The Book of Mormon

I finally got an opportunity to go see The Book of Mormon, the outstanding musical from South Park's Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and Robert Lopez  co-composer/co-lyricist of Avenue Q and Frozen.  Being a big fan of Avenue Q as well as Parker and Stone, I jumped at the chance to see this highly lauded play.  I'd become a fan of the Avenue Q soundtrack before seeing the production, which filled in the gaps between the songs and made the story a bit more understandable, but I still knew the plot ahead of time.  So this time around I chose to not get the soundtrack until after seeing The Book of Mormon so I'd be able to come into it fresh and be surprised.

And man, was it worth it!

The songs are fantastically written and the entire play feels like it could be a South Park episode or movie.  The South Park boys are no strangers to Mormonism or musicals, and their biting take on the silliness of the religion is hysterical, especially for someone like me (but maybe not so much for the more-than-likely Mormon guy who was sitting next to me in the theater).  The play isn't about making fun of Mormons, but rather making fun of their religion and religion in general.

I'm not here to write a review of this four-year-old play, however.  Instead I wanted to talk about the subtext on some of the songs and how they pertain to all forms of religion, not just Mormonism.

From the very first number, the critique beings with the door-to-door proselytizing the LDS church (and the JW folks) are known for:

Hello! My name is Elder Price
And I would like to share with you the most amazing book

More and more "Elders" take the stage, each one touting the wonders of this free book that they'd love to leave with you, as the lyrics slowly start to unmask the obvious ridiculousness of the claims.

Hello! My name is Elder Young
Did you know that Jesus lived here in the USA? 

When claim of faith are boiled down and subjected to the light of day, you get lines like that one.  I loved Julia Sweeny's Letting Go Of God which also opens with a visit from a couple of Mormon missionaries and pokes holes in a similar fashion as this musical.  Criticism is one of the best ways to get people to question themselves -- to be able to see things so oblivious to them, as in the "That's fine; Have fun in Hell" line in the song.  Once you realize how evil the idea is, you begin to see why believing it is unfounded and harmful.

The first number finishes by introducing one of the two main characters, and does a splendid job of it.  The character building and storyline are really well done, but again, that's not what this post is about.  Don't get me wrong, the plot is fanatic, but I like the subtle and often double-edged stings that lie within the musical numbers because this is ultimately what the play is "about".  Take one of the final lines for instance:

You simply won't believe how much this book will change your life!

I can see the multiple meanings there.  On the one hand, the line is delivered by a young, naive, idealistic nineteen-year-old who thinks he has found the key to the universe.  On the other, it is written by someone who is saying that the text is literally "unbelievable".  (Matt Stone has stated that he is an atheist, but Trey Parker won't go that far, though he's close and can see the absurdity in religious ideologies.) There is a third meaning: taken at face value, the line is true.  Believing in the religion -- in any religion -- will change your life as you conform it to fit how you perceive that particular doctrine.

That kind of stuff is all over this play.  I'll touch on a few more, but hopefully you can see where I'm going with this.

Ignoring Reality

The play continues as the Mormons set out to do their mandatory two-year missionary work.

Two by two
We're marching door to door
'Cause God loves Mormons
And he wants some more

The main characters wind up being sent to a tiny war-torn village in Northern Uganda.  One of the Mormon kids is excited, thinking it's "like Lion King" (many other plays are subtly referenced, another awesome perk of this show).  Lion King it is not, as they discover the village is a squalor where the people have little food or access to medical care -- even the village's own doctor has maggots in his scrotum!  But like Lion King, the boys find that the villagers have an African saying that makes things seem not so bad: "Hasa Diga Eebowai".  However, after singing it with them a few times, they soon find out that it translates to "Fuck You, God!"

We've had no rain in several days...Hasa Diga Eebowai!
And eighty percent of us have AIDS...Hasa Diga Eebowai!

Before the Mormons learn of what the saying really means, they join in with the villagers by recounting the bad things affecting them:

The plane was crowded and the bus was late...Hasa Diga Eebowai

Talk about First-World-Problems!  The song reminds me of when people accuse us non-religious folks of just having a rough life or that some terrible tragedy has befallen us that causes us to "hate God". It's a sidestepping tactic that is used as an attempt to keep the Problem of Evil of being an actual problem.  Indeed, when the boys find out the villagers are cursing God's name they respond with "Things aren't always as bad as they seem".  The village leader shows them an example of how belief is contributing to their many problems: a man from another tribe got caught trying to rape a baby, because he believed that having sex with a virgin would cure his AIDS, and since there are few virgins in the village, some turn to infants and children.  An all-powerful and loving God wouldn't allow things like this to happen.  Hell, even a being with nearly-omnipotent power and a love no greater than you, dear reader, would find a way to do something about it.  And we are to believe that an all-loving, all-powerful creator can't?  The very idea of such a "God" is trash.  Hasa Diga Eebowai!

The play features two songs that are absolute stings in the face of religion: "Turn It Off" and "I Believe".  The former is sung during a scene in which the two main characters met their fellow missionaries stationed in the area.  The group are telling the newcomers about a way to not worry about the bad things they've seen so far...about how the Problem of Evil isn't really a problem if you just don't think too hard about it:

I got a feelin' that you could be feelin'
A whole lot better than you feel today
You say you got a problem...well, that's no problem!
It's super easy not to feel that way
When you start to get confused because of thoughts in your head –
Don't feel those feelings – hold them in instead!

As the name suggests, the trick is to just "Turn It Off", like a light switch.  This is not just a "cool little Mormon trick", but can be applied to any dogma.  (Christians too love to use the trick of not thinking about difficult things.)  The group's leader, Elder McKinley, chimes in about his experiences with having gay thoughts and feelings, but he just flips his light switch and the "bad" feelings are gone.

What's great is that during the song, he's even challenged by one of the main Mormon characters, when he tells McKinley that it's okay to have these thoughts just as long as you never act upon them.  McKinley replies that this would be lying to yourself, and lying is worse than being gay.  It is better therefore to "turn off the gay", so to speak:

So just realize you have a curable curse –
And turn it off!

And if that doesn't work:

Then you've only got yourself to blame
You didn't pretend hard enough

Obviously the notion of changing your sexuality by will is ludicrous to the rational mind, and I appreciate the writer's showing this scene to, surprising many, Mormon faithful.  The LDS church took out three full-page ads in the playbill with phrases like "The Book is always Better" and "You've Seen the Play, Now Read the Book!"  The church's response suggested they took the play as a full parody, and indeed a lot of it was.  But parody is based in truth, and to claim that none of it was based on real Mormonism is comical.

The song "I Believe" takes a swing at boiling down the Mormon faith into one-liners:

I believe that the Lord God created the universe
I believe that he sent his only son to die for my sins
And I believe that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America

The last line there gets a big laugh from the audience, but from where I sit, I can see the first two lines being no different.  It's simply that we've heard it so many times that we've become desensitized to the absurdity.  The other chorus lines are perfect swings as well:

...I believe [God's] plan involves me getting my own planet
...I believe that the current President of the Church, Thomas Monson, speaks directly to God
...I believe that in 1978 God changed his mind about black people
...I believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob
...I believe that Jesus has his own planet as well
...I believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri

The LDS wants to brush all of this under the rug as just simple silliness, but each one of these points can be drilled into and opens a discussion on their faith.  I appreciate that the church too sees these as topic-starters, and I think that not only can they attempt to use them for their cause, but their opposition can use these points against them as well.

It's the final line in the chorus that I love the most:

I am a Mormon
And a Mormon just believes

Oh how I love that line!  Anyone who "just believes" anything doesn't have a prayer in the world (pardon the expression) because their ideas are based on nothing but empty hope.

You cannot just believe part-way, you have to believe in it all
...
If you believe, the Lord will reveal it
And you'll know it's all true – you'll just feel it

Read more of my blog for more on why this kind of thinking is asinine, harmful, and, as the LDS puts it, silly.

Misinterpretation

The other numbers are extremely well written and entertaining both musically and thematically -- the production I saw had stunning stage work.  But there is one other song I want to focus on that I think holds a fair amount of meaning behind it.

The Mormons are preaching in the village, and one of them explains the tale of how Mormonism came to be, and how the followers were led to Salt Lake City, Utah.  One of the villagers becomes drawn in by this tale, and daydreams about how hopeful and happy the place must be.  She sings about this paradise in a song entitled "Sal Tlay Ka Siti".  She talks about how her mother would tell her stories of paradise to calm her in the frighting nights as a child.  Now that a ruthless warlord is assaulting her village with murder, rape, and female genital mutation, Nabulungi dreams about how this place is:

...not just a story mama told
But a village in Ooh-tah, where the roofs are thatched with gold
If I could let myself believe, I know just where I'd be –
Right on the next bus to paradise: Sal Tlay Ka Siti

There's two points I want to make with the examination of this.  Apart from the "If I could let myself believe then I'd believe" bit, which we've already touched on, there's an obviousness here that still merits mentioning: this young African girl is looking at the world through the only perspective she has.  Through her eyes and ears, she miss-hears words like "Utah" and "Salt Lake City" and translates them in a way that reflects her surroundings.  Since practically all religions have been passed down through word-of-mouth, think about how many ideas were miss-translated from one language to the next, or miss-heard from person to person, group to group.

Regarding the other point, Nabulungi also starts filling this newly-established paradise with wants and wishes that also reflect her station in life:

I can imagine what it must be like...this perfect, happy place:
I'll bet the goat meat there is plentiful, and they have vitamin injections by the case
The warlords there are friendly, they help you cross the street
And there's a Red Cross on every corner with all the flour you can eat!
...
Sal Tlay Ka Siti, the most perfect place on Earth
Where flies don't bite your eyeballs and human life has worth
...A land where evil doesn't exist: Sal Tlay Ka Siti

"Thatched" roofs of gold, plentiful goat meat and flour, the warlords are nice and there's no flies or evil.  None of this exists in Utah, except maybe plenty of flour.  The obvious point is that she is describing the afterlife FOR HER.  Think about the tales of your afterlife, if you believe in one.  Was it dreamed up by people of lived in a time when a big house and riches were the pinnacle of existence?

The play ends with scenes that bring to light the nature of interpretation, and includes the ingredients that bring about the creation of a new religion.  When their Mormon missionary is understood to be killed and Nabulungi discovers that the things one Mormon has been saying aren't part of the Mormon religion and therefore not true, she tells the others in her village, who respond by saying they have always known this.  They simply believe that the missionary was speaking in metaphor.  And whenever the Mormon boy returns to the village, they see it as a resurrection and revert back to believing in a literal interpretation of his message.

We see this happening everyday.  Are the main selling-points of your religion metaphor or are they literal?  If both, how do you discern which is which?  Why do some people within your same religion view something you'd call metaphor literally, and why do you take one thing as literal when others -- maybe even in the very same church congregation -- as metaphor?  Are you using the same tool to tell one from the other: faith?

The play ends with a spot-on message:

Even if we change some things, or or we break the rules
Or we have complete doubt that God exists
We can still all work together and make this our paradise planet

And that's the ultimate truth, at least as I see it: whether you believe in an afterlife or not is irrelevant.  We can all work together to create a better existence for the time we're alive, for this one life we know for sure we get.  I don't see why that notion would be upsetting to anyone.

There is a lot that I am leaving out to keep the focus of this post on point.  If you get a chance to, go see it!  Even if -- especially if -- you are religious.


-STA

Creationism Debate Q&A

My video review of the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham discusses the majority of the debate, except for the final question-and-answer portion.  It was an important part of that night, and took nearly half of the debate time.  To streamline the review, I decided to handle the questions one by one here on the blog, rather than in video form.

Each question was written in by an audience member, and was addressed to either Ken or Bill, who then had two minutes to answer.  Then, the other got a one-minute chance to answer that same question.  Ken Ham went first, and then they alternated, with a total of sixteen questions in all.

The questions are verbatim, but the answers are not direct quotes (unless stated).   I’ll give a paraphrased answer from each debater so you can get a sense of what they said in their one-to-two minutes.  I'll offer further criticisms and comments in red text.  Obviously you should watch the full debate yourself before coming to any conclusions.

Question 1:  How does Creationism account for the celestial bodies moving further and further apart, and what function does that serve in the “Grand Design”

            Ken: Our Creation scientists observe the universe expanding, as do the traditional scientists, and the Bible says God stretches out the heavens.  This is another example of how observational science proves Creationism.  As to “why” God did it that way, I can’t answer that, but the Bible says that God made the heavens for his glory and to tell us how great and powerful he is.  And looking at this awesome power demonstrated by an infinite God makes you feel small, and makes you think about how special we are that God considers this planet so significant that he created us knowing we would sin and stepped into history to die for us to forgive us and let us live forever.

            Bill: We’re all born with a desire to know the answer to the question ‘why’.  To a Creationist, when your religion gives you the answer -- when it says "He made the stars also" -- that’s a satisfying answer to you.  You stop looking for reasons (even though religion is supposed to explain the “why” while science explains the “how”).  You give up on wanting to know.  To me, I’m driven to learn the truth.  (Bill also challenges Ken in the last few seconds of his time to deliver an example of something in the Creation model that predicts something that will happen in nature, once again trying to get him to address his earlier points.) 

Question 2:  How did the atoms that created the Big Bang get there?

            Bill: This is the mystery that drives us.  It’s what makes us keep looking, keep searching.  When I was young, it was believed the universe was slowing down in its expansion.  Scientists conducted experiments and took observations to find out the rate of the supposed deceleration, but they discovered that it is in fact accelerating.  And do you know why?  No, nobody knows why!  This is what drives us to find out!  Imagine a student from your local school who is excited about science and pursues a career in it, and one day discovers the answer to that deep mystery.  To us scientists and searchers this is wonderful and compelling and what makes us get up in the morning -- the Creationist just says, “God did it” and goes back to sleep.

            Ken: I just want to let you know that there is a book out there that actually tells us where matter came from, and the very first sentence in that book says “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.  And really that’s the only thing that makes sense.  Matter can never produce information.  No matter how much energy you put into a stick, it will never create life.  The Bible tells us that the things we see are made from things that are unseen: an infinite creator god.  The only thing that makes logical sense!

Question 3: The overwhelming majority of people in the scientific community have presented valid, physical evidence…to support evolutionary theory.  What evidence, besides the literal word of the Bible supports Creationism?

            Ken: I often hear that the majority believes there is evidence for evolution, but it’s not the majority who is the judge of truth.  Just because the majority believes something doesn’t mean it’s true.  Observational science supports the biblical predictions, as I’ve shown before.  If the Bible is right, that we’re all descendants of Adam and Eve, there’s one race of humans; science has shown that.  If the Bible is right and God made kinds...I talked about that in my presentation.  Really that question comes down to, there are aspects about the past that you can’t scientifically prove because you weren’t there, but observational science in the present does.  Understanding the past is a whole different matter.

            Bill: If anybody makes a discovery that changes the way we view natural law, scientists embrace that person.  That’s the greatest thing in scientific thought: to be challenged and shown where we’re wrong.  You may have misunderstood something in evolution -- it’s the method by which we add complexity.  The energy we get from the sun is used to make life-forms more complex. (That last point was to Ken’s claim in his previous answer that matter can’t create complexity.)

Question 4: How did consciousness come from matter?

            Bill: Don’t know.  Another great mystery.  The joy of discovery drives us to find these things out.  We don’t know where consciousness comes form, but we want to learn.  I challenge the young people to investigate that question, and I remind the taxpayers and voters that if we do not embrace the process of mainstream science, we will fall behind economically as a nation.

            Ken: I just want to let you know that there is a book out there that does document where consciousness came from.  In that book, it says that the one who made us breathed into man and made him a living being.  That’s where consciousness came from: God gave it to us.  I have a mystery, Bill: you talk about the joy of discovery, but you say that when you die, it’s all over.  And if you believe that, then what’s the point of being alive and making discoveries in the first place?  I love the joy of discovery because this is God’s creation and I want to find out more about it for man’s good and for God’s glory.

(There's nothing really to do here.  Bill is showing why we use science, and Ken is saying "God Did It!"  You can't convince these people.)

Question 5: What, if anything, would ever change your mind?

            Ken: I’m a Christian.  I can’t prove it to you, but God has shown me himself through his Word and the person of Jesus Christ.  I admit that’s where I start from.  I challenge people to go and test that, you can make predictions based on that, you can check the prophesies in the Bible.  I can’t prove it to you, all I can say to someone is, if the Bible really is what it claims to be: then check it out.  The Bible says if you come to God he will reveal himself to you, and as Christians, you can say we know.  So as far as the word of god is concerned, no.  No one's ever gonna convince me that the word of God is not true.  We build models based on the Bible and they’re not subject to change.  The facts can’t be disputed; only the methods by which those facts occur can be disputed because we observe in the current world and can’t observe in the past. (Ken then asks Bill to answer this question, as if he’s forgotten that they’ve been doing that for the last four questions.  It’s a telling bit that reveals further illustrates how much he wants to get the topic off of his unquestionable faith.  I encourage you to watch him answer this question.  From the very beginning you can tell he is uncomfortable and having a hard time figuring out how to answer.  I think it’s because he knows his answer is close-minded and groundless: No, nothing will change my mind because I really believe in Jesus and don’t make me think about it, next question!)

            Bill: One piece of evidence.  Show me one out-of-place fossil (such as a rabbit in the Precambrian, as Haldane said) or evidence that the stars appear to be far away but they’re not.  We would need evidence that you can somehow reset atomic clocks and keep protons from becoming neutrons.  Bring on any of those things and you would change my mind immediately.  (Once more, Bill challenges Ken:) What can you prove?  You’ve spent your time coming up with explanations about the past.  What can you predict and prove in a conventional sense?

Question 6: Outside of radiometric methods, what scientific evidence supports your view of the age of the Earth?

            Bill: The age of stars I guess?  Radiometric dating is pretty compelling.  There were attempts in the past to try to find how the earth could be old enough for evolution to have taken place.  Then radioactivity was discovered.  This question to me is akin to saying, “if things were any other way, things would be different”.  Radiometric dating works, protons become neutrons, and that’s our level of understanding today.  These are provable facts.  The idea that there was a flood four thousand years ago is not provable and I think that there is ample evidence that disproves it.  And Ken, you haven’t addressed my point about how the various skulls support evolutionary theory.  (Bill was cut off there at the end for time, but I think that like the last question was Ken’s stumbling block, this one was Bill’s.  He seemed to have a hard time answering the question, and like Ken did, at the end he tried to divert the topic away.  Of course, Bill was stating provable fact and when you’re doing that it’s hard to keep from just doing that.  But I think he could have answered the question better with the fact that we use a variety of dating methods that all support one another.  When you have different sources pointing to the same relative time-frame, it makes a more convincing argument.)

            Ken: There was no earth rock dated to get the date of 4.5 billion years.  People think that, but they actually dated meteorites and because they assumed they were the same age as the earth left over from the formation of the solar system, that’s where that date comes from.  Look at my slide again as proof. There’s no dating method that proves young or old. (Ken is engaging in misinformation here to make it seem like scientists don't check these things constantly.  Is it reasonable to think that no earth rock has ever been dated, or that it would be difficult to just go out and do so?  What Ken is disingenuously alluding to is that the oldest rocks we've ever found came from meteorites that are 4.54 billion years old.  Earth rock has been dated to 4.47 billion years -- so yeah, 4.5 billion, Ken)

Question 7: Can you reconcile the change in the rate at which the continents are now drifting verses the rate at which they must have traveled 6K years ago to reach where they are now?

            Ken: This again illustrates what I’m talking about with regards to observational science vs historical science.  I’m not an expert here, but we have Creationists with PhD's and they’ve written papers on this stuff.  If you look at the plates today and you assume that the rate has always been that way, that’s an assumption and you can’t prove that.  That’s historical science.  We would believe in “catastrophic plate tectonics” as a result of the Flood and what we’re seeing now is a remnant of that catastrophic movement.  (And this is a direct quote:) “We do not deny the movement, we do not deny the plates; what we would deny is that you can use what you see today as a basis for just extrapolating into the past.”  (I’ve made a video that shows Ken Ham in his own words stating that, on the one hand you can’t assume laws worked in the past as they do today, and on the other hand God created the laws to be unchanging and that gave us the basis for doing science, and the writings from Creation scientists further proves this.)

            Bill: One of the reasons we think that the continents are drifting apart is sea floor spreading in the mid-Atlantic: the earth’s magnetic field has reversed over the millenia, and as it does it leaves a signature in the rocks as the continental plates drift apart, and so you can measure the speed – that’s how we real scientists do things.

Question 8: Favorite color?

            Bill: Green.  It’s an irony that green plants reflect green light.  Most of the light from the sun is green and yet they reflect it, it’s a mystery.  Science is cool!

            Ken: (points to his shirt) Observational science: blue.

(Time for some comedic relief, I suppose.  I found it telling that even though it was a lame question, Bill used it to continue his point about how science fosters our curiosity.)

Question 9: How do you balance the theory of evolution with the second law of thermodynamics, and what is that exactly?

            Bill: It’s basically where energy decays to heat.  The fundamental flaw in this question is that the earth is not a closed system, it’s powered by the sun.  It’s that energy that drives living things.

            Ken: You can have all the energy you want, but energy or matter will never produce life. God imposed information and a language system and that’s how we have life.  Before man sinned, there was decay such as in digestion, but after the Fall things are running down and God doesn’t hold everything together as he did back then. (Ken answered this scientifically-based question with complete religion-infused non-answers.  He explained entropy by saying God doesn't keep everything working like it used to!  That's like saying objects float in space because God isn't pushing them down. Mind-numbing!)

Question 10: Hypothetically, if evidence existed that caused you to admit that the earth is older than 10,000 years and that creation did not occur over six days, would you still believe in God, and the historical Jesus, and that Jesus was the son of God?

            Ken: I’ve been emphasizing all night: you cannot ever prove the age of the earth using science in the present, so there is no hypothetical.  We can make assumptions but you can’t ultimately prove the age of the universe.  You can see there are methods that contradict the billions of years, and as the creation scientists said in my video earlier, there’s nothing in science that contradicts a young earth.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the reason I believe this is because of the Bible’s account of origins.  There is no hypothetical, bottom line. (Ken might as well have had his fingers in his ears and going "nana-nana-na no it's not no it's not nana-nana-na I can't hear you!")

            Bill: You can prove the age of the earth with great robustness by using the universe around us.  Ken wants us to take his word for it that his interpretation of an ancient book is more compelling than what you and I can observe around us today with our own eyes.  Ken, you asserted that life can’t come from non-life – are you sure?  Are you sure enough to say that we shouldn’t look for life on other planets, that it’s a waste?  One again, what can you predict, what can you tell us about the future, not just your ideas about the past?

Question 11: Is there room for God in science?

            Bill: Billions of people embrace science and are religious.  Everyone has a cell phone, uses medicine, and befits from agriculture.  So if you reconcile those two things, that’s not really connected to your belief in a higher power.  I see it as a separate point, and I see no incompatibility between religion and science for each person.  The problem I have is that Ken wants us to take his religious word for it in place of what we can observe on our own. (Here, Bill tried to stay away from theology.  While it's true that one can believe in both God and science, the idea of theism isn't scientific.  But Bill didn't need to go into all of that, and did a good job of keeping on the real point: Ken just says the bible is true, even when it is contradicted by things any person could see.)

            Ken: I think God is necessary for science.  We love science here at Answers In Genesis.  You talked about cell phones and satellites and technology, I agree – those are things that can be done in the present with observational science.  In order to do science you have to assume the uniform laws of nature and logic, and where does that come from if the universe is here by natural processes?  The bible and science go hand-in-hand, but inventing things is very different from talking about our origins.

 

Question 12: Do you believe the entire Bible should be taken literally?

            Ken: I would need to know what that person meant by literally.  If you meant “naturally”, then yes.  If it’s history, as Genesis is, you take it as history.  If it’s poetry, as in the Psalms, you take it as poetry.  You take what is written in the context that it is written in and let it speak to you.  The bible says that all scriptures are inspired by god.  You have to take the bible as a whole.  If it’s really the word of god, then there’s not going to be any contradictions, which there’s not.  And Jesus said marriage is between one man and one woman. (Ken has a Clinton-esque "what is is" moment with this one.  He, like many others, take literally what they want, and things they don't agree with are figurative.)

            Bill: When the facts contradict the things you take as literal interpretations, and then you want me to take other parts of your bible as literal, it's unsettling.

Question 13: Have you ever believed that evolution was accomplished via a higher power? [Literally: Have you ever believed that evolution partook through evolution?]

            Bill: Intelligent design has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of nature.  Nature is bottom up design, not top down.  If you found a watch on a beach, you’d recognize it was designed.  But that’s not how nature works.  Nature has its mediocre designs eaten by its good designs, and the perception that there’s a designer isn’t needed because we have model that makes predictions and repeatable, testable claims.

            Ken: Bill needs to show some new function that arose that was not previously possible from the genetic information that was already there.  There’s no new information or function that can be added to a kind via evolution, and there is no example that you can give that shows this.

Question 14: Name one institution, business, or organization (other than a church, amusement park, or the Creation museum) that is using any aspect of Creationism to produce its product.

            Ken: Any scientist that is using the scientific method is using Creation!  They’re borrowing from a Christian worldview.  Because, in a naturally arising universe there can’t be logic and you couldn’t trust the laws of nature.  A lot of scientists in the past were Creationists.  And if we don’t teach our children about this, they’re not going to be innovative or come up with inventions to advance our culture. (Ad hoc arguments, appeals to authority, and general misunderstanding of real science from Ken here.  I find it hilarious that he claims we couldn't trust the laws of nature in a natural system.  That's precisely why they're the laws of nature!  And if they changed all the time, they wouldn't be laws -- which are descriptive, not proscriptive, Ken.)

            Bill:  The reason I don’t accept the Creation model is because it has no predictive quality.  Many people are religious, but not all of them share the same religious views as you do.  What happens to those people? Are they doomed? (Oh Bill, don't get into grade-school theology here.  Stick to holding him accountable for claiming books trump eyes.)

Question 15: Since evolution teaches that man is growing smarter over time, how can you explain the numerous evidences of man’s high intelligence in the past?

            Bill: Evolution doesn’t say we’re getting smarter.  Survival of the fittest doesn’t mean those who are the most physically strong or the smartest will survive.  It means those that fit into the environment the best.  Sure, our capacity to reason has taken us to where we are now, but if the right germ shows up, we can be taken out.  It has nothing to do with smarts.

            Ken: I remember one of my professors at university was going to give us an example of evolution, and he showed us cave fish that are blind.  He said, 'look these fish have evolved not to see.  They’re evolving because those who are living in this dark cave had ancestors who had eyes and now these ones don’t', and I said, 'but now they can’t do something that they could do before!'  They might have an advantage in this dark cave now, but it could be that those who had eyes got a disease and died out and those with a mutation to have no eyes survived.  (Direct quote:) "It’s not survival of the fittest; it’s survival of those who survive."  You’re not getting new information or new function.

Question 16: What is the one thing, more than anything else, upon which you base your belief?

            Ken: The bible.  It’s the most unique book out there.  There’s no other religious book that talks about an infinite God, the origin of the universe, the origin of matter, the origin of light, the origin of darkness, the origin of day and night, the origin of the earth, the origin of dry land, the origin of plants, the origin of the sun/moon/stars, the origin of sea creatures, the origin of flying creatures, the origin of land creatures, the origin of man, the origin of woman, the origin of death, the origin of sin, the origin of marriage, the origin of different languages, the origin of clothing, the origin of different nations – it’s a very specific book with a detailed account of history.  And if that history is true and so is the rest of the book, then that means man is a sinner, and he needs the saving power of Jesus Christ who died for you so that you can live forever with God.  If this book is true -- and has no contradictions, which it doesn't -- it should explain what we see in the world today.  There was a global flood; yes, we see fossils.  There was the Tower of Babel; yes, we have different languages around the world, and they have flood legends and creation legends very similar to the Bible.  There’s prophecy you can look at as well.  The bible says, if you seek God, you’ll find him.

            Bill: Science.  I base my belief on the information and the process that we call science.  It fills me with joy to make discoveries, and to know that we can even ask the questions and pursue the answers.  It’s astonishing to think that we are one of the ways for the universe to know itself.  We are created from the universe, it’s in all of us.  And we want to know if we are alone in the universe.  It’s the process of science that will help us find this another other things out.  If we abandon all that we’ve learned through science, if we stop using it and stop looking for the answers, we as a nation will be out-competed by other countries.  We have to keep science education in science classes.

###

So that was the other half of the debate.  It was very telling and reveled the positions of both sides a little better than their illustrated presentations were.  Here are some of my final thoughts:

• Bill said a lot by his facial expressions during the times Ken was answering questions.  Bill kept things very formal, and did a good job of sticking on point, only getting off into the you-can't-be-serious-how-is-your-religion-true avenues once or twice.  But you could see on his face at times, he wanted to.  You could see him saying to himself, "oh really?" and "you've got to be kidding me!"
• You could tell Bill Nye doesn't debate these people often.  He had questions that were rudimentary and didn't use answers that are generally presented, some of which I pointed out in my comments.
• Creationism is a thought process that is “almost there”.  Creationists agree that science works…but you can’t make assumptions that things worked in the past just because the do today.  And they agree that evolution happens…just not enough to make one thing so different from it’s "kind" that it becomes something distinct.  And that the genes for a life-form to have incredible complexity are all already within it, apparently eschewing the mechanism of mutation.

See other Creationist questions from the audience here.


-STA

Seek and You Will Find

In both Luke 11:9 and Matthew 7:7 of the bible one can read the words, "seek and ye shall find".  For every one who asks receives, and whoever seeks finds, and whoever knocks is admitted.  It means if you go looking for a god, you'll find it.

And I believe it's true.

Believe First, Then You'll Know
I get told time and again from believers in God, if I would only accept the signs that their particular deity exists, I'd be able to believe it.  If only I would believe first that mysteries could be answered with "god did it", then I can know "god did it" when I get have questions.

Ken Ham said several times in his recent debate with Bill Nye that he starts with the bible, and if you do that, you can claim you know:

He and many others who belong to this faith chant that same mantra: believe in god, and seek him, then you'll know god exists.

The reason we shouldn't do this should be obvious simply by looking at the logic in that statement, but we can further illustrate it with a little experimentation.  If you first believe that fairies exist, then you should be able to see evidence of them.  You'll probably one day be missing a sock, or the remote, or your car keys.

That's evidence of the fairies.

Have you ever been wondering where you sat that thing you were holding, and asked aloud, "now where did I put that"?  And then you have a gut feeling to look in the very place you find it?

That's evidence of the fairies -- you just have to ask and they blow invisible dust on you that draws you toward the object you desire.  It's similar to siren magic, only not as potent.

Ever known who was calling before you looked at the phone?  Or how about when you almost choke on a soft drink or a piece of candy, but then you don't.

That's evidence of the fairies.

So Open-Minded Your Brain Falls Out
We can even have different factions, similar to differing religions: maybe it's not exactly, fairies.  Elves?  Maybe spirits of dead relatives?  It works with anything, but the point is, see how far down this rabbit hole we can go?  At this point, we have no explanatory power -- we're explaining with mysteries.  If you look at some of the arguments made by those who believe in "higher powers", it see something very similar.  If you would only first believe that there is an infinite creator god trying to speak with you, you'd see evidence of that in rainbows and babies eyes.  Just like if you would only first believe that there are fairies who want to help you find your car keys, then you'd see evidence of them when such an event happens.

Turn on the TV and find a preacher -- I'll guarantee you at some point he'll tell you to seek God.  From local youth pastors to your religious grandmother, you'll be told to read your bible, trust in God first, then you'll gain understanding of him.  But then don't question that belief, or the whole thing falls apart because it's all built on simple belief.

It happens in religious contexts because theists base everything on a certain perception, a certain preconception, a starting-point that is taken for granted.  Instead, we should start with a blank slate, and build only on top of things we can demonstrate.  Block by block, we move higher and higher into better understanding.  When we make jumps in that stepladder of understanding by inserting appeals to unexplained or unexplainable things, we don't do justice to the institution of knowledge.

Those of us who don't believe things without first having a reason to are often told we are being "close-minded", that if we would just allow for the possibility of [insert whatever supernatural or metaphysical thing you wish], then we would be able to see what they see.

Translation: believe first, even if just a little, then find things you can claim as evidence to grow your belief.

Further translation: seek and ye shall find.



-STA

Divine Slang, or How "Soon" Means "A Really Long Time"

You Better Watch Out...
When I was a Christian, I was swept up into the idea that I was living in the "end times".  The Son of Man would be flying in on clouds of glory, probably in just a couple years.  This was back before Y2K, and so we all thought that sounded like a date Jesus would pick.  So we all got ready, prayed, and stayed awake, fearing and waiting.  And waiting.

And waiting...

Okay, so not the turn of the century.  That's fine -- but it will be soon!  Just look at all the wars, earthquakes, death, pestilence, and hardships around the world!  Kids are listening to heavy metal and cutting themselves!  You can't leave your front door unlocked anymore!  The world is turning to shit!  The end is neigh!!!!!!!!

It wasn't until I escaped Christianity that I realized this was an ongoing thing.  Really.  Since the dawn of Christianity, believers have been claiming the end of the world was just around the corner.  I love browsing the website "A Brief History of the Apocalypse" whenever I hear a doomsday preacher on TV or read an end-times blog post.  The phenomenon of predicting the end of the world is almost as old as the world itself.

Back In 5 Mins  --J.C.
Examining the bible without my Jesus goggles, I started to understand things a little clearer.  Things like Jesus's quotes in Matthew.  "Immediately after the distress of those days 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken'... Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door...I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened...I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes...For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

That's a pretty clear indication that Jesus expected to return within his follower's lifetime.  I find it both amusing and startling how every generation thinks of itself as the quoted "this generation".  I guess it makes since to want to be "the generation" that gets to see Glory coming.

Even the apostles of Christ felt similar sentiments. James (5:8) instructs his fellow believers to "be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near."  In fact, a lot of the New Testament is full of this sort of "be ready to go" language.

"For in just a little while, 'He who is coming will come and will not delay'." -Hebrews 10:37

"The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed." -Romans 13:11

"...time is short...For this world in its present form is passing away." -1 Corinthians 7:29

"The end of all things is near." -1 Peter 4:7

Dude, You are Soooooooo Fuggin' Late!
The looming threat of Judgment Day is held over believers by one another and by themselves.  The other day I drove past a peeling, weather-worn church sign and I though, It never crosses a Christian's mind when they have to pay for a brand new billboard that says, "Jesus is coming SOON!" when the old one is decrepit and broken and has been sitting there for the past 20 years.  Let's face the facts, people: Jesus promised to return soon and very soon, and that was nearly 2,000 years ago.  I'm not really sure why Christians need to keep that sense of urgency, though it may have something to do with the fact that their god died 2000 years ago (if he ever really existed in the first place).  Otherwise, it's a moot and unostentatious ending.

 -STA

Treaty of Tripoli in Modern Terms

It's common to hear from Christian revisionists that America is a "Christian Nation" founded on Christian values, and other unsupported claims.  I've already covered this in another entry, so I won't go through it again.

Instead, today I wanted to take a look at the document known as the Treaty of Tripoli.  This was a peace treaty between the US and the Bey of Tripoli in 1797.  The treaty was unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by President John Adams and proudly proclaimed to the nation.

The relevant part of the treaty is Article 11, which states in its entirety:
   "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

America is not a Christian nation -- it can't be.  The laws of this country are at odds with the laws the Christian God.  If the above isn't clear enough, let's break it down in modern terms:
   "The USA is NOT a Christian nation. It has laws that protect all religion, Christianity, Islam, or any other. America welcomes people of all faiths with open arms and does not actively engage in prejudice or hostility based on religion or creed. Both parties signing this treaty of friendship agree that actions and diplomatic discussions will not be hindered by matters of religion or faith-based opinions."

Doesn't that sound like a great place to live?  Whether or not Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Ray Comfort, or George Bush agrees with sentiments expressed in the treaty, the Constitution backs it up.  America was founded on freedom.  Anyone can be an American.  Any American can have any religion they want, or none at all.  The government can't and should not uphold one religion, because doing so pushes all others down.  Equality, freedom, and opportunity is the name of the US game, not the laws of Jesus or his Heavenly Father.


-STA

Unholy Word: Slaughter the Infidels, Rape the Girls

The God of the Old Testament is extremely bloodthirsty.  All over the bible, we can find stories of tribe murdering tribe in the name (or usually by the direct command) of God.  Here's just one example and this one makes a great bedtime story.

Bathe Her, And Bring Her To Me
Read over Numbers 31.  In it, Moses is instructed by God to have the Israilites kill all of the Midianite children, any child still in the womb, all of the men, and every woman who as slept with a man.

Let's ignore all the problems involved with an all-loving God ordering these "hits" and look at how the story plays out.  After the Israilites kill all the Midianite men, they take the women, children, livestock, and plunder back to the camp. But Moses is furious with them. "Kill all the male children! And kill all the women who have had sex with a man!' Moses orders.

And the best part of the spoils of war..."But spare the lives of the virgin girls. Keep them for yourselves!"

I can raise the issue of keeping other people as property, but I won't.  I can raise the issue of men doing as they please to virgin girls, but do I really need to? I could ask, "How would they know who the virgins were?" but my imagination brings dark imagery.

The story claims there were 32,000 virgins that were divided up among the camp. Half were assigned to those who fought in the war and Moses gave the head priest the portion set aside for God (32 girls), as ordered by God himself.

Again, as with all stories brought to light in this series, the immorality is stomach-turning.  Every time I read these stories I find it inconceivable that the book which contains them is lauded as the pinnacle of human morality and a guide for how we should live our lives.  The fact that we've learned that the kind of behavior taken by Moses is wrong is not due to God (for he is supposedly the one ordering such massacre), but rather due to where we actually get our morality from -- not from any gods, but from society, observation, empathy, media, upbringing, history, and instinct.


-STA

Unholy Word: A Love To Die For

With the atrocity that is "National Bible Week" in full swing (though I haven't seen any effects of it, thank goodness), let's delve into another look at this Unholy Word.

Dinah Blow Your Horn
Today the tale is from Genesis 34.  Dinah, a Jewish girl, is raped by a man named Shechem. After he rapes her, he goes to his father and pleads, "I've fallen in love with her, you gotta get her for me, I must marry her!"

Shechem's father goes to Dinah's father, Jacob, and says "My son raped your daughter...but he loves her, so let's have them marry. Even better: let's swap daughters between our two tribes and form a peace treaty! We'll rule this area together and be strong!"  He is so infatuated with her that he asks, "Set the bride-price as high as you want and we'll pay."

The sons of Jacob were there and they said, "Sorry, our sister can't marry anyone who isn't circumcised. That's just the way it is. As a matter of fact, if you want to create a peace treaty, your whole tribe will have to convert and be circumcised."

Well evidently Dinah was Helen-of-Troy hot, because not only did Shechem agree to be circumcised, his entire tribe took the snip in order to seal the deal and make up for raping Jacob's daughter. That's real dedication!

Three days later, while all the men of this tribe were sitting around sore, two of Jacob's sons come in and slaughter all of them. They kill every man in the city, including Shechem and his father. Then they grabbed all these men's sisters and wives and headed home. Then the rest of Jacob's sons showed up and plundered the city, taking livestock food, children, everything.

Jacob was mad at his sons; they'd runed any chances at a peace treaty with any other tribe -- who would trust them again? His sons said, "So we should have just let them treat our sister like a whore?"  There's nothing more on the story, it just ends there.

Too Many Bad Ideas
I guess the moral is that if your family member gets raped and your original ludicrous demands are met, you're justified in killing, pillaging, and enslaving to get even.  But I could be wrong; like a lot of these old stories, simple moral points tend to get added and mixed.  To some the point is not to disobey your father and the consequences of killing your new-found friends. Or maybe it's a sad story about how a guy lost his one true love.  Its a tortured jumble of lessons that weren't being thought out as they were being put together.

Of course, I can understand anyone being enraged to the point of murder at the rape and forced marriage of your sister.  (Yes, keep in mind that woman didn't get a say in who thy married.  They were treated as property and bargaining chips.)  But the actions they took were unjustified and immoral.  These kinds of stories fill this antiquated book that so many will point to as being the backbone of modern American society and good moral values.  If only these people would just read the thing!

The bible offers more instructions on rape in Deuteronomy 22 if you weren't sure how to get away with it.

Good stuff.  Read it to your kids or at the dinner table between the turkey and the pumpkin pie.


-STA

Same Camp, Same Colors

A Mild Delusion
I sometimes hear from Christians that don't accept the ways of the fundies.  Though we can both agree on their outrageous antics, we disagree when it comes to who takes the blame.  That's where I put moderates in the same bucket as the fundamentalists.  It doesn't matter what the amount of delusion is, it's the problems at the core that tie them all together.

Moderate and liberal believers act as a safe house for fundamentalists and provide a shield for them.  Whenever the majority becomes comprised of relaxed moderates and anything bad happens that would cause them to think God is angry with them or the world or whatever, the moderates begin thinking, "What did we stop doing that would cause God to be vengeful?  What changed?"  They most often find the answer in fundamentalism.

If You Can't Beat 'em, Keep 'em Around
I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, growing ever increasingly moderate all the way out.  Even though my tactics and reasoning were changing, I still had a mindset of a core fundamentalist.  I'd see someone going "a little too far" on something, but I always knew their heart was in the right place.  We had an elderly couple who began to grow more and more vocal over the choice of clothing the girls in the youth group wore to church: the dreaded and sinful pair of jeans.  "That's no way for a woman to dress!" they could be overheard exclaiming as the congregation filed out of services.  I didn't think God gave a damn about something as materialistic as pants, they backed up their objections with claims from the bible.  I don't recall any particular passages, but it's not uncommon for a believer to say, "well, that's Bible!" when it comes to something they firmly believe -- whether or not it is actually stated in there.  The point is that none of us less-sexist of the flock could shake the couple's certainty of the sin being committed, and we couldn't show them otherwise using the same "logical" tactics and arguments from the bible and faith.  Those types of disagreements always come down to, "I'll have to pray about it".

The harboring of fundamentalist ideals is performed by all believers, be they liberal, moderate, or extremist.  It's because the ideological framework is built using the same wood from the same tree (if you'll pardon the labored metaphor, and those that follow).  The scaffolding may reach differing heights, but the foundation is the same unfounded illusion.  Until the entire structure is torn down and can be rebuilt using actual knowledge and sound critical-thinking methods, the intellectual groundwork of moderates is indistinguishable from even the most delusional fundamentalists.


-STA