Blog Jones

Would you like a complete computer that could fit in a standard wall socket? Of course you would. It’s also energy-efficient: it can be powered by a network cable. Of course, the downside is that the computer isn’t very powerful. The idea is to plug a screen, keyboard, mouse, and speakers into it, then connect to a central server that does all the hard work of processing your files. But still, quite cool.

Story number two: How would you like to wear this thing?

It’s a jet pack. They’re finally here!

Finally: A 65-year-old woman, standing in her kitchen, praying for the safety of her family as they travelled in a storm, survived a lightning strike. Make of that answer to prayer what you will.

I’ve just been very, very busy. I’ve had papers and speeches and a week long trip to NYC/Washington, DC with the University Business Association. I’m coming up on finals week now. (3 finals tomorrow. On a Saturday. Starting at 8:15. :-()

So, I should be studying. But I have to tell y’all about this crazy, crazy article from “Netscape News.” In fact, I thought it was parody at first, but it appears to be a real news article. Richard Swinburne, professor at Oxford University, claims to have created a mathematical formula that puts the odds of Jesus Christ’s resurrection at 97%. Take a look at his “proof”:

1. The probably of God’s existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn’t.
2. The probability that God became incarnate, that is embodied in human form, is also one in two.
3. The evidence for God’s existence is an argument for the resurrection.
4. The chance of Christ’s resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10.
5. Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.

Look, seriously guys: If you’re going to try to defend Christianity with math, science, or logic (as opposed to personal faith or biblical exposition), then you at least need to learn the basics of the subject you’re using.

For example, take his first point: Although it is true that God either exists or he does not, that does not mean that the odds of God’s existance are 1:2. Consider a parallel: Either an anvil will come hurtling out of the sky and land on my head as I type this post, or it will not. However, the odds of the anvil landing on my head are next to zero; certainly, the odds are less than 1:2. The fact that there are two possible outcomes does not mean that those two outcomes are equally probable.

Second: You can’t start off with 50% odds at the beginning (either God exists or not) and end up with 97% odds at the end (Jesus rose from the dead). That’s not how the math works, and it doesn’t even make sense logically. The very highest odds possible in that case would be 50%, because if God does not exist, he could not raise Jesus from the dead. Then when you take point two–either God came in the flesh or he did not–and put the odds at 50% again, you cut the probability of Christ’s resurrection in half again (1/2 times 1/2 = 1/4). And so on.

When you misuse tools like math and science in this way, you really hurt the testimony of Christ. (See posts about this article with titles like Dear Lord: Why are your minions so stupid? to see what I mean.) You portray Christians as ignorant and unlearned, and thus drive intelligent people who need Christ away from Him.

There’s nothing wrong with using math, science, and logic to argue for the cause of Christ, but you have to make sure that you’re using them correctly. Don’t reinforce the negative stereotype Christians already face in these arenas by making foolish claims like Swinburne’s.

It is with great dismay that I observe the rise of modern-day anti-scientists who seem determined to push our society back into the Dark Ages. Distressingly, these attacks against knowledge are often cloaked in the robes of religion.

Take, for example, the case of Robert Sungenis. This guy is a modern-day geocentrist and author of a 1,000 page book called “Galileo Was Wrong.”

According to the Sun-Herald article linked above, he is convinced, due to verses from the Bible, that the earth does not move around the sun. He tries to explain away evidence to the contrary, claiming that there is no proof that the earth revolves around the sun.

But what about Foucault’s famous pendulum? Its plane of oscillation revolves every 24 hours, showing the rotation of the planet. If the Earth didn’t rotate, it wouldn’t oscillate.

Nope, Sungenis said: There just may be some other force propelling it, such as the pull of stars.

If you’re really determined, you can always find some way to explain away any piece of evidence thrown at you.

The man’s website, FixedEarth.com, only serves to further prove his lack of credibility. He uses terms like “the Copernican Counterfeit” and “occult mathematics” as well as a writing/design style that is vaguely reminiscent of the famous Time Cube guy (warning: terrible web design, profanity, raving lunacy).

The point is this: Science needs to be based on evidence, not religious dogma. Quoting the article again, “As Galileo famously quoted 16th century Cardinal Caesar Baronius, ‘The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.’”

Neither the Bible nor any other religious work have any place in the realm of science. I say again, base your science on the objective evidence, not on any religious text.

If your interpretation of the Bible is right, then it will stand up to the evidence. If it isn’t, then you need to fix your interpretation of the Bible.

Carefully and objectively crossexamine the evidence. Research. Test your theories against opposing theories. But whatever you do, don’t throw out scientific evidence because it disagrees with your worldview. That isn’t faith, it’s ignorance.

(Via Newsvine)

KMOV, the CBS affiliate in Missouri, reports that the Legislature is considering declaring Christianity the official “majority” religion.

The resolution would recognize “a Christian god,” and it would not protect minority religions, but “protect the majority’s right to express their religious beliefs.

The resolution also recognizes that, “a greater power exists,” and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, “justified recognition.”

I cannot believe this. How do these people get elected?

I don’t think you should be allowed to take a public office until you read the United States Constitution at least once. Ammendment 1 is pretty clear on the topic of official state religions. (Lest you think that this prohibition applies only to the US Congress, recall that the Supreme Court decided in Gitlow v. New York that the Bill of rights also applied to the individual states.)

Leaving aside the blatant illegality of the bill, consider it from a religious perspective: When did Christ ever say that Christians should use the government to suppress opposing religions?

This is utter nonsense.

A terrorist has bombed a Shiite shrine in Iraq. This kind of thing is why I don’t think there will ever be peace in the Middle East.

Before:

After:

On the other hand, maybe there is hope after all.

Muslims across the Middle East – Sunnis and Shiites alike – largely ignored sectarian divides today to unite in condemnation of the the bombing that destroyed of the golden dome that graced one of Iraq’s holiest Shiite shrines.

You know how conservatives are all the time asking why, if Islam is a peaceful religion, Islamic leaders don’t condemn terrorism and violence?

Read this story:

“Islam says it’s all right to demonstrate but not to resort to violence. This must stop,” said senior cleric Mohammed Usman, a member of the Ulama Council — Afghanistan’s top Islamic organization. “We condemn the cartoons but this does not justify violence. These rioters are defaming the name of Islam.”

What more do you want?

Bill O’Reilly and the rest of Fox News would like you to believe that there is a vast contingent of the American public who wants to ban Christmas, that we need to save Christmas from liberals and from American retailers who say “Happy Holidays.”

Before all that, however, came a much more effective war on Christmas, from the Puritans:

Liberal plots notwithstanding, the Americans who succeeded in banning the holiday were the Puritans of 17^th-century Massachusetts. Between 1659 and 1681, Christmas celebrations were outlawed in the colony, and the law declared that anyone caught “observing, by abstinence from labor, feasting or any other way any such days as Christmas day, shall pay for every such offense five shillings.” Finding no biblical authority for celebrating Jesus’ birth on Dec. 25, the theocrats who ran Massachusetts regarded the holiday as a mere human invention, a remnant of a heathen past. They also disapproved of the rowdy celebrations that went along with it. “How few there are comparatively that spend those holidays … after an holy manner,” the Rev. Increase Mather lamented in 1687. “But they are consumed in Compotations, in Interludes, in playing at Cards, in Revellings, in excess of Wine, in Mad Mirth.

A brief visit to dictionary.com tells me that compotation is the act of drinking or “tippling” together and that Interludes are a “short farcical entertainment performed between the acts of a medieval mystery or morality play.” It does not, however, tell me what “Mad Mirth” is. But it’s basically clear that Puritans are generally against happiness on Christmas, regardless of its source.

On the other hand, there is something to what the Fox News guys and the “put Christ back in Christmas” advocates are saying. Here’s a shot of my paper’s “Faith and Values” section this morning:

The section I marked in blue is the only section which I would have expected: A column by Billy Graham reminding us why we celebrate Christmas. The yellow section is a column about Christmas that does not mention the word “Christ” once. And the section marked in green, which takes between 2/3 and 3/4 of the page, is the poem “A Visit From St. Nicholas.” In the Faith and Values section.

Perhaps the editors are Santaists!

The Gideons are no longer allowed to distribute free bibles in Anderson School District 2. The School Board says they’re not legally allowed to encourage or discourage religion (separation of church and state and all that).

Why are they making the change now? Some parent complained about it. If it weren’t for that one parent, they’d probably still be doing it.

Upstate Gideon member Morris Locke said he’s disappointed.

“For many years now, we’ve been able to go into District 2, give students in fifth grade a copy of God’s word.” he said. “We don’t have prayer, we don’t read any scriptures. We just make the Bible available to students who’d like to have them.”

…

OK, so you’ve been shut out of the schools. You’re going to stay shut out of the schools, too. That’s a dead end. Don’t pursue it.

Instead, you need to find some other place where kids congregate to give them free Bibles. Arcades, parks, etc.

Then, if you’re shooed away from there, why not go door-to-door offering free Bibles?

If you’re turned away from apartments with no solicitation signs, why not mail copies to each apartment?

If your goal is to get Bibles into the as many hands as possible, then you’ve still got options, if you’re willing to take them.

That said:

“I feel with all my heart that our religious freedom is being taken away little by little, step by step,” Rev. Arnold Hiette said.

…

I get so sick of this. We are not losing our religious liberties. I mean, look at your President!! Not only that, but look at the fact that he’s appointing two Supreme Court justices! (But you’ll still complain about the “liberal courts” until the day you die)

You can still go door-to-door and witness. You can speak freely about Christ, or whatever else you want to talk about. You can own and read Bibles, in dozens of translations. No one will draw a gun on you if you pray. What right, exactly, has been taken from you?!!

At the same meeting, the school board also banned open prayer at school, but said that moments of silence are allowed.

Note who made this decision: The school board. Not the courts. Not the legislature. Just some petty, low-level government officials over-reacting to one parent’s complaint.

These are people that the parents put into office. If they don’t like it, they can vote them out in the next election.

Note also that a government-run school is not the same as your house. Banning kids from praying out loud for their food at lunch is not the same as the Spanish Inquisition.

Don’t cry wolf here. The government has not infringed your right to religion; save the alarm for when the government really is trying to take away your rights.

The BBC reports today that George W. Bush allegedly claimed to have received orders from God to invade Afganistan and Iraq.

President George W. Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.

In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.

Nabil Shaath says: “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, “George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.” And I did, and then God would tell me, “George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq %u2026″ And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, “Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.” And by God I’m gonna do it.’”

Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: “I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state.”

And here I thought we went to Iraq to clean up some WMD’s.

If what Nabil Shaath says is true, if P. Bush said that, then we’ve got a lunatic in the White House. I wonder which country the voices in his head will tell him to invade next?

UPDATE: The BBC has backed off of the story, and the White House denies the allegations. Thank’s to commenter Jay C for the link.

Is it God punishing us for taking prayer out of public schools, as Franklin Graham said on Fox News? (If so, God’s awfully late.)

Is it Allah, punishing us for being Western?

Or is it just nature? Hurricanes–like earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, floods, and other natural disasters–just happen. There’s no reason for it; it’s just nature, following the physical laws of nature–Laws like “water runs downhill,” which would seem to be evidence for not building a city below sea level.

If Hurricane Katrina was God or Allah or some other deity punishing us for something or another, I think that said god would be a little more specific about it. I mean, a god can call up mighty storms but can’t hijack the TV news stations to say “Put prayer back in schools, or I’ll do it again”?

No, I think we can safely just call it a terrible natural disaster–not the punishment of some god.

(Allah link via one of Jeff Jarvis’s commenters, Kat)

This is one of the tennets of a prominent political party. Can you guess which one?

We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses…. [This party] as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the…materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.

No cheating!

(Via Dean’s World)

Edit: Upon further review of this post–and believe me, there’s been a lot of review of this particular post–I have to say that my initial wording below was a lot stronger than it really should have been. I think the point was worth making, but that comments like “if preachers want to be taken seriously by people with critical thinking skills” were out of line.

If I offended anybody with those statements, I apologize. I did not mean to insult or tear down anybody by what I said.

There’s an old cliché, coined by some guy up at The Wilds, that has, like many of the sayings of Dr. Bob Senior and Dr. Bob Junior, attained functional equivalence with Scripture among many fundamentalists. Soon after the preacher has consulted the one verse that is the basis of his argument for the next half-hour, he’ll quote this saying:

Just two choices on the shelf:
Pleasing God or pleasing self

This statement is very catchy. Unfortunately, it’s also completely fallacious. It’s the perfect example of a false dichotomy: There are more options available than just pleasing God and self: You can also please other people, for example.

Think about that Extreme Makeover: Home Edition show: These guys come to some needy family and rebuild their houses for them. Are they doing it as a service to God? No. They’re doing it to help a family in need (and make a little money for Sears and ABC, but that’s beside the point). Is your average school teacher in it for the money? No, they’re trying to help kids reach their full potential.

Besides being a false dichotomy, it also implies a false choice: Pleasing God and pleasing self are not necessarily mutually exclusive options.

For example, the book of Proverbs states “Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.” I should think that the man who finds himself a wife is at least as pleased as the Lord is with the idea.

In short, if preachers want to be taken seriously by people with critical thinking skills, they need to let the cliché go, no matter how catchy it is.

I love finding examples of consumer Christianity, that branch of Christianity dedicated to developing new Bible-themed products to make and sell. Here’s a great example: In-Souls Inspirational Scripture Shoe Inserts:

Here’s the official product description:

In-Souls™ inserts are designed to provide a tangible support to assist Christians to literally “walk in the word of the Lord.” Worn in the right shoe, each one provides a related scripture and affirmation. To enhance the spiritual walk with God, the inserts help one to “stand” on His Word, meditating on it day and night. Inserts may be alternated daily to help cultivate the word of God in your life. Look for other In-Souls sets to cover a variety of topics – from trust, obedience, patience and redemption to marriage, work and body image.

My only problem with this idea is that I kind of think the Bible deserves a little more respect than to be stuffed into your shoes. But I guess my wish was granted; Christians are getting more original after all.

Netpilot over at The Boileryard has a great overview of the historical arguments over separation of church & state. Here’s the short version:

Although the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the Bill of Rights, a letter from Thomas Jefferson commenting on the Bill makes it clear that the first ammendment was intended to build a “wall of separation between church and state.”

Netpilot: “the question we should be debating is not if the ‘wall of separation’ to which Jefferson referred was intended to be built by the first amendment, but rather how high and thick should the wall be built.”

Unfortunately, this was a point of contention even in the days of the founding fathers. On the one side you had people like Samuel Adams, who believed that “that religious toleration should be extended to all Christians, with the exception of Catholics and Papists.” On the other side, you had people like Jefferson and Madison, who opposed the appointment of chaplains for the House and Senate.

It’s not like some judge just decided to start this debate in the 1970’s. The debate over separation of church and state has been going on for centuries.

Here ends my summary and starts my commentary: I think that it’s OK for politicians to discuss their own religious beliefs, as Bush does frequently. I also think that the ACLU needs to relax a little bit: Having a nativity scene on public land won’t hurt anybody.

On the other hand, the government needs to be careful to avoid even the appearance of supporting any particular religion. That’s why I think the ten commandments monument needed to come down. Can you imagine being a Muslim on trial, walking into the courtroom, and seeing the religious iconography of Christianity and Judaism on the wall? Would you feel like you were getting a fair trial?

Can you imagine the outcry if a public school teacher led her class every morning in a prayer to Krishna?

Can you imagine being told that you couldn’t teach your child your “non-mainstream” religion? Oh, wait….

Unfortunately, separation of church and state has been taken to the point of extremes in some cases. Students in public schools ought to be able to pray over their meals, for example. (I’ve been told they can’t; can any public school kids fill me in?) But at its heart, separation of church and state is wise and sensible public policy.

One frustration I have with BJU and with my local church is their attitude of constant paranoia about…, well pretty much everything outside of the church. For a great example of this, check out an old book called Saturday Morning Mind Control, which postulates the virtually all kids programing at the time had some sort of occult origin. Besides the entertainment industry, the primary focus of their paranoia is the government.

Normally, that’s a good place for paranoia. I’m a minarchist, so distrust and dislike of the government is second nature to me. But the typical fundamentalist position is not mere distrust, it’s fear.

Preachers are always insisting that the government is trying to take away the freedom of religion, based on the fact that the courts have been enforcing separation of church and state. You should have heard the unadulterated praise for Roy Moore and his “bold defense” of the ten commandments memorial. And don’t even get them started on prayer in public schools. I even heard one preacher invoke Godwin’s Law by accusing the gay and the feminist lobbies of planning to round up Christians in boxcars and ship them off to concentration camps.

You see why that might be frustrating?

But now I’ve heard a story that doesn’t bode well for religious freedom, but that I doubt I’ll ever about hear from the pulpit: Some idiot judge has forbidden a man and his ex-wife from teaching their child their religious beliefs.

Why won’t I hear about this in the pulpit? Because the parents are Wiccans.

This outrageous decision was a part of the couple’s divorce decree, but neither the father nor the mother–both of whom are Wiccans–asked for it. They are both forbidden to expose their child to “non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.” The judge did not define the term.

What was the judge’s justification for making such a ruling? Apparently the boy attends a Catholic school. The judge received a report from the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau, which contained the following quote:

There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones’ lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages.

After reading this, the judge apparently decided that he had the right to decide what religion the boy should or should not be taught.

Fortunately, “Getting the judge’s religious restriction lifted should be a slam-dunk,” according to an Indiana University law professor. “That’s blatantly unconstitutional. Obviously, the judge can order them not to expose the child to drugs or other inappropriate conduct, but it sounds like this order was confusing or could be misconstrued.”

But the fact that a judge is so uneducated about the limits of his power that he’d pass such a measure does not bode well. There’s got to be some way to get him out of power; if not, I rest assured that the man will never rise above the position of a divorce court judge, because no legislator will ever be foolish enough to try to advance him to a higher court.

I hope.

(Via Dean’s World)

De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

Well, after you buy your “His Essence” candle so your room can smell like Jesus, you can sit down and snack on a Chocolate Cross.

Here’s what I find interesting about this story:

A spokesman for the Roman Catholic diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut, finds the new product insulting. He says, “The cross should be venerated, not eaten.”

Um… Doesn’t the doctrine of transubstantiation mean that you (believe you) routinely eat the body of Christ? So, are you saying that Christ should be eaten, and not venerated? (See also Matt 23:16-22)

(Via Mounty’s Corner)

Peter Chianca has a great column up about the Easter Bunny:

The Easter Bunny has got to go. Yes, I know what you’re wondering: Whyshouldn’t the holiest day on the Christian calendar be represented by a 7-foot-tall pink rabbit, who may or may not be wearing a vest? Well, for the same reason that people shouldn’t ever marry Charlie Sheen - because it makes no sense.

It’s a great article; read the whole thing.

First we had the WWJD fad.

Then we had the Prayer of Jabez fad.

Now we have the Purpose Driven Life fad.

Next: The candles that smell like Jesus fad!

Key quote:

Bob Tosterud and wife Karen say the formula is all spelled out in Psalm 45.

“It’s a Messianic Psalm referring to when Christ returns and his garments will have the scent of myrrh, aloe and cassia,” says Karen Tosterud.

Via Dave Barry.