The Hard Board

**BW was one of the most intelligent, well-read and astute thinkers I have ever known. A couple or three years ago he graciously invited me to play Words with Friends on our phones. At first he would win handily, of course. Still, I enjoyed his companionship, virtual and actual, especially when he and his wife got a place nearby in the City. Gradually, after I'd gained some experience, learning much by playing him, the results weren't always so lopsided. In the past year it was getting closer to 50-50.

Too hard

On occasion, he'd explain his low score by stating that this particular game had a hard board, meaning that the tiles he'd drawn were difficult to turn into high-scoring words. It was an acknowledgement that regardless of the innate intelligence or expertise of a player, the game — like life — is subject to the luck of the draw.

The hardest board

Our last game

About a year ago BW's body was dealt a hard board: Cancer. Despite a generally healthful lifestyle and the best medical treatment money could buy, bad genes also had a place at the table. He played all-out to win, with many ups and downs along the way. But the last move of that game was a few days ago, on March 1 (WWF informed me that "It's been 10 days" since we'd exchanged plays). And it's a down

Not an immortalist
One of several books he'd recommended to me, a book I could actually follow, was one he'd recently re-read: Immortality: the Quest to Live Forever and How it Drives Civilization. We discussed and agreed with the conclusion of that book: though there is no way —  here or hereafter —  to gain immortality, the best policy is to live here kindly, seek the welfare of others and be rid of as much illusion as possible. Qualities BW exemplified amply, gently.

While expected and prepared for, his death still pains me. I will miss the companionship of this formidable opponent and virtual/actual friend.

But, wait —  sadly, there's more.
Just a couple hours after being informed of BW's grim prognosis I got this distressing tweet from my former colleague and friend, CG:

She's a brilliant writer, specializing in food. Her restaurant reviews, descriptions of food, travelogues and the like were always fascinating, even if one didn't care for her subject (my favorite is an entry, with video, about dining on a pig's head.) After leaving our religious citadel, where she was employed as a rare "non," she got a job at a cancer hospital.

And then got cancer.

In the mouth.

In the mouth.

Hard board, indeed.

A couple years of chemo, some ups and downs, and now: "end of the line." What makes it more appalling is that she's supposed to be in the prime of life — arguably unlike BW and, certainly, me. She's supposed to get a better deal. Life is supposed to be a lot easier. And longer lasting.

How tweet it isn't
Adding to the weirdness of this experience is the fact that she's sharing her death process ON THE INTERNET! Now, I accept that we're in a connected age, but this is bizarre. Maybe outrageous. Yet, strangely, in her case, it's also inspiring. She can pull it off because her good cheer, humor and eloquence take the edge off.

But beyond the edge is the rest of the blade: She'll be gone soon. Too soon.

Why me?
I don't know if I have better or worse genes than these two hapless friends. If better genes, I'm sure I've compromised their ability to help me. I smoked for twenty years — two+ packs a day and drank heavily during several periods in my life, including the most recent seven years. High salt. High fat. High alcohol. High tension. High risk.

But easier boards:

As I've blogged about before, last October, when an echocardiogram showed that my heart was delivering only a 37% ejection fraction (40%-50% is considered below normal), it was decided that I needed an angiogram to determine the cause and treatment. This involves slipping a very thin tube into a coronary artery (don’t ask how) and taking a look around. What they saw was a vessel 99% blocked by plaque — a sign of hard living, and maybe hard genetics. As I understand my cardiologist's explanation, when this thin tube (catheter) was inserted into that coronary artery it made the blockage go from 99% to 100%. This essentially induced a "heart attack" right there on the cath lab table. Emergency measures ensued and the medical team was able to bring me back and complete the mission. I left the hospital a couple days later with three stents in that artery.  

As boards go, this was "hard." But not "too hard," thanks to medical expertise.

And a stroke of good luck 

It affirms where I stand now: soberly atheistic after decades of believing in, teaching about and advocating for a supreme benevolent force for good in the universe. I am not naïve and unschooled. I've studied the Bible, theology and metaphysics; studied and unsuccessfully practiced an unrealistic 19th century healing system based on that premise; taught it; written about it; and carefully observed my life and the lives of others (including those of my atheist friends BW and CG, as well as my believing family and other friends). I have studied and tried several different belief systems including the no less loony one I was brought up with. 

And my conclusions: We live in a material universe that has originated, evolved and is run by chance. "Spirituality" has more to do with insight into human consciousness than with any tangible substance. In sum: There is no "God."

Why not?
By far a most convincing argument against a theological ground of existence is expressed by the website: Why won't God Heal amputees? It's based on the fact that there has never been a credibly documented case where an amputated limb was restored to normality through "spiritual" means. If a god can't do that, the rest is bullshit. The "goodness" in our experience has nothing to do with any "Principle" of goodness. It's just optimal human practice.

As a blog pal and also former religionist, Liz Heywood, has expressed it: "I'm happier with Chance instead of fate." Well, I wouldn't exactly say I'm happy with chance — I'm not happy with anything that determines my destruction. But it's certainly more intellectually honest and satisfying than believing in an imaginary but impotent Friend.

I'll leave it there for now.

Farewell, precious fellow players. 
Sooner or later I'll be joining you in oblivion, if not renown.

And to my still-playing companions in this perilous and doomed game, for as long as possible, may the boards be with us.

God on the brain

Sam Harris worked on a study using fMRI that sought to compare the brain's behavior when it considered two kinds of topics: god and "tables and chairs." In other words, intangible vs. tangible objects. What the study found is that belief in god was functionally the same as NOT believing in god. Both were identified as "facts" by the person being studied. However, either experience was not considered by the brain as being as solid as the "facts" of physical objets. A different part of the brain is engaged when considering "tables and chairs" and the like. The conclusion is that there is room for some degree of doubt about abstract things. So a believer may reserve just a teeny bit of doubt about the existence of god, and the atheist may have a slight suspicion that god exists.

I have been trying to get in touch with the authors of this study to ask a question that pertains to my experience: what is going on when someone turns into an atheist after having been a believer? And vice-versa. What happens when a "fact" becomes seen as an error - and vice-versa. Maybe I'll find a way to ask.

I still feel the religious "twitch" even though I now am so convinced that theology is the study of fantasy, not of anything real. I suppose one doesn't unlearn twitches that were 60+ years in the making. According to Gladwell, I have way more than 100000 hours of repetition of religious concepts, beliefs and practices. And it is the one "skill" I wish I didn't have. I wonder what I might be now if I had put in even half that time into musical study. Maybe just another burnt out junkie. But maybe not.

God and Elvis

Don't tell me that god exists because you KNOW it from experience. That's not a proof and not a reason why anyone should agree with you. Don't try to argue with Sam Harris!

Why do people believe in god despite the lack of evidence?

As a former believer (addict) I concur with Larry Beinhart's explanation, excerpted below. This is one in a series of articles he's writing for AlterNet.

Needs that can't be satisfied don't go away.

Hunger doesn't cease when there's no food, thirst when there's nothing to drink, the desire for sex when there's no appropriate partner, the yearning for love when everyone hates us.

Our being is built to keep pushing itself. The chemical goads don't relent. The pain does not stop.

At this point we have a choice.

We can accept that this particular need can't be satisfied. That our knowledge is insufficient. Or, in modern times, that the universe does not mean anything in the terms we want to hear about.

The pain remains.

Until someone creative comes along and says, "I have an answer. There's a God." Actually, prior to about to about 1300 BC, when monotheism was invented, they would have said gods. "He's like the king. But bigger and better. He knows it all. He has a master plan. You're included. So it all has meaning, in relation to you."

Even if it's not true, if you accept it, the pain suddenly stops.

When we have a toothache, it's not just the tooth that's out of whack. Our whole being is out of balance. When it's fixed we feel good all over.

Then, on top of that, we get a hit of joy juice from our being. It's a reward for fixing the problem. So we feel really, really good.

If it's Tuesday and the dentist can't see us until Friday, we take a painkiller. It doesn't fix the problem, but it does make us feel better, allows the rest of our body to come into balance, and makes it so we can go on about our business.

That's why we believe in God, even when one doesn't exist.

Because a false answer is better than no answer at all. And that's our only choice, no answer or a false one.

Read the full article here.

Ridiculous religionists - too easy

There are many funny moments in Bill Maher's "Religulous." And that's part of the problem. Freaks, nut-cases, extremists in outrageous costumes and inarticulate people can all be easily set up for a laugh. They are ridiculous religionists. There are a number of these in "Religulous," a film that Maher says is intended to raise doubts about the claims of religion. A laudable, even important, goal. But the toxins of religion also worm deep into the psyches of mostly ordinary people, not just the flamboyant crazies. Stand at the door of most churches prior to a service and you don't see freaks walking in. You see the hoi polloi, the intensely average mass of society. Some, if not many, of these people are awake enough to know that the claims of religion are ridiculous, but they choose to go along to get along. Many more just don't think about the claims, they just accept it as part of their cultural identity. They wear their religion like an occasional badge (or flag pin), a set-it-and-forget-it accoutrement to be displayed at the door of social acceptance.

Where the Great Average goes horribly wrong is when it has to make decisions that affect the world as a whole. In a political contest every candidate has to flash that badge because if they don't then Joe Average gets suspicious. And so dolts like Bush garner praise because they say they make foreign policy decisions based on messages they receive from a heavenly Father. An airhead like Sarah Palin can espouse freakish beliefs in End Times, fear of witchcraft, and messages from the divine and the religious “right” say amen to the possibility (probability) that she could become President. Even Barack Obama has to steer through the treacherous shoals of perception that he is either a Muslim terrorist or a Christian anarchist – so he just goes bland.

While it's true that the claims of religion are ultimately ridiculous, I wish Maher had shown (or had been able to find) more ordinary people. I would have recommended most of my family, who are good-hearted and generally likeable, even while they shamelessly take comfort in ridiculous, unprovable assumptions.

But owing to the hypnotic nature of these beliefs, I doubt that they, and most ordinary religionists, could be persuaded to doubt. But it would have been interesting for Maher to try anyway.

50 ways to leave your lord

It is easy to prove to yourself that God is imaginary. The evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs:

Stenger's reply to WL Craig

Over on Debunking Christianity is a long piece quoting Victor Stenger in a debate with William Lane Craig. I find these arguments crisp and persuasive. They address just about all the arguments theists advance for the existence of a spiritual world and a supreme being.

Here's the summary of his points:

1. The traditional attributes of God are self-contradictory. Such a God cannot exist.

2. The traditional attributes of God are incompatible with objective facts about the world. Such a God cannot exist.

3. Natural explanations are superior to supernatural explanations. No basis exists for anything supernatural.

4. The traditional attributes of God imply actions that should be objectively observed, but are not.

It is possible to hypothesize a God whose attributes are logically compatible with each other. But, it does not follow that such a God exists unless it has objectively observable consequences. No such consequences have been observed.

If God exists, where is he?

What I Now Believe

** Someone recently asked me to explain “how someone can see what Christian Science is and then unsee it.” What follows is a set of conclusions arrived at over a couple of years of careful investigation of alternatives to the ideas I deeply studied, professed and taught over the course of thirty years.

First let me say that I believe Christian Science makes the best sense of all the religions. But the realization I came to is that the issue isn't which theology is the most correct, but that none of them are. Until recently I had always assumed that there was a divine agent that created and maintains the universe and that having a clear insight of this fact could positively alter events and conditions in my life (aka healing.) But now I do not feel this is correct. Phenomena attributable to this divine agent can be explained in other, more rational and verifiable ways. My departure from Christian Science has to do with its very basis, not certain people or the Church itself. Most of the Christian Scientists I've known are fine people and I'm always happy to count them as friends even though we may not agree on what constitutes ultimate reality. Christian Scientists, like most sincere religionists, are among the nicest people in the world even if they believe their goodness rests on spiritual or divine principle. Also, I have no quarrel with the Church or its administrations, present and past, other than its theology. I do not believe in so-called spiritual healing, again because I feel that these phenomena can be explained in other, more convincing ways. Beyond that, I can no longer believe in the various doctrines of Christianity, including the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the divine nature (or possibly even the existence) of Jesus, and the afterlife, among others. I believe death is the end of an individual's existence and so we should strive to improve ourselves and the world through good deeds, cooperation, kindness, patience and the other virtues often ascribed to Christianity, but which are simply wise ways of behaving that everyone instinctually knows. I also believe that much of conventional health care is useful and should be employed when necessary for the alleviation of physical problems, the maintenance of health and enhanced longevity.

Obviously, this puts me completely outside the belief system, and community, of Christian Science. I have done a lot of reading on the subject, and some of my favorite books are by the DDHH quartet: Dennett, Dawkins,Harris and Hitchens, links to which have been posted here earlier.

• Breaking the Spell - Dennett
• Darwin's Dangerous Idea - Dennett
• The God Delusion - Dawkins
• The End of Faith - Harris
• God is Not Great - Hitchens

There have been many others, but these books were most influential. Very well documented, very well written and very persuasive. I feel freer now than I ever thought possible. Everything is a wonder and fascinating.