselves to Utopian, authoritarian and/or cultic tendencies: the Cult of Reason, dialectical materialism, Haeckel's Monism, Rand's Objectivism, Fabianism, the Technocracy movement, transhumanism. While they are far fewer in number (and in number of adherents) the ideological variety of atheistic/scientific faiths rivals that of the theistic/supernatural faiths...

I'm glad criticisms such as these are coming from Atheists within the movement. It's healthy.

WitchVox, WTF?

I think it was the Atheist Richard Dawkins who said "It's good to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains drip out your ears". Maybe we Neo-Pagans can learn a thing or two from our Atheist friends.

I know WitchVox has a policy of not "taking sides" when publishing essays from its members. But do we really need 3 different essays from Global Warming deniers? (Heh, and I sure am not linking to them.) None of the essayists offer any proof of their claims. Sheesh, anyone willing to spend 3 minutes on 'the google' can make mince meat out of their arguments. I wish I had the time to waste taking them on point for point, but all they manage are oil industry talking points or sad displays of scientific illiteracy.

But if you want to check out an article which debunks such propaganda, read BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change


Just a preview, in regards to the tired 'there's no consensus among the experts' ploy:

...For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise"... The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"...Others agree. The American Meteorological Society..., the American Geophysical Union..., and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling...

So, what next Witchvox? Yule Sabbat suggestions from Holocaust deniers!

comments on comments (or 'zeus', sam iii)

The creatrix of toomanytribbles and I started this conversation because of our opposing views on Mary Lefkowitz's opinion piece. For clarity, here's my original post and here is her's. Our discussions evolved in the comments section of her post. To more adequately reply, she elevated one of my comments to a post. Thanx, toomanytribbles.

Is polytheism more tolerant and multicultural than monotheism?

When different pagan cultures met, their respective Gods and Goddesses got right to work comparing notes on the strange human creatures that danced before them. Then they quickly started trying on each other's clothes. :) They did not command their subjects to wage ideological wars or chop the heads off infidels. Why is this?

Here are a few possibilities: a crowd of deities with many shared characteristics encourages numerous interpretations of the divine, making the religion accommodating to outsiders; numerous cults of contradictory beliefs tend to diverge and not unify; polytheism lacks a dogmatic and politically charged bible (such as the one of Christianity and Islam), so there's nothing for a manipulative government or clergy to latch onto; and most texts on morality and ethics are attributed to historical figures, not deities.

The characteristics above are true of Egyptian mythology, except for one glaring exception:

The Armana period encompassed the rule of the "heretic" pharaoh Akhenaten. During his infamous reign, Akhenaten forcibly instituted a strict form of monotheism. He claimed the God "Aten" as the one true God. Temples were closed and priesthoods disbanded. Images of the other Gods and Goddesses were rounded up and destroyed, even confiscating statuary from household altars. Akhenaten claimed one could only contact the Aten through him: worship Akhenaten--and you worshiped God! In Egyptian art until this time, you'd often see people bowing, kneeling, or making offerings before the divine. But in the Armana period you see citizens prostrate on the ground, groveling before Akhenaten and the Aten. Not only that, there's evidence nay sayers faced execution. All this didn't go over well with the Egyptian people. When Akhenaten was overthrown, the old Gods and Goddesses were quickly re-instituted.

Could Akhenaten's behavior have anything to do with monotheism? People should draw their own conclusions. But, returning to Mount Olympus, I'm impressed with Lefkowitz's findings about Greek mythology. I'm not entirely surprised how it dovetails with other Pagan beliefs. I'm glad there's good research supporting such claims.

As in other polytheistic religions, Wiccans don't proselytize or express their beliefs fanatically. We aren't hobbled by a concept of sin (phew!), yet trying to convince someone of the fallacy of their belief system--or persuade them of the superiority of our own--are big no-nos. We feel that everyone is on their proper spiritual path. Atheism is exactly where you are supposed to be. I'm not stating there's anything wrong with discussing important issues. But pushing opinions down people's throats, or denigrating those who hold alternative viewpoints, is just showboating and egoism. If people are happy, have good friends and family, are satisfied and lead productive lives and mind their own business--who the heck am I to take issue? Happiness is elusive. So, if someone ekes out comfort in their short lives by envisioning a blissful afterlife or casting fortunes, I'm not going to spoil their fun. There's enough suffering in this ragged-clawed world. I'm trying my best not to add to more.

(OTOH, I've been attacked. By that I mean seriously so, not just on internet forums by religionious zealots of the Xtain persuasion. In the USA, there's a movement afoot to spawn a Dominionist, "Big Brother", Right-Wing government. A small yet powerful minority pines for a country that resembles East Germany before the fall of communism, where neighbor spies on neighbor. This is not God, mythology, or the Bible doing any of these things--it's people who happen to be bat-shit crazy. I don't think I am compromising myself by taking such people on.)

There's server filling debates on the topic of Science vs. Religion. Do we really need to add more of these? Some people relish such exercises. Like Ann_C0ulter's fan base, they never grow tired of listening to her screeds. I think you and I are comfortable enough in our beliefs not to need reinforcement from soap-boxers.

Now, on to some of your comments:

...we're animals with an enormous evolutionary history...

OK, I think that's something we can agree on. :)

...even though our ability to reason is a fairly new 'trick,' it's obvious that it has done more good than harm. Think about what life was actually like for us humans 10,000 years ago -- or 500 or >even 100. isn't our moral standard changing and improving...

Of course there's great strides in science and medicine. However, we elite are the ones sucking that teat. (I don't buy Pinker's assessment of genocide and crime in the last century. He conveniently qualifies his data with "...at least in Western society." Of course, you realize Pinker has his critics, but I'm not interested in fighting that battle.) Since you brought up animals, I'm sure the Blue whale is very impressed with our noble standard. Mother Earth must think this Global Warming thing is a real kick! Thanx to our bone-headed behavior, our recent history has brought a global wide extinction, rivaling the effects of a cometary impact. Those are quite some accomplishments. To be clear, I feel the quotient of human suffering has not changed much over the centuries. Too few fruits of Western society are benefiting the rest of humanity.

...are you actually saying that fascism or totalitarianism is a result of critical thinking and rationality? were these dark episodes, truly, supported by logic and reason? in what way? or were they simply purported to, then and now?

Exactly my point: I'm not saying that. Our better qualities are not to blame. No Luddite arguments from me, my friend. :)

...mary lefkowitz says, '...but the poison isn't religion; it's monotheism.' i disagree.. the poison isn't monotheism -- the poison is belief in the supernatural without evidence -- i.e. religion

Yikes! Religion=Poison? If you hold the reactionary position that practicing religion is equivalent to everything anal, banal, and dread, such as slavery, human sacrifice, or genital warts, we are just wasting our time. Is there a point in having this discussion if you won't consider anything I say? Why not just blame cooking technology for the fact that people got shoved alive into ovens during WWII.

...we're 'way more' enlightened than our ancestors. we know so much more about our cosmos, our bodies, our origins and history and our place in the universe. isn't this enlightenment helping us reject slavery and racism and the burning of witches?

Who would argue against reason and enlightenment? That would be like arguing against truth and beauty. I know Atheists are capable of great truth and beauty. The sad thing is, not everybody likes science. Many people don't feel the quality of fulfillment you or I receive from it. Yet, I think we should work together on the issues facing us. Btw, thanx for throwing in the 'witch' part! :) The sad thing is, some people never learn.

...of course we act differently than we used to. not all of us, and not always -- but i think there's a definite shift towards the better, with ample evidence.

OK. We just have a difference of opinion. I feel there's evidence in support of my position.

...of course we can't know of every possible thing in the universe. scientists, in fact, don't claim to -- but theists do... and not just nebulous suspicions, but specifics as to what we can eat or how we can dress or against whom we can rub our bodies (or, as hitchens says, what bits of them we should saw off with sharp stones...

Ouch! This is a "frame" free blog! Besides, the last straw man here was burnt up at Lugh. Wicca in no way resembles what you just described. We are not faith based or absolutist. We don't enforce hurtful proscriptions.

...in the face of not only a complete lack of evidence, but a complete lack of any concrete indication for deities (ancient polytheistic or primitive monotheistic), xenus, leprechauns, >poltergeists, fairies, etc., etc...the most intellectually honest stance is not believing in these things until we have sufficient reason to. maybe these things are not disprovable -- but are they even probable?

Heh! Why do you Atheists always bring up these weird creatures? It's as if you're in love with those things! Do you & your Atheist friends have some kinky/erotic thing going on with them or something? If you do, why not let us in on the fun! :)

Having spent time practicing my religion with like-minded people, let me assure you: leprechauns don't find their way into the conversation too often. But I fear this is arguing from the extremes. Next you'll be saying "You like to read your horoscope in the newspapers--SO YOU BELIEVE IN LEPRECHAUNS!"

I know you're aware there's considerable evidence that "little people" did exist. It's even possible the Amazons of Greek mythology existed. But Fairies, you ask? I'm just finding out about the branch of Wicca known as the Feri Tradition. Recently, I had the pleasure of being befriended by two such beings. (wink!) . Also, one of the contributors to the fine tradition posts here from time to time. I agree there's scant evidence of ghosts, but I have a horrific story that happened to me:

I came to Atheism gradually. By the time I was a teenager, I figured God did not exist. Years later, a friend who really trusted me confessed she was plagued with ghosts. She had been seeing them since she was a child. She was someone who experienced many hardships in life, and suddenly found herself thrust into a bad living situation. Once ensconced in her new place, she discovered it had a history putting the "The Sentinel" to shame! She was terrified, hearing strange noises at night and seeing things in the shadows. She was in sorry state when finally telling me all this. How did I react? Basically I gave her the spiritual back of my hand and laughed off her concerns. You could not escape the look of shock and betrayal that swept over her. It was much later that I discovered the harm I had done. Why didn't I just commit to losing a night while holding someone's hand? Would it have helped explaining it was only a creaky radiator, or those angry voices were nothing but the drunken fights of upstairs neighbors? Would this have been handled differently if I was not so full of my Atheist self? I don't know, I have not figured that out. Someday, I hope to make it up to her. Until then, I am still haunted by the look on her face. I told you this was a horrific ghost story!

...so, back to the ancient greeks -- from what i understand...it's quite probable that theirs was amore multicultural and tolerant religion...the greek myths have a great deal to teach us, when not >taken literally, and they do lack the arrogance and narcisism present in even non-literal christianity...on the other hand, the greek gods were spiteful and petty and humanity was a minor irritant.

I'm also trying to figure these things out. Seeking people to challenge assumptions always helps. I'm fascinated that many scholars may have it wrong about the Greek Gods. Your mileage may vary.

...but you see, today we don't have to choose either. so can we just keep the tolerance and multiculturalism, insights and relevance to the human condition, and leave out the religion? can't we study and learn from them without espousing them?

Heh! Can we dance without paying the piper? Do we have to "believe in" the religion in order to learn from it? Good question. I-have-no-clue! But can we look at it like this: someone can intellectualize meditation, but won't get the benefits until it's practiced and experienced. In certain Buddhist traditions, after hours of chanting, music, and prayer, the group evokes certain Deities. If those entities can't be manifested--in all their beauty and terror--the students don't advance in training. I get the impression "believing in" is the stumbling block for you. You demand proof! Faith is not good enough. Those are reasonable demands. But instead of "believing in", what would you say to "practicing a" religion? Would that be entirely objectionable?

Could this insistence on belief and faith and diaphanous beings be a requirement of monotheism--not polytheism? In Egypt, the Gods and Goddesses rarely ask for testaments of belief. The questions from the Gods and Goddesses found carved into temples, or written in Books of the Dead, ask us to honored them, keep the Sabbats, and make proper offerings. Demonstrations of belief and faith are minor issues, compared to good intentions and encouraging justice. They don't ask us to abandon reason or intelligence, qualities they highly valued in themselves, and most importantly--in us. I'm discovering the same holds true for the Greek Gods and Goddesses.

Since the deities have never ask me to believe in them, why should I have too? It seems that's not part of the bargain. The Gods and Goddesses have given us much. Honoring them is little payment, especially when we don't have to swallow their theology whole.

...bring back the ancient greek gods? no, let's not.

I'm not so sure they ever left. :)