Reductio Ad Absurdum (A Poem Dreamed, Then Written)

PhotoGrid_1466960685253[1]

Reductio Ad Absurdum (A Poem Dreamed, Then Written), Page 1 – By Luke Austin Daugherty, Copyright: 2016- All Rights Reserved on Words and Image

PhotoGrid_1466960739091[1]

Reductio Ad Absurdum (A Poem Dreamed, Then Written), Page 2 – By Luke Austin Daugherty, Copyright: 2016- All Rights Reserved on Words and Image

Thank you for reading and sharing!

By the way, I accept tips now! I am an independent poet, author, and singer/songwriter and I have my own ebay business to keep me as flexible as possible. But, writing takes time and if you appreciate what I do, if you have been moved or made to think by my writing, OR have just enjoyed something on my blog, please throw a buck or two in my tip jar! 🙂 Your kind tip may buy me a cup of coffee out at my next writing session. Click my easy paypal link that follows and THANKS! -Luke – Luke Austin Daugherty’s Tip Jar

Advertisements

A Not-too-long, Boring, but Encouraging Coffee Shop Story

I often do some writing and editing at several local coffee shops. There is something about the energy I get from being around other people, mostly strangers, that draws words out of me.

Most of my visits to those diner-style coffee shops are uneventful. Some, more eventful. Others, very profound. (Even if only in a subtle way)

Two days ago, I stopped by my favorite local haunt to spend an hour editing the final draft of my new book, read a bit, and get a few cups of java down in me. The place was nearly empty when I arrived. After 30 minutes, I was the only customer there.

As I edited, I heard the shift manager complaining to the cook about the state of some other employees who call in often, are late, or just no-call/no-shows. The two men commiserated a bit as they swept the floor, rolled utensils tightly in paper napkins,  and did other tasks. Also, the manager called some servers on the phone in an attempt to shore-up the schedule for the rest of the week. He was only partially successful it seemed.

Then, a young (maybe 16 or 17 year old) waitress showed up. As she was walking in, the manager met her at the door, motioning with his arms in an “I don’t need you here” fashion. She walked in anyway, asking what the deal was. He explained that she had called in with only minutes notice a few days prior, put the rest of that day’s workers in a bind, and that he was considering firing her. She attempted to smooth the situation over, but wasn’t successful and left. A few minutes later, she came back in with a middle-aged man and  both walked toward the manager. I thought to myself, “This may turn into a blow-out,” and readied my camera phone just in case a video-worthy event took place. I have seen too many things get out of hand over the years and I am a bit edgy when I see people possibly heading toward a serious contention. I figured this guy might be “dad” coming in to straighten the boss out on behalf of his daughter.

The man and the manager started talking about the situation… and I was wonderfully surprised. I am a sucker for civil conversation. I absolutely love engaging in respectful discourse, even if the participants don’t agree on a particular matter. Also, I so rarely observe disagreeing parties in person or on social media who are able to succinctly present their case, hear the other’s, discuss both sides, and then achieve an amicable resolution, respectfully disagree, or agree on something that was previously disagreed on. Beyond that, observing a person change his or her mind on a firmly held position in 2015 is nigh to seeing a unicorn at the park.

Due to my persuasions regarding discourse, I was very happy to observe the manager express his concerns about the server’s performance and reliability in a respectful way and with an even temper. Then, the father-figure apologized for the issues on behalf of the girl. He asked for a second chance for the girl and gave credibility to the manager’s concerns. Also, the girl assured the manager of her commitment to do better and genuinely gave heed to his concerns. After some more conversation and consideration, the manager allowed for a write-up rather than firing. He clearly shared his expectations, which were reasonable, and the consequences present if they were not met. All parties ended the conversation respectfully, amicably, having reached a common position, and asserting a common goal. Not one voice had even been raised through the whole parley. I had to pinch myself.

I know that was a boring, everyday type of story. But, there is a great lesson to be gained. That being, our abilities to deal with other people, have conflicts, argue, discourse, and find common ground (or not) are “everyday” skills. They aren’t just for a college debate class, the board room, marriage counseling, or when some aspect of a relationship breaks down. Those abilities are for the coffee shop, for Facebook threads, for our home, for our friends, and even for our enemies.

Witnessing that interaction between three strangers encouraged me. I personally hope to do as well the next time I have some type of disagreement. Fellow humans, we’ve come a long way. We still have a long way to go. Pass the love on! 🙂

Here is a related TED talk by William Ury that I very much enjoy. If you have a spare 20 minutes, it would be worth your time.

-Luke

The Sunday Sermon- Margaret Heffernan: Dare to Disagree

It seems counterintuitive to welcome friends, business partners, and/or acquaintances who significantly differ from one’s own self ideologically, culturally, or methodologically. Who wants a squeaky wheel of dissent hanging around and being a distraction? Yet, by not allowing for interaction with those who are different, we risk falling into a state of intellectual atrophy, not only as individuals, but as a society.

Having relationships with those who are different or who disagree with us encourages conversation, re-evaluation, learning, and perhaps even changes of mind. Friction with those who rub against our own grain or who are simply not like us can produce wonderful effects if allowed and encouraged. Of course, both parties must desire genuine interaction and not just contentious banter or to “win” a debate. The key is a true and honest desire to understand, learn, share, revise, teach, and adapt for the better. The fruit produced by such a social virtue is good for individuals and good for the communities at large.

I am glad to know some people in life who, though we differ in many ways, are not xenophobic, crave deep discussions, AND actually find it refreshing to have a non-homogenized collective of people in their life. Such friends are rare roses among the thorns of the us/them masses.

For more information on Margaret Heffernan, visit this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Heffernan

Have a great week! -Luke

The Sunday Sermon: Christopher Hitchens on Life, Death, and Free Will (Video)

Here is one minute and 15 seconds  worth of wisdom for you from the oracle on the street, Christopher Hitches.

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a prolific author, journalist, political critic, debater, and speaker. For more information, see this link:

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

Bill Maher Show: Sam Harris vs Ben Affleck Debate- I’m with Sam on this one

Ideas should never be above criticism, particularly religious ones. Though I have great respect for Ben Affleck’s acting and humanitarian work, I have to go with Sam Harris on this debate. Islam not only leaves room for violence and oppression, its texts call for it. I am grateful that a great deal of the adherents to Islam, being around 1 billion in the world, have found a more nuanced way to view and practice their faith. Yet, many Muslims take the fundamental dictates of Islam regarding violence very seriously.

Affleck was impassioned in his challenge to Harris. Yet, his indignation, straw men, and non sequiturs added nothing to his argument.

There are several key points to consider about this issue:

1. Islam is not a “race,” rather, a religious ideology. Ideas are not above reproach or criticism. People deserve protection, rights, and respect. Ideas are made to be tested, discussed, debated, and even ridiculed. To quote Steven Brutus, “Anything that can’t be mocked is dangerous.” No idea, philosophy, or ideology should ever be off-limits from being battered like a pinata to see what ends up falling out, for better or for worse.

2. Islamic religious texts not only allow for violence against non-believers, but actually prescribe it. The portion of Muslims who put those admonitions into actual practice (or just agree with them) are not employing strained or fringe interpretations of those religious texts, but literal ones. For a list of such references, click the link: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

Not to single out Islam for possessing religious texts with a call to kill unbelievers, as there are plenty of similar verses in the Hebrew Bible & other religious texts. I am no fan of those either. But, it is Islam that is the matter of debate in the video above.

3. Any fundamental and violent faith text or system is an enemy of human progress. ANY text, religious or otherwise, that says, “Kill a person who does not agree with this,” is an abomination to humanity. Any or all texts deserve public condemnation. We should all support religious freedom and also the freedom NOT to be religious. But, that doesn’t include the right to harm, imprison, or kill others for not agreeing with you.

Keys To Sound Thinking (An Educational Poster)

"Keys to Sound Thinking" Poster by: Luke Austin Daugherty

“Keys to Sound Thinking” Poster by: Luke Austin Daugherty

“Keys to Sound Thinking,” is a poster I created to sum up three weeks of homeschooling lessons that I taught my four younger children. I just took a quick picture of it on the wall, so please forgive the imperfect alignment and lighting. I will try to get a scanned version posted asap.

 

An Atheist Attends the Sam Rose Tent Revival

20140811_185657

The Same Rose Revival tent

When I saw the large, sky blue tent with a massive, white cross on it set up at the intersection of Ronald Reagan Parkway and HW 40 in Indianapolis, I knew I’d have to check out the Sam Rose Tent Revival. You just don’t see an “old fashioned” tent revival too often around these parts. Hell, you probably don’t see one too often around any parts. It is not odd for local churches around to have revivals and “camp meetings” a few times a year. But, outdoor tent revivals are few and far between.

It took me a few days to get loose in the evening, but I ended up taking my fourteen year old twin sons along with me to experience the presumably old-school preaching. We left the fundamental Baptist church when they were very young and they have no recollection of that brand of American Christianity. There were no meeting dates in front of the tent, so I did not know how long Preacher Rose would be there. Regardless, I did not want to miss the opportunity to do an article on the travelling revival. I did a bit of internet research on the preacher prior to checking the service out, but I found scant search results for the man. I figured that he is either a true, dyed in the wool, old time revival preacher who thinks that the Internet is “the devil” or that he had warrants out in some places and wanted to stay of the grid as much as possible. Though I joke about the latter, I leaned toward the idea of the former.

As I pulled into the grassy field about five minutes early, I was excited to cover the revival on my blog. I planned just to do a general write-up on the service and Pastor Rose without adding much of my own thoughts on his doctrine or my personal dogmatic convictions. On occasions when I write a critique on a pastor or Christian debater, I usually get a rash of sympathetic Christian readers who say that all do on my blog is ridicule ministers and/or Christianity. Though I actually cover a variety of topics, I wanted to demonstrate that I can write an article on a minister which is void of my own polemics. Good intentions aside, I will not end up succeeding in my initial goal. So, I’ll warn believers at the beginning of this article that due to a lengthy conversation with Rose after the meeting, I must once again include some potentially unwanted editorial thoughts.

We three Daugherty boys sat on metal folding chairs in the front row just as the music took off. It was a lively rendition of, “On that Rock Where Moses Stood,” with Sam and his wife singing loudly, her on keys and him whacking a tambourine in time. I used to love that honky-tonk style revival music. Though I did not synergize with their dogma, I must admit that I would have loved to have jammed on my Fender Strat with them up there. Whether that kind of music is in a church with communion wine or at a bonfire with moonshine, it gets down in your innards and makes you want to move.

After the first song, Rose offered an admonition from Psalms 23 and the 10 Commandments while condemning partying, whiskey, and pot. As familiar as I am with both passages of Scripture, neither sections cover partying, whiskey, and pot. Regardless, Mr. Rose found some room for creative exegeses to warn us from “sins” not mentioned in the text. I rather fancy a good whiskey myself, even at the risk of disappointing the preacher. Several songs later, Rose admonished our temporary congregation of twenty-five saying passionately, “I wish I had me a great big, old mirror to put up so you could look at yourself! I’m up here trying to sing my heart out and you’re just looking at me! You know why I want you to stand up? I want people driving by not to look over and see you looking bored… at least for one song.” In fairness, it can be hard to stoke the coals of a revival. The old timers called it, “fighting a chill on the meeting.” Even a good rap concert needs a hype man. He then cried out, “Now, close your eyes and lift your hands and see if you can get a signal from God! Hallelujah Jesus! I had legs to walk in, and hands to lift! Glory to God!”

A few songs and a prayer later, Rose began his sermon for the evening in Matthew 14:25. For about thirty minutes, he preached on faith, miracles, and “chased a few rabbits” as preachers say. He concluded the sermon with a pass-the-basket” style offering and mentioned that his wife had some of her CDs available for a love gift of only $5 each. Before some say, “Yup, just out for money like all preachers,” let me defend Mr. Rose a bit. NO ONE is getting rich off $5 CD sales. They probably make a couple bucks each on those CDs depending on where they get them made. Also, to quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 5:18, “The labourer is worthy of his reward.” I am fully persuaded after hearing his sermon and speaking with him for about an hour and a half that Sam is a totally sincere guy and in ministry for honest reasons. I don’t agree with any of the reasons or his religious convictions. Yet, there are so many people around who are full of shit that I don’t mind a transparent person even when we sharply disagree. Well, so long as they don’t try to harm me or deprive me of liberty. At the risk of tautology, I would say Preacher Rose just is what he is. I just take him as an old-fashioned, Pentecostal, tambourine banging, 40 year old Eagle bus driving, hates the Internet and loves mailing out mission letters with stamped envelopes, circuit riding (or actually driving), “true believer,” waiting on Jesus to get back style revival preacher. That said I don’t believe he is in it for the money. If he is, based on the offering, he’s probably disappointed. Not to mention that the diesel fuel used driving state to state in that ancient bus doesn’t come cheap.

The Sam Rose Revival bus

The Sam Rose Revival bus

Overall, Rose preached a simple revival message and had a clear altar call at the end. He asked if any present desired salvation. There were no takers. He then inquired if any needed healing or a miracle. One man said that his doctors had potentially found a tumor in his abdomen. They would have to run more tests, but he wanted some preemptive prayer regardless. Rose drew close to him and placed a hand on the man’s stomach. He then cried out to God and claimed the healing of the Holy Ghost on the man’s maybe-tumor, thus concluding the night’s revival service.

Once the service concluded, most of the folks left quickly. A few stuck around to chat a bit with one another or Preacher Rose. I thought I’d straggle a bit in hopes of asking Sam a few questions related to my blog article on the revival. I must admit, I probably was a peculiar site during the service. It wasn’t intentional. In order to keep up with my note taking, I had my laptop on my lap the entire service. I can type a hell of a lot faster than I write, so it just made sense. It would not seem strange in your average, relevant style, multi-media church today to be taking notes or looking up verses on a tablet, phone, or laptop during the service. At the revival, it made me stand out like a proper weirdo though. I think I may have even risked a stoning over it.

Just as the revival started promptly at 7 p.m., it ended promptly at 8. I give Mr. Rose a lot of credit for that. Starting on time is expected out of fundamental preachers. But, a preacher ending on time is as rare an event as seeing a unicorn. When Rose ended after just one hour, I actually reconsidered my lack of belief in supernatural intervention and the miraculous. By 8:10 p.m. most of my fellow stragglers had left, so I approached Mr. Rose for a short chat. He had a kindly demeanor at first. I told him I was doing a blog article on the revival and asked him some general questions about his history and experiences in ministry. Coming from 15 years of ministry myself, I knew what questions to ask. As we conversed for about ten minutes, he kept referring to me as, “brother.” Since I spoke fluent “Christian,” I am sure he assumed me to be a believer as well. For the sake of transparency, I felt the need to let him know that I was not a Christian. It was just a brief mention, but his approach changed quite a bit after that. I instantly felt him trying to preach to me about the Gospel and he started sharing testimonies about changed lives via the revival meetings. A few stories in, Rose was pulling out all the stops. He started in with a story about a man who stumbled into the revival in another city… As the story went, the man was drunk, on drugs, had mental problems, homeless, and was an atheist. As Rose worked through the list of the anonymous man’s spiritual maladies, I thought to myself, “Holy Shit! I bet he was also gay, a Satan worshiper, voted for Obama, and wore women’s clothing!” I thought that (as many evangelists do) Sam may be engaging in the hyperbolic in order to give more glory to Jesus once I heard that the man had been miraculously saved and delivered from all his sinful ills.

After that story, in another attempt at transparency, I let Sam know that I am also an Atheist. I did not go to the revival to get in a debate or argument. Yet, I did not want to be reserved about my beliefs since atheism had come up. Just a few minutes earlier, I had asked Sam if they could leave the tent area now that the service was over. He said, “Sure. We have that van over there that we pull behind the bus. We drive that whenever we want to go somewhere.” Upon hearing my proclamation of atheism, Sam’s countenance fell noticeably. He seemed obviously taken back. His tact in the conversation took another abrupt turn. Before he could completely take off again, I said, “Hey, I’d love to invite you and your wife out to dinner with us. I could ask you a few more questions about your ministry over a meal.” He replied, “We can’t go anywhere. There might be a person show up who God sends our way and wants prayer. I have to stay around here.” I asked, “Didn’t you say just a bit ago that you use the van over there to go places? What if I’m the one God sent for you to talk to tonight?” Sam just denied my invitation one more time. Then, out of nowhere he asked with a visibly irritated look on his face, “So, if I leave for a bit to run to the gas station and you are here alone and a man like the one in my story shows up, what would you even do for him? If some man who is drunk and high or maybe hears voices and wants some spiritual help and prayer comes here, what would you even do? Would you pray for him?” I replied, “Well… no, I would not pray for him. I would do something to actually try and help him in a real way. Maybe I would try to help him sober up, get him some food and water, or sit and listen to him. If he was hearing voices, I may assume that he is having some serious mental health issues or had skipped his meds and try to get him some medical help. But, I wouldn’t pretend to be something I’m not just to make him feel better and say some voodoo over him.” Sam was pissed. That voodoo reference didn’t sit well with him. I was not saying that Sam does voodoo nor did I liken his prayers to a voodoo ritual. I was speaking in generalities about what I would and would not do personally. Sam asked angrily, “VOODOO?! VOODOO?! Are you saying I do voodoo?” I said, “No, I wasn’t speaking about you. I was talking about myself since you asked what I would do.” Sam was not amused. I said, “Look. If someone showed up seeking something spiritual from me, I’m not the one to give it. I would give him what I had, something physical or some real support. What did you give that guy who may have needed some physical healing earlier? You aren’t a doctor. You are a preacher. So, you gave him what you had do give; a prayer. Why does it anger you that I would only sincerely offer a person what I have instead of insincerely giving what I don’t?” After that first abrasive volley, our conversation ran the gamut of ideology, pop culture, epistemology, spiritual warfare, and religious dogma for about an hour and fifteen minutes more.

I do not have any desire to bore you, the reader, with a blow by blow reiteration of the entire interaction. Rather, I’ll just illuminate the “Top Five” takeaway points of interest for me personally from the long, heated conversation. And no, I didn’t forget about my twin sons. They were standing right next to me the whole time as a well-behaved and attentive audience of two. It was a good experience for them to be flies on the wall of my conversation with Sam Rose. I hope the following points may be of some help to any readers who are presently steeped in fundamentalist Christianity. By “fundamentalist” I don’t mean just having a sincere faith and belief in the tenants of Christianity. I mean a brand of Christianity which robs a believer of their individuality, leads them into fear of the world, abandon of pressing matters over promises of the return of Jesus, and sets up authoritarian and dictatorial ministers over them. I really don’t care to de-convert anyone from their faith. I say that with sincerity. BUT, I have personally seen the harm of fundamental belief in particular. I am glad to help any believer to steer toward a less intrusive and smothering version of their faith toward a bit more freedom in life. Had my wife and I not left a highly fundamental version of Christianity when we did, it would have become very damaging to our parenting, marriage, and personal relationships. Please know that as I quote what Sam and I said in the rest of this blog, I do so to the best of my ability from memory. The quotations are the closest paraphrases that I can recollect and not tainted with any intentional slant or bias for the sake of supporting my position. Prior to publishing, I had my sons review all quotes to make sure there were not any gross errors. I wish that I had an audio recording of the entire conversation for comparison.

1. Sam, like most fundamentalist preachers, has mislead, preconceived notions about modern culture:

-Many times, when an evil sinner “gets saved” and then called to preach, you can time stamp them culturally at that moment. They leave the “world” and immerse themselves in the local church. If that is a fundamental congregation, they stop watching movies over a PG rating (or at least admit to it), any TV shows with gay characters, and don’t listen to any music other than Christian. (And no, not Christian Rock which isn’t Christian anyway and is only a tool of the devil to draw God’s people into worldliness. But, Christian honky-tonk music is fine…) The first two anecdotes that Rose used in his sermon were about Mickey Gilley and Jimmy Swaggart. I thought to myself at the time, “Yup, dude got saved in the late 70’s.” As Rose and I were rapping, he jumped around topic to topic. He spoke of how all rock musicians are Devil worshipers and Satanists. I said, “Um… no they’re not. I’m a musician and know a TON of rock musicians. They are mostly NOT Satanists.” Rose interjected, “Have you ever heard of Marilyn Manson? He is a devil worshipper!” I replied, “Sure. I don’t know that he is a devil worshiper though. But, even if he was, you can’t generalize one rock musician’s convictions onto every rock musician. That’s just like stupid racial stereotypes.” Sam gave no credibility to what I said. He KNEW all rock musicians are ALL Satanists. No changing his mind. There can be plenty of things wrong with pop culture, but heaping a large scoop of spooky bullshit on top doesn’t help anything. Planet Earth becomes for such ministers, as Carl Sagan called it, “A demon haunted world.” Such ministers, scared of the world themselves, terrify their congregants about it as well. That is not a healthy outlook on life and destructive in the long run.

 2. The thought that a non-Christian person could be good, let ALONE an atheist, was utterly ridiculous to him:

 -I don’t put that on Mr. Rose specifically. Such is the stuff of classical, Christian doctrine. Sam did not invent it. He just preaches it. We are fallen, evil sinners who deserve to roast in the fiery furnace of hell. Add on top of that the assertion, “The fool says in his heart there is no God,” per the book of Proverbs and you have a perfect storm of evil. I think it surprised Sam that I wasn’t stirring a large witch’s cauldron or drinking a goblet of blood while we were conversing. At one point, he was talking about atheists really being Satanists. I laughingly replied, “WHAT?! Do you understand that atheists do NOT believe in the supernatural at all? If I don’t believe in a god, I don’t believe in the devil, demons, angels, etc.” He seemed to think that even though atheists don’t believe in Jehovah, they still embraced Satan. I don’t think Sam has ever had an actual conversation with a lucid atheist in his entire life prior to ours. Perhaps not even a non-lucid one. He seemed very biased toward not wanting to let go of his misinformed preconceptions about rock stars, atheists, or anything else we covered.

 3. Fundamentalist Christianity breeds a spite and trepidation toward broader learning:

-As Sam and I went back and forth, I just spoke as I normally do. I didn’t dumb down my speech or shoot for the pedantic. In conversation, I use some small words, some big words, and some medium words. While I was fleshing out the notion that the primary and foundational difference between us was an issue of epistemology (his being an epistemology of “faith” and mine based on evidence, reason, and logic) he cut me off mid-sentence. He said with a self-assured look, “You know what? You have a spirit of college.” I asked, “What? What is a ‘spirit of college’ supposed to mean?” He asserted, “I can tell you’ve been to college and have that spirit.” I replied, “I only went to college for one semester other than a few online courses.” Adjusting his assertion, “Well… you have a spirit of education.” I said, “I do greatly value learning and expanding one’s understanding and experience. But, I’ve never even heard of a ‘spirit of college’ or a ‘spirit of education’ even when in church for years.” In Sam’s estimation, the regular use of multisyllabic words was some kind of offense against his God. Even in my many years in fundamental ministry, I never ran across such a disdain for the use of “smart words.” Yet I understand his fear. A broader scope of learning would surely kill a person’s scared and reactive perceptions to a degree. In the days of slavery, as Frederick Douglass testified, it was the business of slave masters to keep their slaves ignorant and illiterate lest they gain a hunger for freedom. In these days when nearly all can read, it is the business of hyper-fundamentalist preachers to make their literate congregants terrified to study or read anything from “the world” as it may steal their souls away. I told Mr. Rose that he should be more bold if he was a servant of the True God and not so afraid of everything outside of his tent.

4. If you don’t share Sam’s specific religious convictions, you are a tacit enemy:

-Fundamentalist dogma only allows for two distinctions to be made in humanity. You are either a “sheep” or a “goat,” on God’s side or the devil’s, a saint or a sinner, saved or hell bound, good (only if saved) or bad. That is the extent of it. Once Sam knew I was not a Christian, I became an instant enemy. He threatened me with hell on several occasions. At each instance, I would remark with something to the effect of, “I just want you to know that your spooky proclamations that I will be tortured forever in your Dad’s imaginary dungeon have zero effect on me.” He eventually replied, “If you don’t believe in hell, then you shouldn’t be afraid!” I said, “You misunderstand. I am not afraid or intimidated in any way. I just want you to know that your attempts to manipulate me with unfounded threats of eternal torture in imaginary places are fruitless. Unlike your congregation, I actually require evidence to believe in things. Thus, your ranting about a place in the belly of the earth won’t work on me.” I then asserted, “It is very telling of your character that when a person merely disagrees with you on religion, your response it to make assertions that they should be tortured in fire for eternity.” He asked, “What do you expect that I would say to a person that says they don’t believe in God?” I then answered with my own question in hopes of compelling his mind to a rudimentary level of moral reasoning, “So what you’re telling me is that any person who comes to your tent revival and does not agree with your specific convictions should just EXPECT to be threatened with being tortured forever? Does that seem appropriate to you?” I did not get a direct answer to those questions. He just told me how that when I came in, he knew that I didn’t have the Spirit of God. He could feel it. I think by that point in the conversation, he had forgotten about calling me “brother” at the first. Sour grapes make for a handy snack.

5. At the end of the day, demonstrable evidence does not really matter:

-For the fundamentalist believer, my former self included, nothing and I mean NOTHING trumps the Bible for facts. Until a fundamentalist admits that there is the minute possibility that the Bible (or at the very least their interpretation of it) is wrong, they will never change their mind on anything they hold true. Not only that, but they will tend to gravitate toward any anecdote, testimony, “evidence,” or argument that supports their position, no matter how flawed. We must all have an appropriate level of epistemological humility. An intellectually honest person must go where reason, logic, and demonstrable evidence leads. Sam made several assertions which were demonstrably wrong. Anytime I made an attempt to show that, he would try to talk over me or jump topics. After he told me about the evil of my heart, how Jesus needs to be in it, and why my heart thinks evil, I asked, “You do know that your heart is actually just an organ that pumps blood through your body right? Your brain does the thinking, feeling, and cognitive processes.” He said, “Oh, so you don’t think that your heart does anything other than just pump blood? So that’s all it does, huh?” I said, “Yes, that is all it does. That is just basic, high-school level physiology. I don’t mind the idiomatic use of the word ‘heart’ to mean the emotional aspect of cognition. But, it is important that you know your heart doesn’t really think and feel emotions in the way that you are saying.” He replied with agitation, “So, you just worship your brain don’t you? All that matters is the muscle tissue in your brain I guess?” I said, “There are no muscle tissues in your brain. It isn’t a muscle.” My physiology lesson was of no profit. At the very last, Sam said, “I don’t even trust you anymore! I’m not talking to you! I don’t know what you were typing about us over there the whole time I was preaching! You only came here to slander us in your article!” I said, “Sam. That is 100% not true and I can prove it.” I then grabbed my laptop and turned it on. I said, “Here Sam, you can read every note I wrote about you during the sermon. None of it is slanderous and most of it is positive and complimentary.” He totally refused to even look at the notes. He would not allow the opportunity for me to demonstrate his fallacy in any way. After that he sternly said, “I want you to leave my tent. I am not talking to you anymore.” Trying to salvage some level of civility between us, I replied, “Sam, I just came here to write a story about your revival for my blog. You have taken what started as a nice conversation and turned it into an argument.” He just said again, “I’m gently asking you to leave.” I only replied, “Well, just make sure you keep your request gentle. It is your tent. I’ll be heading out.”

As Solomon said in Ecclesiastes, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter.” It can be a strange thing when ideological worlds collide. I thrive on Socratic discussion and sharing contrasting ideas. I don’t mind debate, but I prefer a discussion. Hell, you may even change my mind. If you do, I’ll thank you for it. So, to Sam, if you ever find your way onto the Interwebs someday and see this blog, I hope you share your thoughts in the comment section. I really would have enjoyed taking you and your wife to dinner to break bread while discoursing in a constructive way. But, you wouldn’t have it. Perhaps we can do it another time. If I see your tent back in Naptown someday, I’ll stop by and say, “Hello.” Perhaps we can build a bridge before you kick me back out from ‘neath your sacred tent into the spooky and fallen world. Either way, it was good chatting with you…

Are Atheists “Irrational”? Deconstructing Brad Stine’s Comedic Arguments

 Image

            I noticed over the last week that several Facebook friends had shared a particular video clip of Christian comedian, Brad Stine. I then saw it popping up on other social media sites as well. So, as a lover of stand-up comedy, I decided to check the video out. Stine, who calls himself, “God’s Comic,” is a proud, Conservative Christian. I was not put off by the title, “Atheists are Irrational,” even though I am an atheist. I was interested to hear what all the hoopla was about and I clicked the link to the clip. Please watch the video yourself prior to reading the rest of my blog for proper context:

            It was interesting that a video which is nearly five years old is just now “blowing up.” I presume it must have been recently shared on some key social media sites and Interweb momentum just took over from there.

            Let me first say that I 100% support the 1st Amendment rights of all Americans for freedom of speech and religion, even when I disagree with them. I also value spirited discourse and debate on issues of religious ideology. I was a Christian minister for over fifteen years and I also very much “get” American Christianity. Now, as an atheist, that personal experience helps me to understand where believers are coming from.

            So, as I listened to Brad Stine’s amusing (to his audience) comedic rant, I was not surprised at all with his assertions, though I was underwhelmed by his arguments. I think if his arguments would have been stronger and more concise, I could have enjoyed the comedy more. But, as it was, his weak arguments were too distracting for me to embrace the comedic elements of his performance.

            I would like to frame up his primary arguments and provide some non-theistic answers to them. Being that his arguments were a bit “loose around the edges,” I have shaped them up a bit for the sake of deconstruction. That was a slight task as the arguments being made were poorly constructed, comedic elements aside.

-Argument #1: Premises- A. Atheists are upset/offended that their “little stinking ‘niche market’ isn’t being stinking represented.” (I guess he means in America in general or maybe in the Pledge of Allegiance specifically). B. Atheists want, “Under God,” taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance because God offends them. C. Atheists do not even believe God is real.  Conclusion: Since Atheists don’t believe god is real, it is irrational that they should be offended by said God and His name being in the Pledge. He actually frames his conclusion in the form of a question: “DUDE! You’re an atheist! You don’t even believe God is real! How can He offend you?!”

            So far at premise A. goes, that is just a subjective and anecdotal assertion that Stine is making with no evidence presented. I would not, of course, expect him to present statistical evidence for his assertion during a stand-up comedy routine. But I will say, I don’t know many atheists (actually none personally) that want the government blowing a trumpet for atheism like many believers do for Theism. If the federal government put forth a vote to see if people wanted, “There is no god,” on our legal tender, I would vote against it. It is the government’s job to guarantee freedom of, and freedom from religion, not to push a particular religious ideology. Individuals should be able to share their beliefs publicly all they want, unless dangerously disturbing the peace or maliciously infringing on the rights of another. That is not the job of government though.

            Onto premise B… As an atheist, it is not the phrase, “Under God,” that offends me; it is that the government compels it to be said in the official Pledge of Allegiance. I would be very surprised if Mr. Stine actually knew at the time he wrote that “bit” that the phrase, “Under God,” was not even in the Pledge until the 1950s when American politicians felt the need to batten the hatches of our ideology against the Red Scare of Communism at that time. From 1892 to 1954, the Pledge was fine without, “Under God,” in it. Now many believers think if the phrase was removed, the Nation would fall apart. This is nonsense.

            Also, for a Christian, the “God” being spoken of in that phrase always has an equal sign to Jesus, Yahweh, or the Triune Godhead depending on the denominational doctrines the individual holds to be true. They know “God” isn’t talking about Allah, Zeus, Vishnu, etc. in the Pledge. We all comprehend that because Christians are the mark majority of Americans, the “God” in the Pledge implicitly means the Christian God. I not only see that as an infringement upon my religious rights, it is also an infringement on the rights of Americans who believe in “another” god. I assert that the Pledge is perfectly complete without any proclamations about invisible, supernatural beings that may or may not exist. It isn’t a matter of needing my “niche” market asserted. It is a matter of religious liberties being protected for ALL of us.

            Premise C spills directly into the concluding question; “How can He offend you?” Well, “He” doesn’t offend me. I do not make a knowledge claim that there is no god hiding somewhere in the universe. I assert that there is not currently enough evidence to persuade me that any god exists. That said, there are many things about the portrayal of the Judeo/Christian Deity that can be offensive. Still, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is the fact that the government pushes a particular ideology that supports theism specifically in the Pledge, on our currency, and in a multiplicity of other ways.

            I find it ironic that Stine uses another mythological creature, the unicorn (which is mentioned in the Bible in multiple passages), to compare his god to for the sake of mocking atheists. But, Stine is missing the point by a mile. As he smirks with self-satisfaction in the video, he does not realize that the average American atheist has heard similar arguments ad nauseam.  My favorite is, “Hey! You don’t believe in Santa, but I don’t see you running around talking against him!” (sigh) The thing is, atheists don’t have the majority of Americans trying to use the government’s authority to push a belief in Santa, tell us we’ll be tortured forever in an imaginary place for not believing in Santa, and try to force legislation that pushes doctrines that Santa taught. No one prevents two loving adults from marrying based on what Santa said. I also know that though Stine is mocking atheists for being “freaked out” by “God” being in the Pledge, if “Allah” was in the Pledge, he would see the situation much differently.

            It isn’t a matter of whether we believe in your (or Stine’s) particular god or not. The issue is that many Christians in America expect the government, State and Federal, to trumpet their particular beliefs to the rest of us. That is unconstitutional.

            To sum up that whole segment of the routine, Stine asks, “Who is more irrational… the guy that believes in a God he doesn’t see or a guy who is offended by a god he doesn’t believe in?!” Well Mr. Stine, you must not recognize that part two of that question is based on a straw man assertion. We are offended by the people ASSERTING the god we don’t believe in who have an expectation that we should shut up while they attempt to manipulate the religious dialogue in our Nation by using the government as a missionary organization. We aren’t offended in some direct way by a being that we reckon to be imaginary.

            The definition of “irrational” is: “not logical or reasonable.” So, it would be irrational in my thinking to assert a definitive belief in a specific being that is invisible and for which there is not sound evidence for. It IS rational to be put off by said person’s attempts to trample my religious freedom via the government.

Argument #2: Premises- A. Christians believe life has meaning and purpose, as well as believe in the ideas of love, honor, nobility, and courage. B. None of those ideas are “in matter and molecules.” (Whatever that means… He must not realize that his body and brain are made up of matter and molecules) C. These ideas could not come from humans or have evolved since evolution “says” that “whatever happens to survive is all that matters… Right and wrong doesn’t exist. Culture just creates it as it goes.” Conclusion: “You’ve got to be kidding me. You see God in his handy work. How can you not see that?” Also, there is the implicit conclusion that the evolutionary process is not sufficient to allow the development of the aforementioned social virtues.

            Well Mr. Stine, if you assume that atheists find no meaning or purpose in life, you must have never had an honest and open conversation with an atheist. I can honestly say that I find more purpose in this terrestrial life now than I did as a believer. This world actually IS my “home.” I’m not just “passing through.” Though I will surely die, it is the only home I’ll ever have. Not only that, it is the only home my progeny will have. So, I want to leave it better than I found it. Trying to make the world a better place is not just, “Polishing the brass on the Titanic,” like I have heard many preachers say. I am not looking for Jesus to come bail us out with the rapture. I don’t believe that I’m seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. I am right here. My family, my friends, and even strangers give my life immense purpose. Nature is beautiful, music is numinous, poetry is moving, philosophy is challenging, science is encouraging, and the universe is awe inspiring. Love is a mystery, joy is a cherished commodity, and a feeling kinship with, and duty to my fellow humans is tacit… no god required.

            Evolution via natural selection is an established, scientific fact. If after reading that you immediately reply, “NO! Evolution is just a ‘THEORY!’ Duh!” then I suggest you study what a “theory” is in science because you don’t know what you are talking about.

            Evolution DEMANDS cooperative populations. We would not even exist currently as a human species had we not developed and possessed inherent values such as fairness, altruism, compassion, etc. Even our near-kinsmen in the animal kingdom possess such qualities. If that assertion is offensive to you, I suggest that you read up on relevant studies and data.

            The fact that Brad Stine has an impoverished conception of evolution and humanity sans theism merely undermines the credibility of his poor arguments and weak assertions. Yet, I fully support his right to make them. He probably is a very funny comedian in general. I just do not support his “right” to have the government of the United States of America as part of Christendom.

            Skipping ahead passed Stine’s appeal to authority via an Anthony Flew anecdote, Stine concludes by telling the audience:

            “You’ve got to be prepared folks…Prepared to battle for our Country’s standards of morality… But I say that there’s a whole bunch of people like us…who aren’t going away… and want our Country back… and we’ll fight for it!”

            When Stine says, “our Country’s standards of morality,” what he means is HIS standards of morality via his interpretations of the Bible. Sorry Brad, it is not the government’s job to hammer free citizens with your pet standards. But, you are right; there are a whole bunch of people like you, the majority of America in fact. Yet, the numbers of non-theists are rapidly increasing. Check the Pew and Barna research data if you doubt that. You should hope that if and when we are the majority, we do not use the government to bully you like you do us now. I have no desire to and do not personally know any non-theists that do. I support your rights and always will. I just will not stand silent or idle in the shadow of a pseudo-theocratic oligarchy that is our Nation’s current government.

            So far as the cry that believers “want their country back,” I must call a persecution complex like I see it. Unless one is in the closet, there is not a single atheist in Congress. There are some states that will not even allow an atheist to run for an elected position. The majority of news journalists are theists of some persuasion. When I turn the TV on, approximately 1/3 of the stations are Christian stations. Not just “theistic,” but SPECIFICALLY Christian. In most towns and cities in America, a good pitcher could stand next to any church and hit the next one with a baseball. In my own small town, Google shows about twenty-five churches within a two mile radius from my house. There is not a single free-thinker’s meet-up in the same town. Christians own it. Yet, many preachers here proclaim Christians are being persecuted in America from their pulpits, whipping their congregants into a worried frenzy. Our weekly town meetings are opened with prayers by Christian ministers. That is the case for most towns in the United States.

            Christians, (I speak only to believers to which the following applies) you have had the “microphone” in our culture so long that many of you think being disagreed with is “persecution.” There is so much confirmation bias supporting your beliefs in this Nation that you feel beat up when a person tells you that they think you are wrong. When you do not always get your way, you assert that you are being bullied or persecuted. If your child always expected to get his or her way, you would rebuke them. Yet, as a Christian in America, you whine when you don’t always get yours and have to share this great Nation with all the other “kids on the playground.”  Well, that is just life my friend. Most Atheists in America get more push-back than you can ever imagine in daily life, peer groups, at work, and in their families. This being the Easter season, we are inundated on social media with admonitions about Jesus, sin, repentance, and that we are going to go to hell if we reject said doctrines. We do not consider this persecution, rather just normal life and rarely even refute the assertions directly.

            We develop a thick skin and know most of your arguments better than you do due to being hit with them so often. Yet, we do not want our “niche” ideology forced on you via the government. We just want equal representation along with every other American and we won’t shut up just because you want us to or threaten us. They call us “New Atheists” because of that. The only difference between the “Old Atheists” you didn’t have a problem with and us is that we will not be pushed around or silenced. You are just going to have to get used to the idea that the Christian dictatorship in America will soon be over. But, do not to worry my fellow Americans. For the most part, we non-theists are also humanists who  will treat you as we would like to be treated. See, we don’t disagree with everything Jesus said…

            For some related atheist humor, I suggest the video below by DarkMatter2525 on youtube:

The Necessary Virtue of Suspending Judgement

Image

In the “Information Age” we live in, we are confronted daily with issues, ideas, and news stories faster than our ability to absorb them can keep up. In days gone by (and I mean like two decades ago) the necessity for us to confront and formulate multiple opinions on so many things daily or even hourly didn’t exist. There may have been a “water cooler” discussion over some worthy topic at work, an important newspaper article to think about, or a story on the evening news to digest, but typically only a few a day.

Now, even when checking your home feed on Facebook, you are inundated with a host of earth-shattering stories and ideological challenges. Life on social networking isn’t all just cat pictures and Farmville anymore. Not only that, but the expectation of a response is as instant as the posting of the issue. When I scroll down my own feed at the moment, I see deadly protests in Venezuela, an article about the foolishness of snake handling churches, an article about people being buried alive, a treatise on the potential moral evils of the Judeo/Christian God, and varied responses to the recent “coming out” of Michael Sam and Ellen Page. That doesn’t even cover half of the pithy issues and stories that have been shared in the last day.

I, of course, share stories and issues as well. We all desire to inform and/or challenge our peers via our social networks about things that are important to us. Such interaction is a big part of what social networking is all about. Ironically, you will probably form an opinion of this blog entry, which addresses having to formulate opinions on articles, social network posts, stories, and blogs. That said, I want to encourage us all about this current reality in society; a reality where issues and ideas are constantly barraging us.

Here are some of the positives that result from this:

1. We are being tacitly encouraged to become faster thinkers and rely more on reason, evidence, and logic to ascertain good information and deflect the bad. If we cannot adapt to this social mode, we will be easily fooled and be reactionary to unsubstantiated claims. I chuckle when an “Onion” satire article inflames the sensibilities of a person who isn’t privy to such parody and “Poe” stories. I see this trend as a type of intellectual, “Natural Selection,” revealing the “fittest” for this new Internet driven world.

2. The Internet allows for us to be exposed to positive ideas, technologies, and relevant issues that we wouldn’t otherwise know about.

3. It is very hard for a person to be kept ignorant by those around them who would desire to limit their information access.

Here are some of the potential negatives:

1. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE can post anything they want and “trolls” are aplenty. Memes, photoshop, and slick looking, cheap or free websites can give the appearance of validity to an idea and the ability for people to share nonsense. Some of these are even dangerous. For example, when a person who needs effective medical treatment abandons such for the “essential oils” or “homeopathic remedies” they see in a meme or foolish article, they can actually die.

2. We can spend otherwise enjoyable time researching and formulating opinions on all the things we are exposed to. Ultimately though, it is on us to prioritize our time and shape our own online experience. If our exposure is stressing us out, we should curb internet time and/or rethink our “likes” and “friends list.” (I use the pronouns “I,” “us,” and “we” heavily as I consider these pros and cons because as we engage in online interaction, we are all in this new social world together)

All that brings me to an important consideration… Who says we need to have an instant opinion on everything? Who says we have to know everything? I think there is nothing wrong and everything right with asserting, “I’m just not sure. I’ll have to think about it and get back to you later.” Humbly saying, “I don’t know,” is also a glory in today’s world. In this modern Age of Ideas, intellectual humility and intellectual honesty is sometimes hard to come by. Of course, there are many things that you may have already considered and developed a position on. Share those positions straightaway of course, yet be willing to revise them if new data necessitates it.

Give yourself permission to take appropriate time to formulate an opinion or make a reasonable judgement regarding issues and ideas you think are worth considering. If you don’t have enough information at present, suspend judgement until you do. Then, you can do your due diligence to acquire sufficient data and/or perform needed philosophical consideration at an effective pace or at your leisure. You can also require those making certain assertions to provide their own evidence. It is not your responsibility to prove their ill-supported case for them or provide proof against a claim made sans evidence and reason. To quote Christopher Hitchens,

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

In temporarily suspending judgement, you’ll also be teaching those around you that you require time to consider issues of importance and lean on rationality over emotional, knee-jerk reactions. Be an example of effective intellectual methodology among your peers. Fostering a less emotionally reactionary society wouldn’t be a bad thing. Such an intellectual climate is even more desirable as society becomes increasingly dependent (if that is possible) on Internet social networking.

So, what are your thoughts? (Take all the time you need) 🙂

*The meme at the top of this blog is my creation, but feel free to use it as you wish.

On the Now Infamous Buzzfeed, “22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution”

Image

It has been amazing to see the speed at which the Buzzfeed article, “22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution,” has blown up on social media. Not only that, but the passionate response from people on both sides of the theological and scientific argument has been huge.

Click the link to see the article:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

Buzzfeed journalist, Matt Stopera, was live at the Nye vs. Ham debate last Tuesday. As I was making my way around the Creation Museum, taking pictures and writing notes before the debate, I saw Mr. Stopera actively working the crowd to get a balanced take and opinions from “both sides.” I did an on-camera interview for Jonathan Ryan from the, “Geek Goes Rogue,” blog on Patheos, but did not get to speak with Matt Stopera from Buzzfeed. I was impressed by his demeanor with the museum patrons and his efforts to get balanced coverage. Though the secular and non-young earth creationist contingent was in the minority at the event, it appeared easier for Matt to get “messages” from their side. As the appointed debate time drew nigh, he was still working hard to get enough message pictures from the creationist side to make the pictures even. 

Due to some things I’ve seen on social media stating that Buzzfeed was just trying to make people look stupid on the creationist side or that Matt Stopera was “leading” people in some way, I can say as a very close bystander, that is not correct. Matt would give the people who wanted to participate a marker and paper, then allow them ample time to reflect on something to write. He didn’t prompt them to write any particular thing. He told them to write anything they wanted. Also, he must have posted nearly, if not all the pictures he took, not just ones that made one side look better and the other worse. It appeared that he was able to actively interface with people from about 4:00 pm to 6:30 pm. That isn’t a lot of time to get 44 people to participate in such a two-sided coverage piece, but he was able to make it happen. I was impressed.

Click the link to see the contrasting, “22 Messages For Creationists From People Who Believe In Evolution”:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-for-creationists-from-people-who-believe-in-evoluti

I have also seen no shortage of satirical photoshops of the pictures and serious responses posted by others this week, primarily to the creationist’s messages. See two of my favorites below.

“Answers for Creationists,” article by By Phil Plait:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/06/religion_and_science_answering_creationists_questions.html

“The Amazing Atheist Answers 22 Creationists”

Here are a few things I would like to mention based on the varied responses I’ve seen to the first “22 Messages” article online:

1. To my secular, scientific, and atheist counterparts: These are real people and most are probably nice, hard working folks. Just because you disagree with them, that is no cause to go “ad hominem” on them via social media. I’d almost guarantee you NOT ONE of the people in the pictures had any idea how HUGE the response to their messages would be. To the people who have kept their comments on-point, kudos. But, I’ve read quite a few comments on facebook and elsewhere criticizing the looks or build of some of the people in the pictures. I have also read some comments that are just very derogatory with nothing constructive or instructive said to refute the “message.” That is out of line in my opinion. If you despise the young-earth creationist ideology, attack the ideology. None of the people in these pictures have done anything to you or I personally I presume. Don’t attack them personally in a way not directly related to the issue, from a presumably safe vantage point on the Internet. It is a cheap shot and does nothing to further your own argument.

2. To Young Earth Creationists: Don’t assume all the people in the pictures are “angels” just because they believe like you theologically. One individual in the pictures sat next to me during the debate. He or she made an interesting remark about some people who should, “Go back to Africa.” The small group he or she was a part of had quite a few interesting things to say as the debate countdown was rolling. That being said, I don’t put that on creationists in general. Far from it. But, on both sides, this issue needs to be about the issue. Regardless of whether you or I think a person we disagree with is “a jerk” or “arrogant,” that means nothing relative to if they are correct. This is an issue about modern, evidence-based science and the supposed scientific authority of the ancient Bible text. To paraphrase Bill Nye, “Show me the evidence and you’ll change my mind.” If you are shown contradictory evidence, but yet your mind remains resolute in your beliefs, please don’t fool yourself into a self-evaluated position of intellectual honesty.

3. I was staggered by the simplicity and lack of insight in most of the “messages” and questions. I wonder if many of the people have bothered to give google a work out on these subjects to find relevant scientific data from valid sources. Also, many messages show a distinct confirmation bias from people who probably have never searched out the argument of the opposition. Most of the questions raised can be answered very quickly and comprehensively with just a bit of research. I am surprised that some or all of the people in the pictures saw their messages and questions as a knock-out punch to modern science and/or secularism.

4. My last bit of encouragement is as follows: Seek out honest dialogue over debate. Debate can be a wonderful thing and I was very encouraged by the turnout and response to the one this week. But, it only goes so far. Reach out to people if you want to change their minds in a constructive way. If you wonder what people of the opposing view think, ask them directly when you have opportunity. Engage in effective, personal communication whenever possible. Aggressive posturing rarely ever leads to minds being changed or relationships being built. We have the privilege to live in a Nation with true freedom of speech. Use it fully; just mix in a pinch of kindness and empathy as well.

If you have not yet seen the epic debate, click the link below:

-Copyright 2014, Luke Austin Daugherty