I need to confess that I have a somewhat loose connection to Anders Behring Breivik, who recently killed 76 people in Norway. You see, he lifted words for his manifesto from the manifesto of “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski. I never met Ted, but he and I were in the same research field of geometric function theory, and I published some joint papers with Kaczynski’s dissertation advisor.

When Kaczynski was caught, a slightly paranoid math colleague of mine became unnecessarily concerned that there might be an anti-mathematician backlash. It helped that nobody could think of other mathematicians who were guilty of anything more than eccentric behavior. History showed that violence was more likely to be committed against, rather than by, mathematicians. Hypatia of Alexandria had an illustrious math career until she was burned alive in 415 by a mob of Christian monks. And St. Augustine said, “The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.”

While Kaczynski never made any connections between his mathematics and his violent acts, Breivik indicated in his manifesto that he was a conservative Christian engaged in a Christian war to defend Europe against the threat of Muslim domination. His acts are consistent with both biblical Christian theology and Christian behavior. The Bible and other holy books have passages encouraging the murder of infidels. They also have passages about loving your neighbor. I think we can tell more about individuals by which parts of their contradictory holy books they emphasize than by which religion they have in common.

Continue Reading (via On Faith)

On Faith question: The Dalai Lama, who is in Washington, D.C., for a ten day event, has written: “I have come to the conclusion that whether or not a person is a religious believer does not matter much. Far more important is that they be a good human being.”. . . “That is why I sometimes say that religion is something we can perhaps do without. ”It seems many in the West agree with the spiritual leader, as millions report that they incorporate Buddhist practices such as meditation or mindfulness into their own spiritual activities without necessarily adopting Buddhism as their religion. Does religion aid or hinder the spiritual journey? Can you practice Buddhism without becoming Buddhist?

As a secular humanist, I believe we can gain knowledge of the world through observation, experimentation, reading, and critical thinking. I believe that ethical values are derived from human needs and interests, and are tested and refined by experience. I believe that our deeds are more important than our creeds, and that dogmas should never override compassion for others. I don’t think we should give credit to a deity for our accomplishments or blame satanic forces when we behave badly. I believe we should take responsibility for our actions.

I think the Dalai Lama would agree with everything I just said. I applaud him for saying we can do without religion, and that whether a person is a religious believer is not as important as whether the person is a good human being. I also agree with the Dalai Lama when he says, “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

Practicing parts of Buddhism certainly doesn’t make me a Buddhist. I probably “practice” parts of most religions, the portions I consider reasonable and consistent with my secular humanism. This means, of course, that I reject almost all beliefs and practices in most religions. My patriotic Fourth of July celebration included reading the rather short Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson used a razor to cut out the supernatural parts of the New Testament and other passages he thought were morally wrong. Jefferson called what remained, “Diamonds in a dunghill.” I recommend reading all books skeptically and looking for whatever diamonds or pearls of wisdom they may contain.

Continue Reading (via On Faith)

To me, same-sex marriage is a no-brainer and long overdue. Equal treatment under the law is not a radical idea. Same-sex couples should have the same rights, benefits, and protections as opposite-sex couples.

The New York State bill to legalize same-sex marriage would not require religious institutions to perform same-sex or any other marriage they deem religiously incorrect. Religious freedom allows religions to discriminate and make rules for its faithful, but not for those outside the faith. The government has no right to make decisions about religious marriage and religions have no right to make decisions about civil marriage.

Religious freedom goes both ways. It makes no more sense for a religion to decide on my civil rights than it does for me to decide which dead people should be declared saints. I’m troubled by the way some religions discriminate against women, against gays and lesbians, against those of different or no faith, and against all who don’t subscribe to a very narrow religious doctrine. But as an advocate for freedom of religion, I acknowledge their right to take such positions.

Some give biblical justification that marriage should be between a man and a woman, just as a couple of generations ago they gave biblical justification that marriage should be between members of the same race. I could just as easily give biblical justification for marriage being between a man and no more than 700 women (I Kings 11:3). Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, which means his brain was not his most remarkable organ. Those who wish to make civil laws compatible with a particular interpretation of a so-called holy book might think about moving to one of the many theocratic countries.

Continue Reading (via On Faith)

The primary positive outcome I can envision for a ban on male circumcision is that Jews and Muslims would finally have a cause on which they could work together. If it starts with a piece of flesh, perhaps it will one day lead to peace.

That said, I personally oppose all medically unnecessary operations and circumcision is one such procedure. However small the risks, there are risks. I also personally oppose the use of illegal drugs (and oppose, even more strongly, the use of some legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol in excess). My preventive solution in all these cases is education rather than bans.

Alcohol prohibition was instituted in the United States in 1919, by passage of the Eighteenth Amendment. This violence-producing and unenforceable prohibition was wisely repealed in 1933 with passage of the Twenty-first Amendment. President Nixon in 1971 declared a War on Drugs, with the same problems as our war on alcohol. Unfortunately, this losing war continues even after 40 years of increased violence.

Does anyone doubt that a ban on circumcision would lead to more medical problems because the procedure would be performed underground by less qualified cutters? Circumcision, like clean needle exchanges for those injecting illegal drugs, is far less harmful than passing a law to ban it would be.

Continue Reading (via On Faith)