Religion is not a race

Listening to the CBC radio this morning, I heard some ignorant comments from fellow Canadians regarding the Charlie Hebdo shootings. Essentially, many of them equated the satirical cartoons that criticized Islam and the prophet Mohamed to racism and anti-Semitism. In this article, I will explore how they might have come to such an illogical conclusion, and demonstrate why this is a fallacy.

The Canadian Human Rights Act lists 11 prohibited grounds of discrimination. This list includes: Race, national or ethic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, and a conviction for which a pardon has been granted or a record suspended. Since religion and race appear on this list, some assume that they are one in the same, which they are not, just as race and sexual orientation are mutually exclusive. That's why they're listed separately. All this act does is prevent discriminating against a person based on something like their religious beliefs or a disability. Being critical of religion does not go against this list any more than would being critical of marriage, as long as the criticism isn't used to discriminate against a person.

The comparison to anti-Semitism suggests that, since Judaism is a religion of the Jewish people, race and religion are intertwined. Besides the fact that this ignores the fact that a person of any race can become a Jew by converting to Judaism, there exists many prominent Jews who proclaim to be atheists and agnostics. Clearly, there exists a distinction between Judaism and Jews. Anti-Semitism is defined as hostility towards or discriminating against a Jewish person or Jewish group of people based on their religion, ethnic, or racial group. Judaism is not a person or group of people; rather, it is simply a set of beliefs and practices observed by people. Therefore, it is possible to be critical of Judaism without being hostile or discriminatory towards the people who follow that faith.

Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and all other religions are ideas that came from the minds of men. These ideas are not people, and the progress of humanity is based on the concept of being critical to ideas. It's how we move forward and how things like vaccines are created. Old ideas about diet and nutrition are constantly replaced with new ones, as well as ideas about exercise and sleep as we endeavour to live longer, healthier lives. We ridicule the idea that smoking cigarettes can be healthy, even though this was once a commonly held belief.

Some people have a difficult time recognizing that criticism of their particular brand of religion is not an attack on them; in fact, it's not uncommon for a person to take offence whenever they hear or see criticism of anything they like. People become attached to cars, trucks, fashion, political parties, and even computer technology in much the same way. The guy who loves Chevy trucks and always buys nothing but Chevy trucks might want to punch you out if you say anything bad about Chevy trucks. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be critical of Chevy trucks just in case they might offend someone. What it means is that, if a person has made Chevy trucks so much a part of their identity that they might be prone to violence, they should probably avoid people and publications that might be more honest about their truck of choice than they are until they can sort out their anger issues. Along the same vein, someone who doesn't like Chevy trucks probably shouldn't discriminate against or be hostile towards people who drive Chevy trucks; it's a choice that really doesn't affect the other person.

Love the person, hate the religion. I don't believe Islam has a single redeeming value, but I believe some people who observe this religion are good people. On the grounds of discrimination, I consider religion to be more like a disability, along the same lines of alcohol and drug addiction. I believe the religion continues to do more harm than good like drug and alcohol addiction, but that good does comes from the people in spite of their religion. That's why atheists shouldn't take up arms against the people of Islam, but absolutely must continue, through satire and otherwise, be critical of Islam itself, because some truly wonderful people will recognize the truth and get better as they convert to no belief at all.

If you'd like to read more on this subject, I recommend the following:

Charlie Hebdo: The truths that ought to be self-evident but still aren't by Spectator Blogs
Confusing race and religion is dangerous by Psychology Today
What is Judaism? by Judaism 101

A dark day

Je Suis Charlie

A little fun on Facebook this morning:

The Atheist's Certainty

Recently, I heard a comment made about non-believers that the only thing we have to hope for is that there is no God. While I'm certain that I hope for a great deal more than that, I find this a curious statement for a believer to make and demonstrates how little they understand the true nature of humanity and their own beliefs.

First of all, the assumption that a non-believer's only hope that God doesn't exist is patently false. I, for one, would find evidence for the existence of a god or gods exciting. This would be a fantastic discovery. I would also find the discovery of the real life existence of flying dragons, fairies, and the Loch Ness Monster to be equally fantastic discoveries. I don't expect any of these discoveries to be made, but I certainly would never hope against their discovery. My atheism is not a blind faith; it's a default position made necessary by the existence of religion.

The atheist's certainty is much greater. Consider that a Christian believes only in one specific god. All of the polytheistic legends are myths to the Christians (and, to be fair, the Muslims), because they are told there is only one God. While this is what they are told, it's not exactly what the bible says. The first commandment in the Ten Commandments states as such:

"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."

This does not state that there are no other gods; in fact, it clearly suggests the opposite: That there are other gods, but that you should not have them before this god. This means that it's perfectly okay for a Christian to believe in polytheism (the belief that there are more than one God), but that the one they worship is the one of this bible.

Why don't most Christians accept polytheism? Part of it is that they recognize the polytheistic religions as the myths that they are. This is because they weren't brought up with those beliefs. With modern knowledge of science and understanding of how things work, they can see how ancient people would attribute a god to a natural phenomenon like lightning and rain, but their understanding of how these things come about in the natural world causes them to understand that a specific god isn't necessary for lightning or rain. There's another reason they choose to believe in only one god: They believe they're hedging their bets. As it turns out, this is a big mistake.

Consider the possibility that there might be multiple gods, or just one god. In either case, it's probable that only one of them is responsible for the afterlife business, and if that's the case, that's the one god anyone with a fear of death does not want to offend. A good Christian knows that if they might be worshipping the wrong god, they can weasel their way into a good afterlife by at least making the case that they intended to worship the right god. I hope that works out for the Christians, but I'm afraid they don't get off that easily.

As it turns out, an atheist has a much better strategy. Where a Christian hedges his or her bets by believing in one god and disbelieving the existence of other gods, an atheist simply chooses to disbelieve in them all. This is a much better strategy for the following reasons:

1. The Christian god might be a hated enemy of the one true god that is in charge of the afterlife, and worshipping that god alone might be enough to offend whatever god is in charge of the afterlife. An atheist would be non-offensive to this kind of god in comparison.
2. Consider the possibility that the Christian god actually exists and is the only god to worry about. The atheist's lack of belief is based on the fact that all they had to go on was the word of other men and women, who are, by definition of the tenants set out in the Holy Bible, fallible and inherently full of sin. How could this god punish a man or woman for not accepting the word of another man or woman? From our perspective, a preacher, priest, pastor, monk, or pope is simply a man or woman who does not wish to work to earn a living and is a parasite we wish not feed. Those of us who were Christians who left the faith can make a further case that God did not call to us when we prayed. Who are we to pressure the almighty for miracles when we are happy enough with life itself and there are children starving and dying of disease who are more deserving of miracles? Therefore, we default to the position of atheists, ready to convert as soon as we are called to by virtue of solid evidence.
3. Worst case scenario for the atheist is that there is a god, it is the Christian god exactly as the bible describes, that the men who wrote the bible were really enlightened, and this god is a jealous god who demands our undivided attention and obedience. We must worship him and, if we do this well enough in life, we get to spend eternity worshipping this jealous entity. If this is "Let's make a deal," I think I'd rather see what's behind door number two, Monty, because this is looking more like winning the goat. I think I'd rather have no goat and stop playing this insane game show.
4. That there is no god. The atheist gets to live his or her life free of superstition, free of mythical beliefs, understands this is the only life we get, and as a result lives a significantly richer, fuller life than they would if they believed. Thus, the only life we get in this case is greatly improved, and becomes its own reward.

I'm not against anyone believing in a religion, but as far as I'm concerned, hedging your bets in belief in a god is not a whole lot different than gambling at a casino, except in the case of religious worship, it's your time that you're using to bet instead of money. Just like in the casino, it's unlikely you'll win any of that time back ever. Unlike the casino, we never see anyone hit the jackpot. I'm glad to have had the presence of mind to have cut my losses when I did. I also understand why those who believed and worshipped their whole lives continue to do so: They are like problem gamblers who must keep plugging their time into keeping their chips on the table, and they must convince others around them that they haven't wasted their time by making statements like, "The only thing an atheist has to hope for is that there is no god." Or, as the problem gambler would say, the only thing a person not gambling has to hope for is that there is no jackpot.

This song came to me in a dream the other night. In the dream, I came up with the first four lines and the chorus, which inspired me to write the rest of the song. This is written to the tune of "Jesus loves me, this I know." Just in time for Halloween, I present to you...Zombie Jesus Eats Our Brains:

Zombie Jesus eats our brains,
High upon a cross he hangs.
We drink His blood and eat His flesh,
Even if he's not that fresh.

Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
He likes to eat our brains.

Zombie Jesus died for us,
From his hands he's oozing pus.
He died because of our sins,
Now he's looking very thin.

Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
He likes to eat our brains.

Zombie Jesus is our boss,
Hanging up there on His cross.
He's the shepherd of his flock,
He wears sandals without socks.

Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
He likes to eat our brains.

On Easter our Christ Lord died,
For us, he was crucified.
He has risen from the dead,
To eat the brains inside our heads.

Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
He likes to eat our brains.

An open letter to Muslims

Recently, there's been protests from the Muslim world calling for the execution of a particular filmmaker who posted online a film entitled, "Innocence of Muslims" that is critical of the Muslim faith. I took the liberty of watching this poorly made film myself, and found it to be boring. What is interesting, however, is the negative reaction of those of the Muslim faith. To me, whether or not this film is an accurate portrayal is besides the point. It's not anti-Muslim in the sense that it generates hatred towards Muslims as antisemitism does towards Jews; it's simply an interpretation of the writings of the Koran that casts a prophet in a negative light. It speaks nothing of the people of the Muslim faith today, whom I consider as equally as misguided as Christians are by this faith but still generally good people. And yet, these people would call for the hanging or beheading of this filmmaker who did nothing more than to make a film showing his interpretation of the Koran. Nobody was hurt, nor did watching it cause me to want to hate Muslims. However, the reaction of Muslims has caused me to reconsider; it would seem as though they are attempting to drag the world back into the dark ages.

Consider the protests against American embassies around the world. Clearly, the American government had nothing to do with the creation of this film. However, the United States of America offers freedom to the extent that freedom of speech does include criticism of organized religion, just as it also includes criticism of the American government itself. Films that criticize the American government are far more prevalent than those criticizing religion, and you would think that would give the protesting Muslims a clue. Instead, they continually demonstrate their hatred of freedom with each and every protest. In this, it is not this movie that makes me dislike people of the Muslim faith, but rather the reaction of those people and their attack on freedom that means a lot to me. It's this freedom that protects me from religion, and is something I value deeply, because, from all that I've observed, freedom from religion is what ultimately leads to progress with humanity. We learn more, understand more, live better and longer without religion holding us back. I respect a person's choice to be religious and to be critical of science, but I in turn expect their respect of my choice to be non-religious and to be critical of religion. The truly intelligent argue the point, not the person.

Ultimately, the truly intellectually honest Muslim has to recognize a fundamental issue is at hand and challenging their beliefs. If their god Allah really exists and controls our lives, and if "Innocence of Muslims" is truly offensive to this god by portraying one of His prophets in a negative light, then that god should decide the punishment for the creator of this film and those involved. If your god Allah does not punish that person, then you must accept that either: a) Allah does not care about or may even approve of this film, or b) Allah does not exist. I personally would go with option B, but either way, as soon as you get involved and decide to execute this person, I have to ask: Who the hell do you think you are, exercising the will of Allah? Let Allah speak for Himself, if he truly exists.

The trinity of belief

Having been a god-fearing Christian and now an atheist, I fully understand the reasons why Christians believe as they do, regardless of how absurd the bible may be. As an atheist, I recognize the flaw in their logic. Fundamentally, there are three reasons why Christians believe, each one supporting the other, creating a trinity of belief.

The Universe was created

Many Christians believe what they do on the false assumption that the universe was created, and attribute the creation of the universe to God. Every Christian I've spoken to proclaims, "All of this had to come from somewhere!" Does it really? When it comes to life, we have a pretty good understanding on how evolution works; we never see anyone or anything spring into existence. I know that I came from my parents, who came from their parents, on and on back in a process that is very well understood. Nature gives us clues as to our origin. As for the matter and energy of which the Universe is made up of, I find it very strange that one would assume this would need creating, given that the infinite nature of the existence of the matter and energy that makes up the universe stares us right in the face with the law of conservation of matter and energy. Whenever I mention this to a Christian, they have a difficult time comprehending an ever-changing universe that exists infinitely in spite of this observable and testable evidence, and yet they are quick to accept that God exists infinitely. It's very strange to me that they must keep believing in God, and I can think of only one reason why they refuse to accept the truth: The promise of an afterlife.

The afterlife

Christians believe that if they believe in God and Jesus, they will go to a place called heaven when they die. This also seems very strange, given that there is absolutely no evidence to support this belief. To this day, nobody who has died has ever come back, except in the questionable stories written in the bible. Given what we currently understand of the workings of the human brain through medical science, one has to wonder why belief in a spirit persists. Clearly, consciousness is the product of a working brain; when the brain starts to fail, consciousness also starts to fail. One can imagine bronze aged men looking up to the sky and imagining a place above the clouds, among the stars; but we have traveled above those clouds and have seen the stars for what they really are. We have even traveled to some of those ancient, far-off places in the sky; putting a man on the moon and robots on Mars. Why, then, hold on to those ancient misinformed beliefs? Because they are old.

The Bible is a very old text

The Christian logic works something like this: The earliest texts of the bible were written a few thousand years ago, and people who existed a few thousand years ago are closer to the beginning of our species than we are today, and as such were able to see things of a much earlier earth. The trouble with this logic is that, given the few billion years the earth has been around and the many billions of years the known configuration of the universe has existed, a few thousand years ago might as well be yesterday. Consider the scale we're discussing. A billion is equal to a thousand million. Imagine, if you will, the insignificance of one dollar compared to a million dollars. The single dollars start looking insignificant once you start seeing hundreds of dollars; even more so at thousands of dollars. Move up to tens of thousands, and that dollar is barely a drop in the bucket. At hundreds of thousands, it's not even a drop as it becomes nearly impossible to imagine each individual dollar. At a million, a dollar might as well be a penny, or even a fraction of a penny. Indeed, you would never see the actual dollars that make up a billion; at that point, money becomes conceptual rather than actual.

Now consider that we possess scientific instruments that allow us to look into the past many billions of years. Our Hubble telescope allows us to see distant galaxies as they were 13.2 billion years ago. Radiometric dating allows us to determine geological and fossil records that date back hundreds of millions of years, with carbon dating permitting greater accuracy on a scale of tens of thousands of years. Our science allows us to see well beyond what the bronze aged men who wrote the bible couldn't have possibly even imagined. What they saw of the world and the universe wasn't a whole lot different from what we see today, except today we have powerful instruments at our disposal along with a much better understanding of the natural world. Our knowledge of the past of our species and planet are far more accurate than theirs could ever have been, as we are reading the things that nature tells us.

Conclusion

Having once been a Christian, I understand this trinity of belief quite well. It is absurd given what we know today, but most Christians will never read their bible or allow their trinity of belief to be challenged. They become like the child at Christmas who fears he will get no more presents if he stops believing in Santa. Nevertheless, there really is nothing to fear, because nothing will be lost. It's my sincere hope that others will recognize Christianity for what it is, and regard it in the same manner as they do Greek and Norse mythologies.