Yes, I was once a Catholic and haven’t been one in many years (30+) I did outgrow believing in much of the hocus-pocus ..though even when I was still going, I didn’t take it seriously.
I remember once describing the throat blessing ritual (with the candles) and my date just laughing hysterically. She asked “do you REALLY believe that?” I said: “Well, I did get my flu shot so…draw your own conclusion.”
That might seem harmless. BUT:
IDK who needs to hear this, but Jesus is okay with you eating a Ritz cracker dipped in Merlot tonight instead of potentially exposing hundreds of people to a devastating disease you won’t realize you have until Epiphany.
We are Catholic. And live-streamed mass as our priest approved. Then my ER physician husband spiked a 102 fever at 3am and we breathed a sigh of relief knowing he didn’t potentially expose hundreds to COVID, which killed my grandmother 11 days ago. But yeah, I’m the asshole here.
Will the House impeach President Trump?
I still think that Fareed Zakaria raises some good points. But as the Muller Report gets digested and summarized..
More and more Democrats (and a Republican) in the House are clamoring for impeachment. I had wondered if there were enough votes, given that there are about 30 moderates representing reddish CDs. Fivethirtyeight thinks that there *probably* are.
About 40 House Democrats are openly pushing to start the impeachment process. What will be more interesting to watch are 1. the 35-40 members in swing districts 2. the 150 or so members who are in safe seats but don't really want impeachment either. https://t.co/B8FOcVDARi
Note: Nancy Pelosi is probably wise to slow-walk this.
By slowplaying, she's gradually making Trump look worse without it seeming terribly partisan. His approval rating is down, and Democrats still have plenty of optionality for how to proceed later. https://t.co/uOozJUKzfE
What I find interesting is that so many conservatives are fine with Trump praising a ruthless dictator who executes even his own officials. One was just recently executed.
And I admit that I am disgusted with Trump’s relationship with the military and how there seems to be little push-back (this is about the Navy, at least at first, trying to ensure that Trump didn’t see the ship name “John McCain”. Talk about a “triggered snowflake.”
Political correctness on campus: yes, some students ..AND FACULTY..will reject science if they think that the science in question runs counter to what they think “ought” to be true. Biology catches this from several angles: religious nutters can’t deal with evolution, and the woke can’t deal with the fact that humans aren’t blank slates.
I think that online discussions aren’t helping matters. I wonder if overuse of Twitter is leading me to stat thinking in slogans and catch phrases. There is some research that suggests that Twitter could make you dumber.
I just finished this book; I bought it when I bought several others I was interested in. Yes, I finished it. A decent review is here.
My biggest problem with this book: it reflects what I already think; it didn’t challenge me at all. I found myself wondering: “yes, it is well written but there is nothing surprising or challenging in it for me…” (I loved Professor Coyne’s book Why Evolution is True; it was outstanding and influenced how I see the world).
I even wondered: why is this book even needed? Then I read this.
What I have forgotten, and continue to forget, is that much of the rest of the world has no problem assigning “truth authority” to religious texts, church/religious dogma, etc.
So…I’d say that this is the book I wish I had read 30-35 years ago, back when I still had some vestiges of “faith” in me. I was growing serious doubts and many (most?) of them were outlined in this book.
If I had to sum the book up in a few paragraphs, I’d say:
1. Religious faith..or any religious system worthy of the word “faith” makes concrete claims about our world and universe and ..I’ll leave it to Mano Singham:
What is being asserted is that sophisticated theologians and philosophers, people who are much smarter than me, have studied these issues in great depth and have already explained everything and we need to go to them to find answers. God is so subtle that it is only through immersion in the works of these theologians and philosophers that we can obtain an understanding of him. Those of us who are not professional theologians and philosophers should shut up about our demands for dumb old evidence and not draw any conclusions on the question of god’s existence until we have devoted years to carefully studying the works of these theologians and philosophers.
This idea that god is so hard to grasp will no doubt come as news to the billions of religious believers who think they know god pretty well and have a good relationship with him without such study.
But we atheists are not talking about understanding the nature of god. We are not talking about the meaning of god. We are talking about whether god exists or not. This should surely be the prior question and is one that depends on evidence for an answer.
What atheists like me say to religious believers is simply the following: If the existence of your god has empirical consequences, then provide empirical evidence that supports your contention. If it has no empirical consequences whatsoever, then say so and we will not interfere with your theological and philosophical ruminations because we do not really care to speculate on the properties of what we consider to be a mythical entity.
(bold face is mine)
In other words, any “faith” worth pondering must leave some honest to goodness detectable signature. So where is it? If one doesn’t exist, then this conversation is over.
Life of an old goat 