Misanthropic Californian

Lately I’ve been seeing lots of articles on atheism on the news aggregator sites I frequent. I’m not an atheist myself, but I’ve been leaning closer to it lately, and I have atheist friends as well. They are among the most decent human beings I know. The army officially considers prejudice against atheists to be okay, and the President thinks that atheists can’t be patriots. These arguments always annoy the hell out of me, and they tend to be obfuscated by the existence of examples of profoundly bad behavior by supposed representatives of either side. Not a few anti-atheists like to cite the regimes of Stalin and Hitler as examples of atheism being the basis of tyrrany and slaughter. This to me is intellectually dishonest, on par with equating Christianity with Fred Phelps. The influential atheists today are at least as compassionate as any Christian you’d care to name, and I think it’s safe to say a distate for religion is the only thing they have in common with those historical villains. I wouldn’t hold a Dawkins-style atheist accountable for the actions of oppressive communist governnents any more than I’d hold a modern-day Lutheran responsible for the crusades (or abortion clinic bombings). This analysis of statistics of nonbelief in various countries draws a very sharp distinction between “coercive atheism” of a totalitarian regime and atheism that has emerged naturally in a democratic post-industrial nation.

Atheists are distrusted by most Americans, and at times are even targets of bigotry. My personal experience has been that how far you can trust a given person has absolutely nothing to do with their states faith or lack thereof. Whether we’re talking about theists or atheists, there are people who are jerks about the contrast between their beliefs and those of others, as though the world that already holds more than 6 billion people is somehow too small to hold multiple philosophical views. I for one base how much I trust someone on their actual conduct.

I’ve been wondering why it is that theism of one sort or another is basically the default. People have reasons for their faith and even incentives (the role of a church is far more social than people seem to realize, for one thing), but there is no proof per se. When Christians argue against atheism they seem to either beg the question or try to pick apart the opposition (which for them usually means evolution) rather than doing anything to substantially prop up their own views.

While I don’t know if I’ll ever stop being agnostic, so far the religion that makes the most sense to me is Buddhism. While there may well be some part of the world where you can find a Buddhist yelling at people that they need to accept the Four Noble Truths, it has a (percieved) lack of shouty jerks in its favor. It also plays nice with science better than any other religion I know of. Buddhist views of the nature of existence (“emptiness“) and self (as an aggregate of processes) are very compatible with our modern understanding of how the cosmos works, and the Buddha himself largely regarded “supernatural” matters to be secondary to the pursuit of enlightenment/happiness in the here and now. And, incidentally, morality (“right action,” “right intention,” “compassion for all beings”) are of paramount importance in Buddhism.

Why can’t we all just get along? Seriously, why the fuck not?

Jack Thompson is in the news again, rather a lot lately.  When it comes to the debate on video game violence, I think there are a couple of things that are clouding the issue:

Videogames are new. A certain amount of this unquestionably comes from the fact that video games are a new medium. Plays, books, the waltz, movies, jazz, rock ‘n roll, etc. have all been regarded as a corrupting influence on the youth of the time. It’s hard to separate out how much of this is legitimate, and how much of it is old people’s predilection for objecting to new things. It’s telling that there is a big hue and cry over kids being able to buy M rated video games, but no outrage all over the fact that it even easier for kids to walk into the Borders and by R-rated movies on DVD or books with mature content. People complain about the ESRB’s rating system, yet the problems with the MPAA’s rating system — illuminated at length in This Film Is Not yet Rated — are virtually ignored. Of course, as anyone who’s ever worked in a videogame store can tell you, a lot of parents are staggeringly, devastatingly ignorant about video games. Some parents just can’t wrap their heads around the idea that a videogame might not be appropriate for children, and some just don’t seem to care. (Not to mention the parents who doggedly insist that there are Mario games available on Xbox, and other unfounded misconceptions).

Jack Thompson himself is the kind of figure whose absence from the debate would benefit both sides. Keeping mature content out of the hands of kids, and giving parents the tools to do so, is a worthy and legitimate cause. Considering that the notion that kids aren’t mature enough to handle violent videogames is at the heart of this issue, it’s ironic and unfortunate that Thompson has a way of coming off like a flailing man-child at times. He insists on calling violent videogames “murder simulators,” accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being in the industry’s pocket, and had no qualms about calling the head of the IGDA an “idiot” and “jackass” on national television. This does not speak well of his desire to have legitimate debate on the issue, and indeed it’s very much his style to repeat whatever he’s decided is the truth over and over. I really do wish that gamers wouldn’t threaten him with violence though. Real-life violence doesn’t solve anything.

Of course, Thompson can’t seem to comprehend why it is that he gets those kinds of threats and people like Leeland Yee and Hillary Clinton don’t. Of those involved, no one else has so consistently threatened to sue their critics, no other major public figure has behaved like a common troll in public forums (GamePolitics had to ban him from commenting multiple times), and I’m pretty sure no one else has ever had the gall to compare the release of a game developed in Scotland on a Japanese-made a game console in the United States to the attack on Pearl Harbor. In the latter case I’m not even sure who’s being insulted more, and yet when questioned about this he resolutely insisted that he was justified in saying so. The latest on him is that he is filing a civil suit against the Florida Bar, as well as Kotaku and others. This time he managed to include a “liberal conspiracy theory,” and he managed to display incompetence at being a lawyer.

I have no idea why Jack Thompson fascinates us so, but it probably needs to stop. This is an important issue for a lot of people, and his side deserves one better than him to represent it.

People’s attitudes towards homosexuality are often a great source of things for me to get all indignant about (attitudes towards atheism are another). I have two members of my immediate, nuclear family who are of alternative sexual orientations, so it’s very difficult for me to justify getting upset over the whole thing. In fact, I’m not even sure where to begin an attack on prejudice against gays.

It’s the kind of prejudice that is so lacking in any sort of rational basis that there isn’t a lot to argue against. Most people can’t seem to muster anything beyond “the Bible says so” or “it’s icky” to back up their position, and the opposing viewpoint is “these people are human beings; let’s treat them as such.” When people try to come up with more logical reasons, they seemed to inevitably wind up resorting to crazy, spurious logic. Granted, a child probably is better off by a well-adjusted man and woman, but there are entirely too many children who don’t have that privilege. I for one would much rather see a child raised by a loving gay couple than a single parent who has to work multiple jobs, one or more abusive parents, an alcoholic, or any number of other bad situations that crop up entirely too often. Gay couples don’t exactly have a lot of unplanned pregnancies after all. More importantly, the presence of a gay couple next door has absolutely nothing to do with how well one’s own affairs are going. Heterosexuals have an amazing talent for screwing up their own marriages without any intervention whatsoever from gays. Alternative lifestyles aren’t anywhere near as big a problem as people not taking marriage seriously as a long-term commitment. That, to my mind, is a much greater threat to the “sanctity of marriage.”

The thing about gay people that people constantly seem to miss is that they are first and foremost people. Apart from preferring partners of the same gender, they tend to be surprisingly like everyone else — surprisingly so because we’re used to seeing images of homosexuals portrayed as freaks. Knowing this, hate towards gays is doubly ridiculous, but then most forms of hate seemed to be stupid and irrational in the first place. Sure, there’s that weird guy and the pride parade, but they’re also gay guys who look like average football fans with beer guts — because that’s what they are.

I don’t really know what to do about all of this, since solving the problem the way I want would require making people less stupid. As for gay marriage, I would make “civil unions” the norm for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, and make “marriage” a quaint religious practice with the same legal authority as a bar mitzvah. The cynic in me doubt that will happen during my lifetime though.

Race is a bizarre and profoundly touchy subject these days, when common sense tells me there’s no reason it should be, particularly. Granted, I grew up in northern California, and in terms of who I consider friends the requisite geekiness is much more important than race could ever hope to be.

Debates on race issues remind me a bit of debates on gun control in that each sides paints a profoundly different picture and, you know, it kind of depends on where you are since America isn’t as homogenous as some would like to believe. Liberals seem to be convinced that minorities are being oppressed, while conservatives are quick to dismiss that idea, yet have no problem crying foul at percieved discrimination against whites. If I assume that this works like everything else I’ve ever encountered, I’ll have to conclude that both sides are a little bit right and a little bit wrong, but mostly making a big fuss motivated by self-interest.

In terms of the things that form my identity, being “white” (which in my case means being a mutt formed from half a dozen Eurpean nationalities, some of which were enemies for many centuries) only really makes the list when it’s sharply in contrast with something else. If I go to Chinatown I’ll sometimes feel out of place, but I think not any more than I would if I was in a part of town that was predominantly Russian or German or something. That makes it hard for me to even think in terms of race boundaries; in my daily life race is more often than not utterly meaningless. Now, if I was actively looking for work, sunstantially involved in public discourse, or trying to get into big prestigious universities with affirmative action programs (California passed Prop 209, so that kind of thing isn’t supposed to be legal here anymore) I might be more inclined to have a strong opinion about such things.

I do think it’s a little odd that in terms of organizations and Ethnic Studies classes it’s okay to have stuff for minorities but not for white people per se, but then I think that’s partly out of a tendency to view white people as “geneic Americans” as it were rather than prejudice in a conventional sense. But then, considering I largely ignore any and all extracurriciular activities (I always either find them either wholly uninteresting or find that they have meeting times that are horribly shitty for my schedule) I can guarantee that if there were a “Caucasian Student Association” or whatever I wouldn’t bother. Of course, I’m also the type to roll my eyes at the College Republicans and College Democrats alike, to say nothing of the Socialists (who regularly commit the sin of passing out flyers on campus) for drawing so much of their identities from political affiliations. Still, I suspect if there were some people who wanted to start up a “CSA” it would probably be denied or otherwise screwed with. Granted there do seem to be an awful lot of groups based around promoting the interests of white people that are blatantly racist and often violent, stupid, or insane, but if we’re going to allow racially-oriented groups on campuses and whatnot, it seems dumb to keep white people out of the club.

But at the same time, completely dismissing any accusations of racism against minorities is just ignoring reality. It’s probably not a horrific and awful kind of problem, but, you know, when black guys are consistently pulled over by the police far, far more often than white guys, something is going on. We probably are overreacting as a nation, but then we overreact to just about everything the media calls attention to. I won’t claim to know much about where things are on this front, and I suspect that when I’m hanging out with my friends other people also see us as a bunch of geeks rather than noting our individual races. In this respect I feel fortunate to live in a quiet city in northern California.

“Political Correctness” inevitably enters into the discussion somewhere. Just like many of the things that have emerged from race issues, PC started with a well-intentioned good idea (Stop saying mean, fucked up stuff. It’s really easy to talk in a way that doesn’t make you sound like a jerk) that got misused and transformed into something stupid (In order to promote more gender equality “Manhattan” should be renamed “Personhattan”). “PC” is one of those terms (like “elite” or even “liberal”) that conservatives seem to have worked very hard to turn into a dirty word. When conservative pundits use the word “PC” they typically mean “stuff about being nice/civil to people that I disagree with.” Of course, I suspect they’d be quick to object to facing the term “Religiously Correct,” which a few have been using to be equally dismissive of (usually conservative) efforts to ensure that policy is appropriately Christian. As usual, I fall somewhere in the middle when it comes to political correctness. We may well have gotten too paranoid about such things, and too vengeful (Don Imus was fucked up, but I’m not sure he should’ve been fired over it), but at the same time I wouldn’t want to throw away the ability to call people out for saying things that are offensive.

Race should not be particularly pertinent to how we live our lives, and doubly so if we’re talking about people who are fully assimilated into American culture. Sometimes it is though, usually as a result of people being stupid or ignorant, or taking a meaningless “us vs. them” mentality towards other groups of human beings. We also have a crappy tendency to look at white people as being in a special category somehow, whether in a good way or a bad one. Awareness of race beyond something that make people more interesting through diversity is, in my opinion, an expression of human stupidity.

People’s relationship with technology has been an odd one, and with the pace of technological change apparently faster than ever before in human history, we’re apparently experiencing some growing pains. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen articles on technology that are misinformed and/or alarmist. Hence we get articles about how the Wii and PSP are “Portals to Porn!” (i.e., devices with internet access).

The main thing that gets on my nerves is when people try to convince us that technology is going to eat away at the fabric of society. iPods, video games, and the internet all (supposedly) get people to socialize and exercise less than they used to. For me personally, this is kind of stupid. If I didn’t have any of those high-tech toys, I’d be reading books instead. I do, as they say, use my iPod to create a personal space within a public space, but that’s just allowing me to be the way I am naturally more effectively. And more importantly, I have a hard time believing that it’s preventing me from having conversations with random strangers on the train, something I normally dislike in the first place. If I were to decide that listening to my iPod is more important to me than talking to a longtime friend who’s sitting right next to me, that’s a different matter. Similarly, it’s not that I’m playing video games instead of exercising. I know I don’t exercise enough, but there are personal, social, and medical reasons for that that have absolutely nothing to do with video games. If anything, DDR whatnot get me to exercise a heck of a lot more than I would otherwise.

I can’t remember the exact quote, but Douglas Adams basically said that if something is around when you’re born it’s a natural part of the world, if something comes about before you turn 35 it’s exciting and new and hopefully you can get a job involving it, and if it comes about after you turn 35 it’s an unnatural abomination. (Assuming we’re smart enough to take this as an insightful analysis and not a statement of literal truth) Adams is definitely on to something. The people who are critical of video games are pretty much uniformly over the age of 35, to be sure, some more emphatically than others. This creates another situation where there are people talking very loudly, but we can’t really rely on them as a source of information, even though the issues they raise are potentially important. Some of it no doubt is “technophobia,” but there are literally people who’ve died from playing MMOs for too long at a stretch. (I’m trying very hard to avoid getting into ranting about MMOs, which I find thoroughly unappealing, much less the likes of Jack Thompson).

Technology has always had the potential to redefine how we live. Automobiles and telephones brought about enormous change in terms of how we live, and how we can structure our civilization. Today America in particular is largely designed with cars in mind. Depending on the area you live in public transportation ranges from tolerable to awful, and if you were somehow restricted to walking and/or bicycling, it would become virtually impossible to maintain any sort of lifestyle in many places. The internet is giving us new ways to connect and socialize, and I don’t think we can definitively say that it’s better or worse than the more conventional forms of socialization we had before. More often than not I contact people via my cell phone or IM, and admittedly my misanthropic tendencies are a factor, but I don’t particularly see anything lacking in these, especially when they’re part of an overall lifestyle that still includes face-to-face contact. For some the internet is enabling people to do just that. Online communities will deliberately organize real-world events, and real friendships are forged.

I’m not sure where I was going with this, but the point is, the relationship between people and technology is complicated and symbiotic. 

I really need to sit down and write up a long, detailed rant about the RIAA/MPAA and copyright issues. I got inspired today by two blog posts by Scott Adams (here and here) which between them have so far elicited about 700 comments. My sarcastic response to his posts in particular goes something like this:

1. Smart people see the world in shades of gray.
2. I am a smart person.
3. ????
4. Profit

I think the inherent problem with copyright issues is that piracy is the thing that is most likely to bring them to the fore, but it’s also the thing most likely to cloud the issue. I mean, I’m willing to go with the idea that piracy is wrong, but when it comes to one guy downloading an mp3 or an episode of Family Guy, I can’t help but think of its wrongness as being on par with, say, speeding. That is, it’s a bit worse than jaywalking, but it’s also too common to take all that seriously.

The other thing that clouds the argument is that some of the leading organizations on the anti-piracy side aren’t exactly saints themselves. When the SFWA is saying that they want to see less piracy, I suspect people are inclined to nod in agreement. When the MPAA says that piracy “stifles creativity,” anyone who has any inkling of how Hollywood works gives a collective WTF. The reason the rest of the entertainment industry is located back east and Hollywood was as far removed from that as physically possible is because the early film pioneers were dodging taxes and patent fees. On top of that in the early days there were fly-by-night outfits on the level of the dot-com bubble. That might help explain why we have directors and producers who will buy the rights to quality scripts and foreign films for the sole purpose of making sure none of their rivals get to have them. And that’s before we mention Hollywood’s weird bookkeeping, of which one experienced screenwriter said flat-out: “It is theft.” I’ve heard rumors that the recording industry grew out of a mob-controlled club scene, but that the artists get maybe 8 cents out of every dollar you spent on a CD is easy to verify. Of course, as far as I know the RIAA never made any effort to claim that priacy is bad because the artists need to be compensated.

One thing that pretty much anyone who doesn’t work for the RIAA (which primarily means EMI, Sony BMG, Universal, and Warner) will agree on is that their lawsuits and intimidation against individuals are going too far. By some dictionary definitions, what they’re doing could be considered terrorism (usually you have to use violence, mind you); their job is to create an atmosphere of fear, after all, and thereby cut down on music piracy. People see the “RIAA” is doing it, and they don’t really think about the fact that the RIAA is basically playing the role of a PR shield for its members, again primarily the Big Four. Even if I were willing to accept these tactics, I really wonder if they aren’t being kind of stupid in how they pursue their cases. They pretty much never drop a suit unless things get to a courtroom where it looks like they’re going to lose, even if the victim is saying “You can come look at my hard drive if you want. I was living in another state at the time and I don’t listen to gangsta rap. Oh, and I had a stroke and am living on disability right now; paying you guys $4,000 just isn’t possible.” Of course, the fact that it’s treated as a civil trial makes it much more complicated and open to legal bullying. Maybe it should be treated more like a speeding ticket; then if you get caught you pay a few hundred dollars at most, and go on your way.

Once again, others have said stuff much more eloquently than I ever could have. The EFF and whatnot. Piracy is bad, but it isn’t “theft” except in a metaphorical and deliberately inflammatory sense. It’s all in very confusing shades of gray, and the RIAA isn’t helping the matter by responding with legal tactics that I (and presumably plenty of other people) find much more morally repugnant than the piracy itself. If I ever get my writing off the ground, I wouldn’t be thrilled to see my work being pirated, but knowing the quantity and variety of stuff that gets pirated, I wouldn’t be terribly shocked or offended. At most I might post on some torrent sites saying “Hey, this is the author. I’m glad you like my stuff but… could you please consider buying a copy?” At least it would mean someone noticed. I’m willing to bet it’d earn me a lot more sales than suing computer illiterate grandmothers.

I need to post more. This time, a short rant:

I do have a credit card, because sometimes the need arises, but by and large credit card companies seem to be adept at providing examples of What’s Wrong With America.

There are far too many different organizations trying to get people–especially young college students–to get credit cards with stupidly high interest, often somehow in disguise (2% interest! and then in very small print it turns out that that’s for the first month, after which it jumps up into double digits). And that’s before we get into the credit card companies employing strange accounting practices in order to squeeze even more money out of clients. Other people have covered this better; the main thing I wanted to point out here is this:

Credit ratings can have a substantial impact on your ability to do some very basic things in life, notably buying a car or a house, or getting a cell phone. However, it’s possible for someone to steal your social security number and deliberately take out bad credit cards. The result is that your credit rating is seriously damaged, and it stays that way even if this other person who was responsible goes to jail. I can’t think of many other enterprises where simple numbers resulting from the actions of someone who both the U.S. government and the record keepers alike consider to be a criminal won’t be changed. This, to me, destroys a lot of the credibility of credit ratings.

For the past couple of years I’ve tried really hard to give George W. Bush a fair shake, but he keeps saying things that make my brain hurt. At this point it’s very hard to feel guilty about criticizing him; I think I can see his basic methodology, and I find it to be completely wrongheaded. He appears to pick out a position based on whatever he feels like, and then ignores any evidence to the contrary. He also seems to select people for important government positions based on their loyalty to him and agreement with his ideas rather than their actual competence and how well they’ll serve the country. The business with allegedly firing competent attorneys on the basis of failing to serve a Republican agenda is just the latest example to come out in the media. There was also the whole Katrina/FEMA thing, John Bolton, and entirely too much stuff about Iraq and 9/11.

Not everyone who works for him is incompetent, of course, but I think it’s safe to say that everyone who works for him agrees with his ideas, or else they wouldn’t be working for him for very long. When John Bolton was on the Daily Show he said that the President should serve the people who voted for him, and bring his own views to the fore. Does that mean he doesn’t need to serve me or the majority (about 70%) of Californians? I want a President who serves America, not just the bits of it that agree with him. Respecting and considering other people’s opinions is an important part of, you know, being a functional adult.

It won’t be too much longer before the presidential election season starts up again, this time without Bush campaigning. I know Cheney isn’t running — apparently he’s too mean and scary or something — so I’m hoping the GOP puts forth a candidate I’ll at least feel is worth giving some consideration to. (And while I suspect a lot of Hillary Clinton’s negative press was manufactured by her conservative opponents, I’d still rather see someone less divisive on the Democratic side). In 2000 and 2004, I wanted a president who:

1. Was smart. Bush’s GPA was supposedly 2.0, and that was with intensive tutoring. Granted he went to Harvard and Yale, but you’d think we could find someone better to be the leader of a world superpower.
2. Wasn’t a total ass. When I watched the debate between Bush and Gore, I hated both of them. When I hear about what Bush was like in college, it seems like we have a frat boy in the White House, and I don’t really like frat boys.
3. Was a good speaker. Gore and Kerry were just boring, and when criticized Bush gets this whiny, flailing demeanor going that I can’t stand. If Colbert’s Better Know A District is any indication politicians who are good speakers are surprisingly rare, but again, leader of the free world and all that. We should demand the best.
4. Likes to read. A president has a lot of stuff to keep up with.

Admittedly, I’m just going with my impressions from the news, and not doing a whole lot of research, but plenty of people who are smarter than me have already said their piece on the subject. What I’m really hoping is that for 2008 both parties can put forward better candidates than they have been, people who are intelligent and non-divisive. Granted, politics seems to push candidates towards being negative towards each other, even if it is all in veiled political-style speech. Still, although I tend to hold liberal views I don’t think Republicans are evil or anything, and I really think they can come up with someone better than George W. Bush if they try. With McCain and Giuliani among the front-runners, and guys like Ron Paul (who I might be willing to vote for, though he probably has no chance) also in the running, I’m a lot more confident of that than I have been in a long time.

Religious people worry me sometimes. Not all religious people of course, but there are a lot of scary ones out there. From my parents I got the idea that respecting other people’s religions is a moral imperative, but some people make that really, really hard. Like when I go to a rock concert and there’s those guys with signs, and when you get close one of them is saying things like, “You know there’s a barbeque! And you’re gonna be there! Cuz you’re going to hell! Cuz you’re a sinner! And you don’t love Jesus!” And everyone who’s just there to hear some music either avoids making eye contact or mocks him (“Ha ha! He called me vile!“), and Christianity seems just a little more retarded each time it happens.

Which is stupid. The basic idea of Christianity, as I understand it, is that there’s a benevolent, omnipotent creator who loves everyone. I really wish I could bring myself to believe that, because it would be really, really comforting, and it would make me that much more inclined to be nice to everyone. That’s why when guys like Pat Roberts and Jerry Falwell say things like, “Well, that liberal supreme court justice is getting kinda’ old, so let’s all pray that he has a heart attack!” I really wonder, if there is a god, what he thinks of that. My Christian friends say they’re reasonably sure that god is not anyone’s hitman.

Your average Christians, I can deal with just fine. But there are some that scare the absolute crap out of me. On Penn & Teller, they did a show about the existence of God, and there was a Christian anti-evolution guy who was saying that, without a God to provide moral guidance, he had no reason not to kill people. The expression on my face is hard to convey, but this emoticon captures a little bit of it:

:-O

Even Christians are supposed to have a concept of virtuous behavior that springs from within, not from a fear of punishment, but some preachers are evidently not competent enough to instill morals into their flock without resorting to hellfire. I’m agnostic and I have lots of friends who are agnostic and atheist, and we don’t go around killing people at all. This is because (1) spending the rest of my natural life behind bars just doesn’t fit in with my long-term goals, and (2) if enough people don’t go around killing people, then no one has to worry about random people coming to kill them, and you can relax and actually, you know, live.

Of course, you’d be surprised how many Christians don’t know all that much about Christianity. Getting people to recite the Ten Commandments is a lot like asking them to name presidents or state capitals, only with more guilt. (I would post a YouTube link for that Stephen Colbert clip, but Viacom’s lawyers went rabid) People are being selective about what they take from the Bible anyway. There are very few Christians who think that people who work on Sundays should be put to death, but it’s in there. There are also very few Christians who even know what it means when the Bible says (I swear I am not making this up) “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.” Apparently, if you take a baby goat and boil it in it’s mother’s milk, you’re doing something Bad, and at that something bad that goes beyond getting PETA weirdos mad at you. This was most likely meant to prohibit come kind of pagan magic ritual; in any case Wikipedia tells me it’s from a part of Exodus that people call the “Ritual Decalogue,” what might be called “the other Ten Commandments.”

There are still a lot of philosophical issues I need to work out for myself (like a deep, awful dread of death), but I’m still a big fan of science. I don’t really have the talents or discipline necessary to be a scientist, but the bits of it that I understand are by and large beautiful and consistent. That’s why I get annoyed when some Christians try to pit their religion against science. Since the theory of evolution conflicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis, there are entirely too many people who resort to any spurious logic they can lay their hands on in order to “prove” that the theory of evolution is wrong. This includes conflating the scientific and everyday meaning of the word “theory,” very basic misinformation about geology, and even making up stories about Darwin converting/repenting on his deathbed. I’ll leave the debunking of religious pseudoscience to the experts (i.e., scientists), but it doesn’t take much effort to see that stuff like the “young earth” idea is patently, obviously wrong. If you look at the layers of sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon, and realize that each layer takes X amount of time to accumulate, then multiply by the number of layers, you get a figure in the millions of years.

Karen Armstrong contends that religion is normally divided into mythos and logos; stuff like the mythical story of how the world was made in seven days (or from the thunder god’s testicles or whatever) was meant to be separate from the practical details of life, even when a holy book would contain elements of both. Fundamentalism, according to her, effectively collapses the distinction between the two, folding the mythos into the logos. Believing that the world was made in seven days becomes as much of a moral imperative as not committing murder, and pragmatic rules like not eating pork obtain divine significance. This is an issue for Christianity not only because it has created a powerful anti-intellectual thread in Christian society, but because both halves of the Bible are fundamentally tied to when they were created. The Old Testament/Torah was the holy book of the Hebrews, a nomadic people who lived in rather harsh conditions, and for whom the book provided origin myths, history, and moral and practical guidance. The New Testament was supposedly put together by Jesus’ apostles and other very early Christians, conveying their new outgrowth of Judaism at a time when they were at once being oppressed by the Roman Empire and gaining many new converts, and Jerusalem itself was under Roman rule. Divorced from context, there’s some good stuff in the Bible, but also things that have little or no relevance to a post-industrial society. Prohibiting homosexuality makes sense in a nomadic society where maintaining a certain birthrate is an absolute necessity for survival. Today, it’s just the latest thing that people think it’s okay to be bigoted about.

The thing that makes all of this twice as annoying is that there are plenty of sane, reasonable Christians out there, whoare being drowned out by the din of the fundamentalists and apocalyptics in public discourse. Part of the problem is that, just like with political affiliations, the sane, moderate people really need to speak out against the loonies who shout so loudly under the same banners. The fact that most of the people speaking out against Islam are conservative pundits makes me inclined to give it a fair shake, but when peaceful Muslims who speak out against terrorism are threatened, it doesn’t speak well of the religion. (Whatever happened to “The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr”?) No faith practiced by functional human beings deserves to have the likes of Pat Roberts and Fred Phelps be its public face, and no one who practices such a faith should stand for their beliefs being made to look like a source of mindless bigotry and an enemy of reason.