In the wake of the devastating earthquake that has killed an estimated 50,000 people, as usual, a loathsome televangelist has jumped in to blame a natural disaster on the wrath of God. In this online video, Pat Robertson can be seen stating that Haitians have brought it upon themselves for making a pact with the devil..

I can’t even describe my disgust at this decrepit, vile and downright evil man.

Update: This longer video also contains a reaction from one Haitian who isn’t half as pissed as he should be.

Widespread violence broke out in Mysore Thursday after somebody threw a dead pig into the compound of an under-construction mosque, city police commissioner Sunil Agarwal told CNN.

More than a dozen people were injured in the clashes, he said.

Police fired tear gas and used bamboo sticks to break up the rioting, according to Agarwal.

Authorities have, for now, banned assembly of five or more people on the streets of the troubled area, according to the police.

Mysore is a city in Karnataka, India’s only southern state governed by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata

There’s probably nothing more offensive to a homosexual than being considered “demonically posessed”. But if it’s any consolation, consider the education of this “non-denonminal” (denominational) religious nut.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/25/connecticut.gay.exorcism/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Bill Muehlenberg recently penned a criticism of British Biologist Richard Dawkins in which he cites several examples of supposed “lies” and “errors” that Dr. Dawkins has made. I thought I should take a moment to engage with some of those claims for the sake of clarity.

Muehlenberg starts out by quoting Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov on the subject of ultimate “Truth” (henceforth referred to with the capitalized “T”). Muehlenberg then quotes Dawkins himself from the book The Selfish Gene:

Theologians worry away at the `problem of evil’ and a related ‘problem of suffering.’ … On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies… are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature. Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

Muehlenberg then reaches the following conclusion:

Presumably in such a world truth means very little as well. After all, if humans are nothing but a bunch of selfish genes, then why should truth matter at all? If life is simply a purposeless struggle for survival, then why would it show any interest in truth or falsehood?

Good question, Bill. Why indeed would life show any interest in truth or falsehood? The answer? It doesn’t. Which is precisely what Dawkins is stating. Life itself gives no regard to morality or Truth. Life itself is only interested in one thing, so to speak: the propagation of life. Humans, however, with our brilliantly evolved intellects are the sole form of life who actually attempt to ascribe meaning to a generally Truthless universe.

But that’s not a bad thing, for the Christian or for the Atheist.

Whether we believe in the supernatural or not, finding meaning can be a challenging and fulfilling purpose in our lives. Generally speaking, however, our purposes have the tendency to lean towards a particular purpose, which is that of working towards bettering our species and our planet. Simple enough. Muehlenberg needs to seriously consider actually doing some further background reading if he is to assume that Dawkins is a hopeless nihilist decimating any possible hope in the universe. Quite the contrary. If one seriously reads any of Dawkins’ books, one will find that the biologist is quite optimistic about the state of this “meaningless” universe in all its complexity, all the questions that need to be answered: all the wonders and unknowns of the universe provide endless puzzles to explore and solve.

As for Truth? Well, that’s a bit different than meaning. Searching for ultimate Truth can crudely be broken down to what is good for us and for our world. The Truth, for example, that murder is wrong can be found in the counter-productive effect that it has on the betterment and survival of our species. It is not an ultimate, divinely appointed Truth that seems to be required for any Christian to adhere to, but it is not only logical but explainable – something which cannot be said of a self-contradicting book that purportedly comes from the mouth of God. I would recommend a more detailed reading of Dawkins’ theories of moral development as a function of reciprocal altruism since I think that they may be quite on the mark (but I’m not going to regurgitate them here). Both can be readily found in The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion.

Another zinger that Muehlenberg believes he has found is in a recent debate:

You see, in a recent debate with theist and Christian John Lennox, he let slip what many would regard as a major blooper: he actually admitted that there might be a case for theism of sorts. This was a worldview change of seismic proportions. It was a most remarkable turnaround. For someone who had spent over five decades championing the atheist cause to all of a sudden renounce it was an incredible achievement.

If Mr. Muehlenberg thinks that this is a “slip-up” then Mr. Muehlenberg needs to actually read some of Dr. Dawkins’ books. In his most recent offering “The God Delusion”, Dawkins goes to great lengths to explain that while blindly accepting the existence of God is an error, so too is blindly denying the existence of God. Dawkins knows that, like the rest of the rational world, he cannot definitely say that there is one-hundred percent no God. Of course then he further explains that we cannot one-hundred percent say that there are no fairies or unicorns either. But the point is (and Mr. Muehlenberg seems to miss this entirely) that absolute claims are impossible. We can be quite certain of our convictions, but the atheist who tells you that there is definitively no God is making a statement out of his realm of possible knowledge. The fact that Dawkins may have alluded to the possibility of a case for God is nothing new, and if Mr. Muehlenberg did his reading, he would know this. There was no direct quote for the “faltering” statement that Dawkins supposedly made, so I’m interpreting the event as related by the author. Please feel free to correct me if I’m misinterpreting what was said during the debate.

The fact remains that evidence for God continues to be zero. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or in the case of God, any evidence at all would at least be a start.

Parents in Quebec gathered last week to protest an ethics and religion course that is mandatory in the Quebec school system. Education is good right? We should be teaching all religions and beliefs to children, right?

“We are getting calls from parents saying that teachers are teaching whatever,” Decarie said. “Their children are confused, especially in primary school. And parents are feeling helpless.”

For example, a Catholic child told his parents that he wants his family to become Hindu because then they could have “seven lives” and that would save his dying grandfather.

Education is the best tool with which we can arm children for the future. No doubt. But children, especially in their earlier years, are not able to grapple with the complexities of deep philosophical issues. It’s why we don’t teach them Sartre or Dostoevsky in grade school. It’s just too complicated, and they end up confused. The fact that one child felt that if his family switched to Hinduism that his grandfather magically wouldn’t die speaks to the confusion that complex religious and ethical beliefs can wreak on impressionable minds.

The article is unclear as to which age these classes are being taught. If we’re looking at a high-school course, then the students should be able to tackle the subject matter with clear and rational minds. But if religion and spirituality is being taught to younger children, it is likely that it will only lead to confusion.

And finally, we need to take into account the methods being used in the curriculum. Which faiths are being taught? Is all Christianity lumped together? Is Buddhism or Baha’i being overlooked? Are secular ethics being adequately presented? There could certainly be a bias-issue here simply because there are so damn many religions and belief systems and it’s impossible to cover them all.

It might be best if we drop the religion from “Religion and Ethics” and just stick to the broader morals that our society has decided upon and leave the theological questions for adults with less impressionable minds, right?

Graduates and guests must pass religious banners and symbols to enter the sanctuary. Some have read or looked through Bibles and hymnals in the pews during graduation, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit wants this year’s and future graduations moved to a secular location and seeks compensation for students and parents involved in the lawsuit who attended graduations at the church in the past.

Oh the horror. Of course the ceremonies should be held in an ideologically neutral location, and it saddens me that this had to be pushed through the US justice system, but requesting compensation for the horror of graduating in a church might be pressing the issue a bit too far.

I might as well sue my parents for dragging me to mass every Sunday (and often several weekdays).

Update: Berlin “Pro-Religion” Referendum Soundly Defeated

Reuters reports that the aforementioned referendum has been defeated.

The referendum aroused strong feelings in Berlin. Ethics campaigners said faith-based religion lessons risked opening divisions and setting a predominantly Christian agenda.

The New York Times published this excellent article on the increasing atheist community in the United States.