Now that's a reassuring message.

Humanist Bus Ad FAQ
Canadian Athiest Bus Campaign

To make up for it, here's something moderately less silly. It's still a travel moment, however.

On Thursday morning, I rode the bus in from London to Toronto. I had forgotten how drab the bus is compared to the train. Anyway, so my reading material for this trip is Christopher Hitchens' compilation of essays The Portable Atheist (really good, by the way). During a pause in my reading I put the book on my lap, and then wondered what people would make of this book - would people care? Do some religious people hate athiests? I've never really paused to think if there is some stigma attached to athiesm in Canada.

And having paused to think about it, I didn't really have an answer. And, while I'm not ashamed of being a non-believer, I may have slightly hid the cover, just in case there was an angry right-winger religious fundamentalist nearby. So then I look over to the guy in the next set of seats over, and he's reading Discerning the Word: The Bible and Homosexuality in Anglican Debate by Paul Gibson. Not that these books have anything to do with each other, nor am I exactly sure what that Anglican text is even about, but I had to have a laugh at how that all played out in my noggin.

Just to add another word about The Portable Atheist. One of the essays I recently read in there was by Elizabeth Anderson, If God is dead, is everything permitted? In it she makes an argument that the Christian God of the Bible cannot form the basis of any moral authority, and boy is it a doozy of a read (full of examples of those stunning contradictions the Bible does so well). I quote the abstract below from her website:

Many people object to atheism because they believe that if there is no God, then morality lacks authority. The worry is that "if God is dead, then everything is permitted." We know that not everything is permitted--and in particular, that practices such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, slavery, torture, plunder, rape, punishing people for the sins of others, and punishing people for blameless error are not permitted. It follows that any doctrine that entails that such things are permitted is false. I accept the logic of this argument. But I deny that atheism entails that such things are permitted. This charge is better made against the evidence for theism. The main evidence for theism is scripture. If we take this evidence with the utmost seriousness, as inerrant, then the evidence entails that the evil practices listed above are permitted, since the God of the Old and New Testaments and the Koran either commits these deeds himself, is prophecied to commit them in the future, or commands humans to commit them. Since these practices are not permitted, the evidence for theism is systematically unreliable--so unreliable, that it cannot be trusted to advance the case for theism at all. I consider theistic replies to this argument, and go on to consider independent evidence for the incorrigible unreliability of all the types of extraordinary evidence offered for the existence of God: testimonies of miracles, revelations in dreams or what people take to be direct encounters with God, experiences of divine presence, and prophecies that have been subject to test. These types of evidence are equally available to all religions, including pagan religions. There is no independent natural evidence that supports the extraordinary evidence for one sort of God or gods more than another. Nor do we have other noncircular tests for determining the reliability of extraordinary evidence. It follows that these purported types of evidence make no proposition about the divine more probable than any other contradictory proposition about the divine. Such "evidence" is no evidence at all. In other words, there is no evidence for the existence of a theistic (personal) God.

No comment: 47

Agnostic (3 total):
"Agnostic"
"Still Pondering"
"I dunno"

Funny comments (18 total):
"Evangelical Carebear"
"Ambivalent"
"Agnostic with Epicurean leanings"
"Jesus is Amazing"
"meh?"
"Brigadoon"
"With sexy results!"
"God rides a Harley"
"Other" x2
"Disillusioned"
"Earth, Air, Water, Fire"
"Madonna's Kabbalah"
"love is... for sharing"
"Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe."
"Armageddon, bring me home"
"I can't decide whether I am for, or against Karma"
"Also "other" -- mostly I believe in the power of cybertronic pirates (with monkey helpers)"

Affiliation (11 total):
Christian 7 (-United, -Mennonite -Catholic)
Jewish 1 (-Orthodox)
Hindu 2
Pagan 1

Non-affiliated religion (2 total):
"Believe in God but not religion"
"spiritual"

Non-religious (4 total):
Atheist 3
Secular Humanist 1

So, what is the significance of this finding? Well, I'm not sure, to be honest with you. Clearly, claiming affiliation either to religion, or not, is in the minority (20%), with the majority not naming their position (55.3%), and a surprisingly high number making a witty comment (21.2%). Only a very small number claim to not know what they believe (3.5%).

So, then, we need to look at what we don't know. We don't know whether those that make no comment do so because they are private about their religion, or because they haven't chosen an affiliation. We also don't know why such a high number choose to make a 'joke' comment, rather than make a statement of fact. What differentiates those who wish to make their religious affiliation publicly known, and those that do not?

We also need to consider the venue, an online social networking site. There is probably concern by some parties that future employers or other persons of import may look at a profile, and judge the person based upon the information presented, particularly religious affiliation. Others may feel that religion is something they share at their church or with their family, but not the larger community. Likely a great majority are just not comfortable sharing with their friends what religious view they hold. Speaking from personal experience, discussion of religious issues is not something that comes up in casual conversation with friends, even very old, close friends.

Is religion the last great taboo of our age-group? (You wouldn't guess so from America-Middle East politics) What makes people hold it so close to their chest? Do people judge others based on religious preference?

I'd love your insight on this one.

1 Ottawa - Gatineau ON
2 Halifax NS
3 Québec QC
4 Guelph ON ( Guelph's Rating )
5 Fredericton NB
6 Kingston ON
7 Moncton NB
8 London ON
9 Victoria BC
10 Gander NL
11 Collingwood ON
12 Toronto ON
13 Winnipeg MB
14 Leamington ON
15 Vancouver BC
16 Saskatoon SK
17 Cobourg ON
18 Windsor ON
19 Brandon MB
20 Orillia ON
21 Kitchener ON
22 Hamilton ON
23 Montréal QC
24 Oshawa ON
25 Thompson MB
26 Peterborough ON
27 St. John's NL
28 Calgary AB
29 Corner Brook NL
30 Yellowknife NT
31 Edmonton AB
32 Port Hope ON
33 Joliette QC
34 Stratford ON
35 Lloydminster AB
36 Lethbridge AB
37 Kenora ON
38 Tillsonburg ON
39 Regina SK
40 North Bay ON
41 Victoriaville QC
42 Sherbrooke QC
43 St. Catharines - Niagara ON
44 Yorkton SK
45 Saint John NB
46 Rimouski QC
47 Magog QC
48 Whitehorse YK
49 Saint-Georges QC
50 Brantford ON

I'm currently watching the 'debunking' of evolution by Kirk Cameron and his pal Ray Comfort. The kinds of things they do to disprove evolution:

1. Ask college students about where we came from. Point out in writing every time they say "I don't know".
2. Tell us that the only proof of evolution is in the fossil record. Which is not correct. And then point out how inadequate it is. Which is correct. But then forget to mention all the other bits of evidence.
3. Get a chimp on set. Get really upset when the chimp misbehaves. Tell us that this is proof that we could not have shared a common ancestor.
4. Suggest that the reason that chimps and humans 'look' similar is not because of shared ancestry, but because God was our common designer, as if that's easier to accept. Why then, do humans and birds look so different? Because we had different designers?
5. Go back to asking people on the street about evolution. Bask in their inability to answer.
6. Make sure to put finger "quotes" around "fossil" when saying "fossil record".

There's much more good stuff - there's one for atheism, too. "It's funny that we equate the word atheism with intellectual, but it's the exact opposite". Gee, thanks, that's really going to convert me.

The problem (depending on what you believe, of course) with this stuff is that it's so slick, so well produced, that it's very easy to buy into, if you don't know about the larger body of evidence, or if you have never had any formal education on the subject. What if they represented both sides of the argument..?

Here's a bit of fun:

And here's Jeffrey Rowland's response in cartoon format.

Limbo, the state between heaven and hell where almost eight centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching consigned the virtuous but unbaptized, is expected to be abandoned soon by Pope Benedict XVI.

The only one entitled to sanction the limbo’s abolition, the Pope has blessed a 41-page report of the International Theological Commission, titled, "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized."

An advisory body to the Vatican, the 30-member commission concluded that the concept of limbo reflected an "unduly restrictive view of salvation."

"There is greater theological awareness today that God is merciful and wants all human beings to be saved. Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ's special love for the little ones," the report, posted on the Catholic News Service Web site, said.

Augustine’s view was based on the assumption that only baptism removes the stain of original sin ­— which all children are born with. Thus, unbaptized babies would simply go to hell, though their punishment would be the mildest of all.

In a new book, "Creation and Evolution," published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.

"The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science," the pope said.

He stopped short of endorsing intelligent design, but said scientific and philosophical reason must work together in a way that does not exclude faith.

But wait a sec, didn't the last pope, JPII, suggest that maybe Darwin was on to something?

"The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this," Benedict said. "But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

Actually, Benny, the evidence is practically overwhelming.

So, wait, does that mean that the last pope was fallible? Doesn't that make this pope fallible too? (Update: Yes and No, according to Sam of 'Dire and Dear'.  The pope is only considered infallible when it comes to Catholic doctrine; on matters outside of that realm the popes can err to their hearts content.)

Thank you, Pope Benedict XVI, for continuing to show the irrelevance of organized religion in the modern age. And we hoped that Roman Catholicism might be able to distance itself from fundamentalist American Christianity. I guess not.

Thanks for the news tip, Marty!