Halloween and Swordless Conversions

With the Halloween season upon us I know I'm going to see a lot of "Did you know that Halloween was originally a pagan holiday?" in the week or two leading up to the holiday. I'm going to do a lot of facepalming, because it's just silly; it's sort of like an atheist rite of passage to post something about Halloween and its pagan roots. Instead, let's look at it from a different perspective: It's one of the best examples of a swordless conversion in a time when a lot of conversions were by the sword.

Bear in mind that I'm not saying that there were no conversions by the sword. It wasn't until Pope Pius XXII that forced conversions were banned by the Catholic Church, stating that such conversions were of debatable worth; a convert had to do so willingly or the possibility of sliding back into his prior state was too high. From a more practical point, such a convert was likely to resent his forced state and would possibly betray those who converted him at a later date. And before I hear about the moral outrage of how the religious have been doing forced conversions, I'd quickly point out that China and Russia are infamous for their forced conversions to atheism, especially right after their respective revolutions.

However, while there were forced conversions in Europe, there are some situations where the Catholic Church went an entirely different route. By and large a lot of the conversions in Europe were by example, where the Church decided to show what they could do and what they could bring to the table compared to the pagan gods. As a rule these peaceful conversions were actually pretty successful; from the perspective of the local population this usually ended up being a winning situation as it made them part of something bigger and therefore better able to defend itself from outside threats. It also provided an alternative in some cases to the local method of justice as there was a gradual conversion from trial by combat to other methods. Even the tithe was a welcome change from the local tribute for some locations. Overall, for small villages tried of dealing with barbarian, pirate, and viking invasions, conversion was welcomed.

This does not mean that the situation went solely one direction. Like any other interaction, things tend to go both ways at some point. Besides picking up some arcane medical knowledge here and there, as well adding to the historical record, there were some other interesting trades as well. There was some cultural shifts as well; some of those local populations were able to infect the Church with the idea that celebrating the dead was a good idea. With a little persuasion, the Church was able to convert the locals to go for a hybrid holiday celebrating the Christian saints and, in some cases, a lot less human sacrifice. Again, a win-win; Catholics gained a great new holiday, and the locals were able to keep most of their holiday plans.

Admittedly there was some coercion, but overall this was more of a peaceful take-over. More to the point there was some flow both ways, making it one of the more interesting compromises in history.....

Witches, WItchcraft, and Interpretation

Harry Potter, despite my own feelings, is not demonic. A lot of Christians have a problem with magic in pop culture, and how its portrayal seems to encourage its use; apparently children that see spells being used in movies and in books start doing it themselves. Like almost any silly notion there are a number of issues that give this one some credence.

Let's start with "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Witches in the Ancient World were a real thing; there were used primarily for cures, curses, and divination. Although the cures were okay, the other were two were a major problem, as only God was supposed to know the future and curses were a serious no-no by any stretch. As such it made a certain sense to dispose of witches whenever they were found, especially those that had no problems using their curses.

Let's go forward all the way to the New Testament, Matthew 5:22-24. Basically, although they are talking about lust, the idea is that whatever you feel is real essentially is real. When it comes to lust the correlation is pretty obvious, as if you feel attracted to another person and are willing to act on it you may as well be committing the sin of adultery; this is where the idea of "committing adultery in your heart" came from. This has been generalized so that it applies to any sin and it has been generalized a bit; in essence, if you even think about committing a sin, you may as well have committed it. Going back to the magic issue, this means that even thinking about about casting a spell makes you a witch, and....well. Yeah.

The problem here is that one group of verses has been applied a bit too generally. The original intent was for there to be an actual intent; you needed to want to follow through with the sin in question. This doesn't refer to mere fantasizing or acting as if you wanted to do it, but an actual desire to do it; there has to be an actual desire to follow through with the idea and see what happens. This is why it applies so well to lust; it's okay to fantasize a little, but once you start thinking about it seriously it can lead to problems. On a relationship level it means that the person may fall out of love, leading to its own complications, while on a personal level it can become a harmful distraction, and get in the way of other pursuits, such as work.

When it comes to popularizing the use of magic, however, it just ain't happening. While they use magic, it's usually not of the usually proscribed kind, specifically divination and curses, and in fact curses are usually forbidden even in fiction while divination is rarely used. At the same time the lack of intent to use actual magic from those watching it makes it hardly the recruiting tool it is suspected of being. Nonetheless, it could be argued that the veneration of Harry Potter could be construed as worshipping a graven image, so there is that at least....

Gaming Karma

Something I love about the less-than-religious is the concept of karma. These people honestly think that merely doing a good deed once in a while is good enough to balance some sort of cosmic scales against the bad things that they do. Suffice to say that it doesn't quite work that way.

As expressed in a number of beliefs, karma is the belief that what you put out will come back to you. A good way of looking at it is an old-school victory garden. A "victory garden" was a British way of dealing with dealing with rationing in WWII; you could ease some of the problems by raising some of your own food in your backyard. It may not seem like much, but you would be surprised how much food even a half-acre grows, especially when you have a whole neighborhood working together. Victory gardens can only grow what is put into them, and they require some maintenance to keep going; if you maintain your garden poorly you'll starve, but if you maintain well you'll feast.

Karma is like that victory garden. If you just go out and water it every so often it's probably not going to grow so well; you seriously need to get it watered for it to prosper. Sure, you can throw some serious manure at it, but if you want something besides mushrooms you need to expose it to the sunshine every so often. You also need to have some fun with it; if it's just a chore it's not going to do as well as if you really went for it. Suffice to say that you also need to weed it every so often as well. Of course, you also need to make sure that you are using the right seeds and giving hem the best chance to grow. Do that, and your victory garden will do well; otherwise, you'll have a dead patch of weeds.

In practical terms, this means that you need to seriously pursue good karma in order to actually obtain it. You need to perform basic maintenance, such as doing the good deeds, forgiving others, and even backing down on occasion. You can have some dark spots as long as you balance it with some humor; I'm not saying you have to be Mister Sunshine all the time but do try to avoid being the dark cloud at all times. Take a look at your life every so often and remove anything that may be toxic. Above all, get into it; you can be a jerk as long as overall you contribute more to the situation and enable those around you to grow as well.

Karma is a lot more than just doing the every-so-often good deed. You need to put some time and effort into it for it to work. If you just put a little effort into every-so-often it's not going to be something that you will be proud of. If you want the advantages coming in from karma you need to put some work into it. Like everything else you get back whatever you put in; put a lot in, and trust me you will get a lot back. 

Does Reality Know It's Objective?

"If your belief system is not founded in an objective reality, you should not be making decisions that affect other people." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Can someone please send Neil DeGrasse Tyson back to the lab? While I respect all that he has done for the field of physics, the guy needs to step away from the realms of philosophy. I'm sort of in a weird position here: I love that he has done a lot to bring an interest in physics, but at the same time I'm not sure that a science background makes one an expert in religious matters. I'm not trying to say that he should have no opinion, it's just that when he starts discussing religion it seems he tends to be a rabid atheist, and one that tries to discredit religion through logic. Sometimes he tends to go a little far.

Recently, he pointed out those only those whose belief system is based an objective reality should make decisions for other people. This eliminates pretty much everyone. Ignoring the philosophical issues (covered by Kant pretty well), the problem is that there is no objective reality. I know that has to sound weird, but it's because reality is neither objective or subjective; it just is. More to the point, most scientists got away from the idea of an objective universe decades ago.

The problem is that an objective reality implies that there is only correct description of reality, and that it is independent of the perception of any sentient being; in short, there is one truth and that truth exists regardless of what we think of it. While this sounds like it would be common sense, the problem is that there are a few cracks in the concept.

The first problem is that we're not likely to ever really figure out that truth. While I get that Tyson is most likely attempting to point out that we should look at things objectively, the reality is that no human ever looks at things completely objectively. Two people can look at the same thing and have two different opinions of it. While it can be argued that as long as they arrived at the different conclusions through logical thought then they should be considered roughly equal, the reality is that they can't; one opinion has to be right, or at least the best solution.

However, this is complicated by the very nature of modern physics. While in most sciences we can put our theories to an actual test, the same doesn't really apply to physics. Physics, and especially astronomy, is virtually a realm of pure logic, where out ability to deduce how the universe works is arguably at its finest. However, that also means that it is just as likely to involve all else of what we are, which includes our emotions. Given how hard it is to prove which theory is the right one and that it gets really fun when you start figuring out how one theory plays off against another one. Arguments between physicists can get heated; just look at how often you've seen nerd rage over something as insignificant as Power Girl's lack of a symbol, and then realize that it's something done for free. Some of these arguments involve millions of dollars of grants and corporate sponsorships, so it's easy to see why some of them get really heated.

And that assumes that the universe itself is an objective entity. We know nothing really of the universe at the macro-level; he have maps, sure, and we know how much it weighs, but we have no real idea how everything interacts together. We're just beginning to realize that a minor effect in one area can have a major effect elsewhere; there is the proverbial butterfly that creates hurricanes on the other side of the globe. It gets worse when we start looking at the really big events, such as the Fukijima Incident, and their effects on the planet. And things only scale up; why shouldn't an event in the far flung corners of the universe really mess things up for someone else in the center of the universe?

And it only gets weirder. There is a reason for things like the Gaia Theory, where some people believe that the planet has ways to defend itself and can even manipulate events should one area need something that another can provide; this is not just a mere anthropomorphism of the planet but something that a number of scientists are actually starting to debate. What if the some version exists at the universal level?

I'm not suggesting that the universe is watching us or that it even cares about the human race. I am, however, making an observation on just how little we know about the universe, and how it works and that we're depending on humans that are hardly objective to determine how it works. It just feels weird to make any kind of call on whether or not the universe is some kind of objective or subjective entity at this particular point in time. If it turns out the universe is essentially a cold and dead entity later on, I can live with that, as long as that point is at a much later date than right now. 

Do Religious Children Differentiate Between Reality and Fiction Later?

Recently a study was released that pointed out that children with a religious background had a problem recognizing fictional characters while those from a more secular background did not. Suffice to say that it has already been used in attacks against the religious. The problem is there are some interesting cognitive issues worth considering.

A major problem is that was not evidently addressed is that The Bible is a mix of fact of fiction. Unlike other fiction that children are likely to encounter where there is a definite line of fantasy; in biblical stories that line is harder to define. While there are any number of characters that are probably created out of whole cloth and others that are arguably amalgamations of actual people, there are also a lot of characters that can be looked up as real people. It needs to be noted that a lot of archaeologists have used The Bible as a starting point for their research, as have any number of other scientists.

That's something that needs to be considered here. From a six-year-old child's perspective it is easy to see any biblical character as a real person, especially as most of them were. This is not Greek mythology where the characters are obviously fictional; these may be fictionalized people, but they are still real people. (Note: I'm not saying that everyone in The Bible is a real person, and those people are not relevant here.] He is also no doubt used to family stories where exaggeration is the rule, not the exception. As such, it would be hard for a kid to recognize something like The Bible as fantasy.

Look at a from the perspective of the kid. You read about King David in The Bible, and then you read up on him in an encyclopedia that King David was an actual king, and that a lot of what is presented in The Bible actually happened. Scientists have actually argued that not only could Goliath have existed, but that David could have killed him with a sling exactly as described. The same applies to the crucifixion of Jesus; doctors have broken it down from a strictly medical perspective based on the biblical account. If there is that much fact then it has to be real right?

Obviously dealing with The Bible as a kid, where a lot of it really happened. It's easy to see why a kid would see a lot of it as fact. It doesn't help that one in four adults believe that The Bible is literally true, making it even harder to tell fact from fiction. As such, while on one hand I can see where the study makes sense, on the other I'm just not sure if telling whether or not any biblical character is fictional or not would be easy for any kid who has time to do the research rather than relying solely on what a researcher is asking. It may just be too complicated for a six-year-old kid to really differentiate between fact and fiction.

Dealing WIth Cop Abuse

I am really starting to get tired of Cop Block. I'm just really tired of fact-checking a stupid meme. I recognize that something needs to be done about police brutality, especially in light of the events of Ferguson. By the same token, however, this is a problem that needs to be approached as objectively as possible. There is a balance issue that needs to be debated: One one hand the police need to do a job no one else wants to deal with, but the rights of the arrested need to be allowed for as well. This is not going to be an easy debate.

There have definitely been too many mysterious suicides where the person was handcuffed in the back of a cop car. There has to be a better weeding out process for cops, especially during the training phase. Making sure that cameras are part of the basic equipment needs to be seriously looked at, and penalties for not having the camera on during an arrest need to created enforced. This is one time when "accidentally" leaving it off or turning it off during an arrest should not be considered an excuse. I would also suggest some sort of anger management session made mandatory for all cops in the field, but they should be paid for it; a little meditation would save any precinct a lot in potential court and training costs.

I think cities also need to debate some sort of citizen oversight board. This would allow citizens to investigate to investigate police abuses, and suggest solutions before problems escalate as well as after. They should have the power to fire police, or at least suggest it, as well as the ability to suggest that charges be brought. Although I'm sure that the COB would quickly sympathize with the police as they learn the nature of some of the complaints, there needs to be some community input.

I think that this a solvable problem, or at least one that can be solved well enough to work. Something does need to be done, and the sooner the better. And if it could start with someone slapping Cop Block, I would be much appreciative. 

The Fight For Equality Begins With Us

One of the nastiest things that you can do against evil is to show it why it is wrong, and sometimes that means showing why its goals will not work. In the fight to deal with racism, sexism, and homophobia, too many of those in the fight forget that those forces rely on the fight we have with The Other. Part of human nature is that we fear those that are different than us, that are obviously what we are not. Although it served our forebears well, we need to discard that part of our humanity

The fight against inequality has borne some ugly fruit and we need to cull it. Those that fight against racism tend to fight not as a coherent group but as gangs divided along racial lines. Native Americans point to their betrayal by the United States government as if they were the only ones ever betrayed by treaty. Blacks act as if they were the only ones to experience the lash of slavery. Some Jews forget that they are hardly the first nor last to experience genocide. And so on and so forth.

Feminists forget that the oppressed too often become the oppressors. This is apparent far too obviously when they hew to the image of woman as innocent. Women are just as capable of villainy as men, yet disclaim the rogues of the gender; if you can be a hero, you can also be the villain. Some feminists need to realize that if one person is oppressed then we all are, and that if we are to have any chance of dealing with oppression then we must fight together as equals, not as men and women but as persons. To exclude men from the fight for equality is to encourage the same inquality, just from another direction; by limiting the fight to just women, or even with men in a secondary role, is to admit that equality is impossible and the fight is already lost. I'd prefer it be won, personally.

And I'm not even going to get into the issues of the differently gendered and the atheist, as it just starts getting complicated. We just need to stop looking at differences as if they mattered and start celebrating that there are so many ways of looking at the world. I would much rather we fight as brothers and sisters, willing to defend our own views no matter but putting that aside when our siblings are attacked. We need to remember that when you fight monsters you must hold on to the most positive parts of your humanity lest you yourself become one of the monsters yourself. 

What Would Jesus Do About Religion?

[I blame Kurt Belcher for this...]

Here's an interesting question for you: Would Jesus dismantle all theistic religion if He were given a chance?

I know it's a possibly a heretical thought, but I think it's worth exploring. His actions certainly bring the question to mind. His attack on the temple merchants resulted in sacrifice being eliminated. He also brought into question all of the death sentences of the Old Testament; His attitude regarding casting the first stone is noteworthy. A careful look at the parable of the Good Samaritan shows that those that considered themselves as "religious" sometimes took themselves too seriously and that created some level of hypocrisy. There was reason to worry about being religious rather than spiritual, and Jesus never had a problem pointing that out.

He also questioned having two sets of laws for his followers. In essence, rather than looking at the proscriptions of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as a law unto themselves, He suggested that his followers worry more about the laws of the land in which they found themselves. When He discusses tithing versus taxes, He also mentions that higher priority should be given to the law of the land than holy law. This especially irked the Pharisees as they were dependent on the Jews following their rule rather than that of Rome. Again, He saw having those two sets of rules creating more pride, as the rules created exclusivity rather than inclusivity. There was a greater advantage to being part of the local crowd rather than being apart from it.

Jesus constantly pointed out that anything that prevented a person from reaching God should be ignored. By that time some groups, such as the Pharisees, were more worried about appearing to be holy rather than actually being holy; the irony is that the laws meant to bring God's people closer to him were actually driving them further away. Because of this, and Jesus' status as an iconoclast, I think it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Jesus had not been slated for sacrifice...

Writing About The Non-Existence of Jesus Christ

One of the fun articles that keeps coming up is that some new atheist book comes out on existence of Jesus Christ, or more accurately his non-existence. Usually, it tends to rely on the same lack of evidence, and so it tends to get a little tired. So, in an effort to help future writers, here are some considerations:

1) Stop looking for a paper trail. Too many researchers are looking for some of the same proof that a person would leave today, such as birth certificates, death certificates, or even identification papers. This is apparently based on the idea that since the Romans kept excellent records, those records should exist somewhere. And, hey, Jerusalem was the center of learning, so Jesus would have been mentioned in books, right? The reality is that Jerusalem was still a pre-literate society where an amazing 10% of the populace could read. Yeah: 10%. As such not a lot of records would have been kept. More to the point, if the records did ever exist they were likely destroyed at some point, either to keep paperwork down or simply due to age.

Another consideration is that we see value in keeping those records as they from part of the historical legacy from previous generations, but also help in the legal system. Back then it simply didn't matter. If a man was alive he was alive, but if he was declared dead it was up to him to prove he wasn't before his belongings were split up. Births were pretty obvious who the parents were so that didn't matter. As punishments were carried out almost as quickly as they were handed down, there was no real court of appeals so there was no need of paperwork for the potential appeals judge. As such, between the lack of need and sheer age, there is unlikely to be an actual paper trail.

2) Stop aging The Gospels. You can tell the agenda of the writer by when the writer says that The Gospels were written. This applies both ways: a believer will average about fifty years after the passing of Jesus, while an atheist will average about two hundred years. Most historians place the average closer to one hundred, and I emphasize "the average". The reality is that there is a lot of doubt, even though they were written between 50-150 years after Jesus.

It also needs to be noted that this was standard operating procedure back then. In order to make the records more objective the books were written well after the event, "after the passion had gone". It wasn't uncommon for a book to be written on an event twenty or more years after the event. Yeah, this has created issues with other historical events as well.

3) Take a more analytical approach to The Gospels. Here's the deal: Historians don't worry too much about the details of an event, only that it happened. They know that numbers are going to be increased or decreased in order to make the teller look better, that events will be "enhanced" or forgotten to make the teller look better, and that there will even be differences between tellers as they emphasize different details. As such, while The Gospels do contradict each other on details, they contradict themselves on details about the same events. For most historians, that works, and that also works in a court of law.

4) Take contemporary records with a grain of salt. You need to realize that Jerusalem was considered the armpit of the Ancient World. Although it was well-located port and there was a lot knowledge available, you did have to deal with a local population that was constantly revolting or threatening to, and part of the problem with knowledge is that you had to deal with those seeking it; Jerusalem was full of "wise men" that could make some of our modern conspiracy theorists look sane. If the Weekly World News had been around there would have been a lot of stories coming out of it. All told, Jerusalem was something for those whose careers had ended or were jut starting, but overall was not a place you wanted to be stationed.

This means that there would have been little focus on what was happening here, and it would have had to be major for anyone to care. Yet another wise man leading a revolt, even a peaceful one, would have been mentioned but that's about it. Historians do find these mentions but because of how limited they are, usually just a lone or two, they tend to get ignored and rightfully so. Yes: You have a Christian telling you to disregard some of the proof of Jesus Christ's existence. Darn honesty and all that.

So....when it comes down to it, when someone publishes yet another book about how Jesus Christ never existed, I'll make the bet that it ignores one of those four things, if not all of them. Just something to consider.