Why We Believe in Gods

Here is a fascinating presentation on the cognitive tools that lay the foundation for religious belief.

Penn Says!

I’m a huge Penn Jillette fan…and what better way to satisfy my insatiable appetite for penn rantings this this new video service set up by Sony. Basically, they gave Penn a few cameras and he talks about whatever the hell he wants whenever something comes to his mind:

Here is a sample:

From Crackle: Penn Says – Bill Gates and Global Warming

Dinesh D’Souza blames atheism for genocide

About 5 min into this video, Dinesh D’Souza begins to attribute the holocaust and other atrocities to atheism. He believes that worse crimes are committed because of atheism than religious motivations.

I was going to address this fallacy, but I found this blog post that did an excellent job of expressing what I wanted to say.

The one thing I would like to comment on is the difference between blaming crimes on certain religions vs blaming the aforementioned atrocities on atheism:

First of all, I would never suggest that anyone in either of these camps should be “blamed” for any crime committed by someone that espouses the same beliefs; the average Christian cannot be blamed for the Crusades, just as an atheist cannot be blamed for Stalinism.

The question here; however, is whether or not the religion itself can be blamed for crimes. In the end, I believe the individual committing the crime is responsible, but in some cases his or her religion can be shown to be the motivating factor.

The fundamental difference between atheism and any religion is belief vs denial of that belief:

Religions have texts, customs, rituals, and guidelines that its followers believe to be true.

Atheism does not have any of these: It simply feels that claims made by believers are false. There is no code to live by. No shared set of morality or beliefs. No rituals or traditions to abide by. The only thing that unites atheists is a common disbelief.

So when a religious apologist commits a crime in the name of his or her faith, one must examine the faith and its teachings to see if its principles support the crime.

For example, the bible says:

If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves (Leviticus 20:13).

I’m not a religious scholar, and I have not read the bible, so taking this out of context may not be the proper interpretation; however, If someone kills a homosexual person on the basis of his or her religion, one can look at this verse as a motivating factor.

Obviously, the responsibility for committing a murder falls on that individual and his or her interpretation, since nearly all Christians do not take this passage to be literally true.

So, one cannot blame Christians for heinous acts committed in the name of Christianity; however, I feel it is a fair criticism to look at the text of the religion to see if an interpretation of the text can lead to the behavior.

With that off my chest, the whole debate between Dinesh and Daniel Dennett is pretty good. I really like Dan Dennett and his honest pursuit of intellectual inquiry. The whole debate starts here and there are 15 parts.

 

Pious Huckabee’s support of capital punishment

Mike Huckabee touts his faith relentlessly, and I truly believe that he garners much of his support from those that respect his devout belief.

I find it amazing, that everyone laughs when he comedically responds “Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office”.

I was raised catholic and had to go to church and a catholic class every week…and from what I remember, Jesus would never advocate the death penalty. It seems to me that people like their religion a la carte: admiring pieces they like, but ignoring the pieces they disagree with.

I think that is a good thing given the many atrocious acts done in the name of faith…but then why is devout belief such a virtue? Is he not being admired for following the “word of god”? In this instance, he clearly ignores Jesus’s example, and people laugh about it.

I don’t like this facade of holiness. He portrays himself as “Mr. religious”, but then makes up his own mind on something as serious as the death penalty.

I disagree with his position on the death penalty, but I am glad he is willing to make his own choice on it rather than blindly following his religion…So why are people so enamored with him for his religiousness? Shouldn’t he then be shunned in this instance for disregarding the example of his savior?

Anyways, I bring this up from this posting I read, which I think any Christian apologist should consider.