After reading a biography of Einstein, I became convinced that Einstein was not an atheist but a deist. He was offended when atheists claimed him as one of their own.

But I am offended on Einstein’s behalf when religious people claim him too, so I was happy to see the letter quoted widely this week in which he said…

“For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”

I think that resolves that discussion.

Next up - the founding fathers were deeply Christian.

In today’s NY Times, David Brooks’s column seems almost enlightened but there is an undercurrent of dishonesty about it.

He characterizes the debate about the Nature of God as being between two groups of fundamentalists. One group - the assertive atheists - believes that there is no evidence for gods or souls and that the nature of religious experience can be explained by neuroscience and evolutionary accidents. The other group believes that understanding the brain …merely adds to our appreciation of the entity that created it.

David puts himself firmly in the second camp by using the arguments from the first camp almost verbatim. That’s a neat trick if you can pull it off and he nearly got away with it. I had to read the article three times to untangle the threads.

I don’t want to get too snarky on David because, aside from the fact that he is every liberal’s favourite conservative, he is making an argument that both Einstein and Spinoza have used before him. I wish I understood that argument better because, to me, it seems to advocate both having your cake and eating it.

David (and Albert, and Baruch) seem to be saying that atheists have it all wrong because they don’t acknowledge the transcendental nature of love and the laughter of children and the Gilmour’s solo at the start of Shine on You Crazy Diamond. I can’t speak for all atheists but, I do. Really, I do. I just think that transcendence comes from within not from some external entity.

Just three weeks ago, I wished I knew how Alan Kay felt and Lo! Alan Kay left a comment (Alan Kay!!!!-Ed). Today, I wish I knew what David Brooks means. If he leaves a comment, I’ll pledge allegiance to his God (the God which is in the laughter of children). (If Baruch or Albert leave a comment, I’ll take up the cloth-Ed).

Anyway. Go read the article because it’s very good despite the dishonesty. Pretend you didn’t see the bit where he juxtaposes Selfish Genes with deep instincts for fairness, empathy because David clearly knows better and it was probably an inside joke or meant ironically or something.

Here’s the best bit which he probably lifted straight from the New Atheist Manifesto(tm)…

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

…except that last bit. I believe in the laughter of children too. I just don’t think we enhance our understanding by calling it God.

By the end of the article, David seems to be channeling Sam Harris but the important thing is that David is not taking sides. He’s too clever for that. Too clever by half.

From Jeff’s favourite comic, XKCD,

“I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”
– Mike Huckabee

Now that we have embraced Ceremonial Deism, our spiritual lives have improved 9-fold. Christmas was especially good this year.

We don’t usually bother much with prezzies apart from a little something for the kids but this year we decided to honour our fake religion with a splurge.

I finally got the guitar that I have wanted for ages - but I had to promise to get lessons before I was allowed to get it. The kids finally got their Wii.

Georgina got a camera with a zoom long enough to take pictures of corners but she was outdone in the photo department by Jazz who took several thousand photos with her new camera.

The best bit was when each of us, one by one, went into a minor panic on Christmas Eve because we each thought (falsely) we weren’t gonna get what we wanted. Dylan wanted to drive around looking for Wiis, Jazz was crying because she wasn’t going to get a camera and I was upset because my kids had not delivered the multiple hints  that I had given about The Golden Compass books. I think every single present wass wished for late on Christmas Eve after it was too late to do anything about it.

With all this commercialism and phony belief in God, I feel that we are finally living the American Dream!

Oh! Hai!

Every now and then something finds exactly the right spot on my funny bone and I laugh and laugh and laugh. There something about Absurdist Humour in the Monty Python (“Where is that fish?”), League of Gentlemen (”Those are local things. For local people.”), Not the Nine O’clock (“Ball? Or Aerosol? Neither. It’s for my armpits.“) tradition that makes my cheekbones hurt once I start laughing. The way they layer silly on sophisticated on silly on sophisticated and on and on and on until you lose track of which layer you are at and eventually it doesn’t matter because your cheekbones hurt.

I fully understand that most people either don’t get it or don’t find it funny - but I do. I expect there is a gene for it. My son has it. My wife doesn’t.

The lolcats craze started with I can haz cheezburger? and reaches the very pinnacle of silly intertwined with sophisticated with its oh hai!s and its buttsecks and its lolrusses wiv no bukkits and its PENIS GOES WHERE? and I can’t get enough of it.

The latest advances in the lolcats art are pushing the envelope of silly sophistication. Try on Lolcatsbible (the whole bible translated into Kitteh Pidgin) for size:

1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1

6 An Ceiling Cat sayed, im in ur waterz makin a ceiling. But he no yet make a ur. An he maded a hole in teh Ceiling.7 An Ceiling Cat doed the skiez with waterz down An waterz up. It happen.8 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has teh firmmint wich iz funny bibel naim 4 ceiling, so wuz teh twoth day.

9 An Ceiling Cat gotted all teh waterz in ur base, An Ceiling Cat hadz dry placez cuz kittehs DO NOT WANT get wet.10 An Ceiling Cat called no waterz urth and waters oshun. Iz good.

Lolscience balances out the religion with some quantum physics and philosophy. (WARNING! It’s very obscure!):

kthxbai!

Captain Groggy Swag and I were having a pleasant chat in the comments to my post on Songs of Praise about whether it is appropriate for an atheist to sing Carols or say Grace.

There are some religious things that are ingrained into our daily lives that do bug me. What do you do when you sit at a dinner table and someone says grace?

- Captain Groggy Swag

I confessed that I rather enjoy all the trappings of Cultural Christianity. I enjoy the songs, I have a nativity scene on my mantelpiece and I insist that our Christmas cards feature scenes from Luke and Matthew. I really miss not hearing sacred music played around Christmas time and the whole Frosty the Snowman and fat men in red coats thing bothers me much more than it should.

The Times picks up the trail after Richard Dawkins’ recent admission that he happily sings along to God Rest You Merry Gentlemen along with the rest of us Cultural Christians and Ceremonial Deists.

But the really fabulous news I mentioned is that Richard Dawkins, Prophet of Atheism, has said in a BBC interview that he is not against “cultural” Christianity and “Yes, I like singing carols along with everyone else”. Which raises enough tantalising philosophical and ethical questions to keep us going till Christmas Eve. Dawkins sings carols? Does he sing all the words? Does he boom out lines about herald angels, holy nights, the tender Lamb promised from eternal years? Does he croon: “What can I give Him, poor as I am?” Does the polemicist who gave three eloquent pages to deconstructing the story of St Luke’s Gospel happily warble O Little Town of Bethlehem and Once in Royal David’s City? Does the man who says that religious education is tantamount to “child abuse” feel wholly comfortable crooning Away in a Manger?

Apart from the fact that she mentions my three favourite Carols in a single paragraph, I enjoyed her article because it gets to the heart of a cultural divide among atheists.

My guess is that people who have grown up around religion without ever actually believing it are typically more comfortable with the trappings of Cultural Christianity than are the former believers who had a road back from Damascus moment or the atheists who were never exposed to Christian mythology at all. Reading the comments to the Times article confirms my prejudices.

It also confirms my new belief in Ceremonial Deism as the best chance for salvation for mankind. I wonder if Dawkins would be interested in becoming our pope?