Stupid Arguments part II: Religion and Morality

The priest seemed nice enough. "You're here with Tom, aren't you?" he asked me.

I was standing in the hallway outside the sanctuary, examining the art on the walls. I admitted that, yes, Tom had brought me. I think he wanted to see if I was interested in joining the Young Adults group.

The priest studied me. I don't know what tipped him off - whether it was something about my posture, or my clothing, or whether Tom had said something to him; but he asked, "You're not actually a Christian, are you?"

I shook my head. "Not really."

He smiled. "It's okay. I'll tell you a secret: it doesn't really matter where you get your morality. Read the Bible, follow the Golden Rule... the real difference between a good person and a bad person lies in how much attention they pay to the effects of their actions."

We chatted for a little longer, and then I went to look in on the Young Adults group. The priest's words stuck with me; that was the first time I'd ever run into that line of thought. It really was a shame that the priest turned out to be an evil ghost, sacrificing the souls of his congregation in order to raise a massive, multi-headed demon. It was disappointing to have to kill - or, well, disperse - someone who seemed so nice.

That was just a dream, obviously (and obviously I'd been watching just a little too much Buffy at the time). But the priest's words really did stick with me - and to the best of my knowledge, I really hadn't heard them anywhere before that.

All of that is really just a complicated lead-in to the idea that religion and morality are not the same thing. Now, if you're reading this and thinking something like, Yes, and the sky is blue. What else is new? ...Then skip on down and make some suggestion for things I should do when I become Emperor. If, on the other hand, you're spluttering with outrage and preparing a long and heartfelt comment about how there is no morality without religion... well, take a deep breath and hear me out.

The idea that morality is dependent on religion is extremely pervasive. I've come across it in all sorts of flavors, from the relatively harmless ("Kids should go to church so they learn about morality") to the ridiculous ("All this crime and violence is a result of taking prayer out of schools") to the downright offensive ("I'd never trust an atheist, because there's nothing to stop them from lying or cheating or stealing or anything"). I've also run into the argument that without God you cannot have true morality; at best, you have a human-created facsimile of true morality.

Obviously, I don't believe this is true. I think there are secular moral paradigms that work just as well as religious moral paradigms. The Golden Rule ("Do unto others...") is a perfectly good starting point for figuring out how to deal with other people, and predates extant religions by millenia. Various strains of Humanism help flesh out the details - but, as the priest pointed out in my dream, it's basically a matter of paying attention to what you do, why you do it, and what consequences your actions cause. For that matter, the idea that religion offers a model for moral living strikes me as a little dubious, too: we can argue about the moral implications of Abraham's apparent willingness to sacrifice Isaac, but Jepthah's sacrifice of his daughter (Judges 11) doesn't set any sort of example that I'd care to follow, and the Book of Job basically makes God look like a monster, morally speaking.*

The other reason that I don't believe that morality requires religion is equally simple: in my personal experience, people who self-identify as Jews and Christians (the ones who claim that G-d is the basis of their morality, in other words) are not any more trustworthy, honest, or reliable in general than people who self-identify as Atheists, Agnostics, or Wiccans (etc.) To be fair, I don't find that Jews or Christians are particularly less moral, either. It's just that in terms of day to day behavior, I don't see much difference. I therefore conclude that the important thing is how much attention someone pays to their actions, rather than the underlying paradigm that they're using as a guide.

To put that another way, even if we assume that G-d's morality is perfect, down here in the real world it gets applied by human beings - which is to say, imperfectly. As a result, I don't see any practical difference between someone applying a perfect morality imperfectly, and someone applying an imperfect morality. Obviously, if your experience is different - if you find, say, that Christians are more trustworthy and reliable than unbelievers - then you're not going to agree.

And that's pretty much it. Let me leave you with some of the best moral advice I've ever run across: "Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!"

* I don't really mean to single out Christianity, here. It's just that most of the we-need-more-religion-so-people-will-be-more-moral folks that I run into happen to be some strain of Christian. Also, since I was raised Episcopalian, those are the examples that come to mind most readily.

When I become Emperor

I was trying to put together a list of the thing that I will do when I become Emperor. The first one, of course, is to pass a law forbidding radio DJs to say anything beyond names of the song, band, and radio station; a one sentence / twelve word lead in may be added once every half hour.

I think the second one will mandate that any major political or religious figure who gets outed after making a career of opposing gay rights will be stripped of wealth and status and forced to spend the rest of his life apologizing.

Also, I will forbid the use of the phrase "take _____ to the next level" under penalty of maiming.

Private gun ownership will become illegal (I may consider a special dispensation for serious collectors). Police and military will retain their firearms; everyone else will have to make do with swords. However, swords and knives may now be worn legally. Also, all vehicles will now be required to come equipped with a sheath suitable for bladed weapons.

All motorized vehicles will be required to have a muffler that actually keeps them quiet. Violators will have their vehicles pounded into junk by neighbors, or - if no neighbors are sufficiently irritated - by the secret police.

Schools and Libraries will actually get funding.

I'm sure I'll think of others - the possibilities for professional sports alone are dizzying - but that's enough to get us started. What would you do if you were Emperor?

Stupid Arguments Part I: Creation vs. Evolution

"'Ideas are tested by experiment.' That is the core of science. Everything else is bookkeeping." -XKCD

I live in Texas, which I frequently refer to as "Darkest America." I also do a fair amount of reading on blogs belonging to ex-Christians and non-Christians. It is therefore nearly inevitable that I run into people who really want to argue about the relative merits of Creation and Evolution. Since this happens with some frequency, and since I get tired of making the same explanation over and over, I'm just going to lay out my position here.

It's a stupid bloody argument.

Here's why:

Science is, at its core, a method for studying the material world. It is, basically, the application of the Scientific Method. (The word is also used to describe the body of knowledge acquired by using that method; I think this is the origin of some of the confusion that contributes to this "controversy".)

Religion is... well, that's a complicated subject; it's not easy to define. For our purposes here, I'm going to say that religion talks about things that are spiritual and/or divine (or, if you're a non-believer, fictional and/or allegorical).

There's not a lot of common ground, there.

I'm going to digress for a moment, because I've seen people assert that science is just another kind of religion. This is an amusing rhetorical exercise, and I'll even go so far as concede that there are people who treat science that way; but science and religion are fundamentally different in the way they look at the world.

And that is precisely why the "debate" is stupid. On the one side, you have the Theory of Evolution*, developed by rigorous study of the material world, asserting (for our purposes here) that new species - including homo sapiens - come about through a series of gradual, successive changes across generations. On the other side, you have a certain sort of Christian** asserting that species are different because G-d made them that way. Then people start arguing as if the one proposition had anything at all to do with the other. This is rather like debating whether Glazed Donuts Have A Lot Of Calories versus whether Goblins Enjoy Eating Glazed Donuts.

The only reason to even have the argument is if you believe that the Theory of Evolution somehow disproves the belief that G-d created everything. It doesn't. In fact, let me emphasize this, because I hear both Christians and atheists make this assertion: The Theory of Evolution does not disprove the existence of G-d. Neither does it prove the existence of G-d. It doesn't address the question at all, because the existence of G-d is untestable, and as a result can not be subject to scientific study. (That's why they call it "faith".)

Think about it. Science is founded on the study of the material world, through a process of ongoing testing and assessment. G-d, on the other hand - at least in the Christian view - exists eternally, outside of space and time; and is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good. How do you test that? Even if G-d chose to reveal Himself in a documentable, reproducible fashion, how do you measure something that is, by definition, limitless? Did such a being create life, or cause human beings to develop intelligence? How could you tell?

There is a related argument which says, basically, that G-d must exist because the Theory of Evolution does not adequately explain how life could have begun, or why humans are intelligent enough to argue about this in the first place. This is both somewhat true and entirely misleading: while there is considerably argument over the details, the Theory of Evolution overall is very well established and enjoys a broad scientific consensus; and the origin of life, while related, is a separate issue. Secondarily, this argument reflects extraordinarily bad theology: if your faith is based on the idea that There Are Things Which Science Cannot Explain, then every new explanation makes your faith a little smaller, doesn't it?

Going back to my point: the Theory of Evolution says nothing, pro or con, about the existence of G-d. At worst, the Theory of Evolution can disprove one particular account of the creation of the world - and honestly, you don't need Evolution to do that; geological time does the job just fine. But even that isn't a problem if you're willing to accept the Garden of Eden story as an allegory, or even as a divine being explaining things to ancient tribes in a way that they would understand and pass on.

So please, please quit trying to mix science and religion. It only results in bad science - or bad religion.

* Which is a "theory" in precisely the same fashion as the Theory of Gravity.
** I am aware that there are other flavors of Creationist belief, along with a number of other beliefs that could arguably be called 'creationism'. However, the people who are currently trying to mess with our science curriculum are uniformly Christian.

United Way Chili Cookoff of DOOM!

I made chili yesterday.

Now, I understand that for most people, making chili is not an especially momentous event. And it really shouldn't be, even for me. I mean, I know how to cook - and not just bachelor food, either. Chili, however, intimidates me.

Partly that's because I don't really like chili. I'll eat it, but it's not something I ever find myself in the mood for. So I don't have any idea what people want or expect when they decide to eat chili.

As corollary of that, I don't cook chili. Yesterday marks the second time in my entire life that I have made the attempt. The first time was almost exactly a year ago, and for the same occasion: we're having a fundraiser at work for the United Way. One of the events is the chili cookoff. You'd think it would be easy to find people who actually know how to cook chili, but apparently not.

I just hope that nobody comes to harm. I mean, the ingredients are all edible... individually. It's the cumulative effect that worries me. For one thing, the recipe* includes a lot of garlic; anybody eating this chili is guaranteed to be proof against vampires for at least four hours. Possibly proof against their co-workers, as well. For another thing, there's a little bit... okay, a lot... of tabasco in the mix. The tabasco bottle was labelled "Instant Death", but that did not deter me. I may not know much about chili, but my food will not be bland!

Chili, for me, doesn't really count as cooking. It's more of an adventure - the sort of experiment that would make even Dr. Frankenstein pull back and say, "You know, maybe we should reconsider this." Pity the poor souls who must sample my work.

* Not really a recipe. It's more a conceptual recipe than an actual, reproducible formula.

Second or Third?

I Am Second is a Dallas-based outreach program. It's distinctly Christian, but doesn't - or at least it claims not to - promote any specific denomination. The campaign has a surprising amount of money behind it, and is most visible from a series of billboards. Each billboard features a single person, the slogan ("I am second") and the URL. Apparently they have quite a bit of Youtube and Facebook presence as well, but I haven't run into those.

While driving past one of these billboards, my wife remarked: "You know, when I was in church camp, the slogan was always, 'First is third!' The sequence was God first, Others second, and Yourself third." She chuckled. "This campaign is like, 'Okay, fine, Jesus can be first. But I am second! And everyone else will just have to wait.'"

I'm sure the founders and members would argue that we're misreading them, that they intend to put themselves second to others as well as Jesus. I have no idea whether they're doing anything worthwhile or not. But I do see a lot of these odd, odd signs - and they sure look like they're putting others third.

Another Roommate Story

At one point my roommate and I were chatting after a late night of study. (Yes, I know it was college, but sometimes we actually studied.) For those of you keeping track, this is a completely different roommate from the one mentioned in my last story. Completely different college, for that matter.

This roommate was taller, quirkier, and much more fun to have around. I'm trying to think how best to describe him, and the phrase that keeps coming to mind is "dangerously whimsical". He had a good sense of the fundamental absurdity of life, and he would occasionally expound - in all apparent seriousness - on whether the Illuminati were secretly running things, the little-understood role of salamanders as the source of all evil in the world, and other such topics.

Let's call him J, because I'm too lazy to make up a pseudonym for him. J and I got along well; the only reason we're not still in touch is because we're both completely horrible about long distance communication. The last I heard, he had been working on an Artifical Intelligence project, right before he quit and moved to California to become a pastry chef.

I am not making that up.

I forget precisely how we got on the topic, but we were talking about comforting fictions. I tend to write stories in which I get to have vast supernatural powers - or at least, I did at the time. Part of that was because, if you're going to be different from other people (and I've always been aware that I was different) it's comforting to think that you're better. It takes a certain amount of age and perspective to really get comfortable with the idea that different doesn't have to be better or worse. Some people never get that.

So I was in my bed, on the top bunk. It was probably 2:30 in the morning, and I'd just finished saying something along those lines. And J got up from the bottom bunk, and walked across the room.

"I know what you mean," he said. "Of course, I'm the destined savior of all mankind." This was a point he had made before.

He flipped off the light, and walked back to his bed. He laughed as he approached. "The scary part is," he added, "some days I almost believe it." And then, in the darkness, I heard a thump.

J had tossed himself casually onto his bed.

And missed.

By a good six inches.

Wanderlust

I've mentioned in various music-related posts that a fair chunk of my music comes from dropping a term (or following a theme) through i-Tunes search. A few months ago I did one of these searches on "wanderlust".

This turned up some interesting results. I already had most of the usual suspects: Flogging Molly, Nightwish, Paul McCartney, Bjork. Among the ones that I hadn't run into previously, I found:

1. "Wanderlust" by Action Plus (arguably the best new addition on the list)
2. "Meltdown" by Laura Burhenn (from the album Wanderlust)
3. "Beauty in the Beast" bu Gavin Rossdale (another one where the album name was Wanderlust)
4. "Wanderlust" by Bill Leverty's Wanderlust
5. "Wanderlust" by Frank Black
6. "Wanderlust" by Em&Ali (who get bonus points for their album title: Love Songs For The Wicked)
7. "Wanderlust" by Effron White

For an additional song in this general theme, I'm tempted to suggest the Indigo Girls "Get out the map". Additional songs or ideas for other themes/terms are welcome in the comments.