Atheism and Skepticism

I've talked about the Skeptics' Schism before...and I'm sure I'll talk about it again. Here's today's take on the subject.

I'd recommend reading D.J.'s post at the JREF site, and PZ Myers' post that it links to.

Seriously. They're good posts and provide the needed context and background for this quote from Pamela Gay:

"To me, skepticism applies to testable parts of my life. Through science, I can test ideas and make predictions. As a skeptical thinker, when I'm confronted with data I have to be willing to change my ideas about reality, and if the predictive powers of science fail me, I have to admit my science is wrong. A belief in God is a belief in something frustratingly untestable. I can make no testable predictions using religion, but instead find myself faced with having to make an opinion-based judgement. I have made the choice to believe. I admit I have doubts - I am not so strong a person as to say my faith is complete and that in the dark of night I don't worry that I'm wrong. But in the absence of data, I have made the choice to believe in a God."

Here are the questions I'd like to ask:

1. If something isn't testable, how do you justify believing it?

2. How is this not simply a shifting the burden of proof - accepting an answer, without data to support it, and holding that position until data is presented to contradict it?

3. What makes you think belief is simply a choice? Did you really consciously choose to believe a god exists in the absence of supporting evidence or was there more? Isn't it more accurate to say that you've become convinced for reasons that are admittedly not rational or supported by evidence...reasons of which you may not be full cognizant? Was it a choice or is there some underlying presupposition that you're not recognizing?

4. Do you care whether or not your beliefs are justified?

5. Is it hypocritical to selectively apply skepticism?

I'm not picking on Pamela here - these questions are for any skeptic that identifies as a theist. They've been asked before and I have yet to hear any satisfactory answers. Pamela is simply the most recent, relevant example. And, while I shouldn't have to say this, I'm not raising this to attack her - I'm addressing the claims.

Anyone can be skeptical of something. It's probably the case that every sane person is skeptical of many things. It's natural for us to be curious and skeptical. But when someone identifies as a skeptic and we identify others as a skeptics, we're not talking about "natural skepticism" or being skeptical, we're talking about "applied skepticism" - the conscious application of skeptical ideals as tool for evaluating claims.

How skeptical do you have to be in order to qualify as a skeptic?

Skeptics strive (even if they fail) to be skeptical of all things, don't they? That, to me, is what skepticism is. If it's nothing more than picking and choosing what you'll be skeptical of, where is the usefulness? How can you criticize untestable claims while holding your own and claiming they're immune? When I hear that people like Paul Kurtz are claiming that we shouldn't be skeptical of everything, I have to wonder exactly what's going on.

Don't misunderstand, I agree that we can only adequately investigate testable claims - but we should be skeptical of all claims. What would we say if James Randi, for example, stated that he received an applicant for the Million Dollar Challenge who presented a claim that was untestable but that he was going to go ahead and "choose to believe" this untestable claim (though not aware the prize) despite the lack of supporting evidence?

Pamela writes:

"Someone who compartmentalizes their life - placing religion in one box and skepticism in another - is tearing themselves apart"

... yet she tries to claim that her religious beliefs are untestable and immune from skeptical examination. How is that not compartmentalization? If her beliefs are untestable, why believe? If her beliefs are not untestable, why claim they are...and why believe? How is this different from someone who makes any other untestable woo claim?

None of us are perfect in our application of critical thinking and skepticism, we're all going to make mistakes. We're going to accept bad evidence. We're going to allow our emotions and desires to color our evaluation of evidence. We're going to show a little special treatment for the things we treasure.

But shouldn't skepticism be about recognizing those errors and striving to overcome them? Shouldn't it be about a diligent pursuit of the goal to hold the best possible understanding of reality? When confronted with an error like this, wouldn't we expect a good skeptic to acknowledge the error and change their position? Isn't that the hallmark of skepticism?

I've said, many times, that I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Both sides of that coin are critical. If you're only concerned with believing as many true things as possible; believe everything. If you're only concerned with believing as few false things as possible; believe nothing.

Skepticism shuns both of those extremes (credulity and cynicism) and cares solely about serving as a filter to separate information into piles marked 'reliable' and 'unreliable'. It is an ideal predicated on the desire to have the most accurate understanding of reality that we're capable of.

Pamela even notes this when she writes; "the natural outcome in skepticism is acknowledging doubt". That's true and beautiful but it's only part of the story. It's not simply about acknowledging doubt (because that allows people to misrepresent the burden of proof), it's about attempting to doubt appropriately - to discover which bits of information are reliable enough to be believed and which are not.

There's a difference between being skeptical and being a skeptic - or there should be. If someone claims to be a skeptic, yet believes in god or auras or ghosts without presenting supporting evidence, is that a problem? Not so long as they recognize that on that particular subject, they're not properly applying the skepticism they advocate. Essentially, they're hypocritical in their application of skepticism.

Does that mean they're a lousy skeptic? On that subject, yes. Overall? That depends. Some skeptics will recognize and acknowledge that they're not properly applying skepticism. Others will claim that skepticism isn't relevant to that subject. I'm having a really difficult time deciding which of those is more dangerous and which represents the greatest hypocrisy.

Is the willful rejection of skeptical values in order to cling to a cherished belief more or less detrimental if that rejection is acknowledged? Is it better to say, "Yes, I'm not being skeptical about this - because it makes me feel good" than to say "Skepticism simply doesn't apply here"?

I've got to think that the latter is a gross conceptual error about what skepticism is, if we're going to distinguish it from simply "being skeptical".

It's very likely that each individual case is different. It's a complicated landscape and this isn't about assigning people a score, as though I'm 92% pure skeptic and they're 89% or 96%. There are plenty of things that I've been insufficiently skeptical of - but when I've been challenged on those things, I've acknowledged it and reevaluated my position. I've never said or implied that I hold some belief that is beyond the realm of skeptical inquiry.

It may be the case that some of these willful rejections of skepticism amount to no more than traveling slightly over the speed limit, but if you're part of a movement that encourages people to adhere to the speed limit, you don't get to willfully ignore it without being called out for hypocrisy.

I like Pamela. She seems to be a nice person, she's smart, she's probably a good scientist and, apart from her religious views, she seems to be a pretty good skeptic. I not only don't object to her speaking at TAM 8 (The Amaz!ng Meeting), I was happy to hear she'd be speaking. Unlike some people, I actually hoped that she'd be specifically addressing theistic skepticism - as that's a subject that I find fascinating (if not frustrating). I also don't object to Hal Bidlack (another skeptical theist) serving as MC for TAM. Hal's someone I liked, despite the fact that we may disagree about the relationship between skepticism and theism.

What I object to are the attempts to curtail discussion on this subject. What I object to are the attempt to portray some skeptics as troublemakers, negatively affecting the whole, simply because they're not hesitant to say that they're skeptical of the claim that "theistic skeptic" isn't oxymoron.

Pamela writes:

"There is currently a philosophy that “skepticism is a proper subset of atheism: that is, not all atheists are skeptics but all skeptics are atheists.”" [snip] "This is false logic. Being a skeptic does not preclude a belief in a God. Being a skeptic simply means I have to admit that there are things I know are scientifically true and based on evidence (such as the age of the universe), and there are things that in the absence of sufficient data I may choose to believe in or not believe in (such as God)."

D.J. agrees with Pamela (in part):

"I do not believe that skepticism is a subset of atheism. I believe, and I wonder why it isn't obvious to everyone, that atheism is a subset of skepticism."

It's true that skepticism is not a subset of atheism, in that context. I agree with D.J. that this should be painfully obvious. Atheism deals with a single claim and that is insufficient to serve as a superset for skepticism. But we're talking about 'isms' in that context. Skepticism could include a bunch of "isms" under its umbrella...that tells us nothing about whether or not skepticism supports or precludes theism.

Pamela, though, shifts scopes - both from 'skepticism/atheism' to 'skeptic/atheist' and also from 'is' to 'ought'. Of course there are theists who identify as skeptics - that's not in question.

Here's the simple question that seems to be avoided like the plague:

Does the proper application of skepticism support theism?

Anyone who thinks the answer is "yes", please defend that position - just as someone who felt that their belief in ghosts was supported by the proper application of skepticism.

If the answer is "no" - then it is clear that the proper application of skepticism supports the atheistic position, in the sense that (skeptical) atheism rejects theistic claims as unbelievable due to insufficient evidence. Read that twice. Insert the word "nontheism" for "(skeptical) atheism", if it makes it more clear. (I'll bet I still get someone e-mailing about middle ground...)

That's what we're really discussing here: Is theism consistent with the proper application of skepticism?

Pamela would like to have us believe it is and she attempts to do so by claiming that her theism is untestable and claiming that "Being a skeptic does not preclude a belief in a God."

That, though, is a dishonest shifting of the burden of proof. She might as well have said "Being a skeptic does not preclude a belief in the supernatural/ghosts/auras." It'd be just as true and just as irrelevant. Skepticism does't preclude belief in anything provided that you assert that your belief is justified until disproved. Skepticism is about investigating all claims to discover truth. It's about discovery, not just debunking.

Isn't it one of the core principles of applied skepticism that if something is untestable, then belief is unjustified? How can one justify belief without supporting evidence?

I'm baffled by the unwillingness of some skeptics to state the obvious when it comes to religious claims: they haven't scratched the surface of meeting their burden of proof. Some act as if honestly acknowledging that someone's beliefs are not rational and not consistent with a skeptical assessment of the evidence is somehow a disservice; as if we don't want to hurt the feelings of our skeptical friends who have bought into a particular brand of woo. What sort of friend are you being when you do that?

It's not as if we're trying to kick people out of skeptic groups or exclude them from meetings and events. It's not even as if we're unwilling to consider their case - but pretending that there isn't a dilemma here that should be defended? That's a disservice.

If there's a theistic skeptic who would actually like to defend their views, why not encourage that? Why not arrange for a public debate or panel discussion at TAM9? I suspect that the answer has more to do with image and the perception that such a discussion might alienate people that are otherwise supportive. Honestly, though, I think it probably has more to do with finding a skeptical theist willing to publicly defend that position.

If anyone needed evidence of the pernicious, nefarious, deleterious effects of religious beliefs and their ability to protect themselves while affecting their surroundings; they need look no further than the collection of otherwise committed skeptics who not only shy away from the subject but encourage others to do the same.

New "renegade" Non-Prophets episode recording tomorrow

During the lengthy and ongoing hiatus that has frustrated NPR fans for months and months, Russell and Lynnea recently recorded their own stop-gap, "renegade" episode to help mark time until the regular show hosted by Denis, Russell and Matt is able to resume. Which they're saying may be September. Which would be better interpreted as "wait and see." But as fans were happy with Russell and Lynnea's effort, there's no reason not to keep this up, especially as magical internettical computerifical technological magic makes it so easy.

Tomorrow afternoon, I will be recording yet another of these renegade shows, and it should be available on the NPR site by Friday. (It won't be a livecast though, so no simultaneous chat.) One of my guest hosts will be my dear friend, the beautiful and snarktacular Gia Grillo, aka PamAnnJett, whom most of you will recall from the post here not long ago, in which she recounted her little saga about walking boldly up to a pair of squeaky clean sidewalk proselytizers and mercilessly emasculating them in front of everybody! Hey, she may be small, but she packs a wallop. Joining us also, from the misty forests of northern California, will be our mutual friend, Chris Conner. Mostly our topic will involve how the Internet has played such a powerful role, both as a resource for atheists and a way to forge a sense of community among us that atheists never had before. The rise in atheism's profile globally; the popularity of shows like AETV and blogs like Pharyngula; the ability for there even to be such a thing as million-selling atheist books; and finally, the many connections of simple friendships open to us — the Internet has done more for the spread of reason than anything, and we'll talk about how it's impacted our lives. The Young, Godless, and Fabulous today live in a much different world than the one that afflicted Madalyn O'Hair's generation. But in many ways, not much has changed and there's still so much to be done.

All this and other stuff. Look for the new show to be downloadable by the weekend, gang. I'm very much looking forward to it myself.

Random Thoughts at About.com

I've mentioned before that I try to spend time at About.com's Agnostic/Atheist section hosted by Austin Cline. The site offers a lot of good things, not the least of which is a good atheist community forum and an often-updated blog. Recently I posted a few comments to some of the blog posts there, and thought I'd share. The site, in case anyone is interested is at the following location:

http://atheism.about.com/

In response to the post: "Myth: You're Not Really an Atheist, You Just Want to be Contrary"

In response to another comment in the comments section:

They are projecting. You're correct. I had a talk last night about this very thing. Religion is implanted into infants/children. Later, when they "feel god" they don't understand that it's an idea that has been artificially implanted. It was drilled in so early on that they think it's as inherent as "not liking peas" or some such.

Even when they're confronted with a realization that their "arguments" for god's existence don't make sense, they can't shake that "feeling" that god is "there." So, even if you can reason them out of all sorts of things, that last bit, the existence of god, still holds tenaciously. This is where we get statements like "I just know there is a god." Or "I just feel it." Or the disturbing "I know that I know that I know." These are people who were used as children as meme depositories--used by a viral idea, spread by other infected adult minds/people.

When you say you don't "feel" their god or acknowledge it, it's impossible for them to believe it. (1) They "feel" it. (2) Everyone they grew up with likely told them they "feel" it--all the adults they trusted, mom/dad/sunday school teacher/preacher, perhaps even friends. And (3) they've been taught that feeling is implanted by god in every human heart. And that's the explanation they hold to for how they "feel" it--and why they reject it when you say you don't share that.

One of the most eye-opening things to me when I began to get outside the religious box was understanding atheists who were secularly raised did not have the things I'd been taught are inherent such as "feelings" a god exists or "supreme fear of death." Many churches teach you're born with an innate sense of "god" and later, as an evil/flawed adult you "sear" your conscience--and drive it out. But if that's true, why work so hard to instill it into children? And why do secular kids not express this "feeling" even in their youth?

It's a lie, but one that children are immersed in to the point it really does become the only reality they know. Breaking that spell is a task, for sure.

In response to the post: "Passive vs. Aggressive Atheism - Should Atheists Be Passive or Aggressive?"

I think a lot depends on where a person lives (how much influence religion exercises over his/her life in his/her region) as to whether a person is motivated to “engage” or be critical.

I’ve been asked a lot: “Why do you care what theists think?” Beyond 9-11, I can list a slew of crap religion is doing to impact the state in which I live, Texas. It’s not “benign” in my state. And if we didn’t constantly slap down the tentacles of religious invasion into state law, state education, and state politics, it would creep along invading every aspect of our lives here. What would stop it if not people standing up in opposition?

But I have learned as well that no small number of people refuse to reason and aren’t interested in dialoging rationally about ideas. These people won’t be reasoned with, and whether I adopt a kind or harsh approach seems to result in the same thing–that they won’t reason and they maintain their stance regardless of evidence in opposition to their beliefs.

This person, whether they’re “abused” (verbally, not physically) or treated kindly, I don’t care. Neither method will impact them any better. BUT, people listening and watching the exchange ARE impacted, and what I’ve seen is that if stupid ideas are taken to task in a harsh way, many people who are “reachable,” but who share similar views will contact us and say, “I saw the episode where you lambasted that creationist. I was raised creationist, and never questioned it until I saw how foolish that caller looked during that exchange.”

Even though this viewer shared the same ideology–he was able to watch safely from the sidelines as his perspective was criticized, and objectively consider whether it sounded reasonable. And when he saw fair mockery of the irrational nature of the idea, he felt no sting of personal attack, and assessed the content of the statements without being offput by the “meanness” of the responses.

For every person publicly attacked, I’ve begun to find (because I hear from them daily) there are MANY others who benefit from such attacks–by having the benefit of being able to view them and consider their own positions from the sidelines. One such person “made example of” can be publicly “strung up” metaphorically–as a lesson to others to be more critical of their own beliefs.

The scathing approach has a great benefit. And until I got more involved in the atheist community, I probably wouldn’t have seen or acknowledged that. I am, naturally, a fairly kind person. I am often harsh in response to abstract concepts, but far more friendly when I engage an actually human being–again, generally.

But many atheists I work with are less kind, and I have seen the responses to them, and outside of the individual who is being assaulted (again metaphorically), they _do_ have demonstrated beneficial results that I can’t deny. I can’t argue with success. And seeing people write in to say “that lashing you put on that caller really made me think harder about what _I_ believe.” That’s priceless. That helped someone.

Fred Edwords: Sailing the Rising Tide of Reason

Since some people may be missing The Atheist Experience this week, I'm posting the video from a recent ACA Lecture Series lecture.

Fred Edwords from the United Coalition of Reason on "Sailing the Rising Tide of Reason".

Over the past few years, with the rise of the “New Atheism,” interest in Freethought and humanism is growing. And the more recent billboard and bus campaigns have stoked the fires of enthusiasm. How can Freethought and humanist groups benefit from this secular "coming out"? How can they capture this interest to help their memberships grow? Fred Edwords, a former executive director of the American Humanist Association, is now the national director of the United Coalition of Reason. Over his thirty-year career as a humanist leader he has lectured, debated, and taught on humanist philosophical issues and effective outreach techniques. He has appeared on national and local television in the United States and Canada, has been interviewed on radio and for newspapers around the world, and has lectured in North America, Europe, and India.

"Sailing the Rising Tide of Reason"

Mp3 audio is available here.

We don't play nice

Basically this post could be a big "What PZ said": The notion that there is anything "new" about "New Atheism" other than having the boldness to speak out is ridiculous; but the notion that there is a newer, better atheism that doesn't like to make waves against religion is far more ridiculous.

I am occasionally baffled by emails such as this one that we received two days ago (as per an earlier post, this is just an excerpt):

I was going to call in to ask what you guys think about the following. Some of my friends have suggested that the "militant atheism" strategy pursued by scientists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc., may turn out to achieve precisely the opposite of its goal. The strident, aggressive stance taken by these "atheist preachers" can easily be seen by many theists as offensive, and consequently strengthen their faith and encourage the formation of a stereotype which sees the atheist as "the enemy".

How can anyone wonder what we think of those guys? We are those guys. Oh sure, we're not bestselling authors or anything, the crowds we draw are much smaller, comparatively speaking (although fairly high if we're allowed to count "every single person who eventually watches each show" as part of a crowd).

But really, the entire draw of the Atheist Experience is that we are out there every single week being a walking, televised billboard saying "Hey look, here are some guys who think that it's irrational to believe in God. Call us and argue. PLEASE." I mean, sure, we try to do so in a manner that is polite and respectful -- most of the time. (Then again, Jeff's rants are legendary.) But in generally I try to follow a guideline something like "People deserve respect and dignity. Their flawed claims do not."

Are we abrasive? Are we offensive? Sometimes I don't know how to answer that question. But I will certainly say this: it is offensive to me to claim that there are ideas out there that are beyond the scope of public dispute.

Vic Stenger visited Austin at the end of October

Dr. Victor J. Stenger, author of the New York Times best seller, "God: The Failed Hypothesis" was in Austin at the end of October promoting his new book, "The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason". He gave a lecture and did an interview with me. For various reasons, we have not publicized these until now.

Since the Atheist Experience is on break, it seems like a good time to unveil them.

"A Conversation with Vic Stenger"

Mp3 audio is available here.


"The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason"

Mp3 audio is available here.

Sprouting Seeds

It warms my heart to see young people embrace reason and critical thinking and declare themselves atheists. I have always valued learning and it is wonderful to see young people independently reach the same conclusion I have. It makes me wish I was able to do so earlier in my life. Alas, I’m from a different generation than those in college and high school today. Some things are easier for them and some things are harder, I’m sure. I will always be an avid supporter of college campus groups like the local Atheist Longhorns. Watching these sprouting seeds gives me so much hope for the future.

It’s doubly wonderful to hear from an outspoken young atheist who is a freshman in high school. Lucia Guatney recently finished her freshman year in high school and she has written a nice article on what it’s like to be an atheist high schooler, about her conversation with Richard Dawkins, and about how exciting that was for her. She even has her own blog. Wow. Go Lucia!

It was triply wonderful for me to notice that Lucia is going to the same high school that I did. It made me think about how the school has changed and how I’ve changed along the way. I think it was there that some seeds of atheism were planted in me. My best friend was an atheist, but I didn’t form an opinion on religion until much later. Perhaps I was fortunate to not be too immersed in religion in my youth.

I remember three high school teachers who helped to plant some seeds. One had us read about the Holocaust and think critically about convention and authority. Another helped me appreciate the Spanish conquest of the Americas and the fraud behind Guadalupe. A third (math) teacher pointed out that according to the Bible, pi is 3. Hats off to these fabulous teachers, wherever they may be.

I have to give a nod to the Secular Students of Rice University, my alma mater. While college freethought groups are now common, they were rare when I was in college and Rice didn't have one. I’d like to think that I helped to pave the way for them in some small way. When I was in college, I did some sparring with the Campus Crusade for Christ and Maranatha student groups. An acquaintance of mine from college looked me up on Facebook recently and gave me an unsolicited compliment about how brave I was to sand up to their viewpoints those many years ago. I don't think of myself as particularly brave.

It’s nice to look back on some of those early experiences and feel a connection to the next generation of young people who are poised to make their impact on the world. I have high hopes for them.

Aggressive Atheist Extremists

Maybe you’ve seen the PhillyCOR billboard recently? Floaty clouds on a blue sky, with the text “Don’t believe in god?” on top, and “You are not alone,” on the bottom. It’s an invitation to disenfranchised atheists to get in touch with local humanist, atheist, free-thought or secular organizations in their areas. And it’s as inoffensive a message as I’ve ever seen from any atheist group. No attack on religion. No invitation to anyone to reconsider their beliefs. Just a note to those who already don’t believe, who think they’re on their own, to encourage them and let them know there are like-minded people “out there” who would like to get to know them and offer them camaraderie and community involvement. PhillyCOR actually even works alongside religious organizations to support charitable endeavors.

So, here again we have the age-old question: Is there any way—at all—that an atheist can express his opinion that won’t be considered an attack on or offense to believers?

The answer, PhillyCOR has now made clear, is “no.”

In an interview with Fox News, Family Research Council’s own Peter Sprigg had this to say about the board:

“This billboard in Philadelphia seems to represent a trend—a new assertiveness, even aggressiveness on the part of atheists.”

You heard right. Putting up a billboard to let like-minded people know you exist—people who often think they are utterly alone—is “aggressive.” The billboard represents—is part of—a trend of “aggressiveness.” Am I to assume that Sprigg has never seen a Christian billboard before? He should come to Austin, where he would be able to see several in a five mile stretch in any direction. And they don’t just appeal to other Christians—they appeal to everyone to come to church, accept Jesus, believe in god, convert to Christianity. Would Sprigg label Christians as a “hyper aggressive” group, then? I’m guessing not—but to be consistent, he actually would have to. If atheists today are “aggressive,” I can’t see how Sprigg doesn’t consider Christians to be hovering over the edge of “dangerous.”

Further, this man who claims atheists are being “aggressive” has the following to add:

“Atheists are very vigorous in promoting the separation of church and state, but with the extreme way that they interpret that concept, you would basically eliminate every mention of god from the public square, and that would amount to the establishment of atheism.”

First of all, it’s not about eliminating the mention of anything from any “public square.” People in the public square, speaking as private citizens, can say whatever they like. It’s people and institutions that are in any way representatives of government that cannot, and should not, promote any religious perspective—including the existence or nonexistence of any god or gods. That’s a little different, and perhaps a subtlety that is lost on people like Sprigg—although, if I am to speak frankly, I don’t believe it’s lost on him at all. I believe it to be an intentional misrepresentation—a strawman—intended to rile religious masses, because Sprigg knows that an accurate representation would not be nearly as compelling and effective in attaining that goal.

Free advice: When someone misrepresents their case, always, always, always ask “why?”

And while I am on misrepresentations, another interesting fact that Sprigg seems to conveniently have misplaced, is that one of the most active entities promoting separation of church and state is a group headed by the Reverend Barry Lynn, who often speaks on behalf of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Since Sprigg’s group is so very interested in separation issues, I can’t imagine he is unaware of this. And yet, he promotes separation as an “atheist vs. theist” issue, in order to launch an unfounded attack on atheists and rally undeserved support to his own agenda to use the government, openly and unapologetically, to promote a worldview that just happens to align with conservative Christian religious ideologies.

Asking Sprigg to not use our government as a vehicle to push his religion onto others is somehow an “establishment of atheism.” I have pointed out before, but perhaps not at this blog, that asking that the government remove “under god” is in no way the equivalent of asking them to add “without a god” to the Pledge. Ensuring everyone, theists and atheists alike, is free from government sanctioned, promoted, or imposed religious ideology allows everyone, theists and atheists alike, the freedom to exercise their religion, or no religion, as they wish, by putting all religious ideologies on the same playing field—a field that is, and ever should be, found exclusively in the court of private practice.

The level of projection Sprigg employs is at least as bad as anything I have seen from any theist so far. He effortlessly scales the heights of hypocrisy as he accuses others of stepping out of line who are not, while he is guilty of absolutely all that he accuses. Ironically, even if atheists were guilty of all he accuses, they would be doing no more or less than their Sprigg-encouraged Christian counterparts, in so far as pushing their agenda via government and posting and promoting their ideology as far and wide as possible. So, how could Sprigg possibly criticize, even if atheists were guilty, without showing himself up as a raging hypocrite?

The real issue here is that Sprigg wants Christianity to enjoy special privilege and treatment from society, as well as from the government, without being able to actually explain why special status is merited. I would never advocate promoting atheism using the government. And yet, if I did, any criticism from Sprigg could be nothing less than stunning, as I’d be doing no more than he and his organization and religion are doing already (and have been doing for quite a long time).

It’s actually competition Sprigg fears—not competition from others asking government to endorse their religious views, too, but the competition that would exist if his own religious view was no longer allowed to use the government as a prop—if it had to exist, horror of horrors, on the same level upon which all other religious views and ideas are now safely relegated—far beneath his own. It isn’t that he thinks it’s wrong to empower and utilize the government to promote religious views at all. His actions illustrate that he very much supports using government to promote religious views and policies. They also illustrate, in no uncertain terms, that his real beef is that he wants his particular brand of religion to be the only one that gets to do it.

On the whole "being offensive" thing

In my Dawkins report, I discussed the way many Christians — primarily of the conservative stripe — can't stop whining about how horribly offensive the anti-religious rhetoric of the "new atheists" is, while intentionally ignoring, and even defending, far worse behavior from their own. A perfect example is this odious hypocrisy I read via Ed Brayton's blog.

Oklahoma representative Sally Kern, not surprisingly a sponsor of the anti-education bill HB 2211, recently had a sickening homophobic hate screed of hers recorded and made public. Is she apologizing? Of course not. She's a Christian, and morally superior to you, after all. So not only is she sticking to her guns, she's got the lunatics at the WorldNutDaily (to which I refuse to link, so go over to Ed's if you must immerse yourself in such filth) concocting a nice little conspiracy theory in her defense as well. Get a load of this. Here they are talking about how the thousands of gays and lesbians whom Kern gratuitously offended with her hate speech are the ones with the problem, and how they're victimizing her.

Basically, they're trying to silence her by threatening, intimidating, harassing and frightening her until she can't take any more abuse. No dialogue, no debate - just crush her.

Only a fundie would think there's something meriting "dialogue" and "debate" when some foul-tempered, hideous old cow (oh noes, the eebul afeist is calling her naaames!) rants about how gays and lesbians are more dangerous to America than terrorists, that they're bringing about the downfall of civilization, and who lies about non-existent "studies" that support such idiotic ideas.

From where I'm sitting, the entirety of the "dialogue" and "debate" hate speech like Kern's deserves can be summed up as, "You're a sick individual, a disgrace, and a vile liar, and would you please go crawl back under your rock, you ignorant useless bitch. Thank you. Signed, The Human Race."

That's their game. It's despicable, and utterly un-American.

While religious hate is just so praiseworthy and "pro-American," of course.

In a sense, Kern does a better job of validating Dawkins' points than Dawkins does. When Dawkins wrote in his essay "Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds"...

Religion changes, for people, the definition of good.... For non-religious people, the behavior of consenting adults in a private bedroom is the business of nobody else, and is not bad unless it causes suffering – for example by breaking up a happy family. But many religions arrogate to themselves the right to decide that certain kinds of sexual behavior, even if they do no harm to anyone, are wrong.... The following quotation from the Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg has become well known, but it is so devastatingly true that it is worth quoting again and again: “With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”

...he was talking about you, Mustang Sally.

Now, back under the rock with you. Here, take your Bible. You'll need that, since you haven't got a brain.

Oh gee. Did I offend someone?

"What would convince you?"

Christians often get frustrated with atheists. They complain that no argument is good enough, that we must be even more dogmatic in our unbelief than they are in their belief. You see this whine reflected in the swiftness with which believers, desperate to refute Dawkins and the "new atheists," began referring to them as "atheist fundamentalists." Nothing they can possibly say to persuade these closed-minded heathens will ever change their minds.

What believers don't see is that this has nothing to do with the presumed intellectual constipation of atheists, and everything to do with the lame quality of their arguments for faith. You must realize that to a lot of believers — not just the rank-and-file Jack and Jill Churchgoer, but even to apologists who write books and ought to know better, like Ray Comfort and Dinesh D'Souza — laughable nonsense like Pascal's Wager or Lewis's "lord, liar or lunatic" are excellent arguments. The simple fact is that, to an atheist who has spent years living his/her life rooted in reason, the feeble, emotionally comforting justifications that believers use to prop up their beliefs won't work.

So what can believers do to change our minds? Often I've been asked, "What would it take to convince you? What evidence would break through your intellectual front lines?" Maybe you've been asked this yourself.

My response is to tell the believer that they should be directing their question at themselves and not me. Here's what they should do.

Ask yourself, "Why do I believe in God?" Be brutally honest in your answer. Do you believe simply because you've been raised to believe and have never thought to question your upbringing? Or do you think you actually have sound intellectual reasons for your theism?

If you answer in the former, then you need to ask yourself if that is really good enough. Believers like to throw around terms like "intellectual honesty," so any believer who is willing to admit they hold on to their theism simply because they were raised Christian ought to ask themselves if it is truly intellectually honest not to question beliefs just because you were raised in them.

If you answer in the latter, then ask yourself this: If your reasons for belief are intellectually satisfying to you, and are in your opinion well supported by evidence, then are those reasons on their own strong enough to sway unbelievers? If you think of yourself as a smart person, and your reasons to believe were strong enough to sway you, shouldn't they be good enough for anyone else also?

If yes, then by all means, present them. And expect them to be scrutinized and evaluated. Don't be angry if they aren't just automatically accepted.

But if you don't think your reasons are strong enough to sway an atheist, then ask yourself, why did they sway you? Are they really especially good reasons? Or did you allow something else — your emotions, your desire for acceptance and fear of rejection by your neighbors and family — to overpower your reason? If other smart people aren't convinced by your reasons, should you have accepted those reasons as good enough for you, being that you're a smart person too?

So don't let atheists' insistence on arguing these things down to the bone frustrate you, and don't waste time asking us what would convince us, because that effectively amounts to your giving up. (And if you're doing that, what does it say about how supportable your beliefs are?) Instead, take a moment to really evaluate your reasons for being a believer, and be coldly, unforgivingly honest with yourself in that evaluation. It will be difficult, but it's worth doing. In my case, I must admit it was that process of self-evaluation that steered me towards my eventual atheism. But if such self-scrutiny only reassures you your reasons are sound, and that they are sound enough to trounce all of us "new atheists," then bring 'em on. And prepare to defend yourself in a hearty argument. Much as people might like to think of us as "atheist fundamentalists" as an excuse to avoid getting in such arguments with us, just remember, we aren't fundamentalists, we're rationalists who insist on strict fidelity to evidence and reason. If we can be proven wrong, we'll admit it when we are.

Blasphemy is, as they say, a victimless crime

Over in the UK, the population may be predominately non-religious, or at least indifferent to religion, in stark opposition to the way Americans can't seem to get enough of the stuff. But it's only been this week that the House of Lords* voted to strike down the nation's laws against blasphemy. Nice of them to recognize it isn't 1437 any more. Unless you've got a fascistic, Talibanoid theocracy going on, having blasphemy laws in a modern enlightened culture is like attaching a carburetor to your pyjamas: pointless and utterly silly.

Of course, some people are upset at learning the Middle Ages ended long ago.

Prominent Christian activist Baroness O’Cathain launched a blistering attack on the amendment, with particular fury aimed at Evan Harris. Lady O’Cathain maintained that abolition of blasphemy would unleash a torrent of abuse towards Christians.

Huh. I thought blasphemy was defined as making insulting or disrespectful remarks critical of gods, not their followers. As far as hate crimes against the religious are concerned, the UK has its Racial and Religious Hatred Act, a piece of legislation that makes it an offense to incite deliberate violence and hatred towards a person or group of people based on their race or creed. (I know it's a law that feels problematic from a free speech standpoint, but the wording of it does try to make it clear that it's only an offense when there's clear intent to incite harm. I imagine it's only a matter of time before it's actually put to the test in the courts. After all, where's the line between saying something like "Somebody ought to do something about those damn [insert minority here]," and "Kill the [minority]!"?)

One gets the impression that Baroness O'Cathain is merely troubled by the idea of anyone's criticizing belief at all. As Tracie pointed out a couple of posts ago, it can be awfully hard for atheists to engage Christians in conversation about belief, simply because the minute you make one statement that's even the tiniest bit snarky (like comparing their god belief to unicorn belief), many of them are so thin-skinned they'll storm off in a huff right there. Not surprisingly, Dawkins and The God Delusion came up quite a bit in the House debates. The simple fact that atheist books exist, and are actually finding an audience, is enough for some Christians to think they're suffering "a torrent of abuse."

Well, let's talk abuse. What about the people in the past who were actually the targets of the blasphemy laws in question? Ol' Wikipedia tells me that the last guy to be prosecuted under the laws was John William Gott in 1921, who was sentenced to nine months' hard labor simply for publishing pamphlets making fun of Christianity and Jesus. So Christians got their knickers in a twist because Gott snarked on their imaginary friend, and he got nine months breaking rocks. Call me crazy, but I consider that pretty damn torrential abuse. "Hey," you might say, "that was 87 years ago." Yeah, but I'm sure it still sucked for him.

Anyway, it was clearly time to get rid of the laws, because they were irrelevant and never used anyway. And as for Christian fears of persecution, again, I never cease to be amazed at these. Check your Yellow Pages and see how many pages it takes to list the churches in your city. Go to any bookstore in the US, and see how many shelves are swallowed up by the Religion category. Only Borders that I know of delineates a section to "Atheism and Agnosticism" within that category, and that section usually only amounts to about two or three shelves, as opposed to the fifty or so shelves devoted to Bibles, apologetics, and the usual twaddle from fundies like LaHaye and Strobel and Colson and their camp. But to many Christians, those two shelves for atheism are two too many, and amount to a horrifying all-out assault on their precious faith.

Cry me a river.

---

* I had to note my favorite comment about this on Richard Dawkins' site:

Dear Britain, what the hell is a "house of lords"?? Signed, the 21st century.

First the Rolling Stones, now...

Check that last date. Austin's been getting all the best tours lately! Expect a detailed report.

Pope makes feeble, flailing attack on atheism

Pope Ratzo today issued an encyclical — a scholarly sounding term evidently used at the Vatican as a synonym for "overlong, ill-founded rant" — in which he purports to respond to the "new atheism" by drawing an oddly-reasoned equivalency between atheism and Marxism, and shoring up the theistic position with such empty, Hallmark-card platitudes as "Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope." To which the rationalist can only respond with, "Speak for yourself, you weak-willed superstitious infant."

Seriously, if the news release is anything to go by, Ratzo really does hinge a huge portion of his anti-atheist position on comparisons to Marxism, which appear to have little depth beyond "Marx was an atheist, so atheism = Marxism." Using that logic, one could argue that because Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian who painted bad landscapes (not to mention a Christian), that being a vegetarian or a bad landscape painter (not to mention a Christian) invariably leads to Naziism and white supremacist beliefs. It isn't exactly Mensa-level thinking.

Amusingly, a commenter over at RichardDawkins.net has already noted that Ratzo, who belonged to the Hitler Youth as a child, goes out of his way to stick to Marxist comparisons while avoiding the Nazi comparisons being made by evolution deniers. But if, as the pope's defenders will doubtless claim, Ratzo's membership in that august boyscout club was compulsory and in no way reflects approval of Nazi ideologies, then why shouldn't Ratzo go ahead and own up to that and start throwing around Nazi straw men alongside his Marxist straw men? It wouldn't make his blatherings any lamer than they already are.

And it's a bit rich to have the pope attack atheism by saying things like "It is no accident that this idea [Marxism/atheism] has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice," given his own church's bloody history. Hell, right up to this decade, we've seen the Vatican responsible for the enabling and cover-up of the largest and most horrifying pedophilia scandal in the history of western civilization. And yet, without a shred of irony, Ratzo can drone on sanctimoniously with such dreck as "We have all witnessed the way in which progress, in the wrong hands, can become and has indeed become a terrifying progress in evil. If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth, then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world." Ah, blow it out your ass, gramps.

Sorry, Mr. Pope person, sir, but looking at the track record of your little cult, I really don't care how shiny and expensive your robes and pointy hat are, but you've got no moral authority to lecture anyone on anything. And as for your invisible sky fairy, I'll tell you the same thing I tell all of you lot. Prove it exists — hell, provide even a modicum of credible evidence it exists. But even if you do that, you've still got an uphill battle to convince me that without this being I have no hope, since the actual experience of my daily life tells me that goal-oriented rationalism and productive, positive humanism gives me hope to burn.

Fear of an Atheist Planet — again

Coral Ridge Ministries, home of the late D. James Kennedy, has finally figured out a way to unload all that unsold inventory of Kennedy's book Skeptics Answered: whip up fear of the "evangelizing" "crusade" of the "new" atheists.

I think this one might backfire. I actually started to read Skeptics Answered, and I can say that even by the generally low intellectual standards of Christian apologetics, it's a really, really lame and hopelessly dishonest effort. I never finished my fisking of it, unfortunately, but the part I did complete is still online. Contrary to the Coral Ridge e-mail, the book will hardly "arm" believers with "intelligent answers" to atheists' criticisms, and any Christian who tries to use Kennedy's arguments in a debate with an informed and experienced atheist arguer will find himself having his ass handed to him in a most humiliating fashion. Nope, Kennedy doesn't do his flock any favors with this book.

Still, I guess they gotta unload those books somehow.

Want to hear some good news for a change!?

Via Debunking Christianity, I read of the latest poll by Christian research organization The Barna Group, which shows that American youth in the 16-29 age bracket currently have the lowest opinion of Christianity than that group has ever had in previous generations.

The study shows that 16- to 29-year-olds exhibit a greater degree of criticism toward Christianity than did previous generations when they were at the same stage of life. In fact, in just a decade, many of the Barna measures of the Christian image have shifted substantially downward, fueled in part by a growing sense of disengagement and disillusionment among young people. For instance, a decade ago the vast majority of Americans outside the Christian faith, including young people, felt favorably toward Christianity’s role in society. Currently, however, just 16% of non-Christians in their late teens and twenties said they have a "good impression" of Christianity.

Rock on! Now we just need to get those kids their copies of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and George H. Smith. Can it get any better? It can.

One of the groups hit hardest by the criticism is evangelicals. Such believers have always been viewed with skepticism in the broader culture. However, those negative views are crystallizing and intensifying among young non-Christians. The new study shows that only 3% of 16 - to 29-year-old non-Christians express favorable views of evangelicals.... 91% of the nation’s evangelicals believe that "Americans are becoming more hostile and negative toward Christianity." Among senior pastors, half contend that "ministry is more difficult than ever before because people are increasingly hostile and negative toward Christianity."

I guess that, to a well-educated and intellectually curious young population, ancient superstitions that express hostility to science and promote hatred of "undesirables" like gays, and back their demands for compliance up with threats of eternal hellfire, just aren't especially attractive or appealing ideas to embrace. So the next time you feel depressed that such cretinous examples of institutionalized idiocy like the Creation "Museum" seem to be making far more headway than they deserve, we can comfort ourselves with the knowledge that young people do appear to be thinking skeptics after all. Now they just need to be encouraged to maintain that healthy freethought, before religion gets its hooks of emotional manipulation and fearmongering into them.

Why do atheists speak out? This is why.

The post-Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens backlash continues as more petulant Christians come out of the woodwork with their increasingly desperate smears of the character of atheists. Here's a typically asinine screed from some Christian prat writing for some news site in Arkansas. It was so full of perfect bilge that I felt compelled to take off the gloves and haul this little turd out to the woodshed, which I did in the following letter to the editor. It's too long for them to print, surely. My hope is it will be so deliciously ranty that whoever it is on their editorial staff who reads these won't be able to resist forwarding it to the writer, one John Terry. In any case, once your stomach has recovered from reading his twaddle, enjoy my bitchslap which follows.

---

Having just read John Terry's ignorant and reactionary screed against atheists posted to your website on 9/22, this atheist felt he simply had to respond. I have often pitied people who hold the kinds of blinkered and philistine views Mr. Terry holds. But I am not the sort of person to let his calumnies go unanswered. Hopefully he will find this letter educative and instructive, though I doubt it. The fundamentalist mind is nothing if not hidebound. It is, however, precisely the kinds of views Terry expresses in his editorial that have prompted long-silent atheists to feel motivated to speak out and say "Enough is enough!"

Terry first begins by deriding atheism as a belief in "nothing." Right from the start, in doing so he ensures his entire editorial will be based on false premises and baseless preconceptions of atheists rooted in ignorant stereotypes. Terry, blind to anything but his own indoctrination, asks, "If no God exists, what is there to get passionate about?" Golly gee...how about a little thing called real life? Perhaps Terry ought to get off his knees and up on his feet. He'll be able to see reality a lot more clearly from up there.

Atheism is simply the rejection of the belief in deities. The alternative to believing in invisible sky gods is not "nothing," it is everything. It is an appreciation of the beauty and wonder of the natural world as revealed to us by science and reason. As Mr. Terry's religious indoctrination sadly seems to have blinded him to these beauties, one can pity him. But he shouldn't be so arrogant as to assume that those who do not believe in his superstition of choice are de facto nihilistic. As I and other atheists of my acquaintance have discovered, once one emancipates oneself from the shackles of religious dogma, whole new vistas of intellectual wonder open up to you. You are free to question and explore and learn, but most important is what you are freed from: irrational fears.

Terry does say one thing partially right, when he mentions, "Contrary to the apparent belief of atheists, their nonbelief is not a danger to Christianity, nor to individual Christians. Nor does it change the existence of God."

Actually, I don't know of any atheists who consider atheism a "danger" to Christianity, though all atheists do recognize the danger religion poses to rationalism, independence, education, human rights, and peace. Sadly, we understand all too well the degree to which Christianity's dogmas and delusions have become woven into the very fabric of modern culture, and that it will take nothing short of another Enlightenment to turn us away from our present slide into a new Dark Age. Terry is also right in that atheism does not change the existence of God. It simply acknowledges that Terry's God's existence is no more plausible than the existence of Zeus, Thor, Shiva, Amun-Re, or Cthulhu. If Terry wishes me to renounce my atheism and join him in being what he gushingly calls "a child of God," then he ought to offer rational arguments and evidence for this being's existence, rather than spewing supercilious invective and facile emotional appeals. Maybe the fool does say in his heart there is no God....but the wise man says it out loud.

Terry is so ignorant and myopic on the subject of atheism that he offers up examples of perceived problems atheism poses which are simply risible.

First, he seems to think there is something bad about an atheist being left with "no wisdom but his own (except the wisdom of men) and no hope of a life beyond this one." That Terry and believers like him so fear death that they must cling to such a hope is, I suppose, understandable. But part of the process of reaching emotional and intellectual maturity is understanding that life is a finite experience, and that finitude is precisely what makes life precious. It is important to remember here that Terry's entire life has been informed by his indoctrination into one particular set of religious superstitions that enforces its authority over its followers through fear and guilt. Thus it is difficult, if not entirely impossible, for him to comprehend that there are millions of rational nonbelievers in the world who simply aren't wracked by the same existential fears that plague him. In any case, for the atheist, the "problems" Terry thinks we face aren't problems of any kind.

As for relying on the wisdom of men: well, without any proof of a God's existence, why should I rely on anything else? By relying on their own intellect and reasoning, atheists possess the capacity to learn from mistakes, to adapt to new circumstances and be receptive to new knowledge and discoveries. This would seem to me to be a better way to live one's life than to adopt the strident dogmas of a religious belief founded only on wishful thinking and "faith" (a process which seems to be all about the glorification of one's ignorance), buttressed by fear.

If, as Terry implies, it is the God of the Bible whose "wisdom" I should prefer, I confess to being puzzled by the idea that I should consider a being who consigns anyone who does not worship him to his satisfaction to an eternity of agonizing torment as "wise," when my own, pitifully inadequate notions of human wisdom tell me that a being like that is by definition a horrendously wicked and evil tyrant. Any God who refuses to make his existence unambiguously clear, and then is willing to consign individuals to eternal torture simply for doubting his existence, can only be unutterably evil, and the fact that Christians think that such a God is a paragon of all that is good is a view that quite simply perverts any meaning the notion of "goodness" could possibly have. For a Christian to hold such a view and still think he is "better off than the atheist" reveals the intellectually and morally corrupting force of Christian "faith" more powerfully than any atheist critique ever could.

Second, Terry laughably asserts that "the atheist may be able to persuade others (I knew of one situation like this where an older man concentrated on young people) that his unbelief is really true. This might consign those he persuaded to the same fate that is in store for him." What fate is this, I wonder? The Christian "hell," a concept that — as I have explained in detail above — could only be the creation of a morally bankrupt and evil belief system that seeks to ensure compliance through terror and intimidation because it lacks actual facts to support it? If this is what Terry means, then color me unimpressed. Threatening atheists with punishments that do not exist does not, to put it mildly, carry a lot of weight, and if anything, simply confirms what we already know to be religion's most egregious moral failings. To stifle free inquiry and a person's curiosity and sense of discovery by telling them that rejection of the received dogmas is punishable by damnation is perhaps Christianity's most loathsome crime against humanity. However, if, as Terry asserts, I can persuade someone that nonbelief is the way to go, then I can only be happy that I've done my part, however small, in helping someone liberate themselves from superstition's crippling shackles.

Finally, Terry makes an assertion that is simply dispicable. He implies that, lacking belief in God somehow means atheists all somehow think they are their own gods, and thus "without restraint, he may become a pedophile, a murderer, a thief, or any other kind of a deviant you can think of. Or he might just become one who lives inward, with no concern for the people or things around him. There are tragic examples of such people."

How dare you, sir?

MAY I remind you that the most recent pedophilia scandal to shock the world was not perpetrated by atheists, but by the Catholic Church? MAY I remind you that the people who crashed airplanes into buildings were not atheists, but fanatical Moslems? MAY I remind you that virtually all racist hate groups operating in the United States today are religious in focus, from the KKK all the way down to such groups as the "World Church of the Creator"? As for atheists as people turning "inward, with no concern for the people or things around him," who are these people? Who are the "tragic examples" that you claim to have heard of? Since, by your own admission, you say you have only known "no more than two dozen" atheists, how can you possibly feel justified in smearing the character of hundreds of millions of atheists worldwide, in particular smearing them by accusing them of the very crimes that have famously been committed in recent years by the religious?

I'll tell you how you can feel justified in doing it. Your beliefs are misanthropic and divisive. Religion enables hate by convincing one group of people that, because they are the devoted followers of such-and-such an invisible sky fairy, that all non-followers of said being are by definition evil, and must be viewed with suspicion, dread and loathing. The nonstop invective against atheists you spew in your article is a testament to such brainwashing. You don't know any atheists, you say (except for a small handful against whose disbelief you lamely shield yourself by flattering yourself that they're really believers who just won't admit it), but somehow you know we're all "deviants". Gee, thanks very much. That must be some of that "Christian love" I keep hearing about.

Terry's pomposity and arrogance know no bounds. He stupidly asserts that "unless the avowed atheist is prepared to account for the universe, for man in all of his complexities, and life in general, he certainly is not prepared to declare that 'there is no God,'" while completely overlooking the fact that he is in no position to declare that there is a God unless he is able to account for that God...and account for it with hard, independently verifiable and testable evidence, not just a string of Bible quotes. Remember, just because there are certain questions that science has yet to answer does not mean the religionist is justified in slapping down "Goddidit" as the all-purpose default "explanation". An explanation that has no explanatory power is no explanation at all.

Terry here is simply committing the common logical fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof." Despite what he thinks, it is not my responsibility to demonstrate to him that his deity of choice does not exist. It is his responsibility to demonstrate to me that it does. If he fails to do so, I will continue to refrain from believing in this being, just as I refrain from believing in Zeus, Thor, Set, et al.

Remember, the only claim atheism makes is that we do not believe in a God. Every time a believer asserts there is a God, and fails to meet his burden of proof, the atheist successfully meets his. In point of fact, science actually does offer a great deal of what Terry says atheists must offer as explanations — though I suspect that, as a religious fundamentalist, Terry reflexively rejects most modern science. Still, there is much left to learn, and the joy of learning, much less the freedom to learn, is one of the greatest benefits from living the rational, secular life, away from the simple-minded catch-all non-answers of religious dogma.

One difference I can say with confidence I have observed between atheists who are scientifically-minded and religious fundamentalists is that the atheists almost always have a passion for knowledge and a profound degree of dedication to understanding the truth about the world as the discoveries of science can reveal it, while the more religious a person is, the less intellectual curiosity about the world they generally have, smugly satisfied that their ancient holy book has it all figured out for them.

This is painfully evident all throughout Terry's editorial. Nowhere in the piece does Terry give atheists any indication that being as devout a Christian as he is does anything to satisfy intellectual curiosity and provide a fulfilling understanding of life and the world we live in. However, Terry's editorial does show a surfeit of smarmy, egoistic preening. Terry's Christianity may not tell him anything meaningful about the real world, but it allows him to puff himself up and declare himself a superior breed of human to all of those "deviant" atheists, and that's all he requires from it. Thanks, but I'd rather be a proud adherent to rational, secular philosophies that encourage my intellectual growth, than to a shallow superstition that acts as a band-aid to my insecurity by letting me say "Nyah nyah, I'm better than you."

As for Christians being the only people who help others, well, this is simply more snide self-flattery on Terry's part. He does not know me, but if he did, he would know of all of the charitable work I have done in my life (in terms of both money and personal time donated), how I have gone out of my way to be supportive of my friends and a good and productive member of my community. The atheist organization to which I've belonged for years does regular charitable works, inculding highway cleanup and participating in blood drives.

As Terry clearly does not wish to be disabused of his anti-atheist bigotry, then if he did know about atheists doing those things, he would probably make up some twaddle about how this shows we're all really godly people at heart, or something. I have news for Terry. A truly moral and philanthropic person does not engage in charity and acts of helpful human kindness simply because one hopes for a bright, shiny reward from one's sky-father. One does so because virtue is its own reward. The smile on someone's face I see when I have helped them at a time they could not help themselves is all the reward I need. And it is so much more meaningful than the reward Terry imagines his God will bestow upon him in some dreamed-of afterlife. Because, unlike the promises of Christianity, a person's smile is real.

I feel highly confident that I am not "misguided in my thinking" to hold these views, any more than I am "misguided" not to believe in invisible sky gods. If Terry still thinks I am misguided, then he is welcome to persuade me. However, on the slim chance he reads this, I must advise him that the way to persuade me will be through strong arguments which apply rigorous standards of evidence, and not pitiful, self-aggrandizing cheap shots and empty rhetoric that do little to prove Terry's points to the thinking skeptic, though they certainly seem to do much to shore up Terry's ego. I can imagine, what with all of us "deviant" atheists finally willing to come out and stand up to the ignorance and sanctimonious posturing of the religious, Terry's ego needs a lot of shoring.

Skatje Myers nailed it

PZ Myers' teenage daughter explains two methods of successfully discussing atheism:

It’s moderate atheists’ job to speak nicely to theists and get them to hear the message, but it’s the militant atheists’ job to get the moderates out of the closet and active. Do they scare away some theists entirely? Probably, but those are most likely the most unchangeable anyway. And it still doesn’t outweigh the need for angry atheists and their “rudeness”.

Of course the two styles are both very familiar to me. The first is The Atheist Experience, and the second is The Non-Prophets.

Edit: Updated to include a link to the original post in the first sentence.

What theists don't ask

Michael Gerson has written a piece in the Washington Post entitled "What Atheists Can't Answer." As I mentioned on my last show appearance, often these kinds of claims come about because theists don't bother talking to any atheists before coming to conclusions about what they think.

The heart of this article is this:

"So I merely want to pose a question: If the atheists are right, what would be the effect on human morality?"

Later it is re-expressed in this way:

"So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennial, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains."

As people know who watch or listen to our shows, we've grappled with those questions frequently in recent years. The problem with the question "How do we choose between good and bad instincts?" is that it's a non-trivial philosophical issue, about which tremendous volumes have been written by philosophers for many centuries. Folks like Michael Gerson believe that they have scored a good point when they essentially ask us to give them an simple answer in a thirty second sound-bite or even an 800 word column. Then they falsely assert that religion provides that easy answer.

You want a sound bite? As always, take a cue from the Euthyphro Dilemma. You don't need to play the game of trying to appear to have all the answers; it is sufficient in this case to point out that theists do not have any answers either. The counter-question is "How does inventing a god help us to choose between good and bad instincts?" Then you can follow up immediately by pointing out awful things that God can and does ask people to do in the Bible. You can take your pick from slaughtering entire cities and taking the virgin girls to be unwilling brides; being prepared to stab your first born son to death as a test of loyalty; millenia of unabashed support for slavery; etc. Not to mention modern applications of religion, such as flying planes into buildings.

In this case, pleading "That's the old testament" or "Only Muslims fly planes into buildings" is completely irrelevant. Michael Gerson didn't make an argument for modern liberal Christianity; he made the more general claim that believing in a higher power solves the problem of morality. Of course it doesn't. Belief in a higher power simply adds a level of arbitrary abstraction to your moral decisions. You are no less likely to commit acts of atrocity, only now you are free to attribute these actions to the deity of your choice. Instead of picking your morals, you are picking your god, as well as your interpretation of what the god wants.

Here in the west, only a few extremists are willing to take Biblical morality at face value, including (for example) stoning unruly children to death, but these are not the sorts of people you want to spend much time talking to. Most people are ready to argue that they shouldn't be expected to accept some of these edicts that were supposedly directed by God. At that point, the question of "Where do you atheists get their morality?" is easily answered: "It's probably about the same place YOU get your morality, since it clearly isn't from God."

That's most of what the article is about, although there are a couple of other assertions that are worth commenting on. The first paragraph of the article says:

"British author G.K. Chesterton argued that every act of blasphemy is a kind of tribute to God, because it is based on belief. 'If anyone doubts this,' he wrote, 'let him sit down seriously and try to think blasphemous thoughts about Thor.'"

Right. That totally makes sense. Because every time you criticize something, you are secretly supporting it. Doesn't matter what it is. If you stop and think "Hey, I saw my mom sneaking around my bedroom, I wonder if she left that money under my pillow?" you are paying tribute to the tooth fairy. If you say "Suicide jihadists are idiots to believe that they will get 72 virgins in the afterlife" you are paying tribute to their notion of an afterlife.

I wonder if anyone will ever catch on that this argument boils down to nothing more than "I know you are, but what am I?"

Gerson also states:

"And I suspect that a certain kind of skeptic would remain skeptical even after a squadron of angels landed on his front lawn."

This, too, is a fairly common desperate move to use against atheists. Theists realize that the actual evidence that is available to prove the existence of God is piss-poor, so in frustration they make up hypothetical rock solid evidence, which does not really exist. By making the unsupported claim that atheists wouldn't even believe THAT, they manage to shift the discussion away from the poorness of the actual evidence, and turn it into an unwarranted assumption about how unreasonable atheists are in their imaginary alternative universe.

Still, just so we are clear, let me state this for the record. If a squadron of angels landed on my front lawn and started chatting me up about God, I'd be pretty easy to convince at that point.

There. Now God knows exactly what he can do to make me renounce atheism. Where's my squadron of angels?