Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Category: foolishness (page 4 of 14)

Congratulations, Fox News.

Two stories caught my attention this week, and reminded me that US Republicans are not making any more sense than they did two years ago. They’re actually getting worse.

One was that Iowa Republicans still think Obama is a secret Muslim.

Frank Luntz was back on Hannity last night (2/7/11) with another suspect focus group. This time, Luntz made no pretense of balance. He told us up front that the sea of white faces was a group of Republican Iowa caucus voters. But even he seemed taken aback when a majority of the group agreed that President Obama is a Muslim.

The other was that 51% of Republicans are birthers.

In a shocking finding, more than half of GOP primary voters believe President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, according to a new poll.

Fifty-one percent of 400 Republican primary voters surveyed nationwide by Public Policy Polling said they ascribe to the controversial birther conspiracy theory — despite the fact that the state of Hawaii has posted Obama’s certificate of live birth.

Here are two things that are manifestly not so, and which are heartily believed in alternative right-wing reality.

But I wouldn’t call this ‘shocking’. Why should it be, when an entire news network is entirely given to spreading misinformation and deceiving its viewers? I think Fox News should be running this graphic:

It’s a miracle! Always.

I thought I’d post this handy guide before the inevitable miraculous claims that seem to follow every horrendous tragedy.

Either they deserved it, or they’re in heaven now. Isn’t the divine plan amazing?

‘Moroni’s promise’ still not evidence

I can’t do much better than profxm’s takedown of this drivel from the Mormon Times. A guy named Lane Williams bemoans the fact that some journalists have decided that atheism is interesting and worth writing about.

As disappointing as it is to say this, reporters may not be able to do much better than provide a balanced conduit for atheists in the modern world we live in.

Dontcha hate when that happens? I mean, balance? But have no fear — since journalists are providing a ‘balanced conduit’, he’s going to use his journalistic influence to unbalance the balance, or something like that.

So my point today, really, isn’t so much about reporters; my point is to use the opinion format of this blog to take a public stand because so few news reporters can or do so.

Way to go, Lane. That’s what journalists should do — argue their side, regardless of how true or well-supported it is. And here’s where things go awry.

Mormonism’s last evidence sits in the power of the Holy Ghost that comes to the hearts and minds of those who seek God through earnest, submissive prayer and faithful action. It is an “experiment” successfully repeated millions of times around the world.

Prayer is not any kind of experiment. As I’ve pointed out, it relies on bad sampling, since everyone who doesn’t get a revelation is either struck from the sample, or told to repeat the experiment until they get the “right” answer. Test subjects are told what emotions to expect, so bias enters the picture. And so on.

You can’t use a ‘holy ghost’ to confirm the existence of a god. They’re part of the same story! That’s what you’re trying to ascertain. It’s like saying “I know Santa Claus exists because I prayed to him, and one of his reindeer told me.”

Millions of Mormons, including me, would say that God answers prayers because of their own experiences with the Holy Ghost and prayer. Therein lies our evidence that God lives. I assume other religious believers feel much the same way.

That’s part of the problem. Many other religious believers feel the same way… about their mutually incompatible, multiply conflicting religious claims! Anyone who knows about science has heard that anecdotal evidence is not data. And notice the bandwagon fallacy. If this is the best Mormonism can do, they’d better give up their scientific pretensions.

Then he says, in a hushed voice, deep with portent, “I know.”

I study Shakespeare and have many books that have inspired me for years, but when I read the Book of Mormon for the 30th time or so and experience a deep, almost mysterious reassurance no other book has come close to giving me amid trial, I know.

I have experienced many joys of human interaction at holidays and in evening activities, but when I experience the quiet, soul power of priesthood blessing called down on a dark night, I know.

I am only one flawed journalist, but in the midst of the atheism debate that Gervais and others continue in our public space, I must say something. I know.

No, you do not know. You’re just certain. There is a difference. Even if your claims were coincidentally 100% right, you still would not know that they were true. Knowledge does not come from intuition or feelings. Knowledge comes from observation of real-world phenomena. And this kind of evidence is nowhere to be found.

This is my beef with religion and supernaturalism. It is such a lazy way of thinking (or not thinking). You take your own beliefs and preconceptions, and just assert them over and over again without trying to back them up with any real evidence. You get to feel all spiritual and believing. But it stops you from learning anything.

Mormon young adult fiction: Preserving Racial Purity edition!

Today’s inspirational reading for youth is from the 1956 classic, “Choose Ye This Day” by Emma Marr Petersen. Yes, that’s the wife of Mark E. Peterson, an apostle during the swinging 70s. While it’s not quite as authoritative as if Elder Petersen had written it himself — although he might have, who knows, plausible deniability being what it is — I doubt Sister Petersen would have strayed too far from his ideas. (She was known to share the stage with Elder Petersen on one occasion.) At the very least, the book is an interesting indicator as to the kinds of thoughts that were welcome in the Petersen household.

In this chapter, trouble is brewing at a small college when Milo Patterson, a black student, takes a spot on the football team over the protests of students. Some students decide to ask Hank, an older, respected member of their community and a Latter-day Saint, what position he takes on the matter. Hank, who serves as the voice of the author, launches into a frighteningly candid defense of institutionalised racism in the LDS Church and society in general, using the tried-and-true ‘blacks were less valiant in the pre-mortal life’ argument that I heard many times during my Mormon days. At least Hank/Emma doesn’t advocate total banishment of the seed of Cain. He/she only asks that blacks endure partial social acceptance throughout their lives, and then eternal servitude in the highest Mormon heaven — but only if they’re righteous.

This extract serves as evidence that, yes, the idea that Africans were less valiant in the pre-mortal life was well-known and taught at one point in LDS history (note that Hank has been taught these things ‘all [his] life’). But it also shows that Mormon doctrine can change when members draw upon their capacity for fairness and justice, and ignore dogma coming from the many apologists in their midst.

Might a knowledge of evolution have helped Emma Petersen? When you understand that some people have dark skin because of evolutionary adaptation (instead of picking some self-serving supernatural reason, like “they’re evil”), it reduces your need to take scraps of mythology and weave them into a complicated justification of whatever social prejudices are prevalent in the religious community. But then, neither of the Petersens went in much for evolution. Sister Petersen’s book shows a creationist professor giving an evolutionist professor a good thrashing in a debate, while Elder Petersen once opined that evolution was Satan’s way of destroying America via atheism.

Happy reading! Scans at the bottom.

CHAPTER EIGHT
HANK’S POINT OF VIEW

THAT night when they went to Hank’s for a snack, a large group of students were watching TV. Hank himself waited on the two boys.

When he brought the order, Kent said in a voice loud enough to be heard by the other students, “Hank, what do you think about this Patterson rebellion over at school?”

Many wished to know what Hank thought about it.

“My attitude on this subject is pretty well guided by my religious views,” he said, “so I hope you won’t mind if I mix a little religion with what I say.”

The other students held Hank in such high regard that they listened respectfully.

“My religion teaches that our existence did not begin when we were born into mortality. We lived before we came to this earth. We were persons then as we are now.”

“Are you talking about reincarnation?” one student asked.

“No, not at all,” said Hank. “I certainly do not believe in reincarnation. We have one existence in mortality, and that is all. I mean that before this earth was made, we lived and worked and played together in another estate.

“We could do as we pleased there, too, just as we can here. Some were not as obedient as others, and naturally they didn’t get along as well.

“We are the children of God, as you know. We were with him. We were his family.

“It is my understanding that at one time our Heavenly Father called us all together and announced that he was planning to send us to this earth where we could be tested and tried under mortal conditions, to see if we would be worthy of further advancement in his kingdom.

“The Lord explained his plan to us at that time, but some of his children did not accept it, and rebelled. This rebellion was led by one of the brightest, but also the most ambitious and selfish of all God’s children. His name was Lucifer. About a third of all the spirits in heaven joined him in this rebellion. They were all driven out, and they became Satan and his followers.

“This fight up in heaven was very much like wars in this life. Some of God’s defenders were more valiant than others. Some were disloyal, but not so bad that they had to be driven out with Lucifer.

“When the time arrived for us to come to this earth, it appears to have been the plan of the Lord to reward us according to our loyalty.

“How could he do that? It seems quite easy, as I look at it, for he permitted those who were most obedient to be born into this life with white skins, and to have opportunities such as are to be had in our country.

“Others were born with dark skins in the jungles of Africa or in the valleys of the Amazon. Still others were born in China or Korea, or India, where opportunities are not as great as here.

“It was a case of reaping what we sowed. I have this same understanding regarding rewards in the life after this where we will be placed in a degree of glory or in other circumstances according to what we earn in this life.”

“Do you mean, Hank,” broke in one of the girls, “that a white person is born white because he was more valiant than others in the life before we came here, and that a colored person was born colored because he was not so valiant?”

“That is exactly what I mean,” said Hank. “How else could all this apparent inequality be explained?”

“Can other races get all the blessings of the Church?” asked another.

“All except the Negro,” said Hank. “He is under a greater handicap than all the others. Japanese, Chinese, Hawaiians, Indians, Koreans, and people of all other races may have all the blessings of the Church, including temple marriage, but not the Negro.

“Evidently because of what he did in that other life, he is placed under a ban and cannot have the priesthood, he cannot advance as far as other people.

“But I would like to say this, though. I have heard some of our leaders teach that even the Negro can go to the celestial kingdom if he is faithful. However, he can be only a servant there. But that is more than many white people will receive, for many of them will be placed in the lower degrees of glory in the next world, because they did not live righteously. So in some respects, Negroes, if they are faithful, may receive a higher glory in the world to come than those of other races who defile their birthright.”

“But what about this football argument? How does all this fit in there?” asked one of the students.

“It fits in like this,” went on Hank. “Each race may develop within itself. So far as the Negroes are concerned, we will give them every right and privilege within their race that we claim for ourselves within our own race, but we will not become intimate with them in any way, and we will not intermarry with them. That is my own personal feeling on this question, and it is what I have been taught all my life. I believe that is a fair position to take, and I believe it squares with the word of God.

“Too close association with them might lead to intermarriage and that would bring the curse of Cain upon children born to such a marriage.

“I must admit that one great danger in being as tolerant as we would wish to be is that some of our people lose their balance and forget that there is after all a barrier between white people and Negroes which should never be crossed. It was the Lord and not man who established that barrier. When man tries to break down a wall set up by the Lord himself, he is asking for trouble, and only trouble can come from intermarriage between white people and Negroes.

“You may not know it, but the Lord anciently commanded that His people should not marry the descendants of Cain, just as he commanded that His people should not marry unbelievers and idolators. If we were not faced with the danger of intermarriage with the Negro, we could be much more tolerant than we are. But there are some leading Negroes who advocate complete absorption of their race with the white race by intermarriage and that is something which I for one can never accept.

“Marriage between white and black people, as I see it, is a violation of God’s commands. So we must avoid steps which would lead to such a thing.”

“I take it, then,” said one of the students, “that you would be in favor of allowing a Negro to play on our football team, as long as we did not take him so far into our social life that some white girl might become infatuated with him.”

“That is just what I believe. I support the school president and the governor in what they have done, and I think you students should do the same.”

“Well, if that’s what you believe, I guess we’ll give the idea another whirl,” Steve said. “Pat’s a good fellow and a swell football player. How about it?”

“Whew, quite a speech,” said Kent, “but I’m game.”

    

Prayer is a strange concept anyway, but this…

The Provo Tabernacle died for your sins

The Provo Tabernacle burned down. It’s a real shame. I went to church there a couple of times in my Utah days, and I remember it as a good old building. It would have made a nice library in 100 years.

One might wonder, of course, why the Mormon god would allow a church building to be destroyed by fire as he watches, pitiless and indifferent to human affairs. One might even wonder what message he intends to send. Perhaps an Old-Testament-style message of anger and vengeance! The fire and destruction symbolic of the wrath to come. A Mormon might get a sense of divine disapproval, and that would never do.

But wait! It’s a Christmas miracle!

As the four-alarm fire raged at the Provo Tabernacle, firefighters and those watching helplessly from the sidewalk observed something truly remarkable. Some are even calling it “a Christmas miracle.”

A painting of Jesus Christ burned in the fire, save for the image of the son of God [yes, that was the wording chosen by Fox News], which was left unscathed.

Yep, the church burning down isn’t the real takeaway here. It’s the painting. That’s the ticket.

This is the Argument from Incomplete Devastation, one of many ways to creatively interpret events in order to sustain a narrative that you already believe. Religious folk are quick to use this one because in the face of disaster, there are only two possible outcomes — either your faith is boosted, or your faith is boosted more. You have to admire their optimism, at least.

Here’s the scorched painting. Coming soon to a fireside near you.

Wait a minute! Forget about Jesus — that outline around it looks strangely familiar! Could it be the hunched figure of…

Nah.

Supernatural thinking can be deadly

A horrible story from France reminds us yet again why it’s always a bad idea to jump to supernatural conclusions.

Thirteen people were watching TV in a flat, when one of the men heard the baby crying. So he got up to get a bottle for the baby. Apparently he wasn’t wearing any clothes at the time.

“The man got up to prepare a bottle for the baby when his wife, seeing him, screamed ‘It’s the devil, it’s the devil’,” she explained.

In the confusion following this apparent case of mistaken identity, the naked man’s sister-in-law stabbed him in the hand and he was ejected through the front door of the flat. When he attempted to get back in, panic erupted.

“The other occupants of the flat fled by jumping out of the window,” Faivre said. According to police, one man jumped with the two-year-old in his arms and crawled two blocks away to hide in bushes, screaming: “I had to defend myself.”

The two-year-old died in hospital, another victim of superstition.

If you’re trying to explain something, you can go with natural explanations or supernatural ones. Natural explanations are always better. For one thing, you can check them out. And if you have two natural explanations for something, it’s possible to figure out which one is better experimentally. But how do you distinguish between two supernatural explanations? Who made the world, Elohim or Zeus? Or perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

But supernatural explanations are extremely tempting. They’re easy to come up with and they don’t require understanding anything at all. Saying that a god made the world is easier than understanding biology and cosmology.

In my Mom’s final days, she would sometimes call out the names of deceased family members. My family tended to favour a supernatural explanation for this: the spirits of these people were in the room, waiting to take Mom to a heavenly world. (That they were waiting to take her to Hell didn’t seem to occur to them. Observation: People only arrive at supernatural conclusions that support whatever narrative they buy into.) But there are many natural reasons why she might have called out names. Perhaps she was seeing hallucinations. Perhaps she was calling out lots of names at random, and we only noticed those that were dead. I noticed that she also called out the names of living people, as well as the names of people not in the family. (There was ‘Warren’ — we don’t know a Warren — as well as Charlemagne.) It took a bit of thought and knowledge to come up with these natural explanations, but in general my family liked the supernatural ones better.

The idea of spirits is a very pervasive one, but imagine the implications. There are unseen beings which could possibly be all around you. They might be watching you (yes, even in the bathroom), listening to you, and forming opinions on the things you’re doing. It would be easy to see how this belief could lead to a kind of paranoia. How could it do otherwise? Why wouldn’t you jump out of a window to avoid an evil supernatural enemy?

Supernatural thinking does nothing to advance our understanding. It’s the kind of thinking that kills people.

Uchtdorf tells ’em what they want to hear

That was quick.

Mormons may not know until the hereafter what causes same-sex attraction, but “God loves all his children” and expects everyone to do the same, an LDS Church leader said Sunday.

While the message — delivered to more than 200,000 Utah Mormons — may not seem significant, the messenger was.

As second counselor in the governing First Presidency, Dieter F. Uchtdorf is one of the highest-ranking leaders in the hierarchy of the nearly 14 million member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to address the thorny topic of whether same-sex attraction is inborn.

Ain’t that sweet?

But what qualifications does Uchtdorf have to address whether SSA is inborn? None — he’s just a mystic. No, he was sent to ‘Save the Sale’. Church doctrine changes when it looks like it’s going to affect the bottom line. Hating on homos made good business sense in the past (and thus good doctrine), but it’s been playing increasingly poorly as of late. Answer: Downplay Packer, so Uchtdorf gets to be the good guy.

“Many questions in life, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life,” Uchtdorf said. “Until then, the truth is, God loves all his children, and because he loves us, we can trust him and keep his commandments.”

Have you ever noticed how that ‘wait until the next life’ thing gets played a lot?

Some audience members welcomed Uchtdorf’s approach, which seemed more consistent with the church’s position.

“It seemed fairly close to the line we’ve been getting lately — the idea that the practice is sinful, but homosexual tendencies are acceptable within the church as long as people don’t act on them,” said Jennie Pulsipher, a Mormon who watched the regional conference via satellite at her east-side Salt Lake City stake center. “He also emphasized that [gays] should be treated lovingly as children of God.”

Hear that, gay people? Mormons will treat you like humans, as long as you never have sex for the rest of your fucking life. Sounds like a deal to me.

Not what I expected

Complete this sentence:

If a business is manufacturing products that pose real risks of serious disease, we believe it is all the more important that it…

Stop manufacturing the product?

Get taxed into oblivion?

Be legally disbanded?

None of the above, according to British American Tobacco’s website. Their answer:

…we believe it is all the more important that it does so responsibly.

If you make products that kill people when used as intended, how do you do that ‘responsibly’? That’s quite a different definition of ‘responsibility’ than the one I’m accustomed to.

Talking to Americans

Older posts Newer posts

© 2024 Good Reason

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑