What Harm Can It Do?

Atheists are often criticized for “attacking” religion with the point being made that “it is harmless” or “what harm can it do?”

For a lesson in this please just do a simple search about the movie “Adipurush.” This is an Indian movie loosely based upon Hindu scriptures. A firestorm erupted around the release of the movie, in India, Nepal, and who knows where else.

The movie begins with a shocking disclaimer up front from the makers of the movie displaying word-class groveling, begging people to not be offended by the movie.

We will see whether any of the people behind this movie are killed for their work, it has happened before.

Please note that there are a great many interpretations of the story the movie is based upon, with none of them being “official,” but all of them being sacred. Still people are offended, including filing law suits going up to country’s supreme courts.

Oh, and as a taste of the flavor of the criticisms, one of the characters in the story has ten heads. In the movie these were displayed atop the character’s torso in two rows of five. The critic claimed that this was blasphemous because the ten heads are supposed to be in a left-to-right line (like the Radio City Hall Rockettes). Not only that but all ten heads had to have the same countenance. In the movie they were different! How dare they!

Apparently Hindus insist on their fantasies, at least as to how they are depicted. And atheists are accused of not having enough imagination to encompass the Christian gods. It seems as if too much imagination might be a problem.

Brilliant Putdown of Philosophical Obfuscation

I have, on a number of occasions, taken philosophers to task for having left public discourse for an academic realm of impenetrable jargon.

My man, Brian Keith Dalton, aka Mr. Deity, has done one of his brilliant takedowns on this topic focusing on the article “Cognito Retro Encabulation of the Philotheistic Dialectic and it’s (sic) Restructurative Transcendence of Omni-Atheological Objection.” And, yes, that is a real, published philosophical article.

Here is the YouTube link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2N04sWDbqQ&t=23s

Enjoy!

Postscript Boy, did my spell checker struggle with that title.

Bending Spacetime

Ever since Einstein invented spacetime, it is the preferred medium to explain gravity effects. So, when a star’s light is “bent” from its presumed straight line path, it is because some mass has distorted spacetime through which the light is passing. Although we could just say that gravity affects light, we go further to state how gravity affects light through a distortion of spacetime scenario.

So, in order to fully expose my ignorance, I still have some questions about this spacetime interpretation.

For one, I still have questions regarding the usual examples given. The most common example is to use the distorting of spacetime to explain orbiting planetary bodies (see illustration–courtesy of NASA).

So, somehow the Earth distorts spacetime (I don’t know how) and the satellite is just following the formerly straight lines of space as they curve around the Earth (imagine the Moon tracking along one of those circular lines). Back when I was a nipper, we were taught that an orbiting object is undergoing constant acceleration because its path is constantly changing which requires a force and that force is gravity (F = ma). If the orbiting body is simply following “straight” paths through spacetime, then there is no force acting upon it to cause its path changes, so” no “a” and no “F.” Gravity is “caused” by the distortion of spacetime by embedded masses.

But what about things not in orbit? Let’s say a meteor is plunging into the solar system, presumable following a path created by the distortion of spacetime by the Sun, but the Earth gets in the way. As it approaches the Earth it is accelerating because of the attraction to the Sun and the Earth and it punches a hole right through our atmosphere and, if massive enough, possibly through the Earth’s crust. If the meteor is following a “straight” line established by the Sun, it must be cutting across the “straight” lines established by the Earth, you know the ones all of the satellites are following, no? But, why does it go faster and faster if gravity is just a distortion of spacetime? What is the source of the force causing objects approaching the Sun, like this meteor and all comets, etc. to accelerate all of the way there and decelerate on outward paths?

And just what is spacetime? Is it matter? Is it a field? Is it an energy? How does a mass interact with it? Do they exchange fundamental particles as in all of the hypothetical interactions of particles in high energy physics? How?

How does spacetime expand? And why does it expand? When matter expands it become less dense. When fields expand, they become weaker. But spacetime expands and it just becomes more spacetime, no? How does this happen?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I fully expect that there are explanations I have missed but I think many of these questions are still “open” as we say in the science biz. Unfortunately science writers use language as if all of these are settled and factual, like I read every time the Big Bang Theory is mentioned. According to the standard BB theory the universe is 13.7 billion years old, based upon the “observed” expansion of space. (There is no observed expansion of space. There are phenomena explained using an expansion of space scenario, but that is far from convincing.) This is stated as a fact more often than not, e.g. “the universe is 13.7 billion years old.” This should be stated as “According to the current BBT, the universe is 13.7 billion years old.” Which obviates the embarrassment when occurs when numbers get changed. According to a recent paper, that age needs to be extended out to almost double the current value.

The Dumbest Story in Scripture

In the Hebrew Bible there is the story of the Ten Commandments, reportedly written on stone tablets. This smallest set of rules formed the basis of a new covenant between the Hebrew people and the god Yahweh. The deal was worship me, follow my rules and I will have your back, signed <Yahweh>

So, these rules were very important and every Hebrew was to follow them, so what dies Yahweh do? He provides an exact description of an “ark” to store the tablets away. Plus rules like “anyone who touches the box dies” and “be sure to cover the box when you move it around so no one can even see the ark,” let alone touch it.

So, the all-knowing god’s marketing campaign was to hide away the evidence that the tablets even existed and make sure that no one read the tablets, to be able to learn the rules, to be able to comply with them.

I wondered why Yahweh didn’t impose a gag order on Moses so that only he would know what the heck the rules were.

What a stupid story. And this was supposed to foster undying support for the carver of the tablet?

Stupid

Forty Days of What?

We are told in scripture that Jesus spent forty days and nights in “the wilderness” after his Sermon on the Mount/Plain. Matthew 4:1–2 says that Jesus was led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness to fast for forty days and nights and to be tempted by Satan.

Now there is a great deal of manure spread around this aspect of his “mission.” Some say that Jesus was proving his godhood because no human being could last 40 days and nights without food and water. Others say that it was being away from any opportunity to help or bless people or the effects of civilization. Still others say it was a time of purification.

I call this manure, aka bullshit, because later Jesus is declared to be God and one and the same as the Holy Spirit and “the Father.” Satan was the loyal servant of Yahweh all throughout the Old Testament/Jewish Bible, so apparently “the Father” was underwriting this part of Jesus’s mission. But Jesus is the Father and the Holy Ghost, so Jesus led himself into the wilderness and commanded Satan to do what? Pretend to tempt him? How could God be tempted by his own servants? How could God be tempted at all?

If you set aside the talking donkeys, the talking serpents and all other such nonsense from these “stories” you still have a foundation that is utterly nonsensical.

But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most? (Mark Twain)

And who am I to contradict Mark Twain, but Satan was Yahweh’s most loyal servant, so how could even he be a sinner?

Why Would Women. . . ?

An article in The Guardian reports “Researchers who track how the far right in the US mobilizes, self-promotes and recruits are reporting that women are playing a growing role in the movement.”

My initial response is I wondered why would women be attracted to such things?

But then my thoughts ran to religion here in the U.S. Those who actually practice their religion run stronger in women than in men. I have often found this fascinating because of the misogyny of Christian churches. They claim God told them that women were not to become priests or pastors, for example. Or the notorious dictum that women were to be silent in church, or never teach a man, etc.

But religion is a social tool. The elites have used it forever to control the masses which outnumber them. The promise of rewards in the afterlife are supposed to get us to ignore that they are getting their rewards in this life.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the philosophers as false, and by the rulers as useful. —Seneca the Younger

Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich. —Napoléon Bonaparte

So, clearly religion is working against the self-interests of women, but I can see that women think they can use religion to control the men in their lives. We claim to be “civilized” but men are still violent and especially tend to impose their wills on the less powerful, especially women. So it does make some sense that women would be the religious stalwarts compared to men.

And, as Voltaire said so very long ago “Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” So, QAnon believers who happen to be religious believers were primed to believe absolute bullshit, like QAnon, through the teachings of their churches. And “believing” becomes an exercise in fidelity, fidelity to an “authority” which is no more transparent than that of their churches.

Q! Praise be! Point made.

I Dunno, Who Is This Jesus Character?

I have been saying this for a while: I don’t see many Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus, but I do see a lot of them following the teachings of their church. And this apparently is becoming noticeable even to the clergy.

“Evangelical Christian leader Russell Moore revealed this week that many evangelical pastors have become alarmed that their Trump-loving congregants have become so militant that they are even rejecting the teachings of Jesus Christ.

“In an interview with NPR, Moore said that multiple pastors had told him disturbing stories about their congregants being upset when they read from the famous Sermon on the Mount in which Christ espoused the principles of forgiveness and mercy as central to Christian doctrine.” (Source: Raw Story)

Many evangelicals don’t want no fucking Hippy Jesus, they want muscular, AR-15 toting  Republican Jesus

The Meaning of Life, Part Another

So many writings on “the meaning of life” makes me wonder, how deliberate is the delusion that “life” has meaning or purpose? Or are people just talking around one another to avoid conflict?

Religions tell us that they know the meaning of life and our purposes as individuals. I have not done this, to avoid being rude, but I should like to go up to a theist and ask “What is the meaning of life?” and “What is my purpose in life?”

The article that triggered this rant is entitled “How I Find Meaning and Purpose of Life as an Atheist.” Later in that same article the author states “This, I believe, is the key to finding meaning and purpose in my personal life.” It is clear from the latter that he finds any meaning or purpose he has is personal and that it doesn’t come from or is visible to anyone else. And yet the title of the piece implies a broader target. A more appropriate title would be “How I Find Meaning and Purpose of in My Life as an Atheist.”

If you have defined a meaning or purpose to your life, you can do an experiment: ask anyone claiming to know such things to tell you what those are? (Hint: They haven’t a clue, so don’t expect them to read your aura and tell you what they see.)

People that claim to know “the meaning of life” and “your purpose in life” are perpetrating a con. They are taking a general thirst people have for finding meaning and purpose to guide their lives and are exploiting it with “Come right this way, I can tell you such things. Take a seat in this pew and leave a few dollars in the collection plate and we can begin.”

One More Time! (On Political Funding)

I have written several times about what I see as a flaw in our funding of political issues. My solution is to only allow political donations from people who reside in the district(s) that will be affected by the election/new policy/constitutional amendment, etc.

Recently Ohioans went to the polls over “Issue 1” which was a constitutional amendment to make constitutional amendments harder to make. (The voters rejected it, but that is not why I am writing.)

Here is one comment made regarding the funding of the “yes” and “no” on Issue 1 campaigns:

“Roughly $35 million has flowed to political groups aiming to influence Ohio’s August special election. That includes money for campaigns for or against the ballot measure raising the threshold for constitutional amendments, as well as several closely aligned organizations.

“On both sides — those opposing Issue 1, those supporting it, and those technically fighting November’s reproductive rights amendment — the vast majority of funding came from out of state.”

The key phrase is the last one “the vast majority of funding came from out of state.”

I have to ask, why should anyone not living in the State of Ohio have anything to say about whether Ohioans want their constitution harder to change? Shouldn’t that be up to Ohioans? Why are we letting billionaires and others who live in other states fund campaigns that do not affect them? If a campaign cannot raise enough funding in that state, then its campaign should be weak, no?

Scientific Myopia

In science theory and experiment play a game of leapfrog. When a theory becomes well-supported, it makes predictions that give guidance to experimenters. Often enough experimenters find data that the theories didn’t predict, which leads to modifications of the theory or even the creation of new theories. Sometimes data leads (as in current quantum mechanics) and some times theory leads. And they change place from time to time, subtopic to subtopic.

But sometimes theories capture the imaginations of scientists who then, either ignore conflicting data or pound square pegs into round holes in the theory and go “See? It works.”

Take this case. Around 1960, some engineers discovered an annoying background hiss in their communication network and none of their efforts removed or reduced it. To make a long story short, they had discovered what has been called the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (hereafter CMBR). Yes, microwaves, the same radiation that reheats lasagna in your microwave oven. The proponents of the Big Bang Theory (hereafter BBT) jumped upon this discovery as evidence for the “big Bang” part of their theory. They claimed this was residue from the initial “explosion” of the universe. Right? They are still claiming that the CMBR is evidence supporting the BBT.

But pump your brakes a bit, Bucky. They left out a few details.

Did you know that there is a background radiation all over the electromagnetic spectrum? For every bit of that spectrum, those backgrounds are attributed to be from starlight, either through direct emission or through re-radiation by dust. Well, every bit of that spectrum except the microwave part, that had its source in the BB. Right . . . ?

But the BBT predicted there would be such a microwave background, no? Yes, it did, except that it predicted microwaves from a source that was 50+K in temperature. The CMBR’s source is around 3K, so the BBT’s prediction was “off” by a factor of 17.

Also, were you aware that prior to the emergence of the BBT, a number of predictions of a CMBR were made? Calculations way back in the 1930’s found that ambient starlight would settle to an equilibrium temperature of 2.8K, all without the need a “primordial fireball.” Basically those calculations were based upon light from stars bouncing around the universe, being absorbed by molecules and dust particles which would reduce the light’s wavelengths associated with a source of about 3K, which is basically then, the average temperature of the space of the universe.

(An Aside If you are unaware, the radiation the a body emits is based upon its temperature. You may have seen infrared cameras used on home improvement shows to show heat leaks from houses and that human beings show up on those camera images because we have a temperature that emits infrared light.)

So, this cornerstone of the BBT, the CMBR, wasn’t predicted by the BBT theory (it predicted a source much hotter) but was predicted by normal physics to be exactly as it is.

There are more difficulties. The BBT predicts the CMBR will be even in all directions, it is not, it has a definite “axis” buried in the data.

All of the other background radiations were explained using the same physics as the physics that gave the correct temperature for the CMBR, but that didn’t fit the BBT, so that explanation was dumped over the one that (poorly) supported the BBT.

There are obvious other problems. According to the BBT, the entire universe was dark for its first 300,000 years. Then space cleared up and light began to shine around. The CMBR is supposedly this light giving us a photo representation of the universe at age 300,000 years. But what was the source of this light? Remember the BBT proponents go to lengths to declare there was no explosion, just a rapid expansion of space, so no “flash” from the very beginning is claimed. According to the BBT the light of the CMBR had the same source we see now, nuclear fusion occurring in stars producing star light. (Note we now have Webb Telescope images from back at the supposed 300,000 year point and galaxies were seen, and galaxies can only be collections of stars, so stars had been shining during at least some of that 300,000 year period, but the light couldn’t escape the dust and gas. So, why would this source appear to be 3K now, instead of the tens of thousands of degrees that stars put out now? Oh, the expansion of space-time stretched out that light over the billions of years to make it longer, and voilà microwaves. Obvious, isn’t it?

Remember Ockham’s Razor, the principle that we shouldn’t multiply entities beyond necessity? Which do you think most closely aligns to that principle with regard to the CMBR: the BBT or ordinary physics?

“The pretense of knowledge is our most dangerous vice, because it prevents us from getting any better.”