thehowe_v7.1

In today's issue of the Michigan Daily there's a letter to the editor addressing inter-faith relationships, in response to an earlier article on the same subject.

I have no opinion on the matter, but I found the hypocrisy evident in the letter to the editor rather amusing, so I thought I'd share it with you.

First, the actual text of the letter:

To the Daily:

I would like to express my disagreement with Shakira Smiler's column Friday on interfaith dating (Guess who's coming to dinner, 03/21/2008). Smiler questioned why refusing to date someone of a different faith is different than discriminating against someone based on race. The answer is simply that value systems and beliefs can transcend skin color, but that's not necessarily true of religion.

Dating or marrying someone of another faith can lead to social isolation within your own community, a terrible situation for children and, according to some studies, higher divorce rates. While we all like a little variety in our dating lives, there are ways of learning and appreciating the values and convictions of others without becoming involved romantically.

Daniel Horwitz
Law School

Now, the same letter, but swapping all references to religion with references to race, and vice-versa (swapped words are highlighted):

To the Daily:

I would like to express my disagreement with Shakira Smiler's column Friday on interrace dating (Guess who's coming to dinner, 03/21/2008). Smiler questioned why refusing to date someone of a different race is different than discriminating against someone based on faith. The answer is simply that value systems and beliefs can transcend religion, but that's not necessarily true of skin color.

Dating or marrying someone of another race can lead to social isolation within your own community, a terrible situation for children and, according to some studies, higher divorce rates. While we all like a little variety in our dating lives, there are ways of learning and appreciating the values and convictions of others without becoming involved romantically.

I ask you, does the second reason make any less sense than the first? They both sound about the same to me.

In a comment on my last post, Chris disagreed with my rather snarky aside that Atheism is a religion. I think the disagreement lies in a difference in our definition of what constitutes Atheism. It's a blurry line, so I thought I'd talk a little about it.

First, I'll give you the short version: I was wrong. Now, the long version:

When I used the term Atheism in that post, I was using my understanding of the term, which was basically "I believe there is no god". That is actually a flavor of Atheism known as Strong Atheism (Wikipedia article). Strong Atheism, I still maintain, is essentially a religion (maybe I'll argue why some other time). However, Atheism is actually more general.

A more correct definition of Atheism is, almost exactly as Chris stated it in his comment, "I do not believe in god". Under that definition, which appears to be more correct than my original understanding (at least according to some sources; the Wikipedia article isn't entirely clear), I agree with Chris that I was wrong. Under this definition, Atheism is a perfectly logical conclusion based upon observed scientific fact (assuming, you know, you believe in science).

In fact, under this definition Atheism is not too different from Agnosticism, which I subscribe to (which actually is closer to being a religion than Atheism is, but that's another post entirely).

Brock and I were talking about religion today, which despite my being basically agnostic (or perhaps because of it) I always find to be a fascinating topic. As we were talking about it, an old question that I used to hear a lot in high school popped into my mind: "Could God create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?"

The answer, of course, is no. Here's why.

Let me rephrase the question as such: "Could God create a perfectly round square?" Now, the answer is obvious; of course he could not. The very concept of a perfectly round square is utter nonsense. You can string together the words and make them sound somewhat reasonable, but the concepts of "round" and "square" cannot be combined in any sensible fashion.

Just as a round square makes absolutely no sense, a stone so heavy that God cannot lift it also makes absolutely no sense. By definition, God is all powerful. Thus, the very concept of a stone he cannot lift makes no sense. And, just as he cannot make a perfectly round square, he cannot make such a stone.

This, of course, is the purely logical answer, based on concrete definition and irrefutable fact. If you ask a devout follower of any religion (and yes, atheism is a religion), then YMMV. Or then again, maybe not. I've never asked. Anyone want to chime in?

Well, it looks like Jesus walks the earth again. I swore up and down that nothing short of the second coming of Christ could get me a good grade in Math 425. I only got like 1/3 of the final right, and it was worth 50% of the grade. And yet, somehow, I managed to pull a B+. Holy shit.

Location: Orvieto, Italy, Approx. 1 hr. from Rome

All that religious stuff we saw at the Vatican yesterday got me thinking: was God a Dentist? Take a look at the evidence and decide for yourself...

Location: Inside the Latin Quarter of Paris, Approx. 10 minutes walk from Notre-Dame

Ugh, it's been a hectic few days. After riding trains from Stockholm, Sweden to Paris, we've spent the last few days covering as much ground in Paris as humanly possible. In the last 1 and 1/2 days we've visited the Eiffel Tower, Notre-Dame, the Arc de Triomphe, and the Louvre, home of 12 miles of corridors chock-full of art, including the famous Mona Lisa. My personal favorite piece was "Laser-Action Flying Jesus." It depicts a six-winged angelic Jesus shooting lasers from his crucifixion wounds onto some unlucky priest. Cool stuff.

Hey, I may be an unfunny philistine, but at least I'm sacrilegious. That has to count for something.