How God Made the Earth: Part 1

How God Made the Earth: Part 1

Hi, and welcome to another edition of modeling scripture. After going over the source material, I'm going to cut this model into two pieces. There is just too much information presented for one long blog post. Even the first part is really long due to it covering the entire chapter of Genesis 1. I do hope that you will read the post, or at least read the notes and get the feel of the order of creation and where we go wrong in reading this particular scripture.

TL:DR

Day 0: Forget your current knowledge.

Day 1: Light and Darkness.

Day 2: Firmament to divide the waters above from the waters below.

Day 3: Gathered waters below, formed land, created plants.

Day 4: Sun, moon, and stars; placing them in the firmament.

Day 5: Flying things and sea creatures (fish, etc...)

Day 6: Land creatures, insects, man, and woman.

It can be really difficult to understand the Bible for what it says instead of what we think it should say. It can be as difficult as leaving out a lifetime of education and taking the Bible at its word. After all, even before many of us started school we had learned the basics of astronomy. I learned about the sun, moon, stars, tilt of the Earth, and seasons long before I ever covered any of those topics in school. And to this day, astronomy is still one of my favorite pastimes.

But we have to forget all of our modern knowledge. They didn't have that knowledge in biblical times. They were brilliant people, but they didn't have our education, or scientists, or books. They didn't even have printing presses at the time. There were no mass produced books to purchase and teachers being paid to educate you simply for showing up at a school building. Every piece of knowledge you knew had to be painfully acquired from either your own experience or someone else that you could convince to teach you. That's one of the things that made the Bible so compelling: it was supposed to be divine knowledge direct from the creator or the world sent to all people without error. If the Bible was correct, you could actually learn real knowledge in bulk for, perhaps, the first time ever.

So let's look at how the author or authors of Genesis thought the Earth was created.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

So far so good. Notice right from the start there was already water, a void, and darkness.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Now we're making some headway. We now have light and dark. But here is where you have to set some of your knowledge aside. We don't have a sun, moon, or stars yet. This light doesn't have any source. It is just there. And not only is it there, it has been separated from the dark.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Now the preexisting waters from Genesis 1:2 have now been split by a firmament. Some of the water went above the firmament and some of the water went below the firmament. So what in the world is a firmament?

From the Firmament entry in Wikipedia:

The word "firmament" is used to translate raqia, or raqiya`, a word used in Biblical Hebrew. The connotation of firmness conveyed by the Vulgate's firmamentum is consistent with that of stereoma, the Greek word used in the Septuagint, an earlier translation. The notion of solidity is advanced explicitly in several biblical passages.

The original word raqia is derived from the root raqa, meaning "to beat or spread out", e.g., the process of making a dish by hammering thin a lump of metal. Raqa adopted the meaning "to make firm or solid" in Syriac, a major dialect of Aramaic (the vernacular of Jesus) and close cognate of Hebrew.

So we have this dome-like thing -- probably solid -- that separates the water above from the water below. And this inverted bowl, or dome, he called Heaven.

Now the next day there is a little bit more going on, so we are going to take it in two parts.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

We finally have what we think of as Earth. Prior, their might have been a "heaven and earth" but they weren't what we think of as Earth since it had no land.

You have to forget what you learned about a spherical earth with water sitting on the outside. That isn't the model used by the Bible. The Bible seems to have all the dirt and water just sitting out there in the chaos -- or void -- waiting to be made into something. It is almost like raw materials waiting in a bin somewhere for a craftsman to make something out of it.

Now that God created land, he then got busy with putting things on it.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

In the later part of the third day God put all the plants and trees on the Earth. There was light and dark (day and night) from the first day, but there isn't anything causing the day and night. That wasn't an oversight though. We know that our day and night are caused by the rotation of the Earth, but they didn't know that in biblical times. They didn't know that the sun is the source of out light, and without the sun there wouldn't be enough light or heat for anything to survive.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And now we have the sun, moon, and stars. The sun was created to rule the day, the moon was created to rule the night, and He made stars as well. Now we've had light and dark since the second day, but now we have the sun. Here is another place where you have to leave your present knowledge out of what the Bible says. The sun was created to rule the light. It doesn't have to be the originator of the light and heat that get to the Earth. It is more of a decoration that was put there for signs, seasons, days, and years. Think of it as a signpost telling you what the light and heat are going to do. Don't think of it as the source of light and heat.

The same is true for the moon. Forget your knowledge that the moon is simply reflected light from the sun. The moon was given its own light so that it could rule the night. As far as the stars go; since the sun, moon, and stars are all set in the firmament, the stars are more like little sparkly lights that are placed on a Christmas tree for pure entertainment (oh, and signs etc...). You have to forget the fact that they are the same size or larger than the sun and just farther away. They are hung in the firmament like cellphone charger lights stuck in your ceiling.

And now, on with day five:

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

I would like to make a note here about the firmament. The fact that the birds can fly in the "open firmament" tells us that the firmament isn't all that far above our heads. We don't exactly know how thick it is yet, but we know that it isn't all that far up there.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

The fifth day was kind of busy, but it didn't have a lot of description. All the winged fowl and all the creatures of the sea. Since the model put forth in Genesis only includes land and sea, then every creature that lived in the water had to be made on the fifth day.

And now on with the sixth day, which was a lot like the fifth day except for the land instead of the sea.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

That was the last part of God's creation. He makes everything that goes on the land. He made all the cattle, beasts, and creeping things. Right at the end of the day -- or at least the end of His creation -- He created man and woman in his image. Creation is now finished. The only thing left to do is give us some directions and place humans in charge as a sort of landlord for the Earth.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

And there you go; creation in a nutshell. Even though the entire creation is covered in one chapter containing just thirty-one verses, it is still insanely difficult for me to keep my present knowledge from contaminating the clear directions from Genesis. As soon as I quit thinking about it my mind fills in the sun as the source of light and heat, water only being available on the land instead of half of it over a firmament, land coalescing first prior to liquid water, stars that are gigantic yet so far away that they look like dots and some farther than we can see, a reflective moon instead of a moon with its own light, and the list goes on.

Regardless of how difficult it is to keep straight, Genesis chapter 1 has all the raw material to assemble into our model of creation, which we will get to in How God Made the Earth: Part 2.

The "You've Got To Be Kidding Me" God

The "You've Got To Be Kidding Me" God

There are some arguments that get so old, but they just won't go away. I don't know how many times I have been told that I have a god, and that my god is probably science. This argument is so wrong that it is insulting: it is insulting to me, it is insulting to them, and it is insulting to their god.

It often starts out something like this:

They say, "Everyone has a god, yours is just science."

And I say, "I don't have a god. Science is just a process of getting to the truth."

They say, "Whatever is most important to you in your life is your god."

I say, "That just defines away every form of atheism and agnosticism. We should agree on what a god is first."

They say, "OK."

I say, "I see gods as supernatural beings, incredibly powerful, and capable of affecting the material world."

They say, "That's it."

I say, "Science is nothing like that."

They say, "I thought we were talking about my god."

I say, "If that is the definition of your god, I will accept it."

They say, "But that's not your god. Your god is whatever you put first in your life."

I laugh, and say, "That's like saying rainbows are just like watermelons except one of them is fruit."

They say, "You don't understand."

Ah, but I think I do understand. I just think that they are wrong.

Let's change the object of the discussion a little bit to make it more clear.

They say, "Everyone has a favorite magazine."

I say, "I don't have a favorite magazine. I don't like magazines."

They say, "Sure you do. Whatever magazine you keep in your bathroom is your favorite magazine."

I say, "First let's determine what we are calling a magazine. It is a periodical publication. It contains articles and illustrations. It typically covers a particular subject or area of interest."

They say, "That's it. That's what a magazine is."

I say, "I don't have any magazines in my bathroom."

They say, "Then what do you keep in your bathroom?"

I say, "All I keep in my bathroom is a plunger."

They say, "Then that plunger is your favorite magazine."

It is the nonsense that religious people believe that make discussions difficult. They can't seem to see past the blinders that they have placed on themselves. They insist that everything has to fit into a framework that they provide. Regardless of how many times they insist they are the same, a plunger just isn't the same thing as a magazine any more than the most important thing in your life has to be a god.

Inhofe's Christian Crime Connection

While Sen Jim Inhofe (R-OK) might not have a formal Christian crime ring, his actions would make more sense if he did. I can almost imagine him saying something like, "Nice planet you got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."

I generally believe that there isn't anything inherently wrong with being a Christian. While I feel confident that Christians are wrong in their beliefs, I also don't feel like those beliefs steer them in a heinous direction. People can generally be good with or without god. It has to do more with someone's moral grounding which is mostly shared by the religious and non-religious. But Jim Inhofe gives a perfect example of why there is still a danger to the world from Christianity.

In a response to The News on 6 in Oklahoma, Inhofe said:

"The book of Genesis tells us that the cold and heat, summers and winters will not cease, and I believe the God who spoke these words is still up there and in control. We have seen environmentalists disregarded the term 'global warming' and adopt the phrase 'climate change,' because there will be cold, there will be heat, there will be summer and there will be winter, but the earth shall not cease. Furthermore, more than 60 percent of weathercasters recently polled for a study done by George Mason University believe that any global warming that occurs is the result of 'natural variation' and not 'human activities.' There is no question that we should be good stewards of what God has given us, but the global warming alarmists are using gloom-and-doom, fear-based tactics to advance their environmentalist agenda which will eliminate job opportunities and slow economic growth."

You can see my reply to his disingenuous portrayal of "weathercasters" (that would be meteorologists) and how he tries to misrepresent climate science on my blog, here. But the thing that stands out about this statement is the total lack of science, reason, or understanding.

He is absolutely wrong on climate change. Climate science is based on known scientific principles. There is no question about the science. What remains is an obvious example of using religion to damage the world and the people in it.

Jim Inhofe gives us the perfect example of where the usage of religion has gone wrong. This is exactly the type of danger that religion poses to the rest of the world. Ultimately it doesn't even matter whether he believes what he is saying or not. The simple fact that there are people out there that will believe what he is saying because of their shared religion is what makes him and religious people like him as dangerous as someone actively trying to destroy the world and everything the human race has built.

Professor Deandre's status still unknown

The step-on-a-piece-of-paper-with-Jesus'-name-on-it professor still hasn't found out if he will be able to continue with his career after a self-righteous student threatened him because he just loved Jesus so much.

Communications Professor Deandre Poole’s status at FAU is still unknown | University Press

Atheists vs Religious Believers

Every time a writer has something nice he wants to say about religion, they seem required to find the nearest atheist bogeyman to scapegoat. Brent Budowsky also seems to fall into this trap as he seeks to heap praise on Pope Francis.

Budowsky writes in this article from The Hill:

This is extraordinary, powerful and profound. There are profound differences between the policies of President Obama and Democrats versus the policies proposed by the atheist Ayn Rand and conservative voices such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Rep. Paul (sic) Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Republican leaders in Congress.

This is the kind of thing that seeps into the Democratic party, rots, and tries to destroy the party from the inside out. Ostensibly, Brent Budowsky and I are on the same side. Neither one of us seem to like the politics of Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen Rand Paul, Rep Paul Ryan, or the Republican leaders in Congress. But we're not on the same side because I want a Democratic party that is inclusive of everyone instead of trying to keep certain religions, or people of no religion, on the outside of the party.

Let me see if this slight change will help illustrate the point:

This is extraordinary, powerful and profound. There are profound differences between the policies of religious President Obama and religious Democrats versus the policies proposed by the atheist Ayn Rand and conservative voices such as religious Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), religious Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), religious Rep. Paul (sic) Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and religious Republican leaders in [a] religious Congress.

Ayn Rand was an atheist, but since atheism isn't dogmatic there is no more reason for any atheist to believe the writings of Ayn Rand than there are to believe any other piece of fiction written in an old book. Her ideas were her own and are almost universally rejected by the atheist community.

Contrary to what some people believe, simply because something is written down doesn't make it representative of an entire group.

I would, however, like to take this opportunity to say that the Pope has made positive changes. Financial inequality is one of the larger problems facing the world today. The rich are getting richer on the labor of the poor. People are working and trying to live on less than a living wage. Businessmen and corporations are using people like a commodity that can be used up and discarded instead of treating them with the humanity that they deserve.

The pope specifically calls on world leaders to address the great economic and financial injustices, and I agree with him completely. The pope uses words like "cult" and "dictatorship" to describe the champions of financial justice and the conditions their policies create, and I fully agree with him about this, as well.

But financial inequality isn't the only problem facing the world today. Women are constantly treated as being worth less than men. People of color are still looked upon as if they are somehow inferior versions of humanity in the United States as well as Rome, Canada, England, and the rest of the world. Husbands and wives are actively denied access to information and birth control that they need to manage reproduction responsibly. Women are denied access to abortions even at the cost of their life and the life of their baby. Gay men as well as lesbians are denied the right to even have a family that includes the communal support all families deserve. Bisexual people are forced to stay in the closet just to try to escape being associated with the worst kind of promiscuity. Transgender people are denied access to medical care that they require to lead a healthy, well adjusted life. Children are being kicked out of countries because they were brought there when they were one year old instead of being born there.

I'm glad that the Pope Francis is trying to bring the Catholic church one step closer to the modern world. In my opinion he is a great improvement over Pope Benedict XVI. But make no mistake, neither Pope Francis nor the Catholic church is a supporter of social justice. They still have a lot to learn to even come close to the superior morality that many atheists have. Social justice should be for everyone. It shouldn't be limited to a particular Pope's favored group.

The Possibility That Religion Is True Is Vanishingly Small

It is so unlikely that religion is true that the possibility should be ignored by everyone until such time that any real evidence is presented.

Gary Marcus posted an article in the Newyorker concerning science, religion, and faith.

(...) Any agnostic is free to believe that his favorite religion has not yet been completely disproven. But anyone who wishes to bring science into the argument must acknowledge that the evidence thus far is weak, especially when it is combined statistically, in the fashion of a meta-analysis. To emphasize the qualitative conclusion (X has not been absolutely proven to be false) while ignoring the collective weight of the quantitative data (i.e., that most evidence points away from X) is a fallacy, akin to holding out a belief in flying reindeer on the grounds that there could yet be sleighs that we have not yet seen.

 This is one of several prongs that is useful in understanding religion. Religions have been looked at an enormous amount over the course of human history. Every time we have looked at them, they have failed. The accumulation of all those failures add a statistical weight to just how unlikely it is that any given religion is true. And all that is before we even weigh any claim from a specific religion.

The idea that any religion is true is so miniscule that it would take an enormous amount of verifiable evidence to swing the scales back the the idea that believing in religion was scientifically reasonable.

The Weaponized Christianity of Oppression

Sometimes it is difficult to properly express the problem I have with Christianity. It isn't that it is so difficult to put into words, but it is difficult to get anyone to listen long enough to understand exactly what the problem is.

Some of the nicest, most kind, most gracious, and admirable people I know are Christians. They are the kind of people that, while not making me desire to be a Christian, I can look up to and try to emulate they way that they approach life. This isn't meant as a compliment to them; it's just a fact. They are wonderful people, and Christianity is a part of who they are as a person.

Alternately, some of the cruelest, most self-centered, most uncaring people I know use Christianity as a cudgel to verbally bludgeon others mercilessly.

One of the primary problems that I see with Christianity is that, by claiming the title, anyone is almost immune to criticism for anything they say, or do to others -- especially if the deed is done in the name of Christianity. It becomes impossible to say anything to someone that is abusing others as long as they are hiding behind Christianity because everyone else that claims the title of Christian for themselves will rise up in defense and claim that they are being abused for their Christian belief.

After you have calmed their fear that they are somehow the victim of some sort of anti-christian abuse, only then can you begin to discuss what the original problem was to begin with. At this point one of two things usually happens: either the person waves their hand and says that the mean Christian wasn't actually a Christian, or they dismiss the mean Christian as someone that just has a different opinion of Christianity.

Regardless of the direction the conversation takes, the person usually dismisses whatever claim has been made against the mean Christian and considers the issue resolved. But the underlying issue of using Christianity as a cudgel is left untouched.

People can do good things with Christianity or without it. I have tried diligently to believe that Christianity is neutral at worst and possible even a good thing for some people. The problem I keep coming back to is that too many people use Christianity as both a weapon and a human shield. They use a weaponized version Christianity as a sword to brutally attack anyone that won't defer to their opinion and then use the nice Christians to provide them cover when someone sees them as the oppressors that they are.

Despite my desire to not see Christianity as a general negative in society, I am beginning to think that the atheists that see Christianity as a net loss to society just might be right. Perhaps Christianity does do more harm than it does good in the world.

HIV Positive Baby Cured With New Medical Regimen

On Sunday March 3, 2013 Medical researchers announced that a baby in Mississippi was 'functionally cured' or HIV. There is no doubt in my mind that this fantastic news will be trumpeted from the rooftops -- as well it should -- of the community that I follow. This is yet one more step on the road to progress that I have seen in my life.

I was in high school when the AIDS crisis was first known to appear in the United States. All around me were people that were using their religion to say that AIDS was a punishment from their god for being homosexual. It was then that I realized just how petty and dangerous religion could be. It also means that the AIDS/HIV problem has carried a special interest to me.

When no one knew the cause of AIDS, the religious people would tell anyone that would listen that AIDS was caused directly by the hand of their god. God had finally had enough with those evil gays thumbing their noses at him. Later, when HIV was found to be the cause of AIDS, the Christians still claimed that AIDS was the work of their god. HIV was just the mechanism that he used to cause AIDS. Since humans couldn't cure a virus, it didn't matter that their god used a virus to punish people that he had condemned. It was also very effective since the only way to get AIDS was to do that icky homosexual stuff. It didn't matter that heterosexuals were also being affected, as long as it continued to be perceived as a gay disease.

Now a HIV/AIDS infection seems to have been cured twice: once with a functional cure, and once with a possible 'sterilizing cure'.

CNN reports:

Dr. Katherine Luzuriaga, an immunologist at the University of Massachusetts who worked closely with [pediatric HIV specialist Dr. Hannah] Gay, called the developments fascinating, including the fact that the toddler was found to have no virus in her blood even after her mother stopped giving her treatment for eight to 10 months. 

"This is the very first case in which we've conclusively been able to document that the baby was infected and then after a period of treatment has been able to go off treatment without viral rebound," Luzuriaga told CNN.

This is yet another case where Christianity originally showed the strong prejudices it holds only to be surpassed by scientific knowledge and genuine human compassion. Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that a hundred years from now the Christians of that time will be able to look back, see the horrors that were committed in the name of their god, and try to distance themselves from it. It has happened before with every inhumane stance that religious people have taken. It has happened with out of wedlock mothers, mental disorders, physical ailments, and virtually every disease that had an unknown origin. That is what makes Christianity dangerous as it has been practiced: instead of being a force of good, it usually starts as cover for bigotry and prejudice. It is only after the rest of society leaves them behind that they begin to come around and act like decent, caring, respectable human beings.

White House Petition Returned to Zero Count?

What the hell is going on over there at the White House petition site? Are they having some kind of technical failure? Recently a petition was posted to prohibit religious institutions from mandating any care decisions that rightfully belong between a patient and Doctor. I thought it was an excellent petition, and it was well on its way to reaching the required 100,000 signatures required for the White House to respond. Now, at the time of this writing, the signature count has been returned to just eight.

I never thought there was really anything that the government could do regarding the Catholic insistence of buying up all the hospitals, but I hoped it would gain some traction and maybe make the news. But with eight total signatures, no news organization is going to pay any attention to this at all.

I don't think there is any kind of ulterior motives behind the resetting of the petition count. Actually, I suspect that it was some type of computer error that lost the current signatories. Whatever the reason, I hope there is some IT people around to look into the problem and try to recover the lost signatures.

In the mean time we all need to go back to the petition and sign it. I assume that since the count has been zeroed, there will be no problem with signing it again.

The FBI Rescues Captive

Fantastic news! It is being reported by NBC news that the five year old that was held by Jimmy Lee Dykes has been rescued. One of the things that is telling in the story is that there are still plenty of people willing to give the credit to their god. But it wasn't their god that had anything to do with the resolution of the crime, it was the trained, skilled, and brave members of the FBI that brought this standoff to a successful resolution with a minimum loss of life.

"This boy is a very special child. He's been through and endured a lot and by the grace of God, he's OK," Olson said. "That was the mission of every man and woman on this compound. Of every law enforcement officer, every first responder, and all of the community who prayed to bring him home safely."

That might have been the mission of every man, woman, and law enforcement officer on the compound and in the community, but it was the FBI that delivered; not a god. I will keep my praise for the men and women that create the laws that protect us from the predators of society, the men and women that enforce those laws so that we can all pursue a living with a minimal degree of fear, and the people that work for a better future for humanity instead of wasting their time praising an imaginary being for something he didn't help with.

Those That Prey and Those That Pray

In case you haven't been watching the news with an eye out for the most dangerous and deluded people out there, Alabama has been dealing with a live one. Police are saying that Jim Dykes shot a bus driver before taking a kindergartener hostage and holing up in an underground bunker. It is deplorable what people can do to each other. The question is, what do we do in the face of this kind of brutality? We can try to control gun violence, we can support the family and friends, we can rally support from the community and nation, we can comfort the people involved, we can try to construct ways that prevent this type of situation, or we can do something completely worthless like pray.

Fox News has decided to opt for the do nothing approach in their puff piece on the Alabama tragedy. They have come to the conclusion that shining a spotlight on the people that opt to pray instead of doing something worthwhile is the best course of action in this situation. Of all the things that could be done by every one of these people involved, they would rather sit around and parade their piety in front of the world instead of actually trying to accomplish anything.

Pray to the Gods of Football

I am baffled when it comes to what a fairly sizable percentage of Americans believe. They see their god everywhere. He is personally doling out health, success, and presumably money to people all over the world. He is using his cosmic power over the entire universe not to help the starving, hungry, and suffering, but to assist in American sporting competitions.

The CNN Belief Blog reports:

With millions of Americans set to watch the Super Bowl on Sunday, a new survey finds more than a quarter of Americans believe that God "plays a role in determining which team wins" at sports events.

The survey by the Public Religion Research Institute also found that more than half of Americans believe “God rewards athletes who have faith with good health and success.”

While I'm personally not interested in the Super Bowl, I am interested in people that think that their God is rewarding people with good health and success. By implication, that means that he isn't rewarding some of us with good health and success for some reason. And that reason, according to too many religious people I have visited with, seems to be that we are bigger sinners than them and deserving of the disadvantages we receive. Not only is that unbiblical, it also goes against everything we know about reality. It is blaming the victims of difficult times while rewarding the people that were fortunate with respect to health and wealth.

And if rewarding the lucky and punishing the victims isn't bad enough, it seems like you can't even tell the difference until after the fact.

“I'll tell anybody. One thing about God's will, you can never see God's will before it happens,” Lewis said after the game. “You can only see at the end of it. For his will to happen this way, I could never ask for anything else.”

The only good news is that we now know that the god of football is capricious and Nate Silver is his profit.