There seems to be very few genuine taboo’s left in the world. If I think about it seriously I’d say that incest[1] is the only truly universal taboo that I know of. And incest has a solid biological foundation – you can’t really argue against the dangers of inbreeding[2]. It seems perfectly rational to me that this taboo would be very deeply ingrained in all human societies over eons of development.
However, western society observes another taboo that is often judged in the same league as incest but is significantly less ancient and certainly not rooted in a biological imperative: blasphemy.

While the taboo against speaking ill of a god is present in most religions, in most cases it is treated as a relatively straightforward offence that will invoke the wrath of the offended god[3].
However, this is not the case in the three dominant religions[4] in modern society: Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
These three are, of course, very closely related (I’d rather not call them brotherly) so one could argue that their violent opposition to blasphemy has common roots. Not that they’ll admit it.

Blasphemy has two applications: to members of the religion in question and to a wider society within which the religion exists. Its purpose within a religion is clear: to prevent subversion of the supreme authority that the religion claims over its members. Who would fear a god that you could interrogate? To society its application is more historic/political; it provides a basic refuge against agression[5] from other groups. This is particularly applicable to Islam[6]. Simply put, if you’re one of us it stops you from digging too deep into the dogma, if you’re one of them it gives us a justification for[7] rejecting the criticisms that threaten us.

That said, despite(or is it because of?) the pervasive wariness(fear?) of blasphemy there’s very little of it to be had. When I took an interest in serious blasphemy[8] I had a hard time finding any.
This surprised me. Why don’t more people take a stab at, what must be perceived as an absurd, soft underbelly of polite society? And why don’t more rationalists give it the finger?

Now immediately I have to correct myself. There is, right now, a growing collection of considered, rational blasphemy – on youtube of all places. The Blasphemy Challenge is simple; record a video of yourself denying the existence of the Christian Holy Spirit. According to conservative Christian dogma this will result in the eternal damnation of your soul with all the fire and brimstone that the finest type of damnation entails.

I won’t bore you with the hoo-haa that’s developed around this with counter- and counter-counter arguments flying all over, but it has created an interesting response and did convince me that I needed to consider my stand on this.
While I do think that this is a clever and elegant protest against pervasive religious morality, it’s not the type of blasphemy that I’m after.

My perception of the Blasphemy Challenge is that it is more about taking a stand against the underlying superstitions that prevent people from rejecting things that they don’t really believe in than what it is vengeful/hateful blasphemy from the gut. And by saying this I don’t mean to detract from the positive effect that the challenge has had in getting people talking about the topic. But I don’t think that it is the type of blasphemy that would cause the offended god to immediately and violently take revenge upon the poor fool who dares utter it.
It’s not that on-a-blasted-heath-,-drowned-in-torrential-rain wild style of blaspheeme.
That’s the kind of blasphemy that I’m looking for – the dangerous kind[9]. Not because I’m after dark sarcasm or fatalistic whatever. But because it’s important.
It’s important to me that it exist, and it’s important for you too.

So, in Blasphemy pt.2 I’ll look at the difference between blasphemy lite and the real thing. I’m also trying to find a sound reasoning for my position on the big B.
Lastly, I’m working on a short written piece that might just earn me a lightning bolt – that’ll be part three.

[1] Along with sex between family members, let’s include sex outside of one’s species.
[2] Well, I suppose you can, but your descendents won’t be around very long to continue the argument.
[3] By all accounts a very bad thing
[4] Obviously not discounting the importance of Hinduism which has a large number of devotees all over the world, but frankly is not dominant in terms of society and politics.
[5] Whether perceived or real
[6] And let me state right now that I have no interest in trashing Islam – it’s too boring and square to offer an interesting target.
[7] Agressively
[8] And let’s be clear on the difference between blasphemy lite and the real thing.
[9] hmm… danger… brrr…

Update: I’ve been thinking about the Creation Museum and why they feel the need to include dinosaurs in their displays.
And, sure, the merchandising angle must be appealing[1], but putting dinosaurs on the Noah cruise takes balls.

Teeth

But there’s a piece of basic logic reason why finding room on the ark for every species of dinosaur to ever walk the earth is more than just a play at the kids of today.
According to these creationists[2] there’s a simple explanation for the fossil beds from which the scientific evidence of the existance of dinosaurs comes. No, they’re not millions of years old. Actually all the fossil beds in their numerous layers were created by the receeding waters of Noah’s flood.

Hmm.. so for the dinosaur fossils to have been created by the flood it means that the dinos had to be alive just before the flood, right? Right.
Ok, I’m still willing to go with this…
But wait a minute – in Genesis it says (Genesis 6:19–20):

And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

So, Noah had to take two of each type of animal, of every creeping thing of the earth, you say – and dinosaurs lived among men before the flood, right? Right.

Clearly the planners of this museum know their bible.

The article from which the verse in Genesis is quoted (linked) concludes as follows:

This article has shown that the Bible can be trusted on testable matters like Noah’s Ark. Many Christians believe that the Bible can only be trusted on matters of faith and morals, not scientific matters. But we should consider what Jesus Christ Himself told Nicodemus (John 3:12): ‘If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?’
Similarly, if the Scriptures can be wrong on testable matters such as geography, history and science, why should they be trusted on matters like the nature of God and life after death, which are not open to empirical testing?

[1] Would you rather have a stuffed Joseph-int-the-Well or Killer-fucking-Dinosaurrrr!?
[2] And certainly not all creationists have taken the dino-max leap

There has been a bit of a hubub in the on-line media recently about newly opened Creation Museum – a privately funded museum in Petersburg, Kentucky (outside Cincinnati). It presents a creationist view of the origin of the world based on the story contained in Genesis and this has, as usual, brought out the Rationalists, Atheists and Bible Belt Buckle-types in equal amounts of protest/support.
Salon has a fine take on the story:

[...] the museum is organized according to the “Six C’s of History”: creation, corruption, catastrophe, confusion, Christ, and the final C, consummation, which isn’t given much time or space in the exhibits because there still isn’t consensus on just how the apocalypse will come down or who goes to heaven and when.

This way, pilgrim

In short, the museum offers a version of the ancient history of Earth that includes

• Dinosaurs and humans co-existing peacfully before the fall from grace in Eden
• Eve tempting Adam with a bunch of grapes handily supplied by a sexy-looking snake:
  

  “We’re not sure what kind of fruit it was, but we do know it wasn’t an apple,”

• A Triceratops wearing a saddle (whoa there cowboy!)
• A Stegosaurus aboard Noah’s ark

There’s also more on the horrors of man’s sin through the ages, the crucifixion and today’s pre-apocalyptic tragedy. whatever.

Prepare to Believe

I’m not too fussed about the museum itself, or even the people who run and fund it. As far as I’m concerned it is their right to present any view of history they want and the right of any person to visit, or protest outside the museum.
What I’m interested in is just how loopy it is.

I’ve recently been in a few conversations about what will happen to religion in the coming century. We all know that the number of people who identify themselves as religious (in the traditional sense) is plummeting. So it would seem reasonable to assume that, at least in Western societies, religion is on its way out and that within a few decades everyone will chuckle at how quaint all those believer-types were.
I don’t think this will be the case. I think that, clearly, society does not demand that everyone be affiliated to some sort of acceptable religion anymore – but this will only affect people who would’ve remained religious only because their community demanded it of them. They are now free from this expectation and can therefore discard that label. But the proportion of people who are actively engaged in their religion and feel that they cannot function without its support remains and will remain unchanged.
People will always need what religion gives them: simple answers to complex questions.

What will happen (in my opinion) is that, as our scientific understanding of the world continues its unstoppable, rampant development, religions will have to provide ever-more freaky answers to the questions that science throws at them.
Science: What about dinosaurs?
Religion: Well, they were on the ark! With saddles!

Science: What about the grand canyon?
Religion: The receeding waters of Noah’s flood made it – in a few days!

You get the idea.

Into the coming century religions will become more and more UFO-style loopy – and their acolytes will love them for it.