Myth Supplants Reality & Fantasy Displaces Common Sense

By Gary Berg-Cross

Allan Sloan wrote recently about the 5 Myths of the Great Financial Meltdown. His list covered:

1: The government should have done nothing

2: The government bailed out shareholders

3: The Volcker Rule will save us

4: Taxpayers are off the hook for future failures. And

5: It's the government's fault.

The details in the article are worth reading, but I was particularly struck a compelling framing line that I could identify with in his analysis:

I find myself getting increasingly angry and frustrated watching myth supplant reality about what happened, and seeing fantasy displace common sense when it comes to fixing the problems that got us in this mess .

Some manifestations are because of ideological and political stances. We see fantasy and unsound thinking in the climate change debate and warming as conspiracy of scientists, who are the most reality grounded of us. We will hear more myth, like “death panels” in likely discussion the Affordable Health Care act. As Chris Mooney notes it seems at times the political right lives in a different reality that pushed serious, critical thinking to the back of the bus. You can see this for yourself by going to the Main page of Conservapedia. When I was writing this blog the following were the very mythic, anti-freethinking news stories featured:

Liberals have destroyed the perceived value of a college degree with their worst college majors: "Undervalued and overpriced, the beleaguered bachelor's degree is losing its edge as the hallmark of an educated, readily employable American." [9]

---

The myth of neutrality.[10] Which side are you on?

Remind Wikipedia that their neutral point of view policy (NPOV) is a farce and they might as well confess they are liberals! See: Bias in Wikipedia

---

Pastor Carl Gallups declares his anti-atheism and anti-evolution book is doing well around the world.VIDEO

Is there more bad news on its way for global atheism and global evolutionism? You know where to go to find the latest news detailing the decline of atheism and evolutionism![11][12][13] It is such a glorious time to be a Christian creationist.[14][15]

---

Also, food related stocks with large international footprints are largely doing well in the Great Recession.[18][19] No matter how incompetent Barack Obama and secular European leaders are, people still need to eat!

---

Much to the dismay of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Michelle Obama and "The Lord of the Fries" (Barack Obama), there are fast food restaurants serving big sugary drinks whose stocks are doing well in the Great Recession.[20]

Obese atheists and obese evolutionists of the world, stop driving up the price of fast food stocks! Also, a leading creationist organization declares, "Blaming gluttony on evolution seems very self-serving."[21] You thought you could blame your obesity and gluttony on "evolution". Think again! Start hitting the gym for 60 minutes a day evolutionist slackers![22][23][24] And give your body one day of rest a week.[25][26]

**********************************************************************************

Want to read part of the Conservapedia entry on Climate Change? Here is a snippet:

Ideologues insist that the world's top scientists have reached a "consensus" that most of the warming which land-based weather stations have recorded in the last century is due to human activity. The basis for this claim is a set of reports published by the IPCC, an agency of the United Nations. The assumption is that the government-appointed representatives who run the IPCC would be completely objective and neutral, and would place finding and revealing the truth ahead of any nationalistic interests.

A lot of money is spent publicizing each side's position in the debate:

"Newsweek purports to take readers inside the world of “Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine” without mentioning that the global-warming alarmists are even better funded, in some cases with government support

Myths replacing reality is a perennial worrisome topic to Freethinkers and the above is a large dose. Some of the WASH speaker’s have addressed the myth-reality battle directly. Rob Boston’s Talk on “The Christian Nation Myth” covered many aspects of this arguing that we have to

strongly oppose the Christian establishment myth and its associated principles, which exclude many people who now it can claim, are not true Americans. We are still struggling with our pluralism and the claim that non-believers that don't have America’s best interest at heart.

Another historical myth family has bothered my is the oversimplified stories about Western and American Exceptionalism such as Niall Ferguson’s book Civilization: The West and the Rest or the Reagan-like belief that “God has granted America a special role in human history.”.

Such Myths are potent in part because they cobble together reassuring ideas that we want to believe in. We just need enough support to get above a very low threshold of our version of “proof” that serves a confirmatory bias.

WallBuilders is an organization, for example, that shows a healthy dose of confirmatory bias towards the proposition of:

"presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built – a foundation which, in recent years, has been seriously attacked and undermined. In accord with what was so accurately stated by George Washington, we believe that "the propitious [favorable] smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation which disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained."

Myths persist in part because considering the alternative, skeptical view is threatening. Then again, critical thinking, as opposed to the intuitive, feel-good version is hard work. Real historic understanding takes time and energy for evidentiary analysis and most of us routinely rely on short cuts that seem like common sense but are often don’t stand up to rational analysis..

Rational analysis for the masses, alas, remains an unfulfilled Enlightenment goal..

Some Highlights of Rob Boston’s Talk on “The Christian Nation Myth”

By Gary Berg-Cross

In January Rob Boston, the Senior Policy Analyst, Americans United (AU) for Separation of Church and State, was the featured speaker at the MDC chapter of WASH. Rob spoke on the very timely topic of “The Christian Nation Myth” and one of the follow on discussion topics was covered in an earlier blog. The MDC March speaker, Edd Doerr, is likely to add to this discussion so people interested in the topic should come March to hear Edd. As a precursor to this and because some may have missed Rob’s talk, I’ve provided some abbreviated notes on the 4 main arguments from Rob’s talk with a few supplements from other sources.

1. Back to Constitution.

As noted on the AU site:

Religious Right groups and their allies insist that the United States was designed to be officially Christian and that our laws should enforce the doctrines of (their version of) Christianity. Is this viewpoint accurate? Is there anything in the Constitution that gives special treatment or preference to Christianity? Did the founders of our government believe this or intend to create a government that gave special recognition to Christianity?

We can start with the Constitution and ask what it says about religion?
First there are no references to Christianity or God in the Constitution. Indeed the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once.

The word "God" does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States. After spending three-and-a-half months debating and negotiating about what should go into the document that would govern the land, the framers drafted a constitution that is secular. The U.S. Constitution is often confused with the Declaration of Independence, and it's important to understand the difference. theocracywatch.org

There are 2 special clauses in Amendments but they show no preference for religion. The 1^st Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Through ratification of the First Amendment, observed Jefferson, the American people built a "wall of separation between church and state."

The 2^nd came from Charles Pinckney of South Carolina who put a prohibit against a religious test as a qualification for federal officeholders office in Article Six since some states required officeholders be of a particular religion. Article VI, which allows persons of all religious viewpoints to hold public office, was adopted by a unanimous vote. (Note - Some have a different view of what the founders intended by these amendments. Supporters of the role of religion in revolutionary times argue they intended only to defuse controversy by disarming potential critics who might claim religious discrimination in eligibility for public office.

We know something of the founders feelings about religion from Luther Martin of Maryland who gave said that:

a handful of delegates to the Constitutional Convention argued for formal recognition of Christianity in the Constitution, insisting that such language was necessary in order to "hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." But that view was not adopted, and the Constitution gave government no authority over religion.

Luther as actually a fierce opponent of ratification, and reported that the "no religious test" clause easily had passed at Philadelphia, noting sarcastically:

However, there were some members so unfashionable as to think that a belief of the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.

2 The American Experience and What the Founders thought

We should understand the American experience around the revolutionary time and their sense of its European history. The revolution was about breaking away from Europe, but also reforming the American approach. Americans (e.g. Franklyn and Adams) had already experienced harsh legacies of the Pilgrims and in Jefferson’s VA their was a too cozy combination of church and state.
Letters show that Madison and Jefferson’s views on the VA statute (1786) for religious liberty was not limited to Christians and included Moslems and infidels.

our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than [on] our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing [of] any citizen as unworthy [of] the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right

It was clear, and the Founders wrote, that the new role of President would be only political an not religious.

3 The Founder's Religion

Were the core Founder’s Christians? There is a big effort by Christian Revisionists to rewrite history about the Founder’s religion. But this argument has been knocked down in blogs such as Rob’s Alternet.org’s article on five Founding Fathers Skepticism_about_Christianity

Washington, for example, didn’t talk about Christ but was a Deist and left the church. He had a social utilitarian belief of religion – It’s good for morals. And we have Washington's Promises Jewish Congregation that US Will Practice Religious Tolerance as well as this quote:

"As the government of the United States is not in any sense
founded on the Christian religion..."-- George Washington

Adams was Unitarian with a belief that Christ was not God. He believed, however that reason and faith could be combined.

In February 1756, Adams wrote in his diary about a discussion he had had with an officer called Major Greene. Greene was a devout Christian who sought to persuade Adams to adopt conservative Christian views. The 2 apparently argued over the divinity of Jesus & the Trinity. Questioned on the matter of Jesus’ divinity, Greene fell back on an old standby of playing the mystery card:

some matters of theology are too complex and mysterious for we puny humans to understand.
Adams wrote that this mystery defense was a convenient cover for “absurdity.”

We have lots of evidence of Jefferson’s religious belief including his famous Bible on display at the Smithsonian and a subject of a previous Blog posting.
There are also pieces from his Letters to Adams (1823):

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

We also have his 1819 letter on what beliefs he doesn't accept including:

· Immaculate Conception

· Divinity and Trinity

· Orders of hierarchy

Madison might be a theist but was probably the strictest church-state separationist among the founders. He took stands more bold than the ACLU:

· He opposed government-paid chaplains in Congress and in the military.

· As president, Madison rejected a proposed census because it involved counting people by profession.

· For the government to count the clergy, Madison said, would violate the First Amendment. (from Alternet)

Tom Paine is a Founder less often mentioned, but a rationalist and enemy of religion.

· He was also a radical Deist whose later work, The Age of Reason, still infuriates fundamentalists. In the tome, Paine attacked institutionalized religion and all of the major tenets of Christianity. (from Alternet)

4. Founding Period Discussion and Later
This period tells us how the constitution and bill of rights documents were attacked by clergy like Millennialist Reverend David Austin (1759-1831). People tried to add Christian amendment to Constitution to rectify the preamble adding key phrases recognizing Lord Christ as ruler. On the other hand there were things written into the Treaty of Tripoli 1796 that points another way:

As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” Ordered by George Washington, Signed by President Adams

One of Rob's key points was that there was more Christian push back after the civil war (1864-1874).

In that period representatives voted the amendments down recognizing the dangers of union of church-state. But there was a national myth generated that was latched onto during the social dislocation of the civil war period. People had a hunger to go back to simpler times. The result is a national myth of a golden age. Many cultures have had such things including the garden of Eden idea and the golden age that Greeks looked back to from the 500 BCE era, which was pretty golden itself.

Among the legacies we have from the 1864-1874 period is the idea of putting “God is our Trust” on to coins. This was defeated then but a variant is of recent vintage, having been slipped in during the cold war. Another legacy is the idea of American exceptionalism as an expression of God's favor and will.

So part of the golden story we get is “Everything fine until .. (add your own disturbance such as Gay marriage, Hispanic immigrants, Secular Humanists…)
It’s a convenient ploy which harnesses a plot of a history suppressed by secular elites. One of its appeals is that in the story Christians appear as the exceptional heroes and defenders of civilization. It all seems right that they, rather than others, are the ones who were originally meant to be in charge of society and the myth is that they were. This is an appealing, old tale as heard in the story of God’s chosen people. The Hebrew version now has evangelical updates and a Mormon corollary that mixes myth and secret knowledge.


Recent efforts to use a religious rules for society (e.g. in PA) ignores what governance were really like in biblical times. It was not a gracious society providing a model on how a society should run (remember slavery?). But earlier efforts have left some remnants such as the legacy of no shopping on Sunday. This was an agenda item of National religious reform effort and got a start along with efforts to allow prayer in school.

Indeed the late 19^th century saw efforts to get secular plays banned and the postal service stopped shipping free thinker publications. There was also a religious move against women's rights.

Rob concluded his talk noting where we stand today including recent efforts to not only rewrite history, but also Science. You can see a list of issues that religious folks have with secular governance on many web sites. He argued strongly that:

1. we have to strongly oppose the Christian establishment myth and its associated principles, which exclude many people who now it can claim, are not true Americans. We are still struggling with our pluralism and the claim that non-believers that don't have America’s best interest at heart.

2. We need to promote the teaching of true History and Science and we have to honor our constitutional values.

3. We need to counter the bad arguments that church-state wall is against religion and imposed by courts.

The follow-on discussion of the talk was of the same high quality and I will perhaps cover some of this in a later Blog post. I’m looking forward to Edd Doerr’s talk on March 3^rd at the Wheaton Library which should be equally stimulating and enlightening.

Looking forwardd to Rob Boston's talk Saturday at Wheaton Regional Library

Picture above is from the Friendly Atheist

by Gary Berg-Cross

Robert Boston, Assistant Director of Communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Assistant Editor of Church & State magazine, is speaking this Saturday (Feb. the 11th) at the MDC chapter of WASH at the Wheaton Regional Library on Georgia Ave. in Wheaton, MD.

His topic is one that people argue over passionately - “The Christian Nation Myth.”

Religious Right activists often claim that America was founded as a Christian nation, and polls show that an alarmingly high number of Americans agree with this point of view.
What does the Constitution really say about religious liberty, and where did the “Christian nation” myth originate? Why is it dangerous?

The blog History is Elementary took some inspiration from one of Rob's prior talks noting that:

In February 1756, Adams wrote in his diary about a discussion he had had with a conservative Christian named Major Greene. The two argued over the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. Questioned on the matter of Jesus' divinity, Greene fell back on an old standby: some matters of theology are too complex and mysterious for we puny humans to understand.

Adams was not impressed. In his diary he wrote, "Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

Perhaps we'll here more on the history of our founders and more on separation of church and state since Rob has authored three books on the subject:

• Why the Religious Right Is Wrong About Separation of Church & State (Prometheus Books, second edition, 2003),
• Close Encounters with the Religious Right: Journeys into the Twilight Zone of Religion and Politics (Prometheus Books, 2000) and
• The Most Dangerous Man in America? Pat Robertson and the Rise of the Christian Coalition (Prometheus Books,

If you can’t wait till Saturday, sou can see his popular talk on the “The Religious Right's War on America” and what he learned at the Values Summit and hot off the presses is his article 10 Reasons Why the Religious Right Is Not Pro-Family. Rob starts that article by quoting from James Dobson & Gary Bauer's 1990 book Children at Risk: The Battle for the Hearts and Minds of Our Kids:

"America is involved in a Second Civil War. On one side are those who defend family, faith and traditional values. On the other side are those who aggressively reject any hint of tradition or religion and want a society based on secular values."

This is not a claim that Rob lets pass by without challenge including ideas that sprout from ignorance, censorship, intolerance and hatred.

Come to the free lecture from 2 -4 this Feb. 11^th…Lee’s fabulous snacks and hospitality are served at our 3 pm intermission before Q & A.

Arguing about Historical Generalizations and Conclusions

by Gary Berg-Cross

In general most people prefer generalities and general conclusions. It makes life simpler.

We may come to them honestly, naively or via various jumps in reasoning. These may include some mixture of belief and intuition. The honest and scientific way comes by inductive reasoning, or what most of us call logical induction. Formal induction is a kind of constructive reasoning based on evidence from individual instances. These provide the premises of the inductive conclusion. In theory and applied in formal mathematics it is clear and can seem simple.

The idea is to reason logically from factual premises. But in practice, when applied to the human world, it is more typically more complex than that. Any intro course is Social Science suggests this. Just think of the attempts to make historical generalizations. Courses are full of them, but many historical generalizations are suspect as inductive simplifications that leave something out. I got to thinking on this seeing a generalization about Religion and Democracy in a comment from a recent blog discussion on Falwell’s Law. This drifted into discussing the premise that Christianity was anti-democratic. A launching point was Rushdooney's book which is critical of Democracy. Some quotes of his included generalizations that-"the heresy of democracy has since then worked havoc in church and state ... Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies."

Another is the flat out assertion that "Christianity is completely and radically anti-democratic.” A commentator agreed and took a strong position that Christianity (but I imagine he would agree with a broader view of all the religions based on the Book) as necessarily anti-democratic. Two types of historical evidence, edited slightly to illustrate the implied a logical argument, were offered:

• Christianity is everywhere devoted to what he called the “dictatorship” of the clergy, and

• A close reading of the Ten Commandments, one Judeo source of social priorities, reveals that the majority of the commandments support this religio-centric view.

We can argue about this, but agree that these indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion. We might liberally formalize them like this to expose some of the reasoning:

• A close inspection has ~60% of the Judeo 10 commandments dictate religious control.
• Judeo-inspired Religious groups follow the Judeo 10 commandments.
• Therefore, Judeo-inspired Religious (instance) Christianity dictates religious control.
  

Classical induction focus on simple premises and the ones I’ve penned above are getting complex. What do we mean by “close inspection”? I’ve added an arbitrary assertion that 60% of the commandments are categorized that they are about religious control whatever that is. And we might add some supporting facts that are in the mind when understanding such an argument. There is often background knowledge and implied things that might further support this or a more specific conclusion. For example, the more “fundamental” a group is the original religious formulations, the closer they may be to a support religio-centric rather than democratic values and control. In practice the inductive process leading to a conclusion can be pretty messy since evidence, especially historical evidence, may go in several directions. Topics that we argue about, such as the above relation of Religions to Democracy are often not unitary things, but composites and mixtures. The 10 Commandments are mixtures of religious adherence and moral suggestion.

The parts of the Bible or Koran that groups look at and the value they give them can vary. The history and experience of a religious group can be formalized as part of their organization approach. Quakers are not like Falwell’s Christian group. All of these make conclusions more complex and tentative. My mind often travels these reasoning paths when I am confronted with historical assertions.One that bugs the Infidel community is the generalized claim that America was founded as a Christian nation. Religious people may prefer this conclusion.As evidence they point to a selective set of “facts” (historical knowledge) to make the case. So they might use a fact that many founders attended church. But here the fact needs to be understood in social and historical context.Bishop William Meade, explained their behavior this way: "Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence."

So from attendance, an historical fact that often can be checked, you cannot conclude that they held a tradition belief. The real historical knowledge seems limited to pretty specific statements about specific actors in concrete local circumstances, but from this people generalize and sometimes wildly about what the behavior "means".

In other cases they have made up facts which support their conclusions.

An infamous example is the set of stories create around George Washington. He may not have had Paine’s Deist convictions, but he was far from a traditional Christian. He, along with other founders, was greatly admired in the mid-19^th century. Having non-traditional heroes was a great problem for Christian preachers during a time when they were pushing a new awakening and revival that would give us fundamentalism. They wanted the much admired Washington to be on their side. Their beliefs may have been so strong that they could convince themselves that it was true. In any event they portrayed him in stories and art as a person on strong Christian beliefs. Think of the made up image of Washington praying in the snow. A key fabricator of these propaganda pieces was Christian preacher Mason Locke Weems. Among other things Preacher Weems crafted a death bed story for Washington’s saying that:

"Washington folded his arms decently on his breast, then breathing out 'Father of mercies, take me to thyself,' - he fell asleep." Like other things that Christian fundamentalists sat about Washington, this seems not to be true. In this case we can look to the account from Tobias Lear, Washington's secretary. Lear was with Washington's when he died and wrote this:

"About ten o'clk he made several attempts to speak to me before he could effect it, at length he said, -'I am just going. Have me decently buried; and do not let my body be put into the vault in less than three days after I am dead.' I bowed assent, for I could not speak. He then looked at me again and said, 'Do you understand me?' I replied, 'Yes.' 'Tis well,' said he."About ten minutes before he expired (which was between ten and eleven o'clk) his breathing became easier; he lay quietly….”It is also true that Humanists may subscribe to over generalizations base on their world view, although I don’t find them making up stories so readily. that what we now call the Renaissance encouraged “innovative thinking"? Or maybe it was more of a substitution and elevation of a new form of thinking mixed with some innovation. What evidence could prove this? Perhaps it is very much dependent on what you mean by innovation. It's useful to take a skeptical stance about such things as I wrote in another blog on shallow skepticism and another on conservative quotes. The problem with statements like these is the sweep and unity of their generalization. They imply that some complex phenomena which we call the Renaissance (or American culture) were essentially uniform social realities.
This papers over the forms of variation that certainly existed in the phenomena Renaissance, among American founding and in Christianity. Simple generalizations are useful for everyday discussion, especially to draw up side, but thoughtful discussion tolerates more complexity.