The "You Need to Read More" Objection

In a discussion with a theist today I encountered the following objection to my non-belief:

How could you claim to not believe in God when you didn't read everything about the early church, the entire Catechism of the church, Padre Pio, Saint Francis....people who spoke with God... People gained so much from belief in God and had tremendous experiences!

I believe that this argument fails for many reasons.

The argument from utility that is underlying the final part of the above argument does nothing to prove that the claims being made by Christianity are true. I cover this more in depth here. People can gain great insight from Christianity, great, but this doesn't suggest that their beliefs are true.

We don't need to read everything or completely exhaust all sources of information before rejecting claims being made by people. There are millions of things we don't believe in such as unicorns, faeries, leprechauns, etc. Do we need to read the encyclopedia of unicorns and read all of the books written by unicorn believers before rejecting the claims that are made? Of course not. We don't need to search every corner of the universe before we reject the claims made by unicorn believers. With the current knowledge and arguments that are on the proverbial table, we reject the claims made by unicorn and God believers because they are insufficient.

After using the analogy of unicorns and even other religious claims, my "opponent" told me that God is more important than unicorns and other religions and followed up with "it is so foolish to reject God because he is greater than anything that possibly can exist." I told him that that's just a subjective judgment and it doesn't matter anyway because I wouldn't accept something even if it were greater than anything imaginable because there's no good reason to believe it. This seemed to be a watered down version of Pascal's Wager.

I used another analogy like this:

Imagine that someone comes to you claiming that if you take his water medicine that you'll be cured of your medical maladies. You can reject his claim without reading all books on homeopathy and hearing from all people who believe the someone. Homeopaths make very specific claims and we can reject them because there is no good reason to accept the claims.

Although I dictated that I read arguments for and against theism, listened to numerous debates, had so many conversations...apparently, that's not enough if you didn't read "x and x." Well, it is. We don't need to exhaust all possible sources of knowledge or testimony before rejecting claims.

We don't accept the claims that people are abducted by aliens, people talk to the dead, tarot cards are reliable, Bigfoot exists.... and we don't need to read all of what's out there to be on firm ground.

On Being Wrong, Intellectual Honesty, and Acquiring Belief

Let's face it. We hate being wrong. We like to think of ourselves as intelligent individuals who acquired beliefs through reliable and sophisticated means. Many of our important beliefs --especially those political, moral, and religious -- were "placed on us" by our parents, teachers, and family members. We generally trust people who are close to us and don't thoughtfully investigate everything we hear simply because we accept beliefs on some sort of [undeserved] authority. It's impossible to verify all of our beliefs - or at least try to have beliefs that are as close as possible to reality.

Some people honestly don't care or are intellectually lazy. People will hold positions and won't [be able to] defend them if asked or pressed. Some take the mantras of "People can believe what they want to believe" and "Everyone has the right to their own beliefs" as a get-out-of-discussion free card. People often don't challenge others' beliefs because they feel that it's impolite or because they want to "make everyone happy." These trends need to stop and intellectual honesty, instead of laziness, should return to a center of importance.

We often won't admit that we are wrong about something and we'll defend a belief even when the position is hopeless and terribly lost. In areas of religion, for example, people will interpret passages to fit their needs and beliefs instead of actually looking at the verse in context. Oh, you don't like that idea? God must not have inspired that verse. Oh, that passage is a good one? God must have inspired that one. Ignore the bad. Love the good? I've had African-Americans tell me that "slavery was different back then" in hopeless attempts to defend the Old Testament. If we don't like to be wrong (and that's most of us, right?), we can admit being wrong today to be correct for the future.

Shouldn't caring about what is true and holding as many true beliefs as possible (as opposed to unjustified or false beliefs) be a major focus of life? If we hate being wrong so much, why don't we journey to discover the truth? If any of my cherished positions are met with great arguments from the other side that seem to challenge me and shake my foundation, I'll reformat my beliefs and amend to be right.

Shouldn't important positions be held with a high standard of warrant? If God/religion/belief is so important to you, for example, shouldn't you read the arguments from both sides and come to a conclusion that you feel is correct so that you're not wrong about the matter? When I was a theist I asked myself, "Is there good reason to believe? This is an important matter, so I should find out whether there is good reason or not." I wasn't concerned about being comfortable. I was concerned about being right. I admitted that I was wrong about my former positions and changed my beliefs...and now I feel that I'm very justified in non-belief because I've encountered the arguments, had the debates, and did the research. As an atheist, I know so much more about Christianity and the arguments for and against God than most theists my age. It's quite sad, but I suppose that it makes sense.

Ironically (?) enough, I've met few theists who actually can demonstrate that they've read both sides of the arguments...people say stupid phrases like "Well, what if you're wrong, you're going to hell," "God exists because the Bible says so and the Bible says it is true," "You just don't believe because you hate God," etc. Serious theists (or even all) should have advanced actual arguments and be able to dictate their position and why they believe quite easily.

I'm convinced that many theists simply are "doing it wrong." Instead of starting from the default position of "I don't know" and then DECIDING to become a Christian, they first start as a Christian and try to justify the position...or in most cases, their parents are Christians and they are children of Christian parents. Non-belief should be the default position...why should we accept a claim before having good reason to accept it.

Imagine that a salesman came to your door and told you that if you bought his product, you'll never have to worry about "x" again. Would you accept his claim or would you first find reasons to accept his claim. You'd certainly ask questions and feel that you're justified in your position of believing him before buying the product. Christianity should be the same way. You should feel justified and have good reasons for belief BEFORE you accept the claims and call yourself a Christian.

If a theist comes to me and tries to "sell his product," I'll certainly accept the claims, but until that happens, I won't believe. I simply can't accept the claims of Christianity without justification.

Ask yourself, for any given important belief:

• Why do I hold this position? Is this belief the result of yearing for truth or just comfort or custom?
• Where did I get the information from? Is the source reliable?
• How would I be able to defend my belief to the most adamant detractor?
• What are the best arguments against my position? Can I provide good responses?
• If this position is important to me, what's more important: being correct or just holding the position? If being correct is important (and it should be), you should choose the side, if applicable, with a good defense.
• Why do people disagree with me on this matter? Why do they hold their positions?

If we're able to look at positions clearly while maintaining the idea that being correct for the future is most important, we can more reliably arrive at justified beliefs. Follow the evidence, reason, and argument to where it leads...don't use the evidence just to support your previously held position.

Positions shouldn't be held without justification; if you have no justification, you simply shouldn't have the belief. Have the courage to admit to being wrong today to be right tomorrow. Prioritize intellectual honesty...especially for important positions.

"No Evidence Either Way"

A frequent example of fallacious thinking lies in the phrase "there is no evidence either way."

There is either no evidence to support a proposition or evidence to support a proposition; there is no such thing as "no evidence either way." If evidence is inconclusive or a stance can not be taken, agnosticism, in the true sense of the word (not enough knowledge to make a decision), is a tenable stance, but this is much different than "no evidence either way."

The category of "no evidence either way" is the same as "no evidence." Is there "no evidence either way" to support the existence of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster or is there simply no evidence? Is there "no evidence either way" to support the idea that King Arthur existed or is there no evidence? Is there "no evidence either way" to suggest that the moon landing was faked or is there no evidence to support this idea?

"No evidence either way" frequently pops up as a last ditch argument for the theism, but theists ought not say this because it contradicts their own position (they believe in a god). Of course not all theists use this phrase, but some unfortunately do.

Imagine that I said "There is a ten dollar bill in my pocket" and you had no idea about the contents of my pocket. If I would ask you to decide whether there is or is not a ten dollar bill in my pocket, you should say something along the lines of, "I don't know. I don't have any reason to suggest that there is or is not. I need more information." It would be odd and incorrect to suggest that there is no evidence either way; you simply have no reason to suggest that there is a ten dollar bill in my pocket.

Might the ten dollar bill be in my pocket? Sure, there might be a ten dollar bill, but with your current information, you should withhold belief and/or not believe that there is a ten dollar bill until you see good reason to suggest that there is a ten dollar bill in my pocket. If I never allow you to inspect my pocket, you should never say "there is no evidence either way," but rather should say, "I have no reason to suggest that there is a ten dollar bill."

Now, let's return to theism. The position of the theist who says that "there is no evidence either way" is laughable. If we even allow for this third category of "no evidence either way" and a person takes this position, this person should be a non-believer because he/she has no good reason (by admission) to believe. If I took the position of solipsism (that everything is just a figment of my imagination) and I said that there is no evidence either way to suggest that everything is a figment of my imagination, I'm clearly yielding my position.

Another fundamental fallacy in the phrase "no evidence either way" is that something can be "disproven." It's impossible to "disprove" something, but if we find no evidence to support a proposition, we should withhold belief/not believe rather than believing it. If a person is making a positive claim about something, the burden of proof is on him/her to demonstrate this. If I were to walk up to someone and say, "I could shoot lasers at streetlights by using my mind" and I failed to do so, it would be silly for the person to say, "Well, I guess there's no evidence either way to suggest that he can do what he says he could do."

If a person feels that there is no evidence to support the existence of God and no evidence to counter the claims made by believers, the person simply shouldn't believe. In what other area of life would we say "there is no evidence either way" and still believe in a specific claim? Let's not use glib phrases and make excuses when we have no evidence to support claims.

This wonderful video inspired this post and will recap my arguments:

Lou Barletta Should Think Critically...

Oh, hey, a political post! Well, not entirely. I suppose everything can be political, but this post involves more public failures of critical thinking by a person from Pennsylvania running for congress. Lou Barletta says some really stupid things to reporters from local media outlets.

I've commented on Barletta's failures in my previous post on the "Ground Zero Mosque" but would like to address a more recent instance of ridiculous statements from Barletta in this newspaper article.

A full understanding of the article or the issue isn't very important, but here's a quick version. Barletta's political opponent wants a military training site in a certain location. Barletta opposes it. ...and here's the really stupid quote from Barletta,

I will never put residents of this district in danger by supporting a project like this,” said Barletta, the 54-year-old Republican challenger for the 11th Congressional District seat. “What guarantees are we going to have that children will not sneak onto this bomb range?

The idea that a military training site should be opposed because someone children may sneak onto a "bomb range" is ridiculous. A quotation like this severely undermines the competency of security professionals (who would, without a doubt, be at a MILITARY TRAINING CAMP) and shows little confidence in people who design such bases. When was the last time children sneaked into bomb ranges, anyway?

Another huge problem with this idea is an obvious one. The idea that we have "no guarantees" about something that is potentially dangerous (but is actually very safe and secure) gives us no good reason to have an a priori objection against it.

Should we close all military bases because there are "no guarantees" that children won't sneak in?

Should we stop using blenders because there are "no guarantees" that children won't chop fingers off?

Should we stop producing and drinking alcohol because children might drink it?

Should we ban pornography because there are no guarantees that children won't view it?

Should we take guns away from republicans...

Should we stop doing open-heart surgery...

Here's one more reason not to vote for Lou Barletta.

No True Catholics?

(A True Scotsman)

The post is somewhat of a response to The Rockin' Traddy's new blog post. I've responded to many of his ideas in comments on his blog, but will address this idea of "what a true Catholic is."

I'll do my best to accurately represent the Rockin' Traddy's views, but if I miss something or misrepresent his position, I'll certainly modify this post.

The basic jist of The Rockin' Traddy's blog is simple: The Catholic Church is the only true church. Catholics should stick to the "old time religion" and all should follow very conservative views. The current form of Catholicism should be reverted to the Latin Mass and older doctrine.

The Rockin' Traddy is a believer in God who doesn't cut corners. While I don't think that "conservative Christianity" is a tenable position, he's at least honest about what he believes and is quite consistent.

When I have discussions with various theists, people note that they don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Some say that it's just an inspirational book.

Some theists say that they believe in God, but don't attend church services.

Many theists say that they don't agree with The Vatican at all and simply go to church because they think that it's "the right thing to do."

Some say that religion is just a way of looking at the same god and that all religions are true.

Some say that they don't really care about religion, but they just believe.

Let's face the facts. Religions change. Theology changes. Science progresses. Historians discover new information. With the passage of time, new advances in human knowledge force us to relinquish previously held positions like "the earth is less than 10,000 years old" and "The Bible is an inerrant document inspired by God." If we're intellectually honest, we should allow ALL of our beliefs to be open to change and change our beliefs when new information comes in instead of trying to hold on to our positions when they're untenable.

We can't hold on to old positions like "homosexuals are disordered and there is no such thing as being born gay" when a tremendous amount of evidence suggests that homosexuals are well-adjusted people and that people exhibit signs of sexual preference at a young age.

We shouldn't complain about women being priests and hide behind tradition. Not allowing women priests is simply discrimination on the basis of gender.

We also ought not try to ban contraceptives, insist that people shouldn't have early sex education, teach abstinence-only information, and then be against abortions. The conclusion is quite obvious: safe sex and education are the best ways to lower the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies. Abstinence-only education has dramatically failed.

We shouldn't hold on to the idea that "marriage is only between a man and women - protect marriage" when marriage has already been redefined to allow for interracial marriage. Marriage laws have changed with time and so has the family structure. Homosexuals want the same rights as heterosexuals.

It's also silly to insist that America is a "Christian nation" when we are a secular democracy that was founded by people who were mostly deists. We also ought not look at something the Bible says and say, "This is how America should be!"

Catholics can be Catholics without being super-pro-life, anti-women priests, "traditional," and anti-homosexual. To insist that stances like this disqualify someone from being a Catholic is absurd and fallacious.

At this point, some detractors might say something like "If you're going to join the Catholic Church and believe in God, you have to follow the rules that the Catholic Church has set up." I disagree. We have all sorts of republicans, democrats, socialists, etc who have various different positions on issues, but do share something in common.

The Rockin' Traddy and I will agree that many Catholics are very dishonest, but we will hold this position for drastically different reasons. The idea that a Catholic is inconsistent or dishonest and not disqualify someone from being a Catholic.

You should be very suspicious when you hear the term "true believer," "true Catholic," "true faith," etc when distinguishing one Catholic from another Catholic.

I guess I'll have to work harder to win the "Scumbag of the Day" award from Traddy. Perhaps honest discussion will do it.

Alvin Plantinga's Theory of Epistemic Warrant

I'd like to share an essay that I wrote for my philosophy of knowledge class regarding belief and warrant for belief. All citations are from Alvin Plantinga's book Warranted Christian Belief. I was very annoyed with the book for several reasons:

• It didn't argue for the truth value of Christianity.
• Plantinga argues that even if God doesn't exist, Christians would still be warranted in believing.
• Plantinga argues that naturalism is untenable because evolution isn't a process aimed at the truth.

I wanted some REASONS why we should accept the claims of Christianity such as "Jesus died and came back from the dead," "The universe was created by an all-loving god," etc. Plantinga instead makes many unfalsifiable arguments like "The Holy Spirit communicates with us through a "God pipeline" we have in our brains...

I discuss major problems with his model for epistemic warrant. I've also touched on Plantinga in previous posts here and here.

Plantinga proposes that “a belief has warrant only if it is produced by cognitive faculties that are functioning properly, subject to no disorder or dysfunction – including absence of impedance as well as pathology” (Plantinga 153-154). He also proposes that a person must be in a certain kind of environment that they are designed for to attain warrant and “produced by cognitive faculties such that the purpose of those faculties is that of producing true belief” (155). Plantinga also claims, “the design plan in question is a good one, one that is successfully aimed at truth, one such that there is a high (objective) probability that a belief produced according to that plan will be true (or nearly true) (156). Plantinga continues, “the degree of warrant it enjoys depends on the strength of the belief, the firmness with which S holds it” (156).

A problem with Plantinga's first contention is that a person's cognitive faculties can be functioning improperly and beliefs can still have warrant. A man with schizophrenia may marry a woman, believe that he is married, and be justified in believing that he is married. Does his belief lack warrant because his cognitive faculties are impaired? Plantinga proposes very clearly that a person must be “subject to no disorder” in order for a belief to have warrant, but in the case of this man, he has significant reason to suppose that he is married (his entire family affirms that he is married, he has a marriage certificate, people take pictures and record the wedding, etc) and his cognitive faculties are impaired. Do all beliefs produced by schizophrenics lack warrant? What becomes of people who are born with minor cognitive defects? Do none of their beliefs have warrant? Several problems arise with Plantinga's restrictive definition.

Plantinga's second contention alleges that a person must be in a kind of environment he/she is designed for. Several problems arise when considering this definition. Humans may use technology to explore environments they were not “designed for” and may visit different climates, galaxies, or planets. Do my beliefs suddenly lack warrant if I am an astronaut on the moon? Humans clearly were not “designed” to be on the moon, but scientists can experiment while on the moon, write data in a logbook, and form beliefs based on experience gained on earth. What would happen to Plantinga's idea of warrant if humans adapted to live on Antarctica or used technology to live there? Would all “Antarcticans” lack warrant when they gained knowledge living in Antarctica? A person can have exemplary cognitive abilities, justification, and very good reason to lead to a belief. Would humans also lack warrant if we colonized Mars and lived in another galaxy? Would a “Mars baby” have more or less warrant at the age of seventeen than a sixteen-year old who was reared on earth? What about scuba divers and people in submarines? Do they also lack warrant when forming beliefs underwater?

Plantinga also argues that faculties must be aimed at producing true belief in order for a person to have warrant. A problem arises with this claim because a person in the most well-intentioned manner may be seeking true belief but can arise at a false belief. Imagine that a person wants to find information about the Holocaust and reads a book written by a man who alleges that the Nazis did not use gas chambers to exterminate Jews. Although this person intended to gain true belief, he/she arrived at a false belief. A person who wants to acquire a true belief may also want to explore different religious venues and come to the conclusion that the universe is less than ten thousand years old because the members of the congregation are all young-earth creationists.

Plantinga argues that the design plan in question for human beings must be successfully aimed at truth for a person to have a warranted belief. Why should a design plan have to be aimed at truth for a person to have a warranted belief? Does a quality of abiogenesis and evolution make a belief more or less warranted? We see no “design plan” in nature, but rather see natural selection, change over time, adaptations, and mutations that shapes all living beings. If there is no creator who designed a plan for humans aimed at truth, are all beliefs unwarranted? According to Plantinga, they must be. We don't need a creative intelligence to have warrant for our beliefs; we can stand on justified epistemic grounds without needing a creator.

Finally, Plantinga proposes that firmness and strength of a belief adds degrees of warrant. I find this notion troubling because all sorts of people believe false ideas and are very strong in their convictions. Learned individuals strongly believe in ESP, alien abductions, psychic powers, intelligent design, government conspiracy theories, playing Mozart music near a fetus can increase the intelligence of the potential child, the Loch Ness Monster, Lord Xenu, and various other strange things. Many of these people are convinced that their beliefs are true, may release books trying to argue for their positions, speak at conventions, and would testify in court that their testimony is truthful. What happens when two people who hold conflicting and incompatible views such as “the red clock is on the wall” and “the red clock is not on the wall?” If the clock is clearly on the wall and the believer who argues that it is off the wall is firm in his beliefs, is he more warranted?

I propose that certain standards such as evidence, parsimony, peer-review, verification, and falsifiability should be considered when pondering warrant. Great difficulty also lies in determining what standards a person must meet when considering whether or not a belief is justified because all claims are not created equal; some claims require more justification and evidence than others to be warranted or regarded as being truthful claims. It should be reasonable to suppose that a person needs more justification to believe that her dog speaks Spanish than to believe that her daughter speaks Spanish; we know that dogs don't speak Spanish and know that humans may speak Spanish.

I agree that the proper functioning of cognitive faculties is important for evaluating justification for a belief, but Plantinga can make this contention less restrictive by wording it as following, “A person has warrant for a belief only if he/she does not have significant cognitive defects that do not allow for proper formation for belief.” This still may be problematic, though, because a person may be significantly impaired and still understand that his/her mother is his/her mother, that he/she is laying on a couch, or other simple beliefs. Again, not all claims are created equal. I believe that all other contentions have to be removed. Other problems arise when people believe they are justified in believing in a claim even though other learned individuals know that they are not. I previously explored this possibility with weird beliefs. Our best bet for justification ought to be, “A person is justified in believing in a proposition if he/she has thoughtfully researched, considered various alternative viewpoints, successfully engaged others in honest and productive discussion, can defend the belief, the claim has endured great scrutiny, was empirically verified, etc.” This changes when beliefs are apparent or knowable without tremendous justification such as “the sun is bright.”

On Admiration for People who "Stand Up for Beliefs"

Months ago, a peer told me that he admires everyone who "stands up for their beliefs" no matter what the belief is. He thinks that people who stand up for beliefs are courageous. This is a very dangerous position to hold in all cases - this sentiment ought to be rejected.

If we accept that people who stand up for their beliefs should be admired, we would have to admire everyone who commits terrible atrocities and give credit to people who performed stupid actions.

Oh, well, you killed fifty innocent people because you thought that they'd be rewarded after death? Good for you, you stood up for your beliefs!

You left your child to die in a warm car last summer because you believed that this would send him to Heaven? Good for you, you stood up for your beliefs!

Hitler killed people in the Holocaust! Good for him, he stood up for what he believed in.

Sadly, I'm not making a strawman here...I've met people who seriously admire Hitler because he stood up for what he believed in...

We should examine the beliefs, the motives involved, the good that will come of the action, and whether there is any rational basis to these actions before admiring people just because they stand up for what they believe in. This may certainly be a case-to-case basis, but it should by no means apply to every case. Here are some examples:

• Shall we admire someone who bashes his head off a wall ten times in a row because he thinks that money will appear out of thin air?

• Shall we admire a person who believes that raping unattractive people is acceptable because it does them a favor?

The obvious answer to both cases is "no."

• Should we admire a theist who confronts his fellow churchgoers about their hateful positions toward homosexuals and non-theists?

Yes, I feel that this person should be admired because they're going against the norm and challenging ideas that typically just pass by without challenge.

...but what about a more complex issue with religious beliefs involved?

Shall we admire football players who refuse to drink water during practices because of religious convictions?

This might have been the topic of a single blog post, but I decided to fuse it into this one. An Islamic football player for the Minnesota Vikings, an American NFL team, had voluntarily decided to abstain from any sort of hydration or food when the sun is "out." An article on Yahoo details this.

The football player sees this as a commitment to God that is representative of devotion, but I see this as dangerous, not worthy of admiration, and detrimental toward his football team.

Teammates and the team's nutritionist have to go through extra measures to accommodate this behavior. It's quite bad that this man is putting himself through such danger...other football players have died because of excessive heat, lack of hydration, etc during practice sessions. It would be so terrible if this player died or suffered serious injury because of this dangerous fasting.

I'm obviously not admiring this behavior, but some people posting in the comment section of this article certainly are because he is standing up for what he believes in. I doubt that they'd admire the man hitting his head off of a wall, but for some reason faith gets undeserved respect.

This man is doing what none of us have the balls to do. PROPS

This person seemingly admires the football player because "none of us" would have the balls to do this. Why would we want to do this, anyway?

again, if it doesn't affect you, why do you care? you're not the one doing it, so relax. you don't believe in it, you don't have to. his health will be his problem, not yours.

I want to challenge the idea that we should respect people simply because they stand up for their beliefs. I don't want to see people die or injured, so I do care. Of course it's "on him" and he's an adult who is making a decision. I'm not trying to stop this, but am rather shedding light on the issue and raising a philosophical argument that we shouldn't admire people who stand up for beliefs just because.

A team letting a player do this to themselves is tantamount to assisted suicide. Teams must have some type of hydration policy in place for safety purposes. If a player doesn't follow them, he should be released.

'm not too sure about the policies that team members have to follow. I would venture that if a player simply said, "I'm not going to eat or drink during practices for the next three months" someone would say, "No, drink some water or we'll have to release you because we care about your health and don't want responsibility for any injury," but religious beliefs provide exemptions, even when the beliefs inform actions and are personally very dangerous.

So putting his needs above those of the team is OK? I don't think so. Nothing against religious beliefs, but I think he will be affecting the team in a negative manner during this fast. If he is not as strong as he should be, or if he becomes dehydrated, etc....it will affect the team. So while his personal sacrifice is fine, he is forcing others to sacrifice a bit with him and that is not fine.

I agree.

The real idiots are the ones thinking that this "gladiator game" of football is more important than a persons spiritual beliefs. Have you read the reports of numerous atheletes that suffer debilitating injuries from the barbaric consequences of this sport. The Ramadan fast is one of the most strength giving mentally and physically rituals you could ever imagine. Much respect to this "true gladiator".

No, health and rationality is more important than football.

God first... you have nothing but respect from me

Yup. We should certainly put God above human concerns and health...really?

No loving God would ever ask us to put ourselves in danger or risk for them.

Agreed...almost. I don't think that a loving god would want humans to put themselves in unneeded danger like this. Shouldn't there be some sort of non-dangerous way to show devotion?

Impressive? Respect? WTF! Anyone who places their health in jeopardy over a myth...

Agreed.

Doesn't Islam make exceptions during Ramadan for people who can't give up food and drink for health reasons? (e.g. pregnant or nursing women, young children, et al) I think these workouts might qualify Abdullah...

Interesting...I knew a diabetic Catholic who chose to abstain from eating meat during Lent, but he had the sense to eat meat on Fridays to get the protein he needed (or for whatever reason) instead of putting himself at risk. If you really want to fast, modify the fast if it's dangerous to your health.

God also knows that we r human and im sorry but in that heat in the end your human. so if he dies of heat stroke i hope God says well thanks for fasting!

Now this is just dangerous and harmful thinking...

There are many people in the comments section making personal attacks against the football player, but this isn't the intention of this post at all. While I think the decision is foolish, this isn't any sort of attack. I may, for example, think that a decision made by President Obama is foolish, but this isn't a personal attack on the president. We can certainly critique ideas without attacking people.

Children Pay for the Homophobia of Catholics

If you're an avid reader of my blog or a person who is well informed with the atrocities of the Catholic Church, you probably remember Catholics virtually blackmailing Washington D.C. and suspending charitable donations and services for ALL needy families they serve in D.C. because homosexuals would have to be included.

You're probably also aware of the Pope telling Africans that condoms could make AIDS worse. You may have noticed the Knights of Columbus lying about sexual education and marching to ban government distribution of contraceptives. Maybe you recall the Knights of Columbus donating a tremendous sum of money so that homosexuals couldn't marry in California (Don't you think one million dollars could really, really, really do something for the common good?). You might have noticed several priests and the pope blaming the media, the devil, and even atheism (!) for "petty rumors" about child rape and torture in the Catholic Church.

Once you thought that you've heard it all and that it can't possibly get worse, you read this article from BBC detailing about how Catholic Care (a so-called Charitable organization) doesn't want homosexuals to adopt children.

It's quite obvious that many children would benefit from adoption...but it's even more obvious that if homosexuals could adopt there would be less children without families. But, no, think of the natural law! Homosexuals aren't fitting parents according to Catholic Care! If some Catholics did some research (or just used common sense), this wouldn't be an issue.

According to Catholic Care's mission statement,

Catholic Care is a charitable organisation working on behalf of the diocese of Leeds. It offers a variety of services and support not only to the Catholic population, but also to the wider community as a whole.

Their website also claims that

Catholic Care acts to support all those in need of its services, especially people experiencing disadvantage and poverty, and it acts as an advocate for those unable to represent themselves.

The following facts fly in the face of the mission statement and neighborly love that Catholics often say is the core tenet of Catholicism:

• Catholic Care doesn't want children to be adopted because the parents are homosexuals.
• Catholic Care would rather see children in foster homes than be with gay parents.
• Catholic Care has an unsubstantiated belief that homosexuals are bad parents.

...as usual, beliefs aren't solely personal matters and beliefs inform actions.

Almost certainly because of religious beliefs, Catholic Care is advancing an incredibly false and bigoted position that is denying parents to prospective children who would be otherwise adopted.

This flies in the face of what I hear from theists:

"The Catholic Church's main objective is advancing the common good."

"The church just disagrees with the life choices of homosexuals. We don't discriminate."

"Everyone is a child of God and you should love your neighbor."

So, what can theists possibly say to defend the position of Catholic Care?

Without a doubt, we'll hear (and probably have always heard)

- They're just misinterpreting what the Bible says.

- They're not True Christians.

- I don't support this behavior.

- This has nothing to do with religion, it's the people, not the religion!

If you are a caring Catholic individual, you probably should distance yourself from this group and speak out. You probably should not tolerate this behavior. You probably don't hate gays and don't make posts about "PERVfest" and insist that your family should stay away from homosexuals.

There's a big disconnect...and at the same time there is an "evolution of religion" in which many people are distancing themselves from fundamentalist positions and truly making their religion a personal matter that is not bereft with dogma. Fine. Great...but the moderates really need to speak out in their [church] communities against behavior like this that other people in their community might endorse or support. Moderates have great power...

I was mad after seeing the BBC article, but then there was Catholic Online's take on it. It's easy to go to Catholic Online any hour of any day to find gross misrepresentation of atheists, people protesting the Empire State Building's owner, or a milieu of other wacky articles attempting to legitimize hateful and harmful positions taken by Catholics.

Once again, not all Catholics are the same and not all Catholics agree with that individual organizations or what the Catholic Church says, but there's no denying that homosexuals are being denied the right to adopt because of religious belief. Adults and children pay for this one...and this is only one case.

Back to Catholic Online. The title of this article dealing with the above mentioned situation is "Last Catholic Adoption Agency in UK Refuses to Compromise with Caesar." The article, as you might have expected, spins the situation into the government being the "bad guy,"

Now, these wonderful people can no longer even place needy children for adoption. Why? Because they refused to compromise with the new Caesar - an intolerant secularist governmental agency which insists that they deny their deeply held convictions. Those convictions are rooted in the Natural Law and based upon a concern for the best interest of children.

I never knew that the best interest of children was not being adopted and remaining in foster homes! Of course the "wonderful people" could place needy children for adoption, but they'd just have to give up their bigoted position regarding the inferiority of homosexual parents.

Catholic Online is defending this behavior while blaming the "intolerant secularist governmental agency." That's certainly the pot calling the kettle black. The article makes Catholic Care seem stellar and pristine in the light of denying adoptions because parents are homosexuals. The article than follows with a slippery slope argument and claims that thinking or holding a theological position is a crime,

And, yes, thay are informed by their Catholic Faith. Is that a crime? It may soon become one!

Well, you know that the article is just missing the points and it's certainly a good source for logical fallacies, but that's not the point. The main point is that beliefs may quite clearly inform actions and Catholicism can be very harmful. An organization like Doctors Without Borders would never fail to help people because they happened to be homosexuals. Who cares, anyway? Charitable organizations should help everyone and simply shouldn't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Catholicism needs to evolve faster and the moderates need to speak up.

The religious basis for this position of not letting homosexuals adopt children stands out on page two of the article. There's no doubt that a religious position is to blame for this...

Catholic teaching about the foundations of family life, a teaching shared not only by other Christian Churches but also other faiths, means that Catholic adoption agencies would not be able to recruit and consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents.

As always, The Onion is amazing.

Christian Charity Raising Money To Feed Non-Gay Famine Victims