Photo from Flickr and David Orban

An opinion from Jim Wilson:

John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. -Matthew 3:4

“I’d rather eat a big old bug! Than ever take a stupid drug!” -1998, anti-drug public service announcement

Industrial meat production is environmentally destructive, horribly cruel to the animals, unsanitary, a source of noxious odors, and highly inefficient. I have seen the environmental destruction that large scale hog facilities do to both air and water quality. I have heard countless stories of the livestock being over crowed, unable to move, and subject to painful body modifications. A Google search and will tell you that it takes around estimated 7 to 15 pounds of grain to produce a single pound of beef. Much of this grain of course is produced through agricultural systems which involve large supplies of chemicals including fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. It is time for to look for alternatives to the typical American diet.

The pros and cons of vegetarianism and veganism are well understood and I do not wish to explore those options here. We could eat more wild meat which can be a very positive thing since there are many places in the country where deer and other herbivores are in need of population control since we’ve killed off the natural, native predators. However, we wouldn’t be able to feed our large population with wild meat and sadly many do not have the time or ability to go to America’s wild lands and hunt or fish and there are those who simply do not want hunt or fish and find the killing of sentient beings objectionable.

There exists a very practical solution: Entomophagy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomophagy), the practice of eating insects as food. Insects have long been a major part of the human diet, and they are an excellent source of protein. While eating ants and beetles has become taboo in much of the western world, it is still a common practice in many parts of Central and South America, Africa, Asia, Australia, and New Zealand. Entomophagy has been documented in 80% of the world’s nations. There are currently 1,417 known species of arthropods edible to humans, making for endless variety. These include not only insects but arachnids and myriapods, the group that includes centipedes and millipedes.

Crickets, cicadas, grasshoppers, ants, various beetle grubs, caterpillars, and tarantula’s are common snack foods around the world. For example, Algerians collect desert locust, cook them with salt and water, and dry them in the sun. Australian Aborigines use Bogong moths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogong_moth) to make into cakes. They also use Witchetty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchetty_grub) grubs, for a snack that has be compared to almonds. The Japanese still use a number of insects including Silk moths, after they have passed the stage of producing silk, as food. Roasted crickets and grasshoppers are eaten in much of Africa, and I have been told, that fried or chocolate covered ants are eaten in a manner similar to pop corn in several places.

These are a good source, of Iron, Calcium, unsaturated fats, lysine, and many vitamins and minerals. They are also a much more efficient source of these nutrients than the meat of larger livestock. Mammals use a lot of what they eat to keep themselves warm and only around 10% of what cattle consume become parts of their bodies. With insects the range is 20-40% depending on the species. A study with house crickets found them to be 2 to 6 times as efficient as various forms of traditional food animals. They also, have the advantage of reproducing much faster. They require less space, food, and water than traditional livestock. These factors give insects food conversion efficiency nearly 20 times higher than beef.

Entomophagy, has gotten some exposure in recent years on reality TV but not in an appealing light. There are events, however, where people with much more sophisticated cooking backgrounds produce accessible insect based food. In any case the food production processes inevitably results in insects into our food and we have all ingested countless insect parts without realizing or ill effect. The USDA currently allows an average of 150 or more insect fragments per 100 grams of wheat flower.

One last thing, insect consumption is far more ethical than that of other animals in that you are not killing creatures with sophisticated brains or high levels self awareness. Contrast that to the common pigs which apparently are more intelligent than our dogs. Insects lack sophisticated mental hardware and there is little remorse associated with eating them, swatting them, or seeing them die. In that way they are a much more humane food choice than our cattle, lambs, chickens or pigs. You can expect that in this era of communication and epicurean adventurism, there will be many new and exciting dishes featuring them coming soon.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) This is a great logical fallacy. It’s used all the time but the name is confusing and misunderstood and it is rarely identified correctly. When someone asks, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” They are using the begging the question fallacy. The question includes an assumption that may not be true and the answer—either yes or no—doesn’t do anything to refute that assumption. The confusion in the name is caused by the term “begging.” In this case, “begging” actually means “avoiding.” (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/beg-the-question.html). The term, begging the question, is often misused to mean “raising the question.” Language changes over time with use and now more people are using the term incorrectly. When I point out this fallacy I often end up using more time explaining the fallacy than making my point. Due to the confusion, we need a new name for the “begging the question” fallacy. There are efforts to stop using the term incorrectly (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/beggingquestion_4.htm) but it’s probably a losing battle. We definitely need a new name for it that is less confusing. The fallacy is similar to circular reasoning but not quite the same because the assumed premise is not necessarily the same as the conclusion.

Here’s a quote from the Skeptics Guide to the Universe webpage on the subject of logical fallacies (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx). This quote refers to Dr. Steven Novella’s appearance on the Dr. Oz show in April 2011 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/watch-steve-novella-on-the-dr-oz-show-on-tuesday/):

 In my appearance on the Dr. Oz show I was asked – what are alternative medicine skeptics (termed “holdouts”) afraid of? This is a double feature of begging the question. By using the term “holdout” the question assumes that acceptance is already become the majority position and is inevitable. But also, Oz begged the question that skeptics are “afraid.” This also created a straw man (see below) of our position, which is rather based on a dedication to reasonable standards of science and evidence.

 Here’s an unfair question that an Atheist might ask a believer, “Aside from religion, do you hold any other irrational beliefs?” By asking the question in this way, I get to assume the premise that religious beliefs are irrational without opening it up for discussion. I’ve thus “begged” or “avoided” the question.

Critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking) is not a passive activity and goes way beyond common sense. It is a skill that needs to be exercised at every opportunity.

Questions about logical fallacies and other subjects associated with critical thinking are often discussed at meetings of the Skeptics of Tucson (http://www.meetup.com/Skeptics-of-Tucson/) now being held at the Denny’s on Speedway just west of Alveron on the second Monday of the month at 7 PM. Of course, we don’t always talk about logical fallacies. Other topics include conspiracy theories, paranormal claims, UFOs, and alternate medicine, to name a few.

Jim Wilson has some thoughts about President Obama’s evolving view of same sex marriage:

 “It doesn’t have ANY effect on your life. What do you care? People try to talk about it like it’s a social issue. Like when you see someone stand up on a talk show and say “How am I supposed to explain to my child that two men are getting married?” …. I dunno,it’s your s****y kid, you f****n’ tell ‘em. Why is that anyone else’s problem? Two guys are in LOVE but they can’t get married because YOU don’t want to talk to your ugly child for f****n ’ five minutes?” -Louis C.K.

 ”Call me cynical, but I didn’t think his views on marriage could get any gayer.” -Senator Rand Paul

In the not to distant future probably only a few decades from now same-sex marriages will become common place and the people who are part of them will be your friends, family, and neighbors. It will be apparent that their love is just as genuine as any hetero-sexual couple’s is and bigoted attitudes about sexual orientation will be socially unacceptable the same way overt racism is today. This inevitability is what so many religious conservatives fear and a big part of what keeps the movement alive.

This inevitability was hastened by President Obama who earlier this week declared,“I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” Reversing a his previously expressed opposition to same sex marriage, Obama went on to state, “It would have been hard for me, knowing all the friends and family that are gays or lesbians, to say to them, you know, I voted to oppose you having the same kind of rights and responsibilities that I have.”

I share these sentiments and hope that the president’s statement will add to the sense that people who oppose marriage equality are on the wrong side of history. The people who supported racial segregation and laws forbidding people of different races to marry now have to look back on this and acknowledge that they were the bad guys. They were fighting against an increase in personal freedom and their views are now almost universally considered bigoted, reactionary, and at odds with human progress. Similarly, those who are fighting against the freedom for a man to marry another man or a woman to marry another woman will be forced to look back and say, “We were fighting progress.”

Why fear people of different orientations knowing and accepting each other and recognizing that their differences are not to be demonized? Why fear having to tell your children that sometimes, Eric likes Steve and that it is perfectly normal? Society may yet discover that it is really is no one else’s business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. Is the “gay agenda” that is so feared social acceptance of diversity and social rejection of bigotry? I have spent quite a bit of time around friends of all orientations and see no reason to believe there is any more of an agenda than that—just simple human decency and personal freedom for all.

If you oppose gay marriage, don’t get one! It is not a difficult concept. Many people are squicked when they see public displays of affection between members of the same sex. The thought of homosexual activity creates an “ick” factor and unsettling but it is none of their business. I’m sure their children are plenty grossed out imagining them having sex and the thought of what they do in bed is pretty unappealing to the rest of us. It is very possible that heterosexual couples do just about everything gay couples do. What’s the big deal?

There is an overriding fear that if two members of the same sex can marry that it will have a negative impact on others. It may be possible that some of the more boisterous anti-gay individuals are afraid that they might be tempted to come out of the closet if homosexuality becomes more socially accepted. There are those that believe that gay people worship Satan and that they are all out to recruit children, wish to destroy the United States, encourage God to inflict us with natural disasters, or intentionally spread disease. These people are superstitious bigots that need to get out more and interact with people other than their fellow superstitious bigots.

The president has expressed that he favors this as a state level issue and his comments followed on the heels of North Carolina approving a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions The North Carolina ban would prevent, people of all orientations from gaining any of the protections afforded to marriage outside of marriage. There is still cause for excitement for us on the equal rights side of the culture war. This marks the first time the President of the United States has expressed such a position and the fact that he said it during an election year indicates that he anticipates this resonating favorably with the voting public.

Conservative pundits seem to agree, using this as an opportunity to criticize Obama for political opportunism and pandering to his base. This has previously been a major hot button issue, and conservative talking points concerning same sex marriage not so long ago have been rather apocalyptic and warn that it may lead to a complete collapse of the fabric of our society. They fear it will lead to the right to marry multiple people and animals. The fact that this has been toned down in favor of accusations of political opportunism, seems to reflect a change within the population. After all, it would hardly be opportunistic for Obama to support same sex marriage if it would hurt him in November’s election.

The Republican Party favors a constitutional amendment to prevent same sex marriage. They also support the Defense of Marriage act which blocks recognition of same-sex marriage across state borders. However, some Republican politicians agree with Obama’s position including Dick Cheney and pollster Jan van Lohuizen. She has been urging the GOP to support same-sex marriage because a failure to do so hurts the party. Hopefully, support for Gay marriage will become a growing trend among Republicans, who despite claiming to be in favor of smaller government, cannot handle the thought of a government so small that it is no longer, in the business of telling consenting adults they cannot marry.

Obama chose to use the Bible and the Golden Rule to justify his decisions, “We, Michelle and I, are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others. But, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.” I am bothered by President Obama using Christianity to justify his position. The irony is that the people who argue against his position are also justifying their bigotry with the Bible. However, the Golden Rule is morally superior to the anti-gay hogwash in Leviticus. Bigots quote passages that support their positions but conveniently ignore the fact that same book prohibits eating pork or selfish and forbids making cloths out of multiple types of yarn. The Bible is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Though I dislike the tone, I appreciate the point made in Rand Paul’s comment: “A Biblical goal caused him to be for gay marriage.” I wonder what version of the Bible he is reading. It seems Christians have a long history of using the Bible to justify attacks on positions that other Christians base on the Bible.

I am clear what side of the culture war I am on and I tend to be critical of president Obama on many things but I am in agreement and happy with his evolved position on same sex marriage. I also look forward to seeing the more tolerant, less-bigoted, less-hypocritical, and less superstitious world of tomorrow.

Just a reminder:

Monday, May 21^st you can join the Tucson Atheists at the Denny’s on Speedway, just west of Alvernon at 7PM. This month we’ll be discussing what the United States might be like without the current religious influences. Along with that we’ll be discussing where Atheists get their morals. Finally, when things go our way who should we be thanking? http://www.meetup.com/Tucson-Atheists/

Tonight, up to 40 people will come together to share each others company and discuss freely what they believe would believe the world would be like without religion. We won’t be the first to ever discuss this question and we won’t be the last. If you type the question in Google, you’ll get many answers from many people. There are variations of the question, too. Some people ask, “What if religion never existed?” as opposed to, “What would happen if religion lost its current influence?” Of course, the answers from the net will be more balanced than you’re likely to hear at a meeting of non-believers. We’ve already decided that it isn’t for us. In scientific terms we’d be considered a self selected sample and subject to self selection bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias). Our answers are going to be skewed toward the non-believer. On the whole, the data we develop from our attempt at finding an answer won’t be useful for informing policy decisions that affect the general public. At this point, many who read this blog will be saying, “That’s right!” without considering the opposite situation.

Currently, the Arizona legislature represents a situation that suffers from another source of bias, selection bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias). Ideally, we’d have a legislature making decisions that represents a fair sample of the population. Realistically, that’s not going to happen. It’s going to represent the people that are in the majority and the decisions are going to favor that majority. For the most part, that’s as it should be. However, the legislature is held in check by the type of democracy that the founders created—a constitutional democracy (http://www.answers.com/topic/constitutional-democracy). In an unlimited democracy, there is no limit on the majority and there is a very real danger of the tyranny

From the Oxford Guide to U.S. Government:

“A constitutional democracy, then, is government by majority rule with protection of minority rights. It is democratic because of its foundations of popular consent and majority rule. It is constitutional because the power of the majority to rule is limited by a supreme law.”

In editing this blog and watching the comments that are tossed back and forth, it is apparent that most want a variation of the same dream. Most people want to be left alone to live their life without others telling them what to do. Both sides often support their convictions with the same catch phrase, “Read the Constitution” but each side has its favorite part of the Constitution. What amazes me is that there are some that believe that the constitution doesn’t apply to state government. That’s scary to me and to the others that will be meeting tonight because we understand that we are, in most surveys, the most hated and distrusted minority in the country (for example: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm). Here’s the irony, we believe the most important part of the Constitution are the limits that it places on the majority. We’re fond of the limits that it places on the government. This is reasonable coming from a hated and trusted minority. People representing the majority often believe that the most important part of the Constitution is the limits that it places on itself. I believe that somewhere in all these discussions, we’re missing the fact that there is a high degree of commonality between these groups but tonight we’ll be coming together and imagining what the country or the world would be like if the Atheist wasn’t the most hated and distrusted minority.

Here’s another opinion piece from Jim Wilson:

 “If you can hate the sin, but not the sinner, I can hate the beliefs but not the believer”-Anonymous

Christians have a huge persecution complex. Christians think of themselves as martyrs doing the Lord’s sacred work in a country and a world that is hostile to their existence. They wear this persecution as a badge of honor. Christians want to portray themselves as under attack, and as history’s righteous underdogs. To them, being hated or persecuted by the people around them is something to be celebrated. This seems to be a common thread among many of the world’s religions, and often seems to go hand in hand with religious insularity. Let’s talk about Christians because they are the ones I am most familiar with, and most likely to be reading this blog. There are in fact many insular Christian sects who believe that their small communities of believers are God’s true church and everyone else is working in opposition to them. The infamous Phelps family is an example.

Christians have a point. There are still many places where Christians are systematically persecuted, such as North Korea and much of the Middle East. However, I have trouble believing this to be the case in the western world especially the United States. I take the subject of religious persecution seriously but I don’t equate the often violent suppression religious minorities with things like being criticized, misunderstood, or prevented from imposing ones beliefs on others. These are the things that American Christians complain about when they are playing the victim card.

The whole notion is absurd. For one thing, Christians make up the vast majority of the population, with roughly 60% to 76% of Americans identifying as Christians. Furthermore, every major presidential candidate since Carter has felt the need to present himself as being a fervently religious Christian. The vast majority of members of both houses of congress identify themselves as part of the Christian faith. Many in congress profess the belief that the United State is officially a Christian nation, and that Christianity should shape public policy and be promoted by government. Some have written and passed legislation that is unambiguously theocratic and the situation is even more extreme in many of our state governments. This includes Arizona’s state government, where Republicans who are not affiliated with the Christian right are guaranteed to be met with well funded theocratic primary contenders, thanks to the influence of the Center for Arizona Policy.

Currently, the only openly non-religious member of the United States congress is Pete Stark of California. Richard Dawkins’ believes that this certainly means many in both houses are deceiving us. Statistically there are quite a few more non-believers in Congress. Still, the mere fact, that our politicians feel a need to claim to be Christian and represent Christian interest in order to be elected, shows me how politically powerful the Christian faith is. In contrast, while there are many atheist and agnostic American tax-payers and voters, the general consensus is that any politician who identifies as one is committing political suicide. This overt religious bigotry is keeping many good, honest men and women out of office.

There also seems to be some, historical shortsightedness at play too. During the Cold War in the 1950’s, not that long ago, the United States government chose openly embrace the Christian faith, adding “Under God” to the pledge and “In God We trust” to our money. This was an attempt to highlight the contrast with between the supposedly Christian United States and the godless Soviet Union. Outspoken atheists around this time were portrayed as communist sympathizers if not soviet shills.

Christians are not victims in the United States. Your beliefs are not above criticism and criticism isn’t persecution. All people do not have to accept Christian dogma. Christians accuse others of persecuting them for merely sharing their opinion of their faith with them. Christians, you don’t have a lock on the Truth! And your belief system is not immune from criticism. Christians want to use the legislature and other authorities to impose their beliefs and prohibitions on others. We saw quite a few Mormons attempting to remove the blog posted on Thursday because they felt that it had crossed the line in posting links to what they considered sacred secrets. They went as far as posting complaints to the paper. Christians feel that they are immune to criticism. They believe that those who do not think like them deserve to be tortured for it, forever! I’ll happily stand up for the rights of all religious people to believe anything they like, but not to have the government endorse it. At the same time I stand-up for the right to criticize said beliefs.

Christians are upset because it is no longer assumed that they are automatically able to have the government force people to conform to their standards. We get rid of mandatory teacher led prayer in tax-payer funded schools, and suddenly it is the Christians who are being victimized. How about the tax-payers who had to pay for kids to listen to religious hogwash? By the way, the Ten Commandments monuments do not belong on state property any where! Blue laws that were put in place to support religious practice need to be abolished—everywhere. There are a lot of non-Christian tax-payers in this country who have rights and I think Thomas Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state should be strong and high.

Cultural changes are leaving many Christians behind, however. They are upset about it and feel alienated by the cultural changes that are passing them by. Non-Christians are becoming more numerous and more assertive. Feminism and gay rights movements have challenged deep seated assumptions associated with Christianity. Worst of all, people are free to express their sexuality and technical advances have reduce negative consequences. It is possible to prevent pregnancy and disease while staying sexually active. There are Christians out there who would see the discovery of a cure for AIDS as bad news because it might increase sexual freedom.

There are the major hot button issues like gay rights and abortion. It is ridiculous that Christians are declaring themselves as victims because a group that they have historically treated as third class citizens are suddenly able to marry. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one. Gay people marrying don’t have any effect on a hetero sexual couple. NONE! How does a happy gay couple victimize anyone? Anti abortion or the pro-life movement is based on emotional appeal because even the Bible does not specifically define when life begins. However the word spirit if taken literally means “breath.” If life begins when the “spirit” enters the body that would mean that life begins at birth. You are free to believe that zygotes, embryos and fetuses that yet to develop a central nervous system should be treated as fully developed humans, but there is no logical reason this should be the case from a legal perspective or a biblical perspective. Zygotes and embryos are clusters of cells, and we kill many clusters of cells just going throughout our day. There is no good reason why a well-being of a collection of cells with no means of self awareness, should have priority over a grown woman’s right to control her body. If you don’t like abortions, don’t get one but don’t try to impose your logically nonsensical moral ideas on others and then claim that you are the victim when you fail to do so.

It’s ironic that Christians have a long well recorded history of persecuting others, hoever. They’ve tortured and burned people. They’ve used their holy book to justify slavery, and forcibly converted people all around the world to adopt Christianity. The Catholics protected the activities of pedophile priests. Atheists are routinely demonized by Christians. All of this makes the claim that Christians are victimized in this society laughable.

Last weekend was very busy. Looks like this one will be a bit more laid back. The FreeThougt Arizona calendar of events can be found here.

Tonight, Friday May 18^th you can join several of our active members in Sabino Canyon. Several of us join the Tucson Hiking Meetup.com Group as they take a stroll in the night air. The group has two groups that hike the canyon. The first group starts at 6 PM and hikes the full length of the canyon. The second group starts at 7 PM and hike to the 2 mile mark before returning. Going with a large group down a paved trail is a very pleasant experience. You’ll always be able to find someone that will hike at your speed and there are a few in the group that really know about the wild life you’ll undoubtedly see. In the end, many hikers go to the nearby Risky Business on Sunrise Drive for refreshments and conversation. While this is not specifically a “freethought” event many of our members make this hike regularly. It’s a great way to relax after a busy frustrating day at work. For more information visit: http://www.meetup.com/tucsonhiking/.

On Saturday, the Secular Organizations for Sobriety provides a successful and increasingly popular non-religious alternative to 12-Step and other religion-based or pseudo-scientific recovery programs. SOS credits the individual for achieving and maintaining his or her own sobriety, without reliance on any “Higher Power.”SOS supports healthy skepticism and encourages the use of the scientific method to understand alcoholism, drug addiction, or any other compulsive behavior. The SOS Tucson Group provides a safe meeting place for recovering addicts of all types, religious or otherwise, located in the southeastern Arizona area. Their meetings are held every Saturday from 1:30 PM–2:30 PM in the University Medical Center Cafeteria, Dining Room A. For more information, please visit the SOS Tucson website: http://sites.google.com/site/sostucsongroup/

 Sunday May 20^th a very rare solar eclipse will be visible in our area. The Tucson Amateur Astronomy Association will be on the UofA Mall to help people safely view the eclipse. For more information follow this link: http://nightsky.jpl.nasa.gov/event-view.cfm?Event_ID=36773.

Monday, May 21^st you can join the Tucson Atheists at the Denny’s on Speedway, just west of Alvernon at 7PM. This month we’ll be discussing what the United States might be like without the current religious influences. Along with that we’ll be discussing where Atheists get their morals. Finally, when things go our way who should we be thanking? http://www.meetup.com/Tucson-Atheists/

Jim Wilson’s opinion on the Mormon Endowment Ceremony:

I was talking with my ex-Mormon friend about Mitt Romney’s presidential nomination. He shared with me a copy of the Endowment Ceremony which members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS), including Romney, take part in once they are deemed worthy to enter the temple. Here is the current version:

http://www.irr.org/mit/endowment-ceremony.html

Here is the pre-1990 version:

http://www.ldsendowment.org/telestial.html

A few things caught my attention. First, I like that it features dialogue between the ceremony’s conductors and biblical figures like Lucifer, Adam, Eve Michael, etc. This gives it a nice surreal quality. There is the pledge of secrecy, “As with the other aspects of the Endowment, you are under solemn obligation not to discuss these sacred matters outside of the temple.”  Apparently, the ceremony was changed in 1990, and the word “secrecy” was removed. Prior to the 1920s, the ceremony included “graphic descriptions of the particular ways one’s life would be taken in punishment for violating the covenants of non-disclosure.” These included promises to have one’s throat/bowels cut open for revealing temple secrets. The version presented above includes the line, “Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken”. I am suspicious of religion especially overly secretive ones. If you had teachings that would benefit the world, you should be open about them. Cults and for profit religions rely on secret ceremonies for members. Some Mormons I know seem to be unfamiliar with some of the church’s teachings, including the teaching that their male members will have multiple wives in the afterlife. The church does not talk about this often.

There is a chastity pledge which is a great idea but not very realistic. Most people, including Mormons, will have sex prior to being married. Religion always likes to get caught up in people’s sex lives and demonize people who fall short of church ideals. If I don’t find someone to marry until I’m 37, should I really refrain from sex, sexual thoughts and masturbation, until that time? The Mormon Church answers with a resounding yes! This is an attitude that is incomparable with good mental health and encourages people to get married before they are ready.

Another important part is, “The Law of Consecration.” It is a pledge to “consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.” This is quite relevant to the Romney candidacy. It includes a pledge do focus all one’s talents to the advancement of the Mormon Church. Mormons hold the church’s prophet to be the highest authority on Earth. Mitt Romney needs to make clear the extent he is willing to use the presidency to advance the goals of the Church’s hierarchy, which is already known to dabble in politics.

Interestingly, Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, was a contender for the Republican nomination in 1968 but apparently lost to Richard Nixon. More on that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Romney_presidential_campaign,_1968

The Endowment Ceremony is interesting and concerning to me as a citizen. The more I learn about Mormonism the more strangely fascinating it is and the crazier it sounds.

“No amount of belief makes something a fact.”

-James Randi

Magician/Author/Skeptic

“The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth.”

-Pierre Abelard

Medieval French scholastic philosopher, theologian and preeminent logician.

The argument from ignorance is often used to bolster paranormal claims. On the surface it seems convincing. The argument states something is true until it can be proven false.

For example, a friend might say, “I saw a ghost last night.” So, you ask, “Are you sure it’s a ghost?” To which he replies, “Sure it was. What else could it have been?” Then, after a brief description of the sighting you come up with no explanation and your friend says, “See, you can’t explain it therefore it was a ghost!”

Sound familiar? Sound frustrating? This argument is frequently made. A recent commenter on this blog denigrated the Skeptics because in his view the fact that the skeptics looks for worldly answers to mysteries is a close minded approach. He said that in looking for only mundane answers to mysteries, the Skeptic has already excluded the paranormal solutions. I suppose that’s true I’ve seen no convincing evidence of the existence of the paranormal. Every argument I’ve seen in support of the paranormal has been an argument from ignorance.

Realistically, the argument from ignorance would severely limit our understanding. Can you imagine what the world would be like if we had to believe everything that couldn’t be disproven? There is a lot we can’t disprove. Are there unicorns or leprechauns? Do you believe that Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster are real? Can you prove that they’re not?

The reasonable solution is to adopt the “null hypothesis” or default position approach to these claims. Using the null hypothesis approach to claims would mean adopting a position that would be taken if there is no supporting evidence for the claim. For example, in the ghost example, the null hypothesis would be that there is no ghost. Then the evidence and alternate explanations would be considered. If the evidence is insufficient then we must adopt the null hypothesis and say that there was no ghost sighting. This may not sit well with your friend, however.

The main problem with the Argument for Ignorance, however, is the fact that it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies solely in the hands of the claimant. When someone says that they can dictate the weather, you’re allowed to not believe them straight away. It is not necessary for you to prove that they can’t do it. When they say “Prove I can’t,” simply let him know that the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim.

Next Wednesday, unless something else comes up, I’ll discuss the “Begging the Question” fallacy.

This opinion comes from Jim Wilson:

“Do you understand that this elementary point only needs to be made because of wickedness enjoined by religion. The rabbi here’s a fairly humane guy. He wouldn’t—if he didn’t think God was involved—ever consider mutilating the genitals of a child, but because it’s a covenant with God, anything can be done. Now don’t you see—you laugh, but you should be crying. I said crying! Okay, suit yourself.”

-Christopher Hitchens

“If you want to saw off the end of your penis, you’re welcome. You’re not to do it to a child who hasn’t asked for it. Same with the genitals of a little girl. If she thinks later on she’d be better off without them, let her take, or have taken to her, a sharp instrument.”-Christopher Hitchens

Years ago, a rather bold, if not tactful, college professor made it known to the class that his wife would soon be giving birth to a baby boy. He just had one concern that he wanted to share with us, and that was what to do about, what he termed “the snake-muzzle”. The class was confused until, he explained that this means circumcision and whether or not he should have a doctor remove part of his new born son’s penis. He decided that, this was an appropriate issue to put up for vote among our class (and presumable his other classes). The response from the class, was generally in favor of going through with the procedure, with one male student shouting out “Cut it!” It was only myself and a few others who contributed to the no votes, and yes, this was often a rather unorthodox classes. Needless to say, I was never informed about how other classes voted, or the fate of my professor’s son’s genitals.

I would still have voted against it to this day. There seems to be something terribly unethical about removing body parts from people without their consent especially when the individual, in question, has no way of expressing approval or disapproval. In the United States, the Circumcision of newborn males was has been above sixty or even seventy percent for much of the twentieth century, the number has dropped down over last decade and to roughly 54.7 percent in 2010.

The prevalence of circumcision of newborns, in this country, seems largely to be an exercise of thoughtless conformity, as well just another thing that medical professionals can charge for. My Google search of the “cost of circumcision” revealed that the procedure tends to cost somewhere in the ball park of $150.00 to $300.00 for newborns.  In other words the practice is very profitable for medical professionals, despite it being completely unnecessary, for any tangible health benefits in this country.

There are, of course, some medical conditions, for which a circumcision is helpful, and this is termed therapeutic circumcision. These are not particularly common and the medical associations of the developed world do not recommend infant circumcision as a preventative measure. The American Medical Association points out that: “policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns.”

The American Academy of pediatrics states: “In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.”

The American medical organizations tend to neither recommend the practice nor argue against it. The Dutch go further. The Royal Dutch Medical Association states infant circumcision, “conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.” On the other hand, the Royal Australian College of Physicians states: “After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”

In other words, there is no good medical reason for doctors in the developed world to be routinely cutting the genitals of male newborns. This is especially true knowing what is lost. Namely, the child’s right to make life long decisions about his body, and some of the more sensitive tissue of his sexual organs. There is also a good deal of evidence that sexual intercourse is more enjoyable for both sexes if the male is uncircumcised. Though a lot of this tends to be anecdotal, I would not want to rob this of child without, a great deal of thought and good reason. Unfortunately thoughtfulness and good reason are things lacking in the decisions of many Americans who cut parts of the male genitals off.

Many do it, because it is simply part of our culture. Is it not the challenging of cultural norms that cause societies to evolve? Furthermore, Jews, Christians, and Muslims tend to have a religious component to their decisions to take part in this practice. One does not have to read too far into the Old Testament, to see that its God had a bizarre foreskin obsession. The very idea, that a benevolent creator would create all male children with a part that needs to be painfully cut off, is too absurd to comment on. Apparently, this God passed on his foreskin obsession to his followers. In 1st Samuel we find: “Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.”

I did not discuss female circumcision which is a truly a morally repulsive practice. However female circumcisions are performed only in cultures where men are circumcised. While it has been shown that circumcision does reduces the risk of getting HIV in AIDS ridden Africa, here in the developed world, the medical benefits do not outweigh the cost of altering a child’s body without their consent. A cynical individual would say that continuation of the century old practice is just a way for medical professionals to make more money on a worthless service and an example of mindless conformity among thoughtless parents.

Happy Monday! Here is my second blog entry for today. This will be an unusual event as you won’t normally see more than one entry per day but this one is short and the subject matter is timely.

I want to introduce Jeffery G. Berry. I met him for the first time at the FreeThought Arizona lecture and he expressed an interest in helping out with the blog. As it happens, he is studying journalism. I’ll post his review of the lecture presented by Thomas J. Lindell, Ph.D. followed by a few words about the Phoenix Comedy Festival.

 First from Jeffrey G Berry:

Firstly, I’d like to thank Thomas J. Lindell for having the courage to present his information to us all today at UMC. It isn’t an easy task standing up in front of a collection of strangers supporting a view that is not only expected to be in the minority, but a personal view as well.

Now, while Mr. Lindell seems almost to detest simple labels being pressed on his particular outlook on the convergence of theology and science, what I witnessed today was indeed a Christian scientist. I don’t want to sell him short by saying this; he had some good observations, and a good sense of humor about the whole thing.

What identified him as a Christian scientist were his transparent attempts to rationalize the concept of god with intellect. He goes about this by building a superb case against Christianity that would make one’s own grandmother blush, then reaches with favorably literal interpretations of words, phrases, and historical quotations to come to his solution. “God loved the universe into existence,” was said, and after being asked to explain this further his only response was that he didn’t have the language to express what he really meant. This seems to be a reoccurring theme with people defending the god concept. Firstly, if you are trying to prove the existence of god as a truth, one of the worst ways to go about it is to rationalize using adjectives that only express feeling. Secondly, in the Q&A follow-up – which I believe is also commendable – Mr. Lindell mentions that his own outlook has “Been useful to me.” I’m sure it has, but at what cost to all of the other people with the same attitude that have internalized more than just the crux of religion, and gone on to make important decisions for not only the state legislature, but society as a whole.

I think that using intellect in such a fashion is not only dangerous in validating the idea of god to some people, but it is an intentional undermining of the reason versus religion debate. “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways.” Corinthians 13:11, International Standard Version.

 Thank you, Jeffery! I’m looking forward to working with you in the future.

After the FreeThought Arizona lecture, my wife and I washed the Thunderbird and headed up the road to watch the Phoenix Comedy Festival. It was a benefit to support the construction and placement of the nation’s first monument to the Bill of Rights. The future monument will be placed near the capital. It will be composed of ten stones each with one of the amendments carved into its face. The entire project is the result of the hard work and good friends of Chris Bliss. You can find out more about the monument at the website: mybillofrights.org/arizona-project-programs/

The comedians that gave their performances for free to support Chris and the project included: Lewis Black, Bill Engvall, Bobcat Goldthwait, Dick Gregory, Kathleen Madigan, Tommy Smothers, Father Guido Sarducci, and Steven Wright. The “musical relief” was provided by Paul Barrere and Fred Tackett from the legendary band Little Feat. Somewhere in the middle, Chris Bliss told a few jokes and did his signature juggling routine.

We thoroughly enjoyed the festival and I doubt we’ll ever get a chance to see such a lineup of “top shelf” comics in one venue again. However, they ARE talking about doing the same thing next year…let’s hope. I promise to give the readers of this blog more warning next time.