An atheist's quest to outsource religion

Consider this blog entry to be sort of a rough draft for a paper I want to write for my religious studies class about Atheism. This is an idea I have been kicking around my head for a while so it may help me form my ideas better to get it down on paper like this.  I encourage everyone who reads this to give me feedback on what you thought.  The more critical and harsh the better.

One of the things I sometimes disagree with the so called “new atheists” about is the role that religion plays in people’s lives.  I get the feeling from them that they think that religion has no useful purpose and should be cut out of people’s lives completely.  Because the word “religion” itself is notoriously mottled and represents such a wide swath of worldwide human society, I will have to set out beforehand what I will call religion.  In the instance of this blog, religion will mean the distinct section of western society that deals specifically with notions of God and supernatural claims.  Specifically the big three Abrahamic religions(Christianity, Islam and Judaism) that are the most present in my culture.  I will try to avoid talking about the eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism because the areas of society that they encompass are much different than we are familiar in the west.  For example, many scholars would struggle calling “hinduism” a religion in the same we call Christianity a religion.  

   I have no doubt in my godless mind that the appearance of religion is not an accident or an error in the formation of society.  Religion clearly exists to serve many purposes in the lives of believers everywhere and human society in general.  Some cultures use it to serve more purposes than others.  In the west, it has be relegated to a section of society that is smaller than it probably has ever been.  And I think that is why there is such vocal resistance from these religions.  Secular schools of thought are encroaching onto things that were once thought to be exclusive to religion.  Marriage and sexual morality were dealings that were just recently the exclusive property of the church but more and more they are being dealt with in totally secular environment.  Which is probably why abortion and gay marriage are the hot topics of the religious world today.

I chose to use the word outsource in the title on purpose to be analogous to economic terms.  Industries outsource in order to create products in a much more efficient way.  Its more efficient for a business to send jobs from Canada to countries where people will work for less money. In my personal life, I have outsourced the jobs of my cameras, alarm clock, laptop, mp3 player paper maps, television, radio and calendar to my smartphone.  Because it serves all of the jobs of all of those things much better and efficiently.  I think religion serves a purpose the same way an alarm clock serves a purpose. Although religion it does it inefficiently and sometimes just does it plain wrong.  I think I can outsource all the purposes religion in the same way, because it has already been happening.

If you look at the history of Christianity, the church used to be the place where people would inquire about truth about the natural world.  It served the purpose to feed human beings’ insatiable hunger for the knowledge of the truth.  But society has gradually relegated that job to the world of science to the point where the majority believers no longer refer to their holy book to determine the current understanding of the natural world.  (I don’t recall if the Pope had anything to say about the recent discovery of the Higgs Boson).  Science was determined to be a more efficient and better way to determine the truth about the universe than religion, so we outsourced it.  I will try to give some examples of how i think the purposes of religion can be outsourced.

Religion provides a sense of community with people with similar values.

Its very true that we feel more fulfilled as a human when we feel accepted in a community of people who think similarily.  We are tribal creatures, and a community of people who love each other are essential to our well being.  We would be more inclined to feel closer to each other if we shared similar beliefs. Or perhaps vice versa is also true.  We would be more inclined to believe something if we are feeling closer to people.  I don’t see how this need for community can’t be fulfilled in a secular environment.  With the expansion of the internet, it’s becoming more easy to find like-minded people.  Although the physical connection with people is lost online, you no longer have to feel alone in whatever you believe.  In the days before our global connectivity, people felt more inclined to fit in with their immediate community by following the beliefs of the people around them.  Not to mention the lack of access to information to cross-reference those beliefs.  I also think that there are countless other secular ways that we already form communitues through shared attributes.(race, nationality, local sports teams .ect)  Many of these social institutions provide a secular means for ritual and ceremony that religion provides.      

Religions provide myths that create a shared history and provides a source of fascination for stories of the past.

Secular myths already exist in the world.  One easy example is American thanksgiving which is a story of an early time in America’s history.  Whether the story true or not is irrelevant to the secular holiday of Thanksgiving, which is essential to American culture.  Christmas has already become mostly secularized into a money spending holiday, while the Christian meaning of it is mainly ignored by our culture.  

I am obsessed with many stories of science fiction and fantasy.  I get great joy out of reading about and watching the stories of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.  These stories or myths are not true but that doesn’t mean I appreciate them any less.  This may be similar to people’s reverence and fascination of fantastic stories of their religion.  Whether or not the events in the Old Testament actually occurred may not matter that much to believers.  What matters to them is the mythology and meaning those stories give them.

Religions provide life changing mystical experiences that give a new respect and a sense of wonder to life.  

I don’t think that what is described as the “religious experience” is an experience that is exclusive to those who are pious.  I think that atheists such as myself have the ability to have incredible and life changing mystical experiences without any supernatural intervention.  Practices of meditation as well as substances such as LSD or psilocybin have the ability to take human consciousness to incredible places where people find a new appreciation and view on life.  I have been looking into studies that show that the religious experiences of christian priests and mystics are comparable to the experience of the psychedelic drug LSD.

“Religion provides a sense of great comfort knowing that there is a higher power looking after your life and knowing that there is a better life after you die.  Knowing that Everything will will turn out for the best”  

This is one argument for religion that I personally cannot accept.  I could not take any comfort in the fact that I am only a child being babysat by an all powerful cosmic parent.  I get excited believing that the only person responsible for my own life is myself.  I am inspired to make the most of my life believing in the fact that I only have one life to live.  It would be depressing to think that life on earth is only a doormat to wipe your feet on for a few decades before you live forever in a much better place called heaven.  It would also be very discomforting to belief that this all-loving deity would be responsible for the horrible things in the world.  I get great comfort in knowing that all human beings are in this crazy experience together as a species.  No one has all the answers to the universe and how to live a good life.  All that we can do is love each other and make the most of the very short time we get to spend together.  

A Paleo philosophy

That’s right, I’m one of those nutrition snobs now.  Until the last few months, I really never gave much thought to my diet.  I figured that since I was not fat and I got exercise often, I could shovel whatever I wanted into in my body and assume that I was a relatively healthy person.  As I come into my own as a maturing human being, one of the things I realize more and more is the way I treat my body.  Your body is a meat vehicle that physically drives you through life, and you only get one.  This summer I had done a lot of thinking about what I actually eat.  My unexpected good results in the Calgary half-marathon last May prompted me to consider a serious venture into a running career.  One of the major aspects of this project that I had to consider, that I had previously neglected was what kinds of food I was using to fuel my body.

One the things that attracted me to long distance running is that it’s the original human exercise.  Our slender, bipedal bodies are designed to run very long distances.  For hundreds of thousands of years our human ancestors hunted large game animals on the plains of Africa by running them to the point of exhaustion.  Humans are the only animal in the world able to run long distances at such high speeds.  It’s likely the reason for many of our uniquely human body features compared to other great apes such as the Achilles tendon and our bald and sweat gland covered skin.  My fascination and emulation with our evolutionary ancestors did not stop at long distance running.

This July, I listened to an episode of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast featuring Robb Wolf who is the author of the book The Paleo Solution.  I was not actively looking for a particular diet but I was immediately drawn to Wolf’s Paleo diet because of the simplicity of its philosophy.  Eat what our bodies are evolved to eat.  Cut out grains, legumes, processed sugar and dairy and eat as much meat, fruit and vegetables as you want.  What really got me intrigued with the diet was his claim that a breakfast of bacon, eggs, fruit and coffee is a healthy way to start the day.  What was really eye opening for me was the science behind Wolf’s ideas.  Many of the things he talked about were things I had not previously thought about like the co-relation of increased corn consumption and increased obesity rates and how nutritionally empty wheat and other grains are for our bodies.  If you think about it, grains, dairy and legumes are a very new addition to our diet, dating only back to the advent of agriculture.  In an evolutionary time scale, that is a tiny fraction for how long anatomically modern humans have existed.  It seems our ability to be extraordinarily clever (and lazy) has come back to bite us on our collective fat asses.  Our bodies are designed to process mainly animal protein, fruits, nuts and vegetables.   There’s a reason that so many people you know have gluten and lactose intolerances.  It’s because our bodies have really no idea what to do with these substances.  Most grains such as wheat need a very high amount of processing in order for them to be even palatable for our stomachs.

I have now followed the paleo-diet more or less (with the exception of beer) for about a month now.  I admit I feel better both mentally and physically than I was the months prior to starting.  My mood has considerably improved, even though my daily routine, environment and living conditions have not changed.  Although I really miss cheese, cookies and a few other things, cutting out the bad stuff in my diet that were staples for me before, was much easier than I thought it would be.

Anyone who is looking to eat healthier, I highly recommend giving the Paleo diet a look.  The Paleo Solution by Robb wolf is a fascinating read and his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience is definitely worth a listen. 

Merry Christmas or Happy Hollidays?

So it’s that time of year again.  It’s the annual showdown between the fundamentalist Christians and the Atheist billboards.  When conservative TV and radio hosts scream that we need to put the Christ back in Christmas.  Tis’ the season to debate about what the politically correct way of greeting each other in late December is.

For the vast majority of my life I was in favor of secularizing Christmas.  I had no problem saying “Merry Christmas” even though I was an outspoken atheist.  But this year I have had a change of heart.  I recently read Penn Jillette’s new book, Everyday is an Atheist holiday and he makes some very good arguments against atheists who celebrate Christmas.  It made an impression on me and I feel like I should start changing my attitude towards it.

 

I have always had fond memories of Christmas.  Some of the happiest memories of my life are those from the Christmas holidays, spending time with family, giving & getting presents.  Only when I was very young and our family still attended church did we mention the Jesus part of Christmas.  But for the most part, religion and God never really had a role in the celebration of the holiday. 

But now that I am so outspoken against religion, I’m starting to feel hypocritical to celebrate the day of the birth of Christ.  So I’m trying to find a happy middle ground where I can still enjoy the benefits of a holiday from work or school with family without feeling like I’m cheapening the day that many of my friends consider to be sacred.   I feel that’s why I should personally stop saying “Merry Christmas” and start saying “Happy Holidays” more.  But I have absolutely no problem with other people saying “merry Christmas” to me.

It’s a tough call for me.  I feel like this movement in popular culture and media of saying “Seasons greetings” or “Happy Holidays” is a euphemism for “We actually want to say Merry Christmas but we’re afraid that we’ll offend somebody.”  People should say “Merry Christmas” if they mean it and it’s too bad for any politically correct, weak person who decides to be offended by a word.  I haven’t met a single non-Christian who is bothered by hearing “Christmas”.  This also may be hypocrital on my behalf but personally I can’t say “Merry Christmas” anymore without being dishonest.  So when I say “Happy Holidays” I actually do mean, “Enjoy your time off work or school however you choose to enjoy it!”  So out of respect to my friends who are Christians, we really should put the Christ back in Christmas but enjoy the Holidays with the people we love without having anyone left out no matter their religion or lack thereof. 

 

Please listen to this beautiful song by Tim Minchin called White wine in the sun.  It sums up my feeling towards Christmas perfectly.

The limits of individual liberty

The limits of individual liberty

A defensible limit to individual liberty would be to allow individuals to do whatever they wish so far as long as they are not harming other people or interfering with their liberty.  This is known as the “harm principle” that John Stuart Mill defended in his essay, On Liberty.[1]  I will defend this position in this paper by critically examining the oppositions to it, mainly the idea of paternalism and the forces that justify the use of it.  I will not however, use the utilitarian point of view that Mill used to defend it but a point of view that is anti-violence. 

The opposition to a libertarian style of law that allows for individual liberty is the concept of Paternalism.  It justifies the limitations of personal freedom by citing that the prohibitions of certain actions are in the best interests of people and society.  It comes from the idea of a benevolent parent who acts in the best interest of a child by coercively prohibiting the child from various actions.  In a modern liberal democracy, the part of the benevolent parent is played by the elected government.  Which makes the people it governs, the naive child.

Gerald Dworkin in his essay Morality, Harm and the Law, identifies 2 types of paternalism, pure and impure.  Pure paternalism restricts the freedom of someone, but it does not restrict the liberty of other people of whom the paternalistic restrictions were not intended.  It only intends to protect the well-being of an individual whose choice otherwise would have ended up worse off.  He gives the example of motorcycle helmet laws that restrict only those who ride motorcycles.  Impure paternalism restricts the liberty of not only those people that are intended to be protected, but it restricts the liberty of people who are not involved.  An example he uses is the paternalistic restriction of the manufacture of cigarettes.  The intent is to protect the health of cigarette smokers by cutting off people’s access to them.  But consequently, the liberties of non-smokers are also affected.  It restricts the liberties of peoples’ right to work wherever they choose, particularly of those who work in the cigarette manufacturing industry for example.           

Dworkin defines paternalism as “…the use of coercion to achieve a good which is not recognized as such by those persons for whom the good is intended.” [2] I tend to agree with Dworkin on most of his response to the notion of paternalism.  He seems to agree that most instances of government opting to restrict liberty for our best interests have been unnecessary and failures.  The fact that deadly substances such as alcohol and tobacco are legally sold and much less harmful substances such as marijuana are prohibited is a clear example that shows that government is inconsistent and incompetent in acting in paternal ways that have our best interests in mind.  He’s realistic in that he doesn’t say that paternalism is completely unjustified in all cases.  But he says that “better 10 men ruin themselves than one man be unjustly deprived of liberty…If there is an alternative way of accomplishing the desired and without restricting liberty although it may involve great expense, inconvenience, ect., the society must adopt it.”[3]

The main problem I have with a paternalistic or “nanny state” government is the question of what makes the government legitimate in making those decisions for us?  No matter how well intentioned they are, why is the government the default “parental” authority in a nation?  The answer is simply that the government is simply an organization with a monopoly on violence and theft.  Violence in this sense is the act of hurting someone or demonstrating physical dominance over another person that isn’t in self-preservation.   Essentially the government is able to legalize the use of violence on someone who is committing whatever non-violent act that happens to be prohibited in that area such as sodomy or possessing or consuming illegal drugs.  From a purely moral standpoint there is no way I can justify the government use of violence to stop a non-violent act. 

Our paternalistic behaviors should be demonstrated at an individual level.  Of course we want people to behave in their best interests but as something similar to what Mill said, we don’t ever really know about what another’s best interests are or what will make another person happy.  If we want to talk about behaving “paternally”, we know that parents really can’t coerce their children into doing anything (at least at an older age.)  All that parents can hope to do is to teach their children the best that they can and trust that they will make the right choices on their own when they are fully autonomous people.   As a civilization, we can only rely on properly educating each other to teach us about the risks of our choices and we cannot rely on a higher coercive power to force us to do the best thing.    

---

[1] John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

[2] Gerald Dworkin, Paternalism IV from Morality, Harm and the Law

[3] Dworkin, Paternalism VI from Morality, Harm and the Law

My thoughts on the Israel/Gaza conflict

First I have to say I am a little ignorant on the complete history of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  I like to think of myself as someone keeps up to date as much as possible on all the current events of the world but there is an incredible amount to learn about on this issue.  you'd have to be a religious and political scholar to have a full informed opinion about the conflict in Israel/Palistine.  I also find the current conflict in that region to be very confusing.  But I want to comment on the way this conflict is being politicised. 

 The vast majority of people living in the United States and Canada have no idea what it’s like to live in such a war torn region.  But everyone in the media who like to fight in the left-right area seems to know who is to blame for the conflict.  Why is it that that Christian-Conservative right is the first to come to the defence of Israel?  And why is it that it’s always the Muslims and the left that come to the defence of the Palestinians?  While neither side like to talk about the underlying theological and religious conflict that I think is more relevant that people like to think.  I think everyone needs to take an agnostic stance to this conflict in the Middle East and just shake our heads at the needless and tragic loss of life.  We know very little about how the people on each side feel and we cannot empathize with people in such an apocalyptic world because we live in the most comfortable place on earth.  How can we say so confidently who is right or wrong?  There is clearly evil and wrongdoing on both sides but undeniably, the majority of people affected are innocent people just trying to live their lives.  So before you throw your unconditional support behind either side, do a little reading about history.  You'll probably find yourself as sad and confused about this whole mess as I am. 

 

Why this election doesn't matter

I watched the 2008 US presidential election with great anticipation.  Here was someone who finally seemed like would bring legitimate change to the United States.  Barack Obama.  He was an unconventional candidate.  He had a foreign sounding name, he was half black, he was young and he wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth.  He ran with the slogan of hope and change.  It felt like this election actually meant something because of the disaster of the Bush administration.  If Obama won, maybe the United States would be a more respected place.   Maybe they wouldn’t be the policeman of the world and invade countries without reason.  It seemed like the election actually mattered to the future of the country.  

 

4 years later and what has changed since the Bush administration?

Nothing, except gays are now allowed to serve openly in the military.  Good one Barry, now everyone is allowed to kill innocents by your orders.  You don’t have to be a libertarian to be disgusted with the president.  Compared to Bush, Obama had been a much more violent president when it comes to unmanned drone attacks.  In his entire 8 year presidency, George W Bush had 45 ordered drone attacks.  Obama ordered 51 in just 2009 alone. 

 As I type this American drones are flying over Pakistan and bombing targets they suspect to be enemies of the United States.  The horrifying fact is that 80% of the casualties of these attacks are civilians as a reported by RT today.

http://rt.com/news/pakistan-civilian-victims-drones-695/

Probably the worst thing the Obama has done in his presidency is the signing of the National Defence Authorization Act(NDAA).  If you don’t know what this is I seriously advise you to become educated on this.  On this past New Year’s Eve(how sneaky) President Obama signed into law a bill that allows the American military to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely without a trial.  This takes away essential rights that have been valued by every civilized nation for hundreds of years.       

Neither of these issues have ever been mentioned in passing in the mainstream dialog of the upcoming election.  They’re too busy throwing around buzzwords like “middle class”.  The mainstream news coverage is ignoring the things that Obama and Romney fundamentally agree on like NDAA and drones and instead talk about useless polarizing quotes like “Bigbird” and “Binders full of Women”.    

The debates are a farce.  I find more meaning in watching an episode of WWE Monday Night Raw because at least everyone watching WWE knows it’s fake.  People watch the debates think that this actually has an effect on the future of the country

To think that these are the two men that are the best choices that Americans have is such an obvious sign that the 2 party system is completely broken.  Republicans and Democrats no longer represent distinct ideologies but now are just sports teams with different animal logos

 

 

Why Rush is Awesome

As many of you know, Rush is my all time favorite band.  And many of you may have heard my long winded rants about why they are.  Love em or hate em, I hope this will convince you why they should be considered one of the all time greatest bands.  I believe this blog entry is an appropriate precursor to the upcoming Rush concert in Edmonton on the 30^th of September, which as you can tell I am very excited for.

I probably had heard many rush songs on the radio before, but I guess the first Rush song I could identify as Rush was Tom Sawyer.  Believe it or not, it was from an episode of Futurama.  Fry is fighting off an invading alien fleet through the video game, Space Invaders and the famous Tom Sawyer synth riff is played.

“All right. It's Saturday night, I have no date, a two-liter bottle of Shasta and my all-Rush mix-tape... Let's rock.”

-Fry-

The song was very catchy to me, so shortly after I asked my friend Sarah if I could borrow a Rush CD.  She lent me their debut album, Rush and a compilation album, Retrospective 1 and I’ve been a fan ever since.  But I didn’t become a super-fan until band until 3 years after. 

In the years of 2010 and 2011, Rush was on their Time Machine world tour.  They were playing the entire Moving Pictures album.  This was very cool for me because it was my favorite Rush album at the time.  Unfortunately for me there were no Alberta gigs on the tour.  The closest concert to me was in Vancouver.  But I decided that it would be worth it to fly out to, see one of my favorite bands.  They are getting old and I had no idea when I would have the chance to see them again.  I didn’t know all of the songs being played at the concert but I knew that their live show was phenomenal and I could check one more off my concert bucket list.  So in late June of 2011, I had a whirlwind 24 hour experience of the city of Vancouver.  Luckily by chance I met up with a guy in downtown Vancouver who I had chatted with earlier in line at Tim Hortons at the Calgary airport, who was also going to the Rush show.  We ended up hanging out for most of the day and he taught me in the ways of the Rush.  He graciously let me crash on the floor of his hotel room as I had drank too much beer to make it to the airport after the show as I was previously planning on.

My seat to see Rush in the Rogers Arena, Vancouver

The show itself was incredible and It is the best live music show I have experienced.  It was a full 3 hours with an intermission midway through.  Ever since then I have become obsessed with the great Canadian trio’s music and here’s why:

Musical skill

I don’t think anyone who takes music seriously can overlook the musical skill of Rush. You don’t have to like their music to appreciate the talent of all three musicians.   Because one of the most amazing things about Rush is their ability to make a 3 piece rock band sound like a huge prog-rock production with five or six members.  As individual musicians (bassist/vocalist Geddy Lee, guitarist Alex Lifeson and drummer Neil Peart), Rush represents the best of the best in their respective feilds.  Neil Peart is usually listed as the greatest living drummer in the world.  Geddy Lee is often listed in the top 5 bassists of all time.  Alex Lifeson is often left off the list of greatest guitarists but I think it’s because he is overshadowed by the genius of Lee and Peart.  But in my opinion Lifeson has the greatest solo of any instrument of any rush song in their instrumental masterpiece La Villa Strangiato

Rush’s fearlessness to experiment with different types of music is also one of their best qualities.  Their career has ranged from early heavy metal in their debut album to strange psychedelic progressive rock in Caress of Steel.  They have become new wave-ish when they experimented with heavy use of synth keyboards in the mid 80s.  They have never really cared for making music to top the charts.  The only thing that has mattered to them is their love of making their music no matter how weird it may be.

Lyrics

“His mind is not for rent to any god or government.  Always hopeful, yet discontent. He knows changes aren’t permanent but change is.”

From Tom Sawyer, Moving Pictures 1981

Another thing that I really like about Rush is their lyrical themes.  The ideology that is expressed in the music, especially in their later albums speaks to me in ways other bands never have.  Although Neil’s writing isn’t especially poetic, his intellect is expressed beautifully.  These themes range from science fiction & fantasy, politics, religion, love & sex.  Their songs are observations about the world around us and songs that ask what it means to be a human.  Their latest album, Clockwork Angels is a science fictional concept album but most of the songs seem like life lessons written mostly from Neil’s perspective.  There are many atheist themed songs throughout their catalogue of music:  BU2B, Freewill, Roll the Bones, Ghost Of A Chance, Faithless, Sweet Miracle.

A screen capture from the Rush documentary Beyond the Lighted Stage.  Alex Lifeson  is reading  God is Not Great by the famed atheist, Christopher Hitchens.

Neil Peart also includes some libertarian ideas in his earlier works.  The band’s unofficial logo is the image that appears on the flipside of the 2112 album cover.  The image has become to be known as the “Starman”.  It is supposed to represent the individual against the collective.

The star representing the star of Communism

 The song Anthem is based off the Ayn Rand novel of the same name.  Also the album 2112 is dedicated to “the genius of Ayn Rand”.  Rand was probably the most influential thinker in the libertarian movement. 

Live show

Rush is renowned for their amazing live show performances.  I consider the ability to put on a great live show to be a huge factor for the music I listen to.  I find that I get into a band’s music much more if I think I can eventually see them concert.  The Rush show in Vancouver was certainly the best show I’ve ever seen and I expect no less from them next week in Edmonton.

Canadian

Let’s face it there is a lot of crappy Canadian music out there.  Ok that’s a little unfair but at least most the stuff that is popular and Canadian is crap.  Nickelback, Justin Beiber, Celine Dion, ect.  But the fact that Rush is Canadian makes up for all of that.  I admit I have lost a lot of my nationalism since finding my libertarian and humanist ideologies, but it does feel good to have such a great band from my homeland.

Longevity

Rush was formed in 1968.  The very same year that Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Yes and Deep purple were formed.  These are all great and influential bands and they are all probably more popular and better known than Rush.  But none have been as continuously prolific as Rush has been for as long as they have.    Rush continues to innovate, improve and create new music into their 60s.  In fact their newest albums(Clockwork Angels and Snakes & Arrows) is in my opinion some of their best work.    

                  Their single, "Headlong Flight" from their 2012 album Clockwork Angels

Genuine friends

Probably the reason for their legendary longevity is their genuine friendship with each other.  Unlike many popular bands that break up because of infighting, drinking, drugs and whatnot, Rush seems to be in a rare situation for a rock band where they are legitimate friends outside of the band.

Here is an out-take from the Rush documentary Beyond the Lighted Stage where Rush is having dinner with each other.  its an example of their goofy & genuine friendship that still lasts even after 40+ years as a band.