Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
The Nullifidian Volume 3 Number 03
From ai815@freenet.carleton.ca Fri Apr 12 10:01:38 1996
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:36:31 -0400
From: Greg Erwin <ai815@freenet.carleton.ca>
To: jimdew@macc.wisc.edu, aa357@freenet.buffalo.edu, freethnker@aol.com
Subject: March 1996 Nullifidian
############################################################
############################################################
______
/ / / /
/ /__ __
/ / ) (__
/ / (__(__
__
|\ ( ) ) / /
| \ | / / . _/_ . __ / . __ __
| \ | / / / / ) / ) / / ) __ ) / )
) \| (__(__(___(__(__(___(__(__(__(__(__(__/ (__
===========================================================
*The*E-Zine*of*Atheistic*Secular*Humanism*and*Freethought**
===========================================================
back issues now available at:
http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/magazine.html
############################################################
##### Volume III, Number 3 #####
################### ISSN 1201-0111 #######################
####################### MAR 1996 ###########################
nullifidian, n. & a. (Person) having no religious faith or
belief. [f. med. L _nullifidius_ f. L _nullus_ none +
_fides_ faith; see -IAN] Concise Oxford Dictionary
The purpose of this magazine is to provide a source of
articles dealing with many aspects of humanism.
We are ATHEISTIC as we do not believe in the actual
existence of any supernatural beings or any transcendental
reality.
We are SECULAR because the evidence of history and the daily
horrors in the news show the pernicious and destructive
consequences of allowing religions to be involved with
politics or government.
We are HUMANISTS and we focus on what is good for humanity,
in the real world. We will not be put off with offers of
pie in the sky, bye and bye.
============================================================
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. WHAT INFIDELS HAVE DONE. Robert Ingersoll
2. Public Education by Brent Yaciw, AthAlFLB@aol.com
3. Rabid raving Atheism, by Greg Erwin
4. HAMILTON-WENTWORTH ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
application for employment
==========================
//*BEGINNING OF ARTICLE*//
==========================
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
WHAT INFIDELS HAVE DONE. 1
This file, its printout, or copies of either
are to be copied and given away, but NOT sold.
from
Bank of Wisdom, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
The Works of ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
**** ****
WHAT INFIDELS HAVE DONE.
ONE HUNDRED years after Christ had died suppose some one had
asked a Christian, What hospitals have you built? What asylums
have you founded? They would have said "None." Suppose three
hundred years after the death of Christ the same questions had
been asked the Christian, he would have said "None, not one." Two
hundred years more and the answer would have been the same. And
at that time the Christian could have told the questioner that
the Mohammedans had built asylums before the Christians. He could
also have told him that there had been orphan asylums in China
for hundreds and hundreds of years, hospitals in India, and
hospitals for the sick at Athens.
Here it may be well enough to say that all hospitals and
asylums are not built for charity. They are built because people
do not want to be annoyed by the sick and the insane. If a sick
man should come down the street and sit upon your doorstep, what
would you do with him? You would have to take him into your house
or leave him to suffer. Private families do not wish to take the
burden of the sick. Consequently, in self-defence, hospitals are
built so that any wanderer coming to a house, dying, or suffering
from any disease, may immediately be packed off to a hospital and
not become a burden upon private charity. The fact that many
diseases are contagious rendered hospitals necessary for the
preservation of the lives of the citizens. The same thing is true
of the asylums. People do not, as a rule, want to take into their
families, all the children who happen to have no fathers and
mothers. So they endow and build an asylum where those children
can be sent -- and where they can be whipped according to law,
Nobody wants an insane stranger in his house. The consequence is,
that the community, to get rid of these people, to get rid of the
trouble, build public institutions and send them there.
Now, then, to come to the point, to answer the interrogatory
often flung at us from the pulpit, What institutions have
Infidels built? In the first place, there have not been many
Infidels for many years and, as a rule, a known Infidel cannot
get very rich, for the reason, that the Christians are so
forgiving and loving they boycott him. If the average Infidel,
freely stating his opinion, could get through the world himself,
for the last several hundred years, he has been in good luck. But
as a matter of fact there have been some Infidels who have done
some good, even from a Christian standpoint. The greatest charity
ever established in the United States by a man -- not by a
community to get rid of a nuisance, but by a man who wished to do
good and wished that good to last after his death -- is the
Girard College in the city of Philadelphia. Girard was an
Infidel. He gained his first publicity by going like a common
person into the hospitals and taking care of those suffering from
contagious diseases -- from cholera and smallpox. So there is a
man by the name of James Lick, an Infidel, who has given the
finest observatory ever given to the world. And it is a good
thing for an Infidel to increase the sight of men. The reason
people are theologians is because they cannot see. Mr. Lick has
increased human vision, and I can say right here that nothing has
been seen through the telescope calculated to prove the astronomy
of Joshua. Neither can you see with that telescope a star that
bears a Christian name. The reason is that Christianity was
opposed to astronomy. so astronomers took their revenge, and now
there is not one star that glitters in all the vast firmament of
the boundless heavens that has a Christian name. Mr. Carnegie has
been what they call a public-spirited man. He has given millions
of dollars for libraries and other institutions, and he certainly
is not an orthodox Christian.
Infidels, however, have done much better even than that.
They have increased the sum of human knowledge. John W. Draper,
in his work on "The Intellectual Development of Europe," has done
more good to the American people and to the civilized world than
all the priests in it. He was an Infidel. Buckle is another who
has added to the sum of human knowledge. Thomas Paine, an
Infidel, did more for this country than any other man who ever
lived in it.
Most of the colleges in this country have, I admit, been
founded by Christians, and the money for their support has been
donated by Christians, but most of the colleges of this country
have simply classified ignorance, and I think the United States
would be more learned than it is to-day if there never had been a
Christian college in it. But whether Christians gave or Infidels
gave has nothing to do with the probability of the Jonah story or
with the probability that the mark on the dial went back ten
degrees to prove that a little Jewish king was not going to die
of a boil. And if the Infidels are all stingy and the Christians
are all generous it does not even tend to prove that three men
were in a fiery furnace heated seven times hotter than was its
wont without even scorching their clothes.
The best college in this country -- or, at least, for a long
time the best -- was the institution founded by Ezra Cornell.
That is a school where people try to teach what they know instead
of what they guess. Yet Cornell University was attacked by every
orthodox college in the United States at the time it was founded,
because they said it was without religion.
Everybody knows that Christianity does not tend to
generosity. Christianity says: "Save your own soul, whether
anybody else saves his or not." Christianity says: "Let the great
ship go down. You get into the little life-boat of the gospel and
paddle ashore, no matter what becomes of the rest." Christianity
says you must love God, or something in the sky, better than you
love your wife and children. And the Christian, even when giving,
expects to get a very large compound interest in another world.
The Infidel who gives, asks no return except the joy that comes
from relieving the wants of another.
Again the Christians, although they have built colleges,
have built them for the purpose of spreading their superstitions,
and have poisoned the minds of the world, while the Infidel
teachers have filled the world with light. Darwin did more for
mankind than if he had built a thousand hospitals. Voltaire did
more than if he had built a thousand asylums for the insane. He
will prevent thousands from going insane that otherwise might be
driven into insanity by the "glad tidings of great joy." Haeckel
is filling the world with light.
I am perfectly willing that the results of the labors of
Christians and the labors of Infidels should be compared. Then
let it be understood that Infidels have been in this world but a
very short time. A few years ago there were hardly any. I can
remember when I was the only Infidel in the town where I lived.
Give us time and we will build colleges in which something will
be taught that is of use. We hope to build temples that will be
dedicated to reason and common sense, and where every effort will
be made to reform mankind and make them better and better in this
world.
I am saying nothing against the charity of Christians;
nothing against any kindness or goodness. But I say the
Christians, in my judgment, have done more harm than they have
done good. They may talk of the asylums they have built, but they
have not built asylums enough to hold the people who have been
driven insane by their teachings. Orthodox religion has opposed
liberty. It has opposed investigation and free-thought. If all
the churches in Europe had been observatories, if the cathedrals
had been universities where facts were taught and where nature
was studied, if all the priests had been real teachers, this
world would have been far, far beyond what it is to-day.
There is an idea that Christianity is positive, and
Infidelity is negative. If this be so, then falsehood is positive
and truth is negative. What I contend is that Infidelity is a
positive religion; that Christianity is a negative religion.
Christianity denies and Infidelity admits. Infidelity stands by
facts; it demonstrates by the conclusions of the reason.
Infidelity does all it can to develop the brain and the heart of
man. That is positive. Religion asks man to give up this world
for one he knows nothing about, That is negative. I stand by the
religion of reason. I stand by the dogmas of demonstration.
====================
//*END OF ARTICLE*//
====================
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we
can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is
what annoys me." [Jack Handey]
==========================
//*BEGINNING OF ARTICLE*//
==========================
Public Education
[Ed. Note: originally appeared on ffrf-l, the Freedom From
Religion Foundation's email discussion list. The character named
"Skeptic" had been posting the usual derogatory messages about
the worthlessness of public education. This was Brent Yaciw's
excellent reply, which is worth sharing. Permission sought and
obtained.]
I'm not going to bother repeating all of Skeptic's post; enough
of you have already seen it to know the general direction. Let me
simply point out a few of what I consider highly non-humanist
attitudes in it:
"some kids are unteachable" Presumably because god made them that
way, right? Funny how people with this attitude give up SO EASILY
on children, but expect these same "unteachable" kids to "pull
themselves up by their bootstraps" as adults. Illogical, yes, but
that never bothers true believers.
"in public schools you can be suspended for calling a black man a
nigger" Or a cocksucker, or pissant, or any number of other
personal insults. If you can't tell the difference between that
and expressing yourself on a political issue on your car in the
parking lot, there's not much point in discussing it. Take a
course in basic critical thinking.
"YA right keep dreaming."
Typical response of the know-not.
"Yes and your political "opinions" are so much more logical...A
prevailing political viewpoint is right because a majority of
people have been convinced that it is right."
He confuses opinion and belief with reality and logic. Given the
same facts, the logical conclusion is inevitably the same. The
anti-public school crowd simply ignores the facts.
"Thats probably true, but I never said anything about wanting to
shift money into theirs[the RRR's] or any other institutes
coffers."
If you fire a shotgun at me and miss and kill your mother, does
your "intent" matter? That's MY point: you're killing the RRR's
enemies for them, and then asking us to applaud you for it.
"Why is it everyone hates it when some one gets a tax exemption?"
I don't hate it when someone gets a tax exemption; I hate it when
an organization that works to the detriment of us all, that
inevitably wants to destroy my viewpoint by force, gets a tax
exemption. The element of force is the difference, and that's why
we keep losing battles: we're not willing (nor should we be) to
force others to become atheists.
"Private schools or religious schools, I think there is a
difference in this case."
Yes, there is, but realistically around 90% of private schools
ARE religious schools. I would have no problem with ONLY purely
secular schools being eligible for vouchers, but then, without
government supervision, who would see that they stayed that way?
Hell, it's hard enough monitoring the public schools!
"death education for youngsters"
You mean you can guarantee that no one's parents, brothers or
sisters, or other relatives or friends will die before they reach
fourth grade? The sooner children are taught that death is as
natural as life, the sooner they lose their unreasoning fear of
it--which is the heart of religion. Same with learning about
other realities of life like child abuse--or need we wait until
AFTER the priests have at them?
"I can play the quote game too."
I don't play "quote games." I have a macro that includes quotes
with my signature, generally at random. Of course, I do choose
the initial input, but they are for amusement purposes
primarlily.
"I don't want my kids to see that stuff in the sixth grade"
Ah, the heart of the matter: protecting the kiddies from reality.
Children as chattel, keep my property pure as long as possible.
You sound more old testament all the time. By sixth grade, they
probably know as much as you do about it.
"Further I don't want to pay for the crap our public schools want
to pass off as education"
You know, I want McDonalds to offer prime rib too, but they
don't, and if I go elsewhere to get it--which you have the choice
to do as well--I pay more. The reality of government is that you
can't please everyone, and those who take the easy way out by
going outside the system (instead of improving the system we
have, which takes a lot more work than whining and sniping from
the cheap seats) pay for the privilege. You want prime rib at
McDonalds prices. Ain't gonna happen.
" the job of government is to protect you from the criminal acts
of others"
And what, prey tell, is a "criminal act" if violating my rights
isn't one? Who are you to decide, for that matter, what the job
of government is in a democracy? If enough people say the job of
government is providing education for all, then that's what its
job IS.
"Governments violate rights, people commit crimes."
Get real. A government is just a collection of people.
"Your an ass"
That's "You're an ass," which MY PUBLIC SCHOOL taught me.
Apparently yours didn't. I guess you must have been
"unteachable." Or did you go to one of those excellent private
schools?
"Not only do I have the right to discriminate, I do it all the
time. I do it when I employ people, I do it when I choose who I
will sit next to at a meeting..."
You are confusing two senses of the word "discriminate." At
least, I think you are; maybe you are one of those who decides
who to employ based on skin color or other non-work-related
characteristics, which means you are hurting yourself by failing
to hire the best person for the job. Maybe you choose who to sit
next to on that basis, which means you live in a very narrow and
ugly world. But assuming otherwise, your choice to employ the
best person for a job or sit next to a friend are hardly the
issue here. Your decision to do me harm by preventing me from
going where I wish on public streets, buying a home where I wish
if I can afford it, or eating in a restaurant are. Whether you
care to admit it or not, your bigoted restaurant owner IS DOING
ME HARM by making me go elsewhere because of my skin color when
he is serving others.
I see only evidence of concern for the owner in your arguments,
but I'll bet if you ran out of gas and had to walk past a dozen
gas stations before you got to one that would serve you because
you happened to be born white, and similar things happened every
day of your life, you'd sing a different tune.
"I for one won't higher fundy christians"
Though I believe that this falls into a different category than
race or gender, this attitude is as foolish as the guy who won't
hire blacks. I don't know what business you're in, but suppose
you owned a computer company and the next Bill Gates wanted to
work for you and you said no because he was a fundy. You've also
missed an opportunity to plant a seed of reason into him/her.
Several of my best friends were once fundies, and I've had a
number of fundy friends over the years that provided stimulating
conversation. Trust me, you aren't likely to have to fire them;
sometimes they'll get so scared they'll quit for fear you'll
convert them, sometimes they'll work twice as hard to prove just
how much their religion makes them better workers, and maybe, on
rarer occassions, they'll drift out of fundieland into reality.
"Now, I think its perfectly clear you don't like libertarians"
Actually, I have a number of friends who are Libertarians, and
just like religionists, they are perfectly rational and can
discuss things logically, until you question one of their
articles of faith and ask them for evidence, y'know, FACTS. Then
they call you an ass, or an idiot, and scamper away claiming I
just don't understand.
"My test scores were always above those in public schools(reading
and math anyway.)"
Test scores are more a product of innate ability than anything
else; as someone consistently in the top 1% in that category, who
went to a public school, I could simply cite myself as "proof."
But that's the problem with anecdotal evidence; the real proof is
the statistical comparisons, which if you would simply read them
demonstrate clearly that the average net gain in scores is HIGHER
in public schools than private. In other words, if your freshmen
score [as a sample figure] an average equivalent of a 1200 SAT in
a public school, their average score as a senior is going to be
1295, as opposed to a 1245 average if they went to a private
Catholic school. Period.
Furthermore, Catholic school students are more likely to use
drugs, drink alcohol, or shoplift--and this is from a survey
sponsored and published by the National Catholic Education
Association, which I'm sure would have preferred the opposite
results.
I also suggest you read up on the boondoggles in Milwaukee, where
two private "choice" schools have failed, leaving students-yup-
seeking public schools as a fail-safe, and in one school the
director wrote $47,000 in bad checks. Two similar schools are
struggling to survive. As Dr. Alex Molar noted, "This is what
happens when you make education policy based on ideological
zealotry instead of the best interest of the children." A similar
snafu occurred recently here in FL, when a local private school
suddenly closed, again forcing public schools to absorb a sudden
influx of hudreds of children.
Research: there's NO substitute for it. I sincerely hope you and
your children do have a nice life, but if you're planning on
sending them to a private school (and there ARE a few good ones,
secular, focused on academic excellence, run by dedicated
educators who honestly thought they could do better without the
red tape government involves, and were realistic in their tuition
pricing), I hope you research it better than you've researched
your arguments here.
Cheers,
Brent Yaciw, ATHALFLB@AOL.COM
"Sure, I've got one. It's a perfect twenty-twenty."
--Duane Thomas, Dallas Cowboys halfback, responding to a question
on whether he has an IQ and providing more evidence that calling
football players "student-athletes" is a joke.
==================
||END OF ARTICLE||
==================
"The time appears to me to have come when it is the duty of
all to make their dissent from religion known." [John Stuart
Mill]
==========================
//*BEGINNING OF ARTICLE*//
==========================
Rabid, Raving Atheism
Part 1
Atheism defended.
I'm sure I've said it over and over but here it is again: an
atheist is simply one who has concluded, after considering the
evidence, that no god exists. One may further conclude, based on
one's knowledge of human psychology, sociology, and comparative
religion, that no god can exist. I certainly have not yet heard
a definition of a "god" that I can conceive of as actually
existing in the real world.
It is not merely a belief, in the way that a religion is a
belief, i.e., clinging to faith in the absence of evidence, in
the face of contrary evidence, sometimes. Atheism is as valid as
an absence of belief in werewolves, fairies in the garden,
astrology, Casper the ghost, Holy the ghost, or Santa.
Furthermore, using rhetorical akido, I challenge christians to
give me reasons why they do not believe in Krishna, Zeus, Allah,
Kwan Yin, or whatever. Those reasons are also perfectly
applicable to their home grown Yahweh and Jesus, why should I
have to do all the work?
Watson Heston cited Kings(1). This argument "proved" that the
ba'alim did not exist. Now, there is an argument against god
straight from an inspired source. Try the test. Does Yahweh do
any better? How about that, guys?
(1) The Freethinker's Pictorial Textbook.
Agnosticism sounds good until you examine it closely. Why should
I be agnostic about werewolves? About witches on broomsticks?
If I claim to be agnostic on the subject of a deity, I am
admitting that I cannot decide anything at all. Yet, I do not
act as if werewolves were real, and I will not act as if god were
real. If new evidence, of the sort that would validate any other
claim, comes to light, I will certainly examine it. We can all
think of perfectly simple things that would conclusively
demonstrate the existence of extraterrestrial life, for instance.
But for the same reasons that I do not think that evidence will
come to light validating the claims that Atlantis existed or that
there is such a thing as reincarnation, I am not going to waste
any time looking for proof that things like gods exist.
As Lemuel Washburn so aptly said: "If god exists, what objection
can he have to saying so?"(2)
(2) Is the bible worth reading, and other essays.
Christians remind me of the doctor in the joke who found a new
disease with no symptoms.
Or as Delos McKown put it: "The invisible and the non existent
look very much alike."(3) (3)The Mythmaker's Magic.
Part 2
Atheism further defended.
For an analogy, I refer people to Susan Blackmore's books on the
paranormal, both _Dying to Live_ and _Adventures of a
Parapsychologist_. You may know that she received the first
degree awarded in Britain in parapsychology, and that after more
than a decade of research into psi, she concluded that she was
studying something that didn't exist.
Theology suffers from the same problem as parapsychology: its
purported object of study does not exist; all of the talk about
god is done in the absence of a referent. Hypothesizing that god
exists leads to false and misleading conclusions: like prayer
works, there is an afterlife, teleology, and so on; as well, it
is totally and utterly unnecessary.
Blackmore put the problem thus, at the end of _Adventures of a
Parapsychologist_: there can be two hypotheses about psi: 1)
there are paranormal powers; 2) there are not. As data we accept
the *experiences* of people in this area. People undoubtedly
feel that they have experienced telepathy, precogition, dreams of
the future and so on.
Now, which hypothesis leads to increasing knowledge? In about
150 years of testing, parapsychologists have gone nowhere. She
says the only reliable finding of parapsychology is that psi is
not repeatable. If we *assume* as a working hypothesis: that
these are psychological events within the human mind and that no
paranormal powers exist, what do we get?
The whole field of anomalistic psychology opens up, we have an
understanding of mass delusion, the behavior of crowds, how
memory works and fails, better understanding of perception, and
the mechanisms involved and how they sometimes fail, the
evolution of consciousness, perception, cognition and more.
The same thing applies to the god hypothesis. Postulating that
god exists does not work as an explanation of the world and its
events. As a hypothesis, it fails every test. As Richard
Dawkins said, in his debate with the Archbishop of York(4), "A
universe with a God would look quite different from a universe
without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound
to look different. So the most basic claims of religion _are_
scientific. Religion _is_ a scientific theory."
(4) Lions 10, Christians 0.
Of course, he is assuming that "God" is a term with some meaning.
He says (ibid.):
<< Right then, what is God? And now come the weasel words.
These are very variable. "God is not out there, he is in all of
us." "God is the ground of all being." "God is the essence of
life." "God is the universe." "Don't you believe in the
universe?" "Of course I believe in the universe." "Then you
believe in God." "God is love, don't you believe in love?"
"Right, then you believe in God?" >>
Sound familiar?
To reiterate: not only does the god hypothesis lead to false and
misleading conclusions, it is totally and utterly unnecessary.
It is a useless and wasteful redundancy, as worthless as
believing that Boreas is the source of the North Wind.
OK, big finish from Richard Dawkins now:
<< I want to end by returning to science. It is often said, ...,
that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of
God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best
to keep an open mind and be agnostic.
At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in
the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it
seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father
Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom
of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't
_prove_ that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with
respect to fairies?
The trouble with the agnostic argument is that it can be applied
to anything. There is an infinite number of hypothetical beliefs
we could hold which we can't positively disprove. On the whole,
people don't believe in most of them, such as fairies, unicorns,
dragons, Father Christmas, and so on. But on the whole they do
believe in a creator God, together with whatever particular
baggage goes with the religion of their parents.
I suspect the reason is that most people, though not belonging to
the [fundamentalists], nevertheless have a residue of feeling
that Darwinian evolution isn't quite big enough to explain
everything about life. All I can say as a biologist is that the
feeling disappears progressively the more you read about and
study what is known about life and evolution.
I want to add one thing more. The more you understand the
significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the
agnostic position and towards atheism. Complex, statistically
improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain
than simple, statistically probable things.
The great beauty of Darwin's theory of evolution is that it
explains how complex, difficult to understand things could have
arisen step by plausible step, from simple, easy to understand
beginnings. We start our explanation from almost infinitely
simple beginnings: pure hydrogen and a huge amount of energy.
Our scientific, Darwinian explanations carry us through a series
of well-understood gradual steps to all the spectacular beauty
and complexity of life.
The alternative hypothesis, that it was all started by a
supernatural creator, is not only superfluous, it is also highly
improbable. It falls foul of the very argument that was
originally put forward in its favour. This is because any God
worthy of the name must have been a being of colossal
intelligence, a supermind, an entity of extremely low
probability--a very improbable being indeed.
Even if the postulation of such an entity explained anything (and
we don't need it to), it still wouldn't help because it raises a
bigger mystery than it solves.
Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the
difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of
God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply
postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the
difficult to explain, and leaves it at that. We cannot prove
that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He is very,
very improbable indeed. >>
Now to remove that last teeny weeny scrap of probability, to
which he makes allusion, all we need is the known human tendency
to fantasize, confabulate, and believe what they wish rather than
what really exists, as Blackmore noted in parapsychology. Of the
two hypotheses, 1) god exists; or, 2) people make up gods; the
second functions much better as a predictor of events in the
world and that is all we ask of any scientific theory.
If god existed, we would expect that descriptions of it would be
more or less the same all over the world. If people make up
gods, we would expect gods to reflect local appearances. If god
were real and a source of morality, we would expect moral laws
which claim to come from a god to be the same all over the world,
if people make up gods, we would expect them to assign their
local taboos and mores to divine sources.
The idea that there is no god and that people make gods up
functions so much better as a predictor of events that it is
perverse to withold assent to it. Were this any other area of
human behavior, one that had not been infected by the "faith"
virus, which tells you that believing impossible things is good,
and that doubt is bad, there would simply be no argument.
If you meet the Messiah on the road, crucify him.
Part 3
After having written part 2, I experienced minor satori while
driving on Sunday. A number of things came together.
I certainly hope that the quotes from Dawkins were persuasive.
If anyone wants the whole thing, it is in the December 1994
Nullifidian. There is an link to old copies of the Nullifidian
off of my web page
http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/magazine.html,
or you can go direct through
gopher://gopher.etext.org:70/11/Zines/Nullifidian/-2.12
or I will send a copy of the Dawkins article, "Lions 10,
Christians 0" to anyone who wishes.
The first big thought was a gut-level appreciation of the truth
and beauty of existentialism. Existentialism was RIGHT! This
sounds like one of those things you write down in the middle of
the night, when you think you've solved the problems of the
universe while drunk or asleep, and then you wake up in the
morning and all there is is something like "universe pervaded by
odor of coffee." But nooooo,...
If I remember right, the main point of existentialism is that
there is no such "thing" as "essence", there is only existence.
>From Plato onward, certain philosophers and most theologians have
believed that essence is the more important. For Plato, the real
world was a mere shadowy representation of the perfect world of
eternal essences. The sin of reification. I am using Plato only
as a scapegoat, the problem is universal. Existentialism has
been around for a long time, I studied it 30 years ago, but I
think we occasionally get lost, thinking about "the absurd",
"hell is other people" and its other catch phrases, and forget
about the main point.
[How you could start from this, and then fall for some claptrap
cobbled together patchwork of guesses like Marxism with a reified
teleology of History, and Classes, is beyond me, but maybe I
missed something.]
[Taner Edis has pointed out, as part of his general
antiphilosopher campaign, that many alleged existentialists are
mere poseurs, spouting cliched phrases about absurdity and
'existence precedes essence' without saying anything worthwhile.
I am not defending existentialism, except as it appeared to me
at that moment, when I had an immediate apprehension of the
difference between a wholly materialistic view, and one where
"essences" or "spirits" are part of the deal.]
We can see how people might get to thinking like this: a circle
drawn in the dirt is understood as an imperfect representation of
the idea of a perfect two dimensional grouping of an infinite
number of points all equidistant from one central point. Does a
Perfect Circle exist somewhere of which all our drawings are mere
shadows? If so, might there be a canonical, perfect Chair, or an
eternal Rose, of which all real chairs and roses were also mere
pathetic attempts at embodiment?
As often is the case, we got it exactly ass backwards. It is
only in the head that this essence abstraction mechanism works at
all. We have an extremely well-developed ability to abstract
similarities, to induce (i.e., the verb form of induction)
relationships, and this creates the categories that make the
essences appear to exist. They don't. Only things exist.
Essence-thinking also allows you to believe that you are
essentially a wonderful, decent person, while existentially you
commit atrocities. "My essence is goodness," you can say, while
you are forced to foreclose the mortgage, twirling your
moustache. "The essence of the Church is sweetness and light,
just right now we are forced to burn a few heretics, and
slaughter unbelievers, but that's not the REAL essence of the
church." Existentialism says that essence only comes from being,
what you do is what you are.
Further enlightening meditations:
1) First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then
there is.
2) There is no sky.
3) North is not up.
Sorry, for the apparent (or actual) incoherence. The first, to
me, means that "mountain," is a mere noise, a word, the thing is
not a mountain, it simply is. The same goes for everything else.
We think that by naming something we reveal, but in truth we
conceal. This causes inital confusion, as has just been
demonstrated, but works itself out.
2) Look up at night. (I've been doing this every clear night
lately staring at Comet Hyakutake). What you are seeing is three
dimensional, at least if it's clear. Some stars are millions of
light years further away than others. There is no dome, no
firmament. Try to experience it directly. Essences and all
transcendental entities are only as real as that dome.
3) There is no "up" in the universe. Virtually any line would
do for a reference. Avoid boreohomohemispherocentricity. (5)
(5) The Trouble with Christmas, Tom Flynn.
Like getting a gut level appreciation of Darwinism, ("actually,
simple things *can* give rise to complex things, here's how it
happens...") understanding that essences don't exist, and that
many mores are purely arbitrary, rather than the result of Divine
Fiat, or even Divine Honda, appears to be one of the things that
people find hard to do. Believing that essences exist leads one
to the thought that the Ideal Government exists, that the Perfect
Human exists, that there is One True Moral Code, and a lot of
other serious mistakes. And, of course, anyone who gets in the
way of Perfection had better watch out.
Existence is all there is.
The material world is all there is.
There is no transcendental to tempt us. We create a falsehood
and tempt ourselves with it.
So, that is why, after experiencing this in a flash, (and you may
be wishing it had been one of those ineffable experiences), the
next thought was a clash of the alleged cry of the Jewish crowd
at the crucifiction, "Let his blood be on us, and on our
children..." clanging against the old Buddhist saying, "If you
meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
I had always interpreted that latter to mean that, if you had any
idea of the Buddha that could be articulated, you would have to
get rid of that idea. In fact, if there were still a "you" left,
then you hadn't made it "there" yet.
I then intuited that we, as atheists and humanists, should accept
the responsibility for doing away with the supernatural, and the
supernatural seeker, the transcendental tempter, in ourselves.
We have slaughtered the supernatural and trashed the
transcendental. For real people living in the real world, it is
not a bad thing to kill Santa, or his anagram, or Jesus. Kill
Krishna, murder Mohammed, massacre Mary, garotte god and hang the
holy ghost; they are only ideas, and no idea is worth a human
life, and any human life is worth hundreds of ideas. The only
good god is a dead god.
Let his ichor be on us, and our memetic descendants. I am proud
to be a Christ-killer.
The last stronghold of "god" is as the ground of essences. (This
is after eliminating god as the creator of the universe, the
creator of life, or the source of consciousness, which we did
last weekend. The authority of the Bible, and other holy books,
was destroyed long ago. Try to keep up.) Rather than a Platonic
transcendental realm, christians speak of the Mind of God, even
some scientists use the metaphor when speaking about the
fundamental laws and relationships of the universe. Chairness is
an Idea in the Mind of God. Morals exist eternally in the mind
of god. The conservation of energy, the Laws of Logic are Ideas
of God, etc.
Sooooo.....Anyway, that's why I thought, "If you meet the Messiah
on the road, crucify him." It's good advice. Kill God, kill all
gods. By whatever method you choose. Guilt, schmilt; Jesus is a
stupid idea that is better off dead and gone. We are all
somewhat infected by Jesus and Christianity memes, or Moses and
Judaism memes, or Mohammed and Islam memes or Krishna and Vedanta
memes. It is long past time for some spring mental house
cleaning.
Coda:
Variations on the theme:
"If you meet the Buddha by the road, kill him."
"If you meet the Messiah on the road, crucify him."
"If you see Santa coming down your chimney, light the fireplace."
"If you see Mary in the sky, open your eyes."
"Rabbit stew is a better meal than bunny eggs."
"If you meet Holy the Ghost, say 'Boo!' and scare it to death."
"If angels dance before you, turn the pin OVER, and poke!" [The
real question is, How many angels can dance on the *point* of a
pin?]
"If Satan offers to buy your sole, refuse, but you *may* ~give~
it away just for the halibut."
OK, now things are just getting silly.
I never met a theist I didn't dispute.
I never met a theos <period>
====================
//*END OF ARTICLE*//
====================
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the gospels
in praise of intelligence." --Bertrand Russell
==========================
//*BEGINNING OF ARTICLE*//
==========================
From: oblio@magi.com (Oblio)
Bear in mind as you read this that in Ontario the Roman Catholic
school boards are publicly funded.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HAMILTON-WENTWORTH ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
90 Mulberry Street P.O. Box 2012
Hamilton, Ontario L8V 4R1 (905) 525-2930
MEMO TO: APPLICANTS FOR TEACHING POSITIONS WITH THE
HAMILTON-WENTWORTH R.C. SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
FROM: MR. J.G. PONIKVAR
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
RE: H00: PASTORAL REFERENCE
Thank you for your interest in seeking employment with this
Board. Roman Catholic Separate Schools of Ontario exist to
provide Roman Catholic parents with the opportunity to ensure
that their children receive a Catholic education. Since Catholic
parents may choose between public and separate schools, their
choice of separate schools reflects their belief that the staff
of a Catholic school will be committed to providing a different
educational experience for their children than might be obtained
in the public schools.
The special character of the Catholic school depends, to a great
extent, upon the religious character of the staff of the school.
We believe, therefore, that we must employ teachers to whom we
can confidently entrust the school and the students with the
assurance that these teachers will give prime concern to
cultivating the practice and development of the faith in
themselves and in their students. A commitment to these
objectives is important if our schools are to maintain and
strengthen the confidence and trust which our Catholic people
have in our schools.
The whole Catholic community has the responsibility of
collaborating in the selection of staff for Catholic schools. It
is for this reason, therefore, that we seek the advice of our
clergy when selecting candidates for positions in the school
system. We expect that each candidate will assist us in
substantiating his/her commitment to the Church and to Catholic
Education and also assure us of his/her willingness to give the
special witness to the faith which is expected of Catholic
teachers in Catholic schools.
(Page 2)
REASON FOR REQUESTING A PASTORAL REFERENCE
1. The Catholic School Board has a duty:
i) to employ teachers to whom it can confidently entrust the
school and the students with the assurance that these teachers
will give the practice and development of the faith prime
concern, ii) to ensure that the character and leadership of a
teacher is such that it will strengthen the confidence and trust
of the people and the clergy in our Catholic Scholls, iii) to
seek the advice of the local Church, in the person of its
pastors, in providing our students and parents with teachers who
will give solid witness to the faith in both word and example.
2. Important Note
References for teachers should be addressed to the Superintendent
of Human Resources. Each letter should be marked "confidential".
The Superintendent will retain the references until such time as
appointments have been confirmed by the Board. References shall
not be copied or distributed to anyone else. It will be the
Superintendent's responsibility to indicate whether or not the
reference received is satisfactory. Following the approval of
the appointments the references will be destroyed.
We suggest that candidates requesting references should be
interviewed by the pastor and if possible, made aware of the
contents of the reference.
(page 3)
HAMILTON-WENTWORTH ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD
PASTORAL REFERENCE
1. Name of candidate:
2. Position for which candidate is applying (to be completed at
the Board office):
In the event that the candidate is not well enough known to you,
you may refer this reference, to be completed by:
(a) _________________________________ (name of priest)
or,
(b) return the form directly to the Superintendent of Human
Resources for follow-up.
________________________ (Signature)
(page 4)
3. Indicate the length of time and in what capacity you have
known this candidate. (Give approximate dates)
4. Does the candidate faithfully attend Sunday Mass and
participate in the frequent reception of the Eucharist? (It is
important that this minimum demonstration of commitment be
clearly established in the reference.)
5. To what extent has the candidate assumed extra
responsibilities in parish life? Indicate whether or not you
consider the candidate's activity satisfactory in view of his/her
aspiration, state of life and available opportunities.
6. Is the candidate, to the best of your knowledge, of good moral
character?
7. Does the candidate, to the best of your knowledge, accept and
profess the basic and essential truths of the Catholic faith?
8. To what degree, in your opinion, does the candidate's
commitment to his or her state of life qualify him or her for the
position to which he or she aspires?
(page 5)
9. Do you have reason to believe that this candidate would be
agood influence on the students under his or her care and on the
other teachers with whom he or she would associate within the
Catholic school community?
10. Do you believe that this candidate would work to enhance and
facilitate the high degree of co-operation which must exist
between the Catholic school and the local pastoral team in such
activities as:
-sacramental preparation
-liturgy preparation
-preparation for celebration?
11. Other comments which you believe need to be made in order to
guide this administration in assessing the candidate's commitment
and suitability as a teacher of Catholic children.
________________________________
Date
PARISH SEAL ________________________________
Signature of Pastor
REMINDER: The Pastor is required to return this form directly to
the Superintendent of Human Resources, Hamilton-Wentworth Roman
Catholic Separate School Board, 90 Mulberry Street, P.O. Box
2012, Hamilton, Ontario,
L8N 3R9, in the return-addressed envelope provided.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I got a copy of the application last year from a Roman Catholic
acquaintance of mine. I borrowed it from her long enough to race
to the nearest photocopier, with my nose piched shut all the
while. I simply HAD to have a copy. When I returned, she
stuttered, "W-w-what are you going to do w-w-with it?" I said,
"Don't worry about it."
One day this discriminarory piece of shit application will sit in
a glass showcase in some Canadian museum. Families will walk by
and the kids will say, "Mommy,mommy, why did the Ontario
government ever sponser that kind of religious discrimination?"
"Shut up Suzie! That document is a fake. It's just a part of
the Atheistic Master Plan to bring shame upon the Holy See."
[Ed. Comment: like that nonsense about Galileo and Giordano
Bruno]
==========================================================
|| END OF TEXTS ||
==========================================================
There is no charge for receiving this, and there is no
charge for distributing copies to any electronic medium.
Nor is there a restriction on printing a copy for use in
discussion. You may not charge to do so, and you may not do
so without attributing it to the proper author and source.
If you would like to support our efforts, and help us
acquire better equipment to bring you more and better
articles, you may send money to Greg Erwin at:
100, Terrasse Eardley
Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5
CANADA.
Donations to the Humanist Association of Canada are tax
deductible from Canadian income.
Articles will be welcomed and very likely used IF:
(
they are emailed to:
((ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA; or,
godfree@magi.com), or
sent on diskette to me at the above Aylmer address in
any format that an IBM copy of WordPerfect can read;
) and
they don't require huge amounts of editing; and
I like them.
I will gladly reprint articles from your magazine, local
group's newsletter, or original material. There are
currently about 140 subscribers, plus each issue is posted
in some newsgroups and is archived as noted elsewhere.
If you wish to receive a subscription, email a simple
request to either address, with a clear request
for a subscription. It will be assumed that the "Reply
to:" address is where it is to be sent.
If you are a humanist, atheist, or freethought orgnaization,
or your web page has a bunch of links or pictures, articles
or programs likely to be of interest to humanists send me
your URL. Likewise, I hope that all nullifidians will place
a link to
http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/index.html
somewhere on the page.
We will automate this process as soon as we know how.
Yes, please DO make copies! (*)
Please DO send copies of The Nullifidian to anyone who might
be interested.
The only limitations are:
At least clearly indicate the source, and how to subscribe.
You do NOT have permission to copy this document for
commercial purposes.
The contents of this document are copyright (c) 1996, Greg
Erwin (insofar as possible) and are on deposit at the
National Library of Canada
You may find back issues in any place that archives
alt.atheism. Currently, all back issues are posted at
the Humanist Association of Ottawa's area on the National
Capital Freenet. telnet to 134.117.1.22, and enter <go
humanism> at the "Your choice==>" prompt.
Visit our web site at
http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/index.html
for back issues of the nullifidian visit
http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree.magazine.html
or go directly to:
gopher://gopher.etext.org:70/11/Zines/Nullifidian/
ARCHIVES
Arrangements have been made with etext at umich. ftp to
etext.umich.edu directory Nullifidian or lucifers-echo.
For America On-Line subscribers:
To access the Freethought Forum on America Online enter
keyword "Capital", scroll down until you find Freethought
Forum, double click and you're there. Double click "Files &
Truth Seeker Articles" and scroll until you find Nullifidian
files. Double click the file name and a window will open
giving you the opportunity to display a description of the
file or download the file.
And thanks to the people at the _Truth Seeker_, who edited,
formatted and uploaded the articles to the aol area.
/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\
Shameless advertising and crass commercialism:
\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/
Atheistic self-stick Avery(tm) address labels. Consisting
of 210 different quotes, 30 per page, each label 2 5/8" x
1". This leaves three 49 character lines available for your
own address, phone number, email, fax or whatever. Each
sheet is US$2, the entire set of 7 for US$13; 2 sets for
US$20. Indicate quantity desired. Print address clearly,
exactly as desired. Order from address in examples below.
Laser printed, 8 pt Arial, with occasional flourishes.
[NOT ACTUAL SIZE]
<-------------------2 5/8"---------------------->
_________________________________________________
|"Reality is that which, when you stop believing |/\
|in it, doesn't go away." [Philip K. Dick] | |
|Greg Erwin 100 Terrasse Eardley | 1"
|Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5 Canada | |
| email: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA | |
|________________________________________________|\/
_________________________________________________
|"...and when you tell me that your deity made |
|you in his own image, I reply that he must be |
|very ugly." [Victor Hugo, writing to clergy] |
|Greg Erwin 100 Terrasse Eardley |
|Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5 Canada Ph: (613) 954-6128 |
| email: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA |
|________________________________________________|
Other quotes in between the articles are usually part of the
label quote file. Occasionally I throw in one that is too
long for a label, but which should be shared.
Once again: ISSN: 1201-0111 The Nullifidian Volume Three,
Number 3: MARCH 1996
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The problem with religions that have all the answers is that
they don't let you ask the questions.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Once again, you can now find me at:
http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/index.html
Follow the link to magazines. There is a gopher link there to an
archive with all of the back issues available.
(*) There is no footnote, and certainly not an endnote.
- fin -
--
I'll never grow up, but I'll never grow down, http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree
It's a raggedy world, it keeps spinning around, ai815@freenet.carleton.ca
Don't sound like much, but I swear it's true: godfree@magi.com
There ain't no time for the worrying blues. -- Buffy Sainte Marie
