“Religion – religion, at best – at Best – is like a lift in your shoe. If you need it for a while, and it makes you walk straight and feel better – fine. But you don’t need it forever, or you can become permanently disabled. Religion is like a lift in the shoe, and I say just don’t ask me to wear your shoes. And let’s not go down and nail lifts onto the natives’ feet.” – George Carlin, October 11, 1975 on the first episode of Saturday Night Live.

I just returned from Austin, TX and the 50^th Anniversary of the American Atheists. It is normally held on Easter weekend as it was this year. Activities began on Thursday and ended on Easter Sunday. This year there were 938 attendees. It was a diverse group, too. That’s not too surprising given that the American Atheists was started by a woman.

Madalyn Murray O’Hair is responsible for the creation of the organization in 1963. She was in Austin, TX at the time. Then, she was “the most hated woman in America.” People hated her but she got needed things done and was outspoken and controversial. There were a lot of firsts associated with Madalyn. She was the first guest on the Phil Donahue show. On another appearance on the Phil Donahue show in a debate with “The Chaplain of Bourbon Street,” Bob Harrington, she said, “If America wakes up, what America will do is kick Christianity out.” Additionally, she tried to straighten out the preacher on the definition of Atheism but Bob continued to talk over her. Her cantankerous manner got her an interview in Playboy along with appearances on Merv Griffin and The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. However, her most famous “first” was the fact that she was to first to address the United States Supreme Court as an Atheist. She started her opening statement with, “Your petitioners are atheists…” Also included in her statement was the following excerpt which was silk screened on the back of this year’s convention T-shirt:

“An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated.”

In 1963, the justices of the Supreme Court voted in favor of her petition 8 to 1—a decisive victory for the separation of church and state.

Madalyn Murray O’Hair was born on April 13^th, 1919. She was a World War II veteran who served in the field of cryptography. She was college educated and trained in law. She worked as a psychiatric social worker for 17 years and was a supervisor at the Baltimore city public welfare department in 1960. Her Atheist activism started with a lawsuit against the Baltimore City Public School System for requiring her son to participate in Bible readings in the school he was attending. Her case reached the Supreme Court in 1963. Please note, she was not the only one that filed suit against such practices. Her case was combined with Abington School District v. Schempp and school prayer was previously eliminated by the court’s ruling on the case Engel v. Vitale in 1962. However, she was a lightning rod for controversy and unapologetically outspoken. She created the American Atheists and her “empire” had its own printing press and a loyal following.

In 1963 in an interview, Madalyn said that it would take one crazy person to end her life. That crazy person turned out to be David Waters, an ex-convict who served as the American Atheists office manager. He had been caught stealing from the organization and was fired. He took revenge on Madalyn, her younger son, and granddaughter by kidnapping them and squeezing what he could out of the American Atheists bank accounts. After 30 days of holding the family, he strangled them and disposed of the bodies. Ultimately, the disappearance of the trio would be solved but their bodies—dismembered, burned, and sealed in barrels—would not be found for five and a half years. The entire story can be found here. It is estimated that Madalyn Murray O’Hair was brutally murdered on September 29, 1995.

I didn’t know Madalyn but I know people that knew her. Some of the current leaders of American Atheists knew her well. Most that knew her, respected her. She was remembered by many. She knew that, “There is no God. There’s no heaven. There’s no hell. There are no angels. When you die, you go in the ground; the worms eat you.” The people that searched for her, found her, and attended her burial expressed the deepest sorrow for her. She got her wish when she said:

”I hope I live my life in such a manner that when I die, someone cares – even if it is only my dogs. I think I want some human being somewhere to weep for me.”

– Madalyn Murray O’Hair

 …and they did.

By Jim Wilson

Lately, I have noticed variants of a horrific little essay titled the Scientific Death of Jesus making its way around the internet.   An excellent example, complete with illustrations is found here.  It details the crucifixion of Jesus and then discusses why it is such a great thing and why we should worship the God who arranged for it to happen.  The crucifixion theology is not a great thing. It is sick and twisted.  I’ll explain why using the essay linked above as a starting point.

The essay claims, “Only the worst criminals could die like Jesus.”  However, it was not reserved for “only the worst criminals,” anyone accused of challenging Roman rule could receive this fate. Furthermore, Pontius Pilate was a ruthless executioner who indiscriminately killed those brought before him unlike the way he is depicted in the Bible. He was not likely to petition the Jews to let Jesus off the hook.  Pilate’s Jewish contemporary Philo of Alexandria referred to “his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners and his endless savage ferocity.” That Jesus met the fate of crucifixion hardly makes him unique.

The piece describes the horrible suffering associated with crucifixion, a brutal form of execution.  For sake of brevity, I’ll assume it gives a fairly accurate account.  In the account, “Jesus endured that reality over 3 hours. Yes, over 3 hours!”  I question their three hour figure. Mark 15:25 states “And it was the third hour, and they crucified him,” while verse 34 states “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’” which means, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”.  Therefore, he was alive for at least six hours.  According to Wikipedia and various other sites, “The length of time required to reach death could range from a matter of hours to a number of days, depending on exact methods, the health of the crucified person, and environmental circumstances.”  In other words, Jesus’s suffering may have been rather short compared to other victims.

According to the essay, “He had no more blood to bleed, He only poured water” and that, “Jesus poured all 3.5 litres of his blood.”   These are highly specific claims to make about an event that happened 2000 years ago.  It is impossible to know with any confidence the contents of Jesus’s body to that degree of accuracy.

Next the essay states, “Beyond that, a Roman soldier who nailed a spear into his chest.”  While certainly possible, the historicity of this stabbing is highly questionable.  The incident appears only in the gospel attributed to John, which scholars tend to recognize as differing heavily from the other canonical gospels and historically suspect.  For example John’s gospel, expands Jesus ministry from one year to three years, with three distinct trips to Jerusalem.  Also, John moves the infamous purification of the temple from the end of his public ministry to its beginning.  While the other Gospels primarily features Jesus speaking in pithy quotes and parables, John expands these into lengthy verbatim discourses (How did he remember them?).  John refers to “the Jews” as if they were some foreign group rather than people from whom the author was born and raised.  John also neglects to mention such events as the transfiguration, the raising of Jarius’s Daughter and the Ascension which other Gospels claim he was one of only a few witnesses.  Also John turns Luke’s parable about a man named Lazarus into and actual historical event.  James Dunn, a leading New Testament scholar, notes that “Few scholars would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus’s life and ministry in any degree comparable to the synoptics.”

To make matter worse, John States that “For these things came to pass, that the scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.  And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.”  There is no prophecy preserved in the Old Testament that says a “A bone of him shall not be broken.”  It is often assumed that this refers to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, which are not prophecies at all but instructions not to break the bones in a Passover lamb, or Psalm 34:20, which is says nothing to indicate that it is a prophecy of some future event.  John’s statement, “and again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced” relies on a mistranslation of Zechariah 12:10.  In the original verse “they look onto me, whom concerning they have pierced and they will mourn him like the weeping of a first born.”  In the context it is clear that the “me” is God, and the piercing is done by the Jewish people, rather than a Roman soldier.  Jews interpret this verse as being about God defending Jerusalem from its enemies at a time when the nations of the world conspire against it rather than the physical injury of a messiah figure.

The Scientific Death of Jesus concludes, “Jesus had to pass all this experience, so that you can have free access to God. So that your sins could be ‘washed’. All of them, with no exception! Don’t ignore this situation. HE DIED FOR YOU.”   In other words, a man allowed himself to be brutally and humiliatingly murdered for me.  Why? Christians generally state that it is because we are all indebted to God by our sins and God required this sacrifice to forgive us.  This is highly problematic. Only a horrible monster would require a brutal murder to take place in order to forgive others.  The need for a human blood sacrifice is a carryover from the animal sacrifices described in the Old Testament and is very much the type of cruel barbarism we should be denouncing rather than celebrating.

Christians will reply though that it is wonderful that God so willingly gave the life of his son.  Did he? In the story, he clearly got his son back. He also created this son specifically for this purpose but Jesus and God are supposedly the same entity (though Jesus only ever referred to God in the third person).  From the Trinitarian point of view, we are forced to conclude that God is putting on a twisted piece of theater where he is sacrificing himself to himself, in a horribly bloody manner, to save others from his own wrath.  What nonsense!

Also, what is three, or six, hours of human suffering to God, to an infinite, eternal, and omnipresent being? For such a being the event would be incredibly insignificant.  If Jesus existed since the beginning of time, a few hours of suffering would hardly be comparable to a pinprick. Further, if God is truly omnipresent he would experience all human suffering anyway and the suffering he experiences in this gesture would be largely redundant.

If we accept the concept of sin as valid, the notion that allowing an innocent person to be murdered as payment that somehow resolves us of responsibility is morally absurd by all convention standards.  It is made worse by the fact that those who are unable to believe this horrific and outrageous set of theological claims are promised eternal punishment.  The Christian God has essentially created a torture chamber that can only be escaped by pledging an eternity of praise and gratitude for allowing a brutal murder to take place.

The crucifixion narrative is rubbish.   It is immoral, nonsensical, and horrendously violent.  The concept of blood sacrifice, human or otherwise, has no place in an advanced society.

The freethinking community of Tucson is not a homogeneous organization. It contains at least as many opinions as there are members. Some leaders within the community refer to their job as “herding cats” but others say it’s more like “herding butterflies.” Cats are limited to two dimensions, after all. However, there does appear to be a bias toward one end of the political spectrum.

Jim Wilson ponders the question, “Why do Freethinkers tend to be so liberal?”

Nonbelievers, Skeptics, Atheists and Secular Humanists tend to hang out at the left side of American politics and many unabashedly identify as liberals, progressives, or support the Left. Other political philosophies can be found, however.  There are Free-Marketers, Ayn Rand fans, and Libertarians along with the occasional self-identified conservative. Some gravitate toward philosophies that fall outside the conventional political spectrum which indicates that it is not necessary to be left-leaning to be an Atheist or Skeptic. Apparently, Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics from all over the political spectrum are less visible than their left leaning compatriots. Still, many Atheists are liberals and progressives; why is that?

Perhaps the conservative movement has declared Freethinkers to be an enemy.  The Right Wing conservative media outlets and think tanks have painted Atheists, Secularists, Secular Humanists, Evolutionists, and Intellectuals as the bad guys.  They believe Freethinkers are communists and un-American. Some go as far as blaming Freethinkers for the attacks on September 11^th.  Many conservatives believe Freethinkers are responsible for many of America’s problems and they long for the times when Freethinkers were less visible and less vocal.  They align themselves with ideologues such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Rick Santorum. The Right Wing has become the home for those who want: religious monuments in government buildings, teacher led prayers in public schools, and science classes that teach the Biblical creation myth instead of science. They are antagonistic to church and state separation, and favor using government to promote religious values.  Above all, the Right Wing is most likely to affiliate itself with the type of moral guardians who vocally oppose birth control, reproductive choice, and marriage equality.

Maybe it’s within the personality of the Freethinker. We live in a very religious society and people who reject religious views tend to be the sort who question other mainstream values such as those associated with marriage, family life, sexuality, artistic expression, etc.  Reactionary elements within the Right Wing demonize and alienate this personality type while the Left embraces it.   Our politics are dominated by two catch-all political parties and Freethinkers such as Atheist, Agnostics, Skeptics, and Scientists are not welcomed by the Right Wing and by necessity identify with the Left.

While the conservative and liberal political philosophies are not ideal, Freethinkers and non-believers tend to be more sympathetic to the liberal side of the so-called “culture war.” Political issues outside the social arena such as the economy or military intervention are areas where Freethinkers and non-believers often disagree and result in interesting discussions at many of our gatherings.

FreeThought Arizona has members and guest speakers from all over the political spectrum.  Many guest speakers identify themselves as liberal or progressive but some prominent ones do not. All that is necessary is that they support science, reason, and the separation of church and state.

The believers of all faiths have a public relations problem. For example, in an attempt the fix their particular situation, the Mormons have blasted the airways with a series of ads showing common and exceptional people claiming, “I’m a Mormon.” However, Brian Dalton, the writer and director of the Mr. Deity Show, has a series called “The Way of the Mister.” His latest is called, “The Way of the Mister: And I’m a Formon.” He answers the advertisements of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with his own take as a Former Mormon or as he calls himself—A Formon.

The Catholic Church has been faced with devastating public relations for some time. The last Pope—Benedict XVI—formerly Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, had a troublesome past that didn’t play well in the popular media. In spite of the fact that he was an unwilling conscript in the Hitler Youth in 1941, his association with the Nazis was a damaging media trope. Of minor significance is the fact that his names were easily lampooned. Look how long it took to call him “Ex Benedict” after his retirement. The sexual abuse of minors came to light while Cardinal Ratzinger was high up in the Church’s bureaucracy and he was accused of being part of the cover-up. The truth may have been that he was one of the more aggressive prosecutors. While much of his media problems were inherited, some were well-earned. He rejected the use of condoms as a way of combating AIDS in Africa and in a world that has come to accept a wider view human sexuality; he continued to give interviews that were considered by many homophobic.

The Papal Conclave of 2013 has made its selection and announced it through the ritualistic release of white smoke from a chimney on top of the Vatican. His name is Jorge Mario Bergoglio and has taken on the name Francis I. It’s hard to believe that in the history of 266 popes, there hasn’t been a “Francis” in the bunch. Have you tweeted about this yet?  Francis I did! ““HABEMUS PAPAM FRANCISCUM” or “We haz Pope.” The first thing he needs to know is that it’s very impolite to type tweets with the caps lock on. If we’ve learned anything from history, we know that rituals do occasionally change (you should really check out this one!) Do you suppose the white smoke announcement will be replaced with the official Vatican Tweet anytime soon?

What does it matter to an Atheist? There are a lot of former Catholics within our ranks and people are regularly leaving the Church for Atheism. The FreeThinking Community of Tucson which includes FreeThought Arizona, Tucson Atheists, Skeptics of Tucson, and the Secular Student Alliance at the U of A don’t make Atheists. We provide social support and a place where FreeThinkers can come together and participate in rational discussions without fearing retribution from religious family members and coworkers.

This weekend is going to be great, in spite of the weather. The Tucson Festival of Books will be on the University of Arizona Campus, Roy Zimmerman will be performing in town, and the Skeptics of Tucson meetings return to the regular Denny’s restaurant on Speedway. There is plenty to look forward to this weekend.

This year FreeThought Arizona will be at the book fair. Thanks to the dedicated work of the members, we’ll have booths 351 and 352 right in front of the library. The bestselling author Chris Mooney will join with our own local celebrities to sign books. We have freebies to hand out and plenty of literature that visitors can take away. Books, magazines, and pamphlets will be at the booth. Members of FreeThought Arizona will be there to answer questions and engage in conversation and there will be information on the FreeThought Arizona, Tucson Atheists, Skeptics of Tucson, The Secular Student Alliance at the U of A, and American Atheists—all part of the Tucson FreeThinking Community.

On Sunday at 7 PM after the book fair, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson along with the Tucson FreeThinking community is sponsoring a concert by Roy Zimmerman. Tickets, which can be purchased at the door, are $15 for general admission and only $10 for students. He’s calling his tour the Wake Up Call and is sure to appeal to progressive thinkers with folk style songs in the same vein as Joni Mitchell and Tom Lehrer. In fact, Joni Mitchel says, “Roy’s lyrics move beyond poetry and achieve perfection” and Tom Lehrer himself says, “I congratulate Roy Zimmerman on reintroducing literacy to comedy songs. And the rhymes actually rhyme; they don’t just ‘rhyne.’” Progressive comedy and satire available here in Tucson without a two drink minimum, how can you miss that?

Finally, on Monday, the Skeptics of Tucson Meetup Group returns its meetings to the Denny’s on Speedway just west of Alvernon. This month we’ll have discussion on articles posted on the Doubtful News webpage. The meeting begins at 7 PM and ends at 9 but people show up early for light conversation prior to the meeting.

Here is a summary of the important links contained in this blog entry:

FreeThought Arizona (associated Meetup Group)

Roy Zimmerman

Skeptics of Tucson Meetup Group

 
By Jim Wilson:

For decades one of the few places a public figure can openly challenge religious belief is the wonderful world of stand-up comedy.  Here nothing is taboo and almost anything goes.  Humor and mockery are among the best ways to challenge the commonly held values and assumptions in society.  Comics are often some of our greatest exercisers of free speech in addition to being merely entertaining.I would like to present our readers this collection of some of my favorite irreverent stand-up bits about religion.  (Warning, these are not intended for children or the easily offended and some are NSFW).

1. Bill Hicks’ perfect response to an angry Christian: The end of this clip always makes me happy. I’m pleased to say I’ve used this response to a few believers myself.
2. Sarah Silverman says: Sell the Vatican Feed the World. Though it is technically not part of her standup show, this short by Sarah Silverman makes an excellent proposal for feeding the world, at the Pope’s expense, and provides some nice commentary on papal decadence.
3. Ricky Gervais on Noah’s Ark The former star of The Office, Extras, The Invention of Lying and many other projects, discusses the absurdity of Noah’s Ark.
4. Eddie Izzard: Jesus and the Dinosaurs. This takes on much of the Christian worldview.  My favorite part is when God asks Jesus about what he told his followers about wine.
5. Jamie Kilstein on Gay Marriage A wonderful rant on marriage equality and religious bigotry, also hilarious.  Nothing more needs to be said.
6. Julia Sweeney on the book of Revelation The former Saturday Night Live actress gives her thoughts on the rather psychedelic implications of the last book of the Bible.  This comes from her wonderful film Letting Go of God.
7. Bo Burnham’s Rant During his comedy central special, Bo Burnam breaks into this musical number.
8. Jim Jeffries: God Loves the Stupid Australian comic Jim Jeffries delivers a foul mouth dose of religion bashing, and explains the lack of Kangaroos in the Noah’s ark story.
9. David Cross: Heaven & Squagels The former Arrested Development and Mister Show star, discusses heaven and, as an added bonus, something called Squagels.
10. George Carlin: Religion is BS George Carlin at his best!

I hope you enjoy watching these as much as I have.

On March 10^th the Tucson FreeThought Community (Freethought Arizona, Tucson Atheists and Skeptics of Tucson), will be hosting a performance by humorous singer/song writer Roy Zimmerman.  The performance will take place at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson Located at 4831 E 22^nd Street.

Roy has been performing satirical folk music since the early eighties, as both a solo artist and a member of the Fore (a group who had the distinction of playing the national conventions of both major parties in 1996).  Roy’s music focuses on political and social issues, and his songs about religious topics have made him quite popular in the FreeThought Community.  Here are a few examples:

1.  Jerry Falwell’s God
2.  I want a Marriage like they had in the Bible
3.  Creation Science 101

Zimmerman’s lyrics often come from an admittedly liberal or progressive point of view and may alienate some more conservative listeners. However, Roy’s performances are fun, enjoyable and often hilarious. The Tucson FreeThought Community is proud to sponsor this fine entertainer along with other entertainers and speakers from a wide variety of view points.

Come and join us for this fun night of song with Roy Zimmer on March 10^th at the Unitarian Universalist Church.  Hope to see you there!

I’ve been sitting on this submission for a little while now for a couple of reasons. Jim Wilson gave it to me after one of our Desert AIR Podcast recording sessions. He makes valid points in the article but I was reluctant to post it due to the fact that I felt it was a personal rebuke of an offhand comment I had made. We were talking about Brother Jed’s pending visit to the campus of U of A and I joked that wouldn’t it be great if we could get one of those speech jamming devices. It was a joke of course not to be taken seriously but unfortunately sometimes jokes are taken more seriously than intended. Now, Jed is gone and by his own reports he doesn’t have any complaints about how he was treated by the Atheists at the University of Arizona.

Here’s Jim Wilson’s article:

Years ago I worked in a call center environment doing some of the most monotonous work the white collar service sector had to offer. I often found that most irritating calls were not those from people who were angry with the company but those of people whose phones caused me to hear an echo of my own voice while working with them.  The echo would quickly derail my train of thought and leave me fumbling for words.   Recently in Japan, scientists have taken experiences such as mine and turned them into a marketable device.  It’s a speech-jamming gun that causes unsuspecting loudmouths to hear an echo of their own words, delayed at .02 seconds.  The echo completely throws their brain for a loop, silencing their speech (More information on this device can be found here:  http://phys.org/news/2012-03-speechjammer-gun-quash-human-utterances.html).

Most of us have had times when we wished we had such a device to point at some obnoxious individual in our vicinity.  Maybe it’s someone who won’t stop chatting in a movie theater or family member who won’t stop going on about the playoffs.  Then again maybe it’s some full-time professional or semi-professional nuisance, like the professional conspiracy theorist, the lying politician, the dishonest salesman, or the racist bigots holding a rally down the street that you would like to point this device at.  Some people are simply jerks and morons who say horrible mean-spirited things.  Some may do it just for the attention, while others may truly be trying to promote their own nasty world view.  The Phelps family, which is famous for protesting the funerals of fallen American soldiers, think that “God hates America” for its tolerance of homosexuality is an excellent example.

The temptation to stifle their speech with a speech-jamming device or even government action, is very strong but it is the wrong approach.  We need to allow people to say whatever hate-filled, bigoted, and crazy moronic things they wish.  Silencing people only legitimizes their cause.  Many of the most hate-filled people out there fancy themselves as victims of persecution.  Doing anything to validate their claims will only make them stronger.  For example, I recently heard it argued that the Bible must be an accurate depiction of reality because it is banned in multiple countries.   This argument makes absolutely no sense but it is a great example of how silencing someone allows them to play the victim card.  In another example, countless people flocked to show support for the bigoted management of Chic-Fil-A after some cities threatened to forbid the restaurant chain from operating within their limits.  In short, silencing people turns them into martyrs to rally around.

It can also lead to the individuals or points of view that one is attempting to silence getting even more attention than they otherwise would.  Attempts to ban the Phelps from protesting in various locations inevitably results in the group getting free publicity and more of the attention they so desperately wanted in the first place.  This greatly parallels the phenomenon known as the “Streisand Effect” in which an individual or group’s attempt to suppress information leads to that information gaining greater circulation and publicity.  The phenomenon is named for Barbara Streisand who tried to prevent pictures of her home from circulating which ultimately led to a greater circulation of the photos.  More information on this can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect.

Silencing ideas also makes these ideas more interesting to those who are unfamiliar with them.  As children many of us were fascinated with R-rated movies or gangster rap music because our parents forbade it.  Some developed an interest in doing illegal drugs largely because they are forbidden.  Removing the mystique that surrounds the forbidden makes it more mundane.  It also opens it up to criticism.  When racists and neo-Nazis are allowed to publicly share what they believe it allows the rest of us to respond by pointing out just how stupid and harmful such ideas really are.

Sometimes the jerks may actually have a point or two or contribute to the conversation.  I know a few people today who years ago would like to have silenced the speech of Atheists and yet they are now Atheists themselves.  Allowing one’s beliefs to be scrutinized by people who disagree makes it possible for one to purge incorrect ideas and to form a more accurate and mature worldview.  Sometimes the most irritating people do have a valid point or two which often makes them even more irritating.  Even the most despicable people may bring some useful insight to the conversation or at the very least they may serve as a useful example of what is wrong with their way of thinking.  Either way, the market place of ideas is enriched when more a diverse array of people participate in it.

Free speech is meaningless when we only apply it to those we agree with. That is why all ideas should be allowed to compete without the threat of being silenced or without government support or favoritism.   I support free speech at all levels of society. That is why I will resist the temptation to buy the Japanese speech jamming device.

By Jim Wilson

Spoiler Alert! The entry discusses in detail some important story elements of Joseph Heller’s acclaimed novel Catch-22.  Those who wish to read the book for themselves should tread no further!

Joseph Heller’s 1961 novel Catch-22 details the trials and tribulations of Captain John Yossarian, a U.S. Army bombardier stationed in Italy towards the end of World War Two.  The somewhat satirical book is widely regarded as being simultaneously funny and disturbing. It documents Yossarian’s numerous attempts to prolong his life by evading his duty to go on additional bombing missions.  He comes to regard the war as essentially already won and resents his commanding officer’s practice of putting the lives of  the 256th squadron in danger solely to advance reputation and ambition.  Heller himself was bombardier stationed in Italy during World War II who flew 60 missions.  He stated that the odds for his survival were not in his favor.  Much of the book was drawn from his own experiences, though he says he never had a bad officer and much of the book’s cynicism came from the Korean War and the Red Scare rather than World War II.

Catch-22 is the obscure military rule that obstructs Yossarian from getting out of flying the increasingly growing number of required missions. Catch-22 is now widely used to describe a no win situation. It stipulates that, “a concern for one’s safety in the face of dangers that are real and immediate is the process of a rational mind” and those who possess a rational mind are not crazy and must fly their missions.  Only the insane were excused from service and since asking to be relieved was a sign of sanity, this made it impossible to be relieved from duty;  ” If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to.”

Of course, no such rule officially ever existed, but because Yossarian’s commanding officer acted as though such a rule did exist, it became very real in practice.  Colonel Cathcart, Yossarian’s commanding officer,  throughout the book continues raising the number of missions each individual is expected to fly before they can go home.  He led his men to believe that each increase would be the last but it was always followed by another.  Yossarian believed the colonel’s dishonesty and willingness to put lives at unnecessary risk, not to mention the residents of the cities being bombed, was driven by personal ambitions and had little to do with advancing the war effort.  Indeed, Yossarian tells another member of his squadron:

“The enemy is anybody who’s going to get you killed, no matter which side he’s on, and that includes Colonel Cathcart. And don’t you forget that, because the longer you remember it, the longer you might live.”

Eventually, Yossarian publicly refuses to fly more missions and captures the attention of Cathcart himself.  Cathcart vehemently hates Yossarian and would very much like to have Yossarian court marshaled but realizes that  Yossarian would get exactly what he wants–to be relieved of flying missions.  Eventually Cathcart and his sidekick, Colonel Korn, decide to make Yossarian an offer.  He can get out of flying more missions on one condition. Colonel Korn’s one condition is, “Like us”. Korn further elaborates the terms of the deal:

“Like us. Join us.  Be our pal. Say nice things about us here and back in the States.  Become one of the boys. Now that isn’t asking too much is it?”

All Yossarian has to do to get out of his missions is publicly speak in favor of Cathcart and Korn. Korn points out that after Yossarian does this it will be much easier for them to coerce the rest of Yossarian’s friends into flying more missions and states that they may even use him as an example. Everything about the idea repulses Yossarian but he considers doing it anyway.  In exchange for this agreement, Yossarian is promised not only freedom from his military duties but a comfortable life as “one of the boys” in Cathcart’s well connected circle of military cronies.

There is a similar Catch-22 found in the Christian faith.   Cathcart and Korn’s offer to free Yossarian from clear and present danger in exchange for compulsory praise is very much like what the Christians think their God offers us non-believers.  We are happy that there is no evidence that the God of the Bible exists. God is depicted in both Testaments of the Bible as a petty, murderous, sexist, capricious, bigoted, genocidal monster. My lack of belief means that he is also not able to put me in the Catch-22 where I am forced to like (no, love) him or be subjected forever to eternal torture.  Any being that would arrange for us to be subjected to complete and utter torment forever unless we submit to ourselves to his complete authority and talk ourselves into liking it, is undeserving of admiration or respect.  Furthermore, such an offer would be a far worse Catch-22 than anything described in Heller’s book.

Here’s a blog submission, from Jason Adelstein:

Regardless of what you think of his answers, scientist and author Jared Diamond poses some of the most interesting questions around. I often disagree with his answers, or find them incomplete, but he gets you to think about things that you might not otherwise think about, which is a virtue in its own right.

In this article:

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/13/jared_diamond_its_irrational_to_be_religious/

Diamond poses the question: why are religious supernatural beliefs highly pervasive, mutually incompatible, yet sharing in certain commonalities the world over?

Diamond’s answer seems to be that such irrational beliefs persist because they are overtly absurd enough and distinct enough that espousing them serves a reliable indicator of group loyalty, but they are also close enough to everyday experience to gratify human emotions.

Diamond’s on to something, but maybe missing something too.

We’ve spoken at length on this blog about how morality, while it is an indispensable component of human life, does not come from religion even for the most devout of religious believers. The Bible, for example, advocates a lot of horribly immoral things!

Moral questions are often difficult ones, and the knowledge of how to answer moral questions has been hard won by human civilization over thousands of years. Because it has built up gradually over generations, our individual moral knowledge is often in-explicit; we say that some things just “feel wrong” but can’t easily explain why.

Yet some things that seem morally horrendous to us now, like slavery, didn’t “feel wrong” to most people a few hundred years ago, or in the bronze age when The Bible was written. That’s powerful evidence that morality is a form of knowledge that can be improved over time, rather than something that’s hardwired into our genes or dictated once, infallibly, for all eternity.

The human mind is thirsty for explanations. one reason that people persist in irrational supernatural religious beliefs is to account for the moral knowledge that they have, but can’t explain otherwise. They may know what the right moral thing is, but can’t explain why it is the right moral thing other than by invoking an authoritative deity who they believe decrees it to be so. Never mind that a few hundred years ago, their religious predecessors were absolutely convinced that the same deity had quite the opposite opinion.

And at a personal level, religious believers may often know that doing the wrong moral thing will eventually catch up to a person and make their life worse. But they can’t explain how that will happen, other than by invoking some kind of deity who punishes sinners and rewards saints.

And sometimes, people also can’t muster the self control to do the things they know are right, unless they can convince themselves that a supernatural deity is always standing over them, watching and judging.

So, while morality doesn’t come from religion, our need to explain morality and muster the self discipline to abide by it can be a powerful force in perpetuating irrational religious beliefs. This has profound implications for atheists: we need to not only live moral lives ourselves, but improve our ability to explain moral truths and how to live by them to others in an objective, rational, non-supernatural way.

Please read Diamond’s article and then comment: Is there anything else you think Diamond missed about this question? What do you think of the conjecture that the need to explain our moral knowledge plays a role in the perpetuation of irrational religious beliefs?