Kids!

Posted on Facebook but worth re-posting. There is a serious lesson to be learned in this mess, and I hope no one overstates or misinterprets the seriousness of the situation. As serious as it is, this is nontheless simply a situation of a foolish, impulsive child doing a foolish thing which had serious consequences in the real world. Now it’s time to correct the error and for everyone to heal. That’s really all there is here.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/30/us/virginia-girl-fake-story-about-cut-dreadlocks/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fapple.news%2FAE-eIecOlQeiVG9LKMTi4Lw

Facebook post:
I feel sorry for everyone who was hurt by this, including her family. Which leaves the question, is there any deep lesson contained in this? If there is one, it would be that you should always remember when listening to stories by kids is that kids are notorious for making up stories and for doing really foolish things without any consideration of the consequences. As I said so many times, kids are idiots. The good news is, they tend to grow out of it.

I will repeat the story that was told to a group of us intern teachers by our superintendent as we started our first job. He recalled when he was a young teacher he was told the story as well. There was, once upon a time, a long long time ago, a teacher who started every year by sending a note home for parents which said, “I won’t believe everything your children tell me about you if you won’t believe everything your children tell you about me.“ Good advice.
😏

Facts Need Not Apply

The question has been asked on a number of platforms by a number of people, “How can anyone still support Trump?”

The answer is very complicated but to illustrate just how fanatic a true believer can become, Let’s take a look at the most extreme of extreme focuses. By looking at the most extreme situation which you can imagine, you can carry back the lesson which is clearly demonstrated there and apply it to the not so extreme situation in which you find yourself.
Let’s go to April 20, 1945. The German army is shattered. The war is largely being fought by sick old men and little boys. In less than two weeks Hitler will kill himself in despair. Yet, on his birthday it was possible for true believers to be excited and inspired by Goebbels speech. Here are some excerpts. As you read them, ask yourself again the question, how can anyone look at reality and still believe in…name your corrupt leader.

> ...Our enemies claim that the Führer’s soldiers marched as conquerors through the lands of Europe — but wherever they came, they brought prosperity and happiness, peace, order, reliable conditions, a plenitude of work, and therefore a decent life.

...The perverse coalition between plutocracy and Bolshevism is collapsing!

...the German people bore him. It chose him, it by free election made him Führer. It knows his works of peace and now wants to bear and fight the war that was forced upon him until its successful end.

...But if we achieve our goals, the project of social construction begun in Germany in 1933 and was rudely interrupted in 1939 will be taken up again with renewed strength.

...(Hitler) will go his way to the end, and there awaits not the end of his people, but rather a new and happy beginning to an era in which Germandom will flourish as never before.

...Germany is still the land of loyalty. It will celebrate its greatest triumphs in the midst of danger. <

Reality is meaningless to true believers. That’s how.

Humpty Trumpty

My friend Susan posted a photo of a group of individuals climbing and sitting on the top of Trump’s unclimbable wall. I reposted it. The following conversation ensued:

Me: This is not a tourist stunt. These are professional chefs who are frying eggs on the top of the wall. It’s a new reality TV show to see who can fry the best eggs in the shortest time.

S: I hope Trump sees the reference to fried eggs. It would make him so proud.

Me: By Trump I assume you mean our president, Humpty Trumpty.

S: Yeah. Wasn't he bragging about how you could fry an egg on his fabulous, unbreachable wall?

Me: Humpty Trumpty fried eggs on a wall
Humpty Trumpty had a great fall
All these king’s horses and all the king’s men
Tossed Humpty into a jailer’s pen

S: Can't wait.

Me: Change that last “Humpty” into a “Trumpty”. Sounds better. Also the jailers’ pen. Scans better.

Not in the original Facebook exchange but I add this additional comment:

As Trump is so fond of saying, “Walls work!“
As proof, look at this Wikipedia expert regarding the most famous wall in human history:

>Although a useful deterrent against raids, at several points throughout its history the Great Wall failed to stop enemies, including in 1644 when the Manchu Qing marched through the gates of Shanhai Pass and replaced the most ardent of the wall-building dynasties, the Ming, as rulers of China.<

Yes. It’s a matter of historical fact. The most determined wall builders of all time were invaded and conquered by the Manchus, who crossed the incredible working wall.

Bicycles And The Junior Anti-sex League

From a Facebook post. Short, but important enough to re-post here.

https://quillette.com/2019/09/10/in-praise-of-renoirs-male-gaze/

Me: It has come to this? A female scholar must defend Renoir against the anti-sex, anti-male attacks of radical feminism. How sad.

B: Quillette is a magazine I've come to really appreciate right now. They've become the center of cultural controversy: they are routinely castigated as a fascist mag. It's bizarre. The CEO is Claire Lehmann; she's a smart thinker who seems to love jumping into the vitriolic fray of social commentary.

Me: They do tend to have too much of a conservative slant for me to enthusiastically support them, but they often make excellent points. I do notice that if you disagree with them on even minor matters it’s common for you to be instantly labeled a Marxist. Not all the contributors practice this unusual ritual, but too many of them do.

For any of you out there asking, the Junior Anti-sex League??? I include The following link and quote.

> The Junior Anti-Sex League in 1984 is a group that advocates "complete celibacy for both sexes." They are pushing the agenda of the Party, the group that rules the country. According to the Junior Anti-Sex League, children should not be conceived through sexual intercourse. <

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-junior-anti-sex-league-1089836

Or, put another way, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Oh sorry, that’s not an accurate quote. Let me correct that, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a mate.”

Artificial Stupidity Rules!

https://www.fastcompany.com/90399280/aristo-ai-passes-science-test-for-8th-graders?partner=rss&utm_campaign=rss+fastcompany&utm_content=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=rss

Smarter than an eighth grader? Well… In terms of taking standardized tests yes. But standardized tests are absolute garbage measurements of anything of any serious real educational value except the ability to regurgitate mindless facts. And yes, computers are really good at regurgitating mindless facts. Other reports on the same topic of noted that the computer is a total dolt in other areas. In fact it’s not even as smart as a human preschooler in areas such as creative problem solving, social skills, and other abilities important to functioning in human society.

However, when taking standardized tests it’s a genius. Which just goes to show that giving standardized tests to our students is the act of an incompetent.

Fake...News? No, Meat

https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/19/20869271/impossible-burger-foods-gelsons-markets-southern-california-meat-free-plant-based

Me: Susan, the times they are achanging.

S: Are you going to try it? Just because it's plant based doesn't mean it's healthy. Check the ingredients. Personally, I hope it is good stuff.

Me: I usually buy already prepared meats. Even simple cooking like making a good spaghetti sauce and browning my own meat etc. is just beyond me right now. I’m willing to try it though. And honestly I’m not concerned so much about it being healthy as I am concerned about the effect on the environment and reducing cruelty to animals.

S: I started on this journey back in the 70's when I was horrified to read how veal calves are treated. So I agree with you on both points, especially reducing cruelty to animals, only wish it could be eliminating instead of reducing.

Me: I won’t argue. I am not a hypocrite but I do admit I make something of a bargain with the devil when I continue to eat meat. But I’ve also always advocated for laws insisting on the most humane treatment possible for animals even if it meant greatly raising the cost of meat at my own economic expense.

And if you need to smile today:
https://www.eater.com/2019/9/19/20873805/stephen-colbert-impossible-burger-commercial

B: I haven't tried one yet but *everyone I've asked about it who's had it, like it. The ingredients don't seem particularly weird. "Impossible" is mostly soy and "Beyond" is mostly pea protein. Let me know if you try it!

Me: Will do.

Rational Is As Rational Does

Once again Dawkins presents himself as a rational moderate individual on the subject of religion. Of course, he is nothing of the kind.

Dawkins is not offering people the choice and letting them choose for themselves. When being interviewed by Lawrence Krauss, he bullied Krauss into agreeing with him that anyone who believes in anything spiritual should be banned from being a member of any profession. That means that a person who believed in anything other than absolute materialism would not be allowed to be a teacher, Doctor, Professor, lawyer, or any other profession. He wants to make this the law of the land.

I refer to this as the Atheist Inquisition.

I have no problem with atheists. I have no problem with theists. I have a problem with extremists. Dawkins loves present himself in moderate dress, but beneath the stage make up, he is an intolerant fanatic bigot.

https://apple.news/AYyaW_zMFTUGIOWJmoc-rOQ

Permit me to also note that under Dawkins’ inquisitorial rule, Albert Einstein would have been banned from being a physicist. After all, Einstein believed in something spiritual, if he wasn’t exactly sure what it was himself. He said much on the topic, the following three quotes making my point clearly.

“A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.” (Albert Einstein)

“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” (Albert Einstein, 1954)

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” (Albert Einstein)

Remember, Dawkins was insistent that any belief in anything other than absolute materialism is cause for banning membership in any profession. Einstein’s conviction that mere materialism was not an adequate explanation for the entirety of reality, while not religious in the ordinary sense, was certainly not absolutely and rigidly materialistic.

Oligarchic Kleptocracy Forever?

On C-SPAN today (Thursday, September 19), Lee Drutman regarding his book, Breaking the Two Party Doom Loop. Where he was interesting and his book would be worth reading. He makes a point that while the founding fathers were intensely suspicious of political parties the negative effects were mitigated by our having, in effect, a four party system until recent decades. The point being that there were liberal Republicans, conservative Republicans, liberal Democrats, and conservative Democrats. Now the parties are rigid and bitter bipolar opposites. We are now a truly two party system, and it’s failing the nation.

His presentation is much more complex than this simplistic summary, so I think it will be well worth anyone interested to purchase his book.

But I found most interesting was a quote from the Authoritarian Warning Survey (a group which self describes it self as “Authoritarian Warning Survey polls democracy experts on threats to democracy from American political leaders in 2017-18. Respondents are academic scholars who study democratic decline, political institutions, American politics, or countries that have recently experienced democratic erosion.”).

The quote reads, “In the August/September 2018 Authoritarian Warning Survey, 747 democracy experts collectively gave the United States a one six chance of a democratic breakdown in the next four years, and were nearly unanimous (97.1%) in their assessment American democracy had declined the last decade.“

I am unfamiliar with this organization although it certainly makes itself sound reliable. I do know that I completely agree with this assessment. I have been arguing that America had been turned in Into an oligarchic kleptocracy for at least a decade — more like two or three decades.

So should we despair? Considering that a great many Americans agree that the government no longer represents them, I think there is real basis for hope. As the author pointed out during the interview, there are many ways that without any change to our constitution we can make room for multiple parties. The author presented a number of alternative and entirely constitutional systems which can be adopted by individual states to promote diversity among our political parties and the choices a voter can make.


I was raised to revere the Constitution as an nearly perfect document. As I’ve matured I have realized it is profoundly flawed. And yet, we can work within it to correct the profound flaw of “winner take all”.

https://qz.com/1711965/most-americans-think-the-powerful-act-unethically-with-impunity/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/25/voters_rate_political_corruption_as_americas_biggest_crisis_140156.html

Same Difference

Thought for the day, regarding differences in religious doctrine.

...a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. — Benjamin Franklin

😉

By The Power Of Numbskull!

So I’m not the only one who feels the need to explain that yes, I am Christian, but I’m not one of those Christians.

I really blew this one! I’m trying to put the link to the article into this post, but I wrote the post yesterday and I wasn’t feeling all that great so I failed to put it in. Now I’m having trouble relocating the article. I will include the link below, if I can find it. If not my apologies to the authors and to readers who would really like to read the original.

I’ve quoted excerpts from the article more extensively than I normally do, this is not to say that I have summed it up in it’s entirety. It is well worth reading in its original form. However, the points were so cogent I felt that these expansive excepts were appropriate.

> For years they exchanged pleasantries with the pastor, before stumbling into a political discussion in which they discovered he was not, to their surprise, a right-winger. “Oh, I get it: You’re not those Christians,” the husband exclaimed. The couple soon became regulars at our church.
I mention this anecdote in connection with new research showing that the political views of conservative Christians — notably the militant Christian right composed mostly of white Evangelicals though with some Catholic “traditionalists” in harness with them — are pushing people who strongly disagree with them away from Christianity (or any other religious faith).

...Researchers haven’t found a comprehensive explanation for why the number of religiously unaffiliated Americans has increased over the past few years...But a recent swell of social science research suggests that even if politics wasn’t the sole culprit, it was an important contributor.

... In a paper published in 2002, they offered a new theory: Distaste for the Christian right’s involvement with politics was prompting some left-leaning Americans to walk away from religion.

...The more non-religiously-affiliated Americans think Robert Jeffress or Mike Pence or (shudder) Donald Trump speak for God in this country, the less likely they will ever darken the door of a church, where it is assumed those Christians are stewing in their cultural pathologies. < As I have commented in a previous post, these ultra conservative, ultra religious groups are violating the teachings of their own Gospels (one of which directs them to be in the world, not of the world) and the principles of the foundation of the United States (which was designed according to the majority of the Founding Fathers, to be a secular religious-neutral system of government). By their fruits you shall know them, declares the Bible, and the fruits of these fanatic individuals who are so fiercely evangelical is that what they are actually evangelizing is that people should turn away from religion. As an article in Salon noted, >"Rising none rates are more common in Republican states" in the years between 2000-2010, researchers write. "Moreover, when the Christian Right comes into more public conflict, such as over same-sex marriage bans, the rate of religious nones climbs." ...The more the religious right engages in politics, the more people get fed up and abandon Christianity. And the more they do that, the easier it is for them to embrace socially liberal policies. ...Robert P. Jones of the Public Religion Research Institute told Salon that it's "young, white people leaving Christian churches that is driving up the number of religiously unaffiliated Americans."

Now there's more evidence that Jones is right: By organizing politically, the Christian right may be winning elections in the short term, but it's also driving people out of the pews, which is likely to lead to long-term defeat. <

Talk about self-destructive behavior! As the Republican Party purified and rarefied its membership through it’s “RINO” purge, so this worldly politicized group of Christians are shrinking their membership in their desperate search for purity and power.

Please remember that “none” does not mean atheist or agnostic. It means not associated with any organized religion. Most of the “nones” are in fact theists who believe in God, but not in organized religion; much to the dismay of those who insist otherwise, like Mr. Trump, the Republican Party, extremist atheists, and others of that type.


The Salon article: https://www.salon.com/2018/05/14/how-the-religious-right-is-shrinking-itself-overzealous-christianity-is-driving-people-away/

Posted

Through A Glass Darkly

I find myself making posts on my blog out of very brief Facebook posts. I prefer to go with the brief posts on Facebook and the longer posts on my blog, but some issues are simply so important I feel the need to put them on the blog even if I lack the strength or endurance to make more lengthy presentations. If nothing else, it allows my close friends a clear view of those issues I think are of great importance and which I hope we will be able to discuss in the future.

Case in point:

https://slate.com/culture/2019/09/hurt-people-hurt-people-quote-origin-hustlers-phrase.html

The statement is not entirely accurate, rather it’s terribly simplistic. My own family histories show a deep reflection of the reality of this concept. Several intergenerational examples of individuals being hurt as children who then grew up to inflict similar or related hurt upon their children are well known to me. In one particular case I can track the hurt back to the current “hurter’s” great grandparents. There the trail grows cold. In another case within my family, I can also trace the harm back to the “hurter’s’” great grandparents. In that case, however, the chain was broken and has ceased being passed on down to future generations.

A more accurate statement would be that those who have been hurt find it difficult not to pass that hurt onto next generation, but they can and do accomplish this in many cases. Their are also cases in which the harm originates with a particular individual who was not hurt.

Please note that I am aware my the constant use of the word “hurt” is clumsy but I think it is appropriate in this particular post.

Old Poems Unposted (?)

Poetry

Good Saturday

Good Saturday

Long day hard day
Not so very good day

Strained and tired
Anxious and wounded

Heart skipping beats day
Want to run away day

Bulgy bear
Don't know why

Still alive day
Struggle on day

Grubbing hope
Seeking peace

Colored chalk and grandkids day
Easter eggs and glitter day

Small delights
Vast rewards

Swirling colors in the sink day
Dear memories remembered day

Retreating from battle
Seeking home

Please God make it stop day
Dear God thank you for this day

Joyful heart
Family strong

Good Saturday



Choices

At the center of the orchard
The old tree stands
Rejected beloved

Walls have grown
Deep down and tall
Cutting off both root and branch

Some still stand united, whole
Sharing soil and water
Separately together

The bitter selfish
Neither give nor take
But know they are the best of all



Peachtree

Peachtree
old tree
Why'd you up and go tree?

First fruit
Sweet fruit
Sorry to have lost you tree

Privatization By Any Other Name Still Stinks As Foul

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/student-loan-experts-congress-193001992.html

I have been criticizing the privatization movement since George Bush Junior was sitting in the White House. We have gone long way down that antisocial road — and look where we are today. This article shows even more successes for the privatization-cutthroat capitalism model. Very few people who love the ultra conservative economist Hayek remember that he predicted that most societies would destroy themselves. He considered that to be a very good thing. He was, after all, an economic Social Darwinist. Survival of the fittest. The strong survive. The weak die.

America is well along on the road to dying.

> “...debt is tearing our country apart,” Seth Frotman, former student loan ombudsman and the executive director of theStudent Borrower Protection Center stated. <

Mainlining Creationism

https://quillette.com/2019/09/09/david-gelernter-is-wrong-about-ditching-darwin/

If you are unfamiliar with the efforts of religious extremists to force their views upon the American public, this is an article well worth reading. The arguments being debunked here are yet another attack on reality. Yet another attack on science. Yet another refusal to acknowledge facts.

Creation “Scientists” are a strange and distasteful mishmash of true believer, outright liar, and astoundingly gullible fool. As with all addicts, one can only hope that eventually they will reach such a wretched level that they finally become disgusted with their acts of self degradation and turn away from their addiction.

It is a sad and forlorn hope.

Nevertheless, I must greatly respect and admire those open minded clear thinkers who continually expose themselves to these diseased minds in the effort to at least prevent the spread of the plague, even if curing those already afflicted is unlikely.

> ...every one of those arguments has been soundly rebutted over the past few decades...I suspect he, like all ID advocates, is susceptible to religious blandishments, immunizing him against the scientific truths that rebut faith. And so he asks us, “How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?” The answer, I suggest, is “We don’t need to.” < And the most apropos excerpt of all, > Rebutting such arguments is a perpetual and tiresome battle, useful only for those sporting open minds rather than religious blinkers. <

Well said, Professor Coyne. Well done.

Absolutism In Science

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/

So what has been touted as absolute proof that free will can’t possibly exist appears very likely to simply be an artifact of the way the data was analyzed. In other words, evidence of nothing at all, except the foolishness of jumping to conclusions and of predetermining the outcomes of scientific data.

> ...neuroscientists barged in like an elephant into a china shop and claimed to have solved it in one fell swoop... <

It should be noted that even if it had been confirmed, it could only show that under extremely limited circumstance requiring virtually no rational thought, or decision-making, or exercise of free will, the brain predecides a response without conscious input. Had this been correct (and now appears to be incorrect) it still would not have warranted the conclusion that therefore every single decision ever made by every human being can only be made in this particular non-conscious manner. Such an overreach is simply unwarranted. It reminds me of BF Skinner’s conclusion that since some learning takes place as a conditioned response, all learning must take place in that manner. This is the equivalent of saying that since some people get from place to place on a skateboard, the only way human beings can ever transport themselves from place to place is on a skateboard. Thus, there are no such things as automobiles, cars, trains, rollerskates, or human feet.

This inevitably reminds me of a supposed absolute truth that free will can’t exist which is based in classical physics. For decades it was declared as an absolute that since every single cause has a single effect and every single particle must react to the previously existing conditions in an exactly predictable manner, there was no room for free will or choice. Every thought was ultimately produced by the motions and interactions of atoms and molecules and since these were moved in an exactly predictable manner from one existing state into the next existing state, there was no such thing as original thought or free will. Everything, including our thoughts and our choices were always predetermined.

Then came quantum physics. Suddenly the very same individuals who were loudly (very, very loudly) declaring free will is impossible because of this absolutely perfect proof were insisting that the destruction of their beloved proof was totally meaningless and had no effect on the debate whatsoever. Ultimately, it seems, the perfect and irrefutable argument was composed entirely of sour grapes.

In fairness, we must be remember that scientists are, inevitably, human beings. The public image of scientists as cold calculating individuals who lack emotion or are at least are uniquely objective is nonsense. More than anything else, at the most basic level, a scientist is a human being; and as with all human beings this class of individuals is subject to the same emotional prejudices, confusions, and errors that are inherent to our entire species.

The classical physics argument that all particles follow a rigid and invariable pattern and therefore there can be no such thing as free will since we are completely, including our brains, composed of those particles so that everything is already predetermined was as deeply offensive to me in high school as it is today. Like it’s theological cousin, the Calvinist theory of predestination, the belief that human beings have no control of their own fate was anathema to me. I didn’t know where the fault lay in this particular theory, it seemed to be a perfect proof. Yet I had a deep conviction (one could argue a faith) that it was wrong.

Now that its flaws have become manifest, I feel deeply vindicated, even while those who once swore that classical physics theory was the absolute proof of their correctness now discard it as never having been relevant to the discussion. It should be noted that in the area of quantum physics there are still those who advocate for a theory referred to as the “hidden variables” interpretation. This suggests that there are variables which adhere to the classical physics model which are unknown to us at this time and which will eventually prove (when they are discovered) that classical physics was correct all along. The number of scientists believing this shrinks every year. As an old adage by Max Plank indicates, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

FYI: it was Max Planck’s work on the blackbody problem that caused him to introduce a new concept, that of the quanta. When he first introduced it to resolve that problem, he regarded it as a mathematical fiction, but it grew into a new reality, indeed, into an entirely new physics.

This leaves the questions of, what is conscious, what is free will, unanswered. While we continue to seek the truth, we must wonder if it will ever be found. A very interesting article suggests that a single ultimate answer may not be possible. It presents a very interesting concept. One, I think, especially in the context of this post, is well worth consideration. See the link below.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pluralism-beyond-the-one-and-only-truth/

When Is A Human Human?

A pair of posts which, put together, are worthy of being moved from Facebook to this blog. The point of both being that as medical science advances we more and more find ourselves in need of careful ethical considerations before performing many types of experimental research.


https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/brain-waves-detected-in-mini-brains-grown-in-a-dish

> The EEG recording of a 28-week-old mini-brain mimicked the recordings of a pre-term infant at 35 weeks’ gestation. < Does anyone else find this deeply disturbing? I was worried about something along this line occurring when they first created these “mini brains”. At what point does this become a form of an actual human brain? At what point does this experiment require informed consent? Remember, that’s the consent of the mini brain. https://nextshark.com/chinese-scientists-human-genes-monkey-brains/ As if mini brains that artificial intelligence identifies as having brainwave patterns indiscernible from those of a premature baby, now we’re implanting human brain cells in monkey brains. Science-fiction horrors are looking more and more like nonfiction horrors. > “To humanize them is to cause harm. Where would they live and what would they do? Do not create a being that can’t have a meaningful life in any context.”<

The Church Of The Numinous

Saturday

What fine visit I had with my friend Bobby. As always, he brightened my day and made me feel so much better. We lunched at one of our favorite spots, the Ono Hawaiian Barbecue.

On the way back home, Bobby and I were talking. He pointed out that it seemed as if something, a sense of community, a sense of belonging to something greater, was difficult to find in the skeptical world. I noted that the Church of Satan presents itself as a church for atheists but it’s really more about being an in-your-face answer to Christian fanatics. That’s not a bad reason to have a church, but it’s not what I would consider the best reason.

I said atheists should have a church, and he and I should found one. We talked about it for a while, partly joking and partly serious. I observed that Einstein loved the numinous, though he certainly didn’t believe in any kind of God to whom you could pray or who was an actual person with a personality. Wouldn’t it be possible, I asked, for humanists and skeptics to identify and revere such concepts as morality, a sense of purpose, the numinous, and our mutual humanity?

Bobby noted that Nietzsche was identifying our loss of God as a symptom he was describing, not as a desirable thing. In fact, the philosopher felt that this loss had seriously harmed humanity. I noted that was something that Christian extremists simply do not understand about Nietzsche. They think he wanted to kill God when he was actually mourning His loss. Bobby went on to note that we humans endow things with sacredness. I liked that, and asked him why we couldn’t endow things with sacredness without God necessarily being part of the process? Isn’t that what humanism is about? Can’t we control that as we control so much of our spiritual, emotional, and personal lives?

In the end we decided we just had to found a genuine, actual church for atheists. It would be up to members of the church to endow it and its principles (no room for infallibility or doctrine, sorry) with sacredness. Then the question became, what should we name it? I proposed that he and I should both become the Prophets of Probability, since the universe is probablistic from the humanist-athheist view point. He liked that idea and then added that we should be the Non-prophets of Probability. I think Bobby and I make a great team.

In all seriousness, I think atheists and humanists should do exactly this. We humans can and should endow certain principles with sacredness. Traditionally that term is utilized for that which is created by or dedicated to a god or gods, but the humanist in me doesn’t see why we humans can’t take Bobby’s advice and endow sacredness by ourselves.

During the conversation I did say to Bobby that such a church should be able to include theists like me; one who was always a born skeptic and a dyed in the wool believer, one who dislikes the rigidity of doctrine and the tendency toward fanaticism and mindless faith inherent in organized religion, yet who finds himself divided between rationality and mysticism

That’s a church I could believe in completely. Among the principles which I would endow with sacredness are tolerance, the unity of all mankind, the sense of the numinous as we gaze upon the world and universe about us, and a deep dedication to seeking rational solutions to the problems of the world.

Everyone would welcome to join If they adhere to these principles, but because of the sacredness of those principles; the intolerant, the irrational, the angry, and the arrogant would be excluded, not because we think of ourselves as superior, but because we see our principles as genuinely sacred and they do not.

Also: Our church symbol could be the lazy eight or symbol for infinity, but made with a Mobius strip.
Without the Mobius element, the symbol has been used since ancient times. It symbolizes infinity, of course. It also means something everlasting, the worm Ouroboros with its head biting its own tail, enduring love, and more. The Internet adds that, >Arabic artists used it to represent eternity, wholeness, and completion.<
The United States Department of Veterans Affairs authorizes the symbol as one which is acceptable on veterans headstones, but does not identify it as associated with any particular religion, merely stating that it represents “infinity”.

A few suggestions as to the “structure“ of the church:

The Framework

Doctrine: None
Hierarchy: None
Sacred Items: Our Principles
Diety: Optional
Authority: The Self
Philosophy: Skeptical Rationalism
Inspiration: The Numinous
Beliefs: Personal and subjective

The Sacred Principles

* Tolerance
* The unity of all mankind
* The sense of the numinous as we contemplate the world and universe about us
* A deep dedication to seeking rational solutions to the problems of the world
* Non evangelicalism
* We are part of the universe, seeking to know itself
* Sentient beings should not be made or allowed to suffer
* Each sapient being’s experience is personal and subjective within the framework of the objective universe

Another principle of the church (though unofficial and perhaps even a personal addendum of my own) which I suggest we should endow with sacredness is one of my top five most favorite quotes of all time. The original quote referred to what happens when humans attempt to understand the nature of God, but one could easily extend it to what happens when one tries to understand this vast universe of which we are a part. “A dog might as well contemplate the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.” —Charles Darwin

Finally, I decree (with approximate infallibility) that I shall be the non-Pope in the West and Bobby the non-Patriarch of the Eastern Church.
Sounds good to me. Is that O.K., Your All non-Holiness?
(Remember, I only get to be His non-Holiness. You also get the All.)

More coming?

A Fire Bell In The Night

https://time.com/5672506/hitler-art-activism/

Sorry Mary Lane and Time magazine, but you should check your facts a little more carefully before reporting them. It’s a way to avoid embarrassment. I really that recommend you should try it.

In the magazine she reported that  > When Adolf Hitler took charge of Germany 85 years ago this summer, he did not, contrary to popular belief, “seize power.” Rather, Germans elected him their Führer, or leader, in a referendum on Aug. 19, 1934...<

But as I already was aware, Hitler seized power. No doubt about it. I didn’t know all the details, but they are easily found online, as in Wikipedia, for example.

> The referendum was associated with widespread intimidation of voters, and Hitler used the resultant large “yes” vote to claim public support for his activities as the de factohead of stateof Germany. In fact, he had assumed these offices and powers immediately upon von Hindenburg's death and used the referendum to legitimize this move, taking the title Führer und Reichskanzler.<

We all should check our facts before we post.  It’s excusable that those of us simply posting for the interest of ourselves and friends can occasionally make an error. Professional journalists and Time magazine have no such excuse.

This is not to say she doesn’t make an excellent series of points. The United States should take a very close look at what’s happening in America today as religious groups more and more surrender their moral and theological positions to political expediency and power.

>In his 1926 painting “Pillars of Society,” the then-33-year-old artist warned his fellow Germans that, if petty government sniping and extremist Christianity were not nipped in the bud, Hitler’s rise would be the likely consequence. Grosz further warned against radical far-right religious views in 1927’s “Shut Up and Do Your Duty,” a work that shows Jesus Christ nailed to the cross wearing combat boots and a gas mask—a criticism of politicizing Christianity that drew praise from pacifist Quakers in the United States.<

“...petty government sniping and extremist Christianity...” that seems to sound very familiar for some inexplicable reason.

STEM And Sex

https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/girls-are-just-as-good-at-stem-study-finds?utm_source=Cosmos+-+Master+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=76e3a61790-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3f5c04479a-76e3a61790-180555153

Social justice warriors and radical feminists have a habit of becoming frantic (dare I say hysterical?) when it is suggested that anything other than cultural differences and patriarchal prejudices can explain the differences between the performance of males and females in STEM performance,  this type of irrationality is wrong for several reasons. 

The two most important are that answering one mindless prejudice with another mindless prejudice is a malfunctional way of thinking and does not do anything to solve the problem, it only makes the problem more complex and difficult to resolve.

The second is that denying that reality is real because of your ideological or religious prejudices completely shuts out the possibility of finding out what is actually happening in the real world.  To deny even the possibility that one should study why males and females perform differently as a sort of patriarchal suppression is madness. A properly constructed study would uncover patriarchal suppression while refusing to conduct that study leaves the true nature of the problem obscured and probably unimaginable.

If the results of this particular study are born out, it shows that there is in fact a difference in the structure of male and female brains which does not mean females are inferior at STEM activities, but rather that they process their thinking in a slightly different manner.  A very small adjustment in the strategy of administering tests could be all that is required to eliminate the imbalance. No outrage needed. No protest needed.  Only careful studies, and an open mind.

Being offended, being oppressed, being the victim, and so many other maladaptations to life in a society with our fellow human beings are becoming the norm on both sides of the political landscape. (I must add that it is the absolute default position of conservatives and Republicans while Democrats are beginning to experiment with this tool.)  This is a very serious mistake.It inevitably leads us to a fatal flaw, replacing our facultative capacity to reason and actually solve problems with our obligate capacity to become irrational and emotional.

We each are empowered to make the choice for ourselves — use the capacity our brains have to think clearly and actually solve problems or simply allow our emotions to drown our rationality.

That’s the kind of empowerment I prefer.

The Religious FreedomTo Persecute

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/mississippi-wedding-venue-refuses-to-rent-to-engaged-interracial-couple-because-the-owners-say-its-against-our-christian-beliefs-to-do-mixed-race-and-gay-weddings/ar-AAGEPUL

ME:  We knew this was coming. Conservative Christianity is an now an excuse to break the law and deny people their human rights. Thank you Republican Party.  Back when Ronald Reagan was president I referred to Republican Party as the New World Hezbollah, the American Party of God.

     I was predicting the future more than describing the current reality at that time. And I was right.

S:  Uh oh. Shades of Hitler.  Many of Germany’s 30,000 Roma (Gypsies) were eventually sterilized and prohibited, along with Blacks, from intermarrying with Germans. About 500 children of mixed African-German backgrounds were also sterilized. New laws combined traditional prejudices with the racism of the Nazis.

ME:  We must remember that from the very beginning many have pointed out it’s not make America great again, it’s make America white again.

S:  True, true, true.

S:  Another consequence of Hitler’s ruthless dictatorship in the 1930s was the arrest of political opponents and trade unionists and others whom the Nazis labeled “undesirables” and “enemies of the state.” The mere denunciation of a man as “homosexual” could result in arrest, trial, and conviction. Jehovah’s Witnesses, who numbered at least 25,000 in Germany, were banned as an organization as early as April 1933, because the beliefs of this religious group prohibited them from swearing any oath to the state or serving in the German military.

ME:  Auschwitz was started as a camp for political prisoners, including journalists, who, of course, were enemies of the people.

S:  Could it happen here?

ME:  Not by that incompetent dolt, Trump. 

     Just as back in the days of Ronald Reagan I was seeing where the Republican Party was headed and was deeply worried about it, I can see that as Reagan laid the groundwork for what’s happening today, what Trump is doing today is laying the groundwork for what could very well be the turning of the United States into a fascist-theocratic dictatorship.  Back then I was saying the danger was of these fundamentalists turning America into a Third World country, just as they did to China, just as they did to the great Islamic empire. These once technological and cultural leaders of the world degenerated once they turned inward and began believing in their own superiority and purity and the fundamentalist beliefs of their religions.  Science is not at war with religion, with the exception of a few fundamentalist evangelical atheists. Neither is religion at war with science, except for a few fundamentalist evangelical Christians.  

     In spite of the minority status,they are a very powerful group in the United States.  Courts are being packed all across the country up to the Supreme Court with ultra conservative judges who believe in their theology. Elections are being rigged in favor of the ultra conservative and religious fanatics. And behind it all, of course, are the ultra wealthy. Those who wish to turn us into Mexico — a tiny ruling class of the Dons  and all the rest of us their peons, barely more than an other herd of cattle or sheep for them to exploit.

     I knew then that I was regarded back then by many as being foolish and extreme in making this prediction, but time has borne me out.

     There are times you really don’t want to be right. Even when you are certain that you are.