Atheism: Free Inquiry or Intolerance?

 

Christopher Hitchens, a virulent and outspoken atheist who died 10 years ago at the age of 62 was the subject of the first blog post on The Weekly Bystander shortly after his death in 2011. I believed then, and still do, that Hitchens was more a "true believer" than an atheist. He was one of the high priests of a new religion that was still in its formative stage. He was as zealous in the promulgation of his cause as any so-called fundamentalist, and even more intolerant of opposing views. Evidence of his zeal was shown years ago when he was invited by Fairfield University, a Jesuit institution in Connecticut, to present his case in its "Open Visions" forum. The debate was discussed in detail in a local newspaper, and prompted me to write the following response.
*******

Thanks to Marcia Miner for her detailed coverage of the recent debate between “New Atheist” Christopher Hitchens, and theologian John Haught at Fairfield University. Hitchens, who received “a rousing welcome” at the Jesuit University, claimed to be a devotee of Socrates. He especially liked the method of inquiry championed by the ancient Greek philosopher who asked his followers to question everything and start by admitting that they know nothing.

Nevertheless, in Miner’s article Hitchen’s himself came across as one of the most opinionated of men. It seems obvious that while asking others to admit their ignorance he speaks with a greater degree of infallibility than any pope. This is only to be expected because the so-called New Atheism is really a new religion based little on science and mainly on belief.

For example, Hitchens argued that in religion could be found “the origin of totalitarianism which happens to be the enemy of human rights.” What is the scientific, political, or sociological evidence for that claim? The three great Totalitarian movements of the 20th century were Nazism in Germany, Communism in Russia, and Communism in China in its most virulent form under Chairman Mao.

None of these movements owed their origin to religion or religious belief. Although born a Catholic, Hitler early rejected his faith and became an atheist who hated Christianity almost as much as he despised Judaism. The founder of Communism in Russia was Nikolai Lenin who also became an atheist after rejecting his Jewish heritage. Joseph Stalin, Lenin’s brutal successor in Russia, also rejected his Russian Orthodox origins to become an atheist. In China, the atheist Chairman Mao had no use for the traditional religions of China.

Indeed, religion had to be ridiculed, attacked, and brutally persecuted in each of these Totalitarian societies as a necessary step toward the attainment of their goals. We all know that over 50,000,000 people died at the hands of these Totalitarian atheists.

So the claim that Hitchens made is not based on science or scientific method. Nevertheless, it is part of the belief system of the “New Atheists.” In saying this I am not equating Hitchens with Hitler, Stalin, or Chairman Mao. That would be unfair. Despite his bitterness and anger he is probably a decent fellow who wouldn’t hurt a fly.

Nevertheless, when he criticizes St. Robert Bellarmine for his role in the Galileo case, he engages in a specious and unfair practice. Instead of questioning the myths that have grown up about the Galileo case, he is content to set up a straw man that can be easily knocked over to gain a “rousing reception.”

Cardinal Bellarmine was perhaps the greatest scholar of the early 17th century. Besides his theological and devotional works, he was an avid student and supporter of the new science. When Galileo’s opponents, mainly university professors, initially accused him, Bellarmine was put in charge of the case. Any historian of science knows that Bellarmine did all he could to let Galileo beat the rap. Galileo was let go only with the injunction that until he had definite scientific proof of his hypothesis, he continue to treat it as just a hypothesis, and not as a settled theory. He was specifically required to keep his “science” out of the area of “religion” unless he did have definite proof. Galileo did not have the technological tools needed to “prove” his case, and he knew it. It was only 300 years later that scientists were able to discover the “stellar parallax!” 

Nevertheless, Galileo got off with a mere slap on the wrist and was not troubled by any authority for the next 20 years. In the meantime, Bellarmine died and the final trial did not take place until about 20 years after his death.

Even for that famous trial the myths have persisted. Galileo was never tortured. Even after being found guilty he was merely confined to his villa in Florence where he continued to enjoy the favor and support of his Medici patrons. His punishment was merely to recite daily the seven penitential Psalms, a chore he conveniently passed on to his daughter, a nun living in a nearby convent.

Although most of its students don’t realize it, most of Fairfield University’s halls are named after Jesuit saints like St. Robert Bellarmine. Some like St. Edmund Campion were even martyrs for their faith. Indeed, it was people of faith whose faith built the University in the first place. 

Compare the number of colleges and universities in this country built by religion to the number built by atheism. All these institutions were dedicated to the search for truth and saw no conflict between faith and science. Indeed, it is to Fairfield University’s credit that it chose to invite an atheist to its “Open Visions” program. Compare this practice to the innumerable institutions of higher learning in this country where even the idea of “intelligent design” cannot be studied or even mentioned. The moderator should have asked Hitchens about “Climategate” where scientists recently conspired to suppress scientific evidence contrary to their own beliefs. 

Hitchens has won fame and fortune ridiculing the cruel god of his childhood. But he still talks like a child when he argues that anyone who would prefer Jesus to Socrates is “intellectually defective.” Why not investigate the teachings of both Jesus and Socrates? What part of “love one another” does Hitchens not understand? ***

###

*** Note: In the ten years since the death of Hitchens, atheism has grown exponentially. Two of my grade school grandchildren are professed atheists although they do believe in "Iron Man" who gave his life to save the world, and "The Force" that rules all in Star Wars. However, I think Hitchens would have been surprised to find that his beloved Socrates has suffered an even worse oblivion than Jesus. What student today has even heard of Socrates (a dead white male, and an old one to boot) or the Socratic method? What modern Socialist or Progressive begins with the notion that they know nothing? Is it possible to name even one who questions modern orthodox beliefs concerning climate change, racism, cancel culture, or the ever growing menu of sexual variants? 

Hurricane Season Power Outages

We have recently experienced two hurricanes, Henri and Ida, here in Fairfield, Connecticut. We were generally spared the effects of Henri which veered off to the east despite incredible media hype, but Ida caused a great deal of flooding and basement water. Still, we did not experience the severe power outages that occurred in Louisiana, where Ida first hit.

Nevertheless, politicians and media types, who were perhaps hoping for the worst, reacted predictably and called for an overhaul of our electrical power system. An editor at the CT Post, my local newspaper, seemed to be disappointed  that the electric companies had weathered the storm. After Henri he wrote a column agreeing with  Connecticut Senator Murphy and other politicians that a so-called publicly owned electric utility was a better option for Connecticut than the privately owned but publicly regulated system now in place.

Since Henri had caused no power outages, he had to refer to last year’s severe power outages caused by hurricane Isaias, and others ten years ago in 2011/2. However, he neglected to mention that for the past ten years, our current system worked remarkably well.

During that period, we were able to have our homes and offices comfortably heated or cooled by electricity. Oil or gas burners will not work without electricity. When we get up  in the morning, we were able to turn on the lights, take a shower, use the refrigerator, make breakfast, charge up phones, and even power electric vehicles without a thought.

People may complain that our electricity rates are higher than other areas, but compared to what we pay for internet, phone, or cable TV, the cost of indispensable electricity is remarkably cheap. My average electric bill is about $150 per month. Nevertheless, many take it for granted and complain about the profits and salaries of people who provide us with invaluable electricity.

I suspect that it is profits and not electricity that really bugs educated  but poorly paid newspaper writers and columnists. In addition, social media is full of people who have practically no knowledge of how things like electricity actually work or are produced. Politicians, who produce nothing, and who cannot build but only destroy, pander to these social media fans.

They argue that if we could eliminate profits, and dividends, and private shareholders, money could be used for the public benefit and produce cheaper electricity with no power outages. Has this ever really worked? 

We have a private carting (garbage) company in Fairfield that competes with other companies for our business. The system has worked remarkably well for as long as we have lived in town. Next door Bridgeport, Connecticut’s largest city, has a public garbage collection system. Our monthly bill is modest but Bridgeport’s taxes, which pay for refuse removal are among the highest in the state.

 

Moreover, why would a public utility be any more immune to a devastating hurricane than a private one? In private companies if you do an outstanding job, you get a bonus. If you mess up or underperform, you get demoted or fired. That cannot and does not happen in the public sector. Public companies and politicians are immune from lawsuits.

There is an old saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  Our electrical system is working but columnists and politicians like Senator Murphy still want to fix it. Perhaps they think it should be run like the Department of Motor Vehicles. Do they remember when a few years ago, then Governor Malloy appointed an incompetent party hack to run the DMV?

### 

Mask Mandates

The photo at the left shows Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and the most influential woman in America, at a large dinner party in Napa surrounded by a crowd of invited political guests. Even though she is around 80 and in a high risk group, she is not wearing a mask and neither are her guests. Despite her words to the contrary, are her actions telling us that masks are not really needed if we have been vaccinated? 

Actually I have wondered about the effectiveness of masks in protecting us from the coronavirus from day one. I know some people attribute the absence of flu last year to the use of masks, but I believe that social distancing and the fact that children and teachers  have not been in school did more to stop the flu than anything. In any event, the masks have obviously not stopped the coronavirus which still remains with us after more than a year of mask mandates. 

Last fall, I visited my Ear, Nose, and Throat doctor (ENT) because of sinus related symptoms. He did a test and the results showed that I had a staph infection. Although staph infections can be severe, mine was not. He prescribed an inexpensive anti-biotic that did the trick. He said that he was treating an above average number of staph infections this year.

 I asked him if he thought the increase could be related to the masks that everyone was wearing to protect against the coronavirus. “Definitely,” he answered. He went on to explain that most of the staph infections he treated were in the mouth and nasal passages. Could it be that the masks are causing more harm than good?

About the same time, my local newspaper contained an editorial with this banner headline: “Wear a mask for the sake of strangers.” It went on to explain that “anyone whose face is now uncovered in public is truly unmasked as a nonconformist…. But by scorning masks many outliers express disregard for the rest of humanity.” The editorial went on to complain that there will always be people who resist social norms and laws, and applauded the Governor’s intention to impose monetary fines on non-compliers. 

However, there was not one bit of science in the paper’s editorial. Why are we wearing masks? At the beginning of the pandemic my local state representative in her regular newsletter urged all of her constituents to wear masks, and she provided a link to a scientific study. 

I went to the link and discovered that it was a study of the efficacy of wearing masks in a hospital environment. Well, duh! Who would doubt the value of doctors and nurses wearing masks in an operating room? The masks are worn to protect patients whose defenses are breached in the course of surgery. Any open wound is prone to infection. Moreover, medical professionals are trained in the proper use of masks, and usually discard them after one use. Even so, many patients still develop infections while in hospital settings.

 But what about the general public? In a follow-up the same state representative sent out a mask update warning people to use the masks properly. She wrote,

Use the loops to take your mask on and off.

Do not touch your mask while you are wearing it.

Be sure your mask covers your nose, mouth and chin.

I love advice like this that is almost impossible to follow for ordinary people. Just look at people adjusting their masks while putting them on or taking them off. Imagine not touching your mask inadvertently. Also, how many times do you see people with their masks only covering their chin? Ordinarily, our skin protects us from germs of all kinds even when they land on our chins but when you move the mask from your chin to cover your nose and mouth, you are potentially bringing all sorts of bacteria into your mouth and nasal passages.

 

Although politicians and media commentators continue to urge people to wear masks in public, I have seen no study that would indicate that they are effective in keeping ordinary people from infecting others, or being infected by others. Indeed, a Google search for studies of mask effectiveness fails to find any conclusive scientific studies. Controlled scientific studies of public mask wearing are almost impossible to conduct. Actually, when government officials claim that two masks might be necessary, they are tacitly admitting that one mask is not effective. Social distancing and frequent washing makes more sense to me.  

Nevertheless, it is now regarded as a kind of crime against humanity to appear in public without a mask. Although there is no scientific study that children can infect others, all children must wear masks in school. Does anyone remember the many diseases that children brought home from school in previous years? Why weren't masks needed then?

 On a somewhat related note, my local newspaper ran a front page story last year with the headline: “Doctors drop use of lead X-ray aprons.” Apparently, doctors at Yale Hospital are abandoning the lead shields because they have found that they actually do more harm than good. 

Describing it as a monumental shift in medical practice, the radiology director at Yale explained that over the past 50 years “they were taught over and over again to shield, to shield, to shield … to protect the patient. However, research has found that the lead shield not only does little if anything to protect the gonads from radiation that might cause genetic defects or cancer, but that it may result in an increase.”

Fifty years of science out the window. It will be interesting to read the final scientific verdict on the wearing of masks. We have already discarded the practice of continually wiping down surfaces. Will the masks be next?

 ###

Afghanistan: Issues and Questions

  

 

Issue 1: A month ago President Biden said that the Taliban presented no imminent threat in Afghanistan. He claimed that the Afghan government army had over 300000 well-trained and fully armed soldiers compared to only 75000 Taliban fighters.

Did the President lie to us or was he seriously mis-informed by the intelligence and military community? After the collapse  and disintegration of the Afghan army last week, he now claims that he received mixed signals from the intelligence community.

However, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff insists that he knew of no intelligence that would foretell the collapse of the Afghan army. On the other hand, a Republican congressman claims that the House committee on which he serves received repeated information from the President’s National Security team warning of imminent danger.

Issue 2: In his brief remarks after the fall of Kabul, President Biden took full responsibility for the debacle and claimed that “the buck stopped here.” However, he then went on to blame the Afghan army  that he had praised so highly just a month ago.

Moreover, President Biden did not explain why he refused to provide air support for the Afghan forces. Kabul, the Afghan capital, is about 300 miles from Kandahar but American or NATO airpower was not used to slow the Taliban advance. In addition, the President abandoned the American air base at Bagram without a shot. Why? Did the President have some kind of secret deal with the Taliban?

Issue 3. Immediately after the fall of Kabul, the President and his allies in the media began  to float a cover story to divert attention from the embarrassing and politically devastating defeat. More than the failure of the Afghan army, it was the failure of 20 years of mismanagement in Afghanistan by four previous American administrations, including the one in which the President served as Vice-President under President Obama. 

This cover story attempts to shift the focus from the bungling of our departure to the failure of the whole mission in Afghanistan. Of course, it raises another question. If President Biden believes the whole Afghan mission was a mistake, why didn’t he and President Obama put an end to it during their eight years in office. 

Issue 4. President Biden claimed that the Taliban numbered only 75000 fighters. How  could such a large country with almost 40 Million people, that is usually regarded as unconquerable, be taken so easily by a force of less than 75000 Taliban fighters? How could Kabul, a city of 6 Million be taken so easily?

It would appear that the Taliban are largely unemployed young men with no visible means of support, homes or families. Somehow, they have become heavily armed and use these arms to live off the land and its people.

Moreover, pictures of those trying to board planes at Kabul airport  show that most are also young men. Young men with no families or jobs are becoming an increasingly dangerous phenomenon not just in the Middle East but all over the world. Just look at Mexico where armed gangs control cities and provinces.

It is also happening in our own country. Last year sections of major cities like Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis were taken over by armed gang members. The looters and burners in these cities were primarily young men with no families or jobs. The shooting and murder rate in cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles has grown dramatically in the last year.

 

In Chicago it is estimated that there are 16000 police officers but over 100000 gang members, who are often armed despite the strictest gun-control laws in the country. So far, the only thing that prevents the gangs from taking over the whole city is their own animosity toward each other. 

Incredibly, politicians and activists in these cities are in favor of de-funding or even eliminating the police departments that protect ordinary citizens. Afghanistan is far away, but what happened there is not that far away.

###