Another Fleur de Pensée atheist tattoo!

There is something deeply gratifying when you create something that other people are willing to commit to a tattoo.

This is James. He liked my Fleur de Pensée design enough to become the second person to commit it to ink.

The "Flower of Thought" is the oldest symbol of secularism held by any organization.

And why shouldn't it be? It got this image because Pansies bear some resemblance to a person in deep thought.

What I like about these flowers is how tough and drought-resistant they are. They can take 110 degree heat without blinking, and they shrug off sudden storms and heavy rains of spring by popping back up afterward. Hey, if they were tough enough for Colonel Robert Green Ingersoll, well, that's good enough for me!

I love when people write to me to say that they are using the Fleur de Pensée, and I'm deeply honored and pleased that people commit it to ink. Thanks again James!

Go here to learn more about this symbol and how it was created, and to download graphics of it.

Debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Michael Shermer in Fresno - April 18th

As you can see, I’ve been away from my blog for a while. Mostly this is for work reasons, but a smaller reason is due to some exciting upcoming events, and possibly even some changes.

For this post, I’ll concentrate on making an announcement that is pretty major to the secular community in the California Central Valley. So, as this post title says -


Michael Shermer will be debating Dinesh D’Souza here in Fresno, on April 18th!

The debate is hosted by the New Covenant Community Church, with some small assistance by the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics. New Covenant asked CVAAS to assist with this event, and perhaps assist with other future events as well.

Also, on April 19th, there will be an apologetics symposium held by the New Covenant church, which will conclude with a moderated table discussion between CVAAS and New Covenant members.

Here is the tentative event agenda:

Debate
Debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Michael Shermer

Debate topic: "Does God Exist?" (Subject to change)

Date: Friday April 18th
Time: 7 PM
Fee: NO FEE is required to attend this event
Location: California State University, Fresno - South Gym
- 5241 N Maple Ave, Fresno, CA 93740
(Google Map, Campus Map)

- Seating is limited to the first 1,000 who show up. Seating opens at 6PM, so come early!

- For those who are coming from out of town to attend this event, please email me and I will save a seat for those in your party.

CVAAS will be hosting two tables at this event. Stop by and say hello!


Apologetics Symposium
(How to witness to nonbelievers and unchurched)

Date: Saturday April 19th
Time: Welcome address at 8:00 AM
Fee: $20 per person for this event
Location: New Covenant Community Church - Main building
- 1744 E. Nees Ave, Fresno CA 93720
(Google map)

Schedule: (Subject to changes)

8:00 AM - Welcome address by Dinesh D'Souza

Speakers: (Starting at 8:30 or 9:00, ending at 12:30 - 1 PM)

- Dr. Craig Hazen, Director of the M.A. Christian Apologetics Program for Biola University
- - Subject: Challenging Religious Pluralism

- Bishop John-David Schofield of the San Joaquin, CA Episcopal Diocese (Fresno Bee Article)
-- Subject: Moral Issues

- Dr. Chap Clark, associate professor and director of youth ministry programs at Fuller Theological Seminary
- - Subject: Parenting

- Alan Shlemon, a speaker for the Stand to Reason Christian radio talk show
- - Subject: Logic and tactics for witnessing

Break for lunch (12:30 AM – 1:15PM)

1:15 PM - Moderated table discussion between CVAAS and New Covenant church members, followed by questions from the audience. Held in the Student Ministries building. The moderator will be Molly Award winner Scott Hatfield of the blog “Monkey Trials”. The theme of this discussion is yet to be decided.

I have been told that Atheist and Skeptic organizations from as far away as Los Angeles and Sacramento will be convoying to attend this event. If you are a Skeptic or Secular person living in the California Central Valley, this is your opportunity to come out and show your support!

===============
29 Feb 08 - Update:

I forgot to include a link to my description of my first visit to New Covenant Community Church. You can go there and read about my return to (any) church after an absence of 8 or 9 years.

Also, you can find out more about this event from the New Covenant Community Church "In Defense of Faith" debate and symposium website. If you will be attending the April 19th symposium, you must register at their website. However, the symposium on the 19th is free for students.

4 Mar 08 - Update:

I'd like to extend a welcome to those who have found their way here from the Skepticality podcast. Thanks for stopping by!

A new name for Atheists, Skeptics and other freethinkers in California

The “Name Our Group” contest is over, a winner has been selected, and from the winning entry a name has been created.

The contest winner is Richard, with the entry “Central Valley Atheists and Skeptics”. Richard won because our group wasn’t concerned with cute acronyms – instead we wanted to identify our core values and our community. (Yes, Richard wins the Amazon gift certificate!)

Although this was the winning entry, this is NOT the final name we chose. Our name is, “Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics”. We’ve already registered the domain name www.cvaas.org and have the start of a website there. Over the next month that site will grow (slowly – probably) to include resources for all flavors of non-believers, rational thinkers, skeptics and their supporters who live in the southern and central areas of the California Central Valley.

There are a lot of non-believers throughout the California Central Valley, and many of them think that they are unique and alone. It is easy to believe this when you see the signs and billboards that dot Highway 99 - the highway that bisects the valley from Stockton to Bakersfield. These signs usually advocate tearing down the walls between church and state, and use religion to condemn women’s reproductive rights. It is hard to believe that there are critical thinkers here – the same place where the Freepers are headquartered, where the Promise Keepers and Intelligent Design draw big crowds.

This is why we use the word “alliance” in our name – because we hope to create a gathering place both online and in the real world for those Atheists, Skeptics, Secular Humanists, and other flavors of rational and critical thinkers who live throughout the Southern and Central San Joaquin Valley; a place where we can recharge, combine our strength, and speak up to remind the religious that they do not speak for everyone here.

So, if you are an Atheist, an Agnostic, a Skeptic, a Secular Humanist – no matter what you call your flavor of critical and rational thought, then take a moment to check out the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics.

Bookmark our website, Join up, and volunteer to help us out. We need a few dedicated people to help us spread the word, organize meeting venues, and show everyone that we are a presence here.

And let’s have some fun too – because the Central Valley isn’t as gloomy for non-believers as it seems!

Name Our Group Contest - Final Day!

Today is the last day of the "Name Our Group" contest.

Tomorrow, I'll gather up all the entries and submit them to the other group members in Fresno so that they can review them and prepare for voting during next week's meeting.

Remember, there is a $25 Amazon Gift Certificate waiting for the entry that gets the most votes!

Name Our Group Contest update

I'd like to remind everyone that there are two more weeks in which to submit a suggestion to the "Name Our Group" contest.

As I said in the original "Name Our Group" blog post, the Fresno group of Atheists, Skeptics, Secular Humanists, and Freethinkers are looking for a good name that is URL friendly and is inclusive for our diverse group of non-believing rational thinkers.

So far, we've had about 20 responses via email, and maybe another 10 or so via comments to the original post. There are about 40 or so suggestions among these entries.

Remember I am offering a $25 dollar Amazon.com gift certificate to the person who creates the winning entry. There is no restriction on the number of suggestions that any one person can submit either. And, even if no one comes up with a suggestion that we actually use, we will still pick what we think is the best of all suggestions and I'll reward that person with the Amazon gift certificate!

You can check the original post for contest rules, and if you have any suggested names for the group you can submit them via email to calladus+contest@gmail.com.

Again with the Atheist symbol

Last week I created a new symbol for Atheists and Non-believers: the Fleur-de-pensée. Alexc3 left a comment to another post and suggested using Inkscape, an open source vector drawing program that can save files in a scalable vector graphics format.

So, I recreated the Fleur-de-pensée in SVG format. Now you can download the image and scale it, or edit it to your heart's delight. And as I said before:

I'm releasing this symbol to the public domain, free for anyone to use, with only one restriction.

The only requirement that I make is what this symbol represents. As long as anyone uses a symbol that is recognizably based upon or derived from the Fleur-de-pensée, it will always represent scientific, skeptical and rational inquiry into our natural world, without the need to resort to the supernatural. It also indicates a willingness to explore ethical questions that originate with humans and benefit all humanity while respecting individual human rights.

I created 3 different Fleur-de-pensée image files that you can download: Inkscape SVG format, plain SVG format, or Adobe Acrobat format. The two SVG formats contain the Fleur-de-pensée inside of a ring – which can be removed using a graphics editor if needed. The Adobe Acrobat PDF format has two images, the Fleur-de-pensée within a ring, and by itself. Scale the PDF document and then cut and past it as you please.

It would be neat if this image gains acceptance among Non-believers, and truthfully I hope it does. However I'm realistic, and I know what the track record for Atheist symbols is like. If you like this symbol, then give it a chance – link to it, download it, use it. Even play with it.

Name Our Group! (Fame and Wealth awaits!)

Back in January of 2003 I took over the Fresno Atheist Meetup Group on meetup.com. I had become tired of waiting for the group to actually meet, so I became the organizer and put out an email that there would be a meeting at the local diner, even if it was only me there reading “Atheism” by S.T. Joshi. I was as surprised as anyone that people actually showed up.

Since then, the membership of the group has grown and shrunk several times, but it seems as if we've finally started to define our focus and to attract a core group of members. Now we wish to expand our member base and become more active in our community. We've made plans.

But we still don't have a name for our group, so we're asking for your help. Here is your chance to gain (a modicum) of fame and wealth!

Well, an Amazon.com Gift certificate at least. Keep reading...

Our group is actually 3 groups on meetup.com. We combine the Fresno Atheists, the Fresno Skeptics, and the Fresno Secular Humanism groups. Our most famous member doesn't identify himself as an Atheist, but instead as a rational thinker and promoter of science. The consensus of our group is that if you put your beliefs up for discussion, you had better be able to offer sufficient evidence for them!

We agree that the “Atheist” label is only a small part of what defines a person, specifically it defines what a person is not. We define our group more broadly to include Freethought, Skepticism, and the promotion of science, rational inquiry, and human rights. Separation of Church and State is also a core value. Our membership is made up of those who can accept having their beliefs scrutinized. By itself, that is a pretty tall order.


We've defined two primary goals for our group to start out – with the agreement that other goals may come later.

First, we want to become a “presence” here. Fresno is located in the center of the San Joaquin Valley, and all through this valley there is no appreciable organization that supports non-believers or skeptics. We want to change that.

Every Halloween the local media gushes about ghosts. They happily quote religion during other holidays. The Fresno mayor (Bubba) has no problem with holding religious events at City Hall. We're the headquarters for the Freeper community who has no problem with linking patriotism to Christianity.

We would like to be that little voice of reason in our community that speaks up to remind these people that they do not speak for everyone. We want to be in the Rolodex when a reporter looks for “a local skeptic” to quote, even if we're merely a 30 second sound byte in opposition to a 10 minute news story. That will still raise awareness. We want to use our voice to promote rational inquiry and science.

Second, we wish to grow and become better organized. There is a great opportunity for growth in today's marketplace of ideas and our group wants to capitalize on that. Our first steps in growth will be to create a real web-presence for ourselves and leverage that with better local advertising.

We have tenuous links to the other Skeptic and Freethought groups in California that we would like to strengthen. There have been local Freethought groups on the city and state campus and we would like to see if we can support them, or arrange for mutual support. We would like to be able to invite speakers, give demonstrations and educate the public about rational thought, skeptical inquiry, and the methods of science.


So now that we have a stated philosophy and a couple of goals, we need a name that embodies these. And this is where you can help, hence the contest to get things started. And every contest needs:

Contest Rules

1. Although you are welcome to discuss possible names in the comments section of this blog (or elsewhere online) first preference will be given to naming suggestions that are emailed directly to me at: calladus+contest@gmail.com. So if you come up with a name that's sure to win, email it!
2. The name should be URL friendly or have a URL friendly acronym, and be at least somewhat easy to remember. Joke acronyms are funny, but we don't want one. (Yes, we've already heard of the Fresno Atheist and Rational Thought Society - creating these generates seriously bad non-Karma, and everyone knows that's much worse than the regular kind of Karma.)
3. Preference is given to those names that includes or refers to our group definition and indicates our goals.
4. This contest will end on August 31st, at which point I'll gather all the suggestions into one email that will be sent to all of our group members.
5. Our group members will discuss and vote on the best name at our meeting on September 6th . The winner will be announced September 7th.
6. We reserve the right to make changes to the winning suggestion, or to create a name based upon or inspired by the suggestion.
7. The winner will receive an emailed coupon for a $25 gift certificate from Amazon.com, paid for by myself.
8. Enter as often as you like, with a different suggestion each entry, or multiple suggestions on one entry. I'll acknowledge all entrants to let you know I received the email.
9. Spamming my email box gets you sent to Google's spam, and suggestions from spammers won't be considered!

This is your chance to help us out. Frankly, we're stumped as to what we should call ourselves. It seems like all the “cool” names have been taken. Help us out, and I'll send you a coupon to get something off of your Amazon wish list.

-----
6Aug 0900 - Update - Thanks Mike for pointing out that I do allow multiple suggestions per entry. So I made a slight revision to rule 8.

Another Non-believer's symbol

I've always enjoyed playing around with different sorts of symbolism. I don't know if I'm any good at creating new symbols, but I do have fun with it.

So when I saw the request for the creation of a new symbol for Atheism on PZ Myers's Pharyngula blog I thought, “I'll bet I could design something that would work!” And of course I promptly forgot about it. But later, after the contest ended, I kept thinking of what might make a good symbol that represented non-belief, ration thought, and critical skepticism. Since then, the call has gone out again with results that I've found less than satisfying.

I think a good symbol should easily be silk-screened or stenciled in a single color, or easily doodled, or turned into recognizable jewelery. I wanted a symbol that would be easy to remember, that would be difficult to mistake for something else. A symbol that would still be recognizable even if the proportions were a bit off. So I started looking at other symbols for inspiration. Of course I've found that existing symbols are either complex or trademarked.

The one symbol that kept reappearing again and again in my reading was the Pansy flower. It has seemed like the most acceptable for many non-believers due to the depth of history behind it. The Pansy's name comes from the French word pensée, which means “Thought”, and it was so named because the face of the flower resembles a person nodding deep in thought. The Pansy has been identified with thought for a long time and first appeared as a Freethought symbol late in the 1800's.

In 1885 the famous orator Colonel Robert Green Ingersoll was elected president of the American Secular Union. This organization was allied with the Freethought Federation, and dedicated to promoting the separation of Church and State in the United States. These were the first groups to start using the Pansy flower as a symbol, and that tradition continues today with the Freedom from Religion Foundation, who also uses the Pansy as a symbol of Freethought and as a reminder of our natural, and only, world.

The modern cultivated Pansy has experienced almost 200 years of breeding to make it hardy, give a wider variety of colors, and to increase its size. Because of this I think is an excellent symbol to apply toward non-believers, Secular Humanists, Skeptics, Freethinkers and others who promote the methods of science and rational, critical thought. I've seen many Atheistic symbols based upon the tools of science – but I think a symbol based upon the results of science is more appropriate.

The Pansy flower would be a perfect symbol if only it were easier to draw!

I was inspired by my copy of the Boy Scout Handbook where I was reminded that the Fleur-de-lis symbol is a part of the Scout uniform. I find the source of my inspiration to be somewhat ironic.

“Fleur de lis” is literally translated as “Flower of the Lilly” and is thought to be based upon Iris pseudacorus, which I'm also showing here. You can see that the complex, hard to draw shape of this flower becomes an easily recognized, fairly easy to draw heraldic symbol. I thought I could do the same thing with the Pansy Flower.

And this is what I've come up with – a simple symbol that represents the 5 petals of the Pansy, with associated flash on the three lower petals, all joined at the throat of the flower. Since it is based upon simple triangles and rectangles with rounded corners, it is easier to draw than the FFRF's pansy, and it is distinct from it. It is a Fleur-de-pensée, a “flower of thought”.

By itself, or inside of a circular hoop, it would make great jewelery. It is easy to recreate freehand – the proportions are not as critical as, say, the Biohazard symbol or the circle of the IPU. It can be colored, and other symbols can be overlaid on top of it or embedded inside of it in much the same way that different organizations use the Fleur-de-lis.

Since I've created this Fleur-de-pensée, I could easily copyright it, trademark it and market it if I so wished, but I think that is counter productive. So I'm releasing this symbol to the public domain, free for anyone to use, with only one restriction.

The only requirement that I make is what this symbol represents. As long as anyone uses a symbol that is recognizably based upon or derived from the Fleur-de-pensée, it will always represent scientific, skeptical and rational inquiry into our natural world, without the need to resort to the supernatural. It also indicates a willingness to explore moral philosophies that originate with humans and benefit all humanity while respecting individual human rights.

And that's it. Maybe this symbol will be a flop – non-believers are notorious for refusing to herd together under a single banner, nor do I expect them to do so. But maybe this symbol will succeed in the marketplace of successful memes where others have not. Go ahead, put the symbol on your own products and sell them. Embed the symbol into your personal symbol, or embed your symbol into this. Color it, use it in Heraldry, play with it. And although I'd appreciate a mention that I invented this symbol, I won't require it. (I'll insert my completely optional hint for swag here!)

And it won't matter to me a bit if you don't “play nice” with the Fleur-de-pensée, or if you re-define it to mean something else. The Internet won't forget where it came from, or that this symbol acknowledges that a belief in the supernatural is unnecessary to rational thought, scientific progress, and human morality.

Have fun with it!

---
17 Aug 07 Update: I've recreated the symbol in Scalable Vector Graphics format and have saved copies in SVG and Adobe PDF. You can find them in this post.

---
26 Sept 08 Update: The Fleur-de-pensée has become a tattoo! See it here!

Towel Day!

Yesterday was Towel Day, and I missed it!

For those of you in the know, Towel Day is the wildly popular, international holiday held every May 25th to commemorate the passing of the much admired Douglas Adams. The first such commemoration was held two weeks after his death on May 11, 2001, and it seems to have taken hold in the hearts of many.

Unfortunately, I was busy and wasn't aware of it. There were, however, many engineers at my company who were aware of it and who celebrated it appropriately during the day. This says a lot about the mindset of a standard geeky engineer such as myself – I saw several other engineers at my company walking around with bath towels, beach towels and the like casually tossed over their shoulders – and I never thought it was strange! It didn't even earn a second look from me. Seriously.

But this isn't surprising. Engineers just seem to love being a little eccentric, myself included. I could tell stories – but that isn't what I want this post to be about. I'd like to write, briefly, about holidays for the nonbeliever.

Since so many holidays are religious in nature, it is sometimes a little irritating for nonbelievers. Some nonbelievers are adamant about celebrating only secular holidays, such as Tom Flynn, the editor of Free Inquiry magazine, who refuses to celebrate Christmas and will actually go to work on December 25th.

I find that a little difficult to do myself – the company I work for closes its doors. Still, for the last 10 years I've worked both December 24th or December 26th when those days didn't fall on weekends or the company Christmas holiday. (The company closes its doors for two days during Christmas, which usually results in a 4-day weekend for us all.)

I do celebrate the Winter Solstice, by giving (and receiving) presents and decorating a tree (with a ribbon on top). I enjoy the holiday 'feeling' of the season – but I don't think it is really worth a week, or two week vacation. I love working during this time because the halls are nearly empty and I can get a lot of stuff done without interruption. I love the decorations too – mostly the decorations around here are of Santa and his reindeer, very few include a religious theme.

I try to celebrate Darwin Day every February 12th (and did you know that his bicentennial birthday will happen in 2009? Big Things are being planned!). I celebrate other days such as Veteran's day, Independence Day, Memorial Day, Freethought Day, and Labor Day. I celebrate Thanksgiving, but I think of it as “Harvest Day”. My New Year's celebration includes the traditional drinking of a toast at midnight, and the traditional watching of the Rose Parade the next morning.

Easter doesn't even raise a blip on my personal radar. I'm at the point now where I don't even notice the Easter holiday unless I'm reminded of it.

I enjoy holidays (who wouldn't?) and I enjoy having secular holidays. At some point I'll create a personal calender with the holidays that I celebrate, and I'll hang it up in my cube.

But not this weekend. I'm planning a holiday with friends, and perhaps a barbecue!

National Day of Reason

Thursday, 3 May 2007, is the United States “National Day of Reason”. You may recall that this day is commemorated by law *. During this day everyone in the country is urged to take a moment and reflect upon how reason and critical thinking have led to life saving advances in medicine and technology and how FreeThought and Enlightenment have shown the error of unfounded belief in the supernatural. During this day we celebrate that our government is based on Secular principles that advocate Human Rights.

Of course, the National Day of Reason is open to everyone. It doesn't matter if you're Atheist, Agnostic, Secular Humanist, Unitarian, Unicornian, or Pastafarian. Reason ceremonies will be held in the offices of public officials from Mayor all the way to President. We'll celebrate skeptical thought in city halls across the country. And you can be sure that we are all-inclusive, over all Americans.

I personally will spend a few minutes Thursday giving a pint of blood in celebration of the National Day of Reason.

As Benjamin Franklin once said, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

Everyone is included – that's the American Way. Right?

From Religious Tolerance.org

The National Day of Prayer (NDP) is held on the first Thursday in May, according to Federal statute. Originally conceived as a time when Americans of all denominations and religions could gather to pray to their deity/deities, it has evolved into a mainly Evangelical Christian observance. However, there signs that may revert to a more inclusive event.

Local events mark National Day of Prayer
By Ron Orozco / The Fresno Bee
04/28/07 04:32:03

At 7 a.m, the Interfaith Alliance of Central California will present a gathering outdoors at the Fresno County Courthouse. The event will be held near the courthouse statue of three clergy members who created the Forum for Better Understanding.

Al Evans, event organizer and political science instructor at California State University, Fresno, says the event is designed so "every faith represented" will have an opportunity to pray.

Also at 7 a.m., the annual Mayor's Prayer Breakfast will be held at the Visalia Convention Center, where the New Christy Minstrels will perform as special musical guests.

At noon, music, song and prayers will highlight the "America, Unite in Prayer" event at Fresno City Hall.

Fresno pastors Carlos Raines, Jän van Oosten, Bob Willis, J.R. Coleman, Elias Loera and Jim Franklin will take turns every seven to 10 minutes offering prayers in areas such as the church, government, family, education/youth, media, and military/law enforcement/fire department.

Also at noon, a Kings County observance will be presented at Hanford Civic Auditorium, 400 N. Douty St. The event will begin with a lunch at 11:30 a.m.

National Day of Prayer, 2007
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 3, 2007, as a National Day of Prayer. I ask the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, each according to his or her own faith, for the freedoms and blessings we have received and for God's continued guidance, comfort, and protection. I invite all Americans to join in observing this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

* - No, the National Day of Reason is not part of the Federal Statute, I'm using satire to make a point.

Heaven full of sorrow

When it comes to pinning down Christians in America about what, exactly, can we expect after we die – the answers are all over the map, especially for those who aren’t going to make it to the “good” place.

Hell is a fun subject. The Southern Baptist Convention loves Hell, and takes great pains to describe its existence in their statement of faith:

X. Last Things
God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. According to His promise, Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the place of everlasting punishment. The righteous in their resurrected and glorified bodies will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven with the Lord.

Isaiah 2:4; 11:9; Matthew 16:27; 18:8-9; 19:28; 24:27,30,36,44; 25:31-46; 26:64; Mark 8:38; 9:43-48; Luke 12:40,48; 16:19-26; 17:22-37; 21:27-28; John 14:1-3; Acts 1:11; 17:31; Romans 14:10; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 15:24-28,35-58; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Philippians 3:20-21; Colossians 1:5; 3:4; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18; 5:1ff.; 2 Thessalonians 1:7ff.; 2; 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 4:1,8; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 9:27-28; James 5:8; 2 Peter 3:7ff.; 1 John 2:28; 3:2; Jude 14; Revelation 1:18; 3:11; 20:1-22:13.

Other religious denominations are a bit fuzzier about what Hell really means. Methodists are harder to pin down on what Hell is, and liberal denominations of Christians will say that Hell is what sinners do to themselves after death – they will merely “separate” themselves from God.

The Catholics teach the doctrine of Hell and insist that other religions that teach that Hell isn’t so scary are teaching heresy:

The doctrine of hell is so frightening that numerous heretical sects end up denying the reality of an eternal hell. The Unitarian-Universalists, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the Christian Scientists, the Religious Scientists, the New Agers, and the Mormons—all have rejected or modified the doctrine of hell so radically that it is no longer a serious threat. In recent decades, this decay has even invaded mainstream Evangelicalism, and a number of major Evangelical figures have advocated the view that there is no eternal hell—the wicked will simply be annihilated.


But the eternal nature of hell is stressed in the New Testament. For example, in Mark 9:47–48 Jesus warns us, "[I]t is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." And in Revelation 14:11, we read: "And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."
…


The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs" (CCC 1035).

“The History of Hell” by Alice K. Turner is a great book about how different religions have thought about Hell over the ages. The Zoroastrians had a Hell where the condemned were allowed a second chance at salvation, when at the final cosmic battle between good and evil, when the savior (born of a virgin impregnated by Zoroaster) would charge into Hell and forgive penitent sinners. (Hm. Do parts of that seem familiar?)

The Zoroastrians are somewhat unusual in that they taught that Hell wasn’t eternal for everyone. Most modern Christian religions, liberal or conservative, teach that Hell is forever. I have heard that some churches teach that complete annihilation comes to those who sin or do not believe - that the soul just "ceases to exist", but the churches that teach this are usually liberal, nondenominational, and decidedly in the minority.

Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle wrote a book called, “Inferno” which is a science-fiction / fantasy take on “Inferno”, the first book of the Divine Comedy written by Dante Alighieri. I read Niven and Pournelle’s version before I read the Dante’s. If you have a choice, I recommend doing so – it makes it somewhat easier to understand what is happening in Dante’s “Inferno”.

The biggest difference between the two texts is that Dante’s Hell is eternal, while Niven / Pournelle’s Hell has a way out. From Niven and Pournelle’s version:

“You don’t get it. Every torture in Hell was too much too late. Punishment? But it’s infinite punishment for things that are little in comparison. …”

“… There’s only one possible excuse for Hell, and I almost missed it in the ravings of a crazy psychiatrist. It has to be the final training ground. If nothing can get a soul into Heaven in its life, there’s still Hell, God’s last attempt to get his attention. … If Hell won’t make a man yell for [God’s] help, then it was still worth a try.

Infinite punishment. If you believe in an eternal Hell, with eternal punishment, then you must believe that God is a sadist. (Niven and Pournelle put it, ""We're in the hands of infinite power and infinite sadism") This leads to the biggest problem with Heaven.

Bob Smith (yes, that’s his real name) runs a web site called NormalBobSmith.com. Bob is an Atheist who has made a living off of Jesus, and he’s had a lot of fun doing it. Because of this he gets a lot of hate email – thousands of emails! (Warning to the religious – do NOT click on the last two links if you can’t stand to see your religion mocked.)

One question that Bob has been asking, over and over, deals with one of the problems with Heaven. None of his correspondents have been able to deal with this question in any way that he, or I, find satisfactory.


Let’s see how I can word this….

As a parent you die and end up in Heaven. Your beloved child (or children) dies (eventually) and ends up in Hell. Your child wasn’t evil, just a non-believer. She or he was a loving, good person – but due to a lack of faith or belief, or just not making the grade, she or he is doomed to Hell for the rest of eternity.

The question is: How can you enjoy your eternity in Heaven knowing that your beloved child or children are being punished for the rest of eternity? Won’t it haunt you to know that they are in a “lake of fire” or in whatever punishment you believe they are being subjected?

How can it be Heaven if you feel sorrow, pain, regret, panic and despair over the punishment of your child?

Those without children can’t get out of this so easily – replace “Child” with “Parent” or “Loved one”.

Or spouse.


Even if you have no one, even if you've managed to gain no friends, and never knew your family before you died and ascended to Heaven, won’t the inherent good in you result in your eternal mourning over those lost souls?

Pardon my hyperbole, but how can anyone enjoy teatime in Heaven knowing that their tea is boiled over burning sinners in a lake of fire?

Maybe you are one of the lucky Christians who believe that Hell isn’t eternal, or perhaps you believe in Niven and Pournelle’s Hell, a Hell that has an "escape hatch". Perhaps you believe that eventually the eternal torture will stop. Or perhaps you believe in “Hell Lite” where the sinners merely condemn themselves to eternal separation from God. Maybe that makes the thought of your loved ones not being with you in Heaven easier to bear.

Maybe that’s more acceptable than eternal sadism.

God for sale – Cheap!

Since the local progressive radio station has gone off the air, I've been listening to downloaded progressive podcasts digitally in my car. Still, I like local news too and have used my radio to search it out.

About a week ago I came across the Christian station KCIV in Fresno, part of the Bott Radio Network. I've listened to this station from time to time in the past – I've called it the “All preaching, all the time” network before. And I've mentioned this network before on my blog. (Link1, link2) I never stuck around on this frequency because the preachers are exceptionally, vapidly, stupid, and I would usually end up yelling at the radio. I have a low tolerance for willful stupidity.

But for some reason last week I stuck around and kept listening. Perhaps I've developed something of a stupidity immunity, or perhaps I'm just taking the broadcast as a radio comedy show. I find it amusing that religious people who would say that I take Bible quotes out of context are the same people who stitch together unrelated passages from the Pentateuch, from Matthew and from Revelations in order to drive home their own specific form of ideology. And on the Bott Radio Network the ideology is the “Prosperity Gospel”. If you have enough faith, and give enough, you'll be rewarded by God – even in this life.

And to really drive this message home, the preachers on the Bott Network practice what they preach. Every sermon comes with offers for CDs, pamphlets, books, and a multitude of other products – made by and advertised by each show's host. People joke about Dr. Phil touting his own books during his television program, but poor Dr. Phil can't hold a candle to the salesmen / preachers who peddle their own line of Bible-study products, daily prayer planners, self-help books, tapes and CDs, and various other items - this on top of requests for tithing and donations.

Isn't this embarrassing to the Christian community? Hasn't anyone realized that the Bott Network has become a, “Den of Thieves”? (Luke 19:45-46)

Christians are much too worried about Secular Humanists like me eroding or attacking their religion– from what I hear on the radio airwaves, you guys are doing just fine on your own.

Advocating cooperation among nonbelievers - Pearls in a pigsty

When I was very young, about 12 or 13, I heard my minister give a sermon from Matthew 7:6 and Mark 6:11.

Matt. 7:6: “Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.”

Mark 6:11: “If a place will not welcome you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.”

The sermon was both advice and a warning about how to deal with people who would not accept the Word of God. In a nutshell our minister was warning us that some people would just refuse the “good news” and that we should then sorrowfully leave them.

This kind of thinking is prevalent in people with alternative beliefs. People like Dr. Ruper Sheldrake, Oester and Gill, Kent Hovind and Robert Bigelow are all quite sure that they have “The Truth” and that we are all ignorant for not picking up on their pearls of wisdom. Believers in pseudoscience often paint themselves as martyrs, like Christ, or as heretics to the wisdom of “conventional” science. They believe that we brush away their ideas at our own peril, and so they go to misguided lengths in order to convince us.

Michael Shermer picks up on this in his essay, “How Thinking Goes Wrong; Twenty-five Fallacies That Lead Us to Believe Weird Things”. In his seventh fallacy he points out that thinking you are a modern heretic does not validate your beliefs. And in the 17th fallacy he warns us that just because we don’t like a person, we should not discredit his or her ideas without examining them.


After hearing the words of my minister so long ago, I remember that I tried to explain the lesson to one of my friends, and got it hopelessly mixed up. I should have spoken about having ideas ignored by those who were ignorant or uninterested, but I instead spoke about finding pearls of wisdom anywhere, even in a pig’s pen. “If you find a pearl in a pig wallow,” I said, “it doesn’t mean it’s not valuable!”

Yes, I phrased it like that. (The tortured English still haunts me.) As I grew up and learned a little more about nature I realized that any acidity that naturally occurred in pig’s wallow would partially dissolve hapless pearls that landed there, reducing their value. So I started substituting the word “diamond” for “pearl”, and worked on phrasing it better until I got to the maxim, “Like diamonds in a pigsty, true wisdom is valuable wherever it’s found".

But “Pearls in a Pigsty” is so poetic! The alliteration is worth the scientific inaccuracy, so that’s how I will phrase it.


To reject a pearl of wisdom just because we don’t like the person who presents it is called an “Ad Hominem” fallacy. Online debates between religious believers and non-believers, and between skeptics and the credulous are filled with charges of “Ad Hominem”. Some are warranted and some are not.

Skeptics tend to reject those people who have a proven track record of ineptitude or dishonesty in their methods of discovery and science. Rupert Sheldrake is rightly dismissed for his poor scientific methods – his findings, even if they are true, are meaningless because of the methods he uses. The motives of Oester and Gill and Kent Hovind are extremely suspicious, their findings of “truth” always seem to be aligned in such a way as to ensure profit or to increase their influence. But in the case of Robert Bigelow we have to step more carefully – his ideas about space habitation for humans seem very workable, they are testable, and Mr. Biglelow has hired real experts to test his ideas, and has even launched a working prototype. However his belief that Earth has already been visited by aliens who might even be here now, is really without merit and is supported by little more than hearsay. The true Skeptic will fish the pearl of “space habitation” from the pigsty of “aliens among us”.

Unfortunately, Atheists and other nonbelievers do not seem to be as willing to accept pearls of wisdom from anyone who does not have an identical belief system. This came to my attention after I started noticing the polarizing effect upon nonbelievers from two prominent Atheists, Sam Harris and Dr. Richard Dawkins.

Some Atheists dislike Richard Dawkins because he seems unwilling to acknowledge moderate positions on science by religious believers. Unlike Dr. Stephen Gould, Dr. Dawkins does not believe that religion and science can coexist without conflict, and Dawkins is not afraid to take the position that religion, any religion in any quantity, is in conflict with science and therefore ultimately counterproductive to humanity.

Atheists also disagree with his tone and worry that Dawkins does not allow sufficient scrutiny of his position. I have seen several blogs assert that Dawkins will marginalize other Atheistic viewpoints if they are not in agreement with his own viewpoints.

Sam Harris has also polarized Atheists due to his remarks on spirituality and mysticism in the last chapter of his book, “The End of Faith”. Secular Humanists have been especially critical of the spiritual language used by Harris in his discussion of Eastern religions and meditation. Mr. Harris’ assertion that no one really knows if consciousness can be explained due to a purely physical brain has been taken to mean that he believes in a supernatural component to consciousness; a position that many Atheists deny and one that Mr. Harris does not seem to endorse.

Sam Harris uses the language of religion and mysticism in order to describe a meditative state wherein a person can ‘turn off’ their sense of self. He uses religious language because there are no other words, and because the religious language is poetic, which seems to suit the experience.

Dawkins may disparage an Atheist’s efforts to work with scientists who also happen to be religious in order to encourage the spread of rational thought. Harris may use religious terms to describe consciousness while contending the possibility that consciousness might not arise out of the physical brain. For these positions many Atheists have condemned both to the “pigsty” of irrationality, and refuse to be associated with Dawkins or Harris. By so labeling these gentlemen other nonbelievers can automatically ignore other contributions from these gentlemen. I think this is wrong and shortsighted.

I think the Atheistic ideas that Dawkins and Harris stand for are pearls of wisdom that are valuable on their own merit. It would be unwise to ignore either of these people just because they hold beliefs that might differ from my own. I think this would be similar to disregarding Isaac Newton’s contributions to physics and calculus because he was also an alchemist and fervent Christian.

This isn’t to say I’ll stop being vigilant – certainly some people would instantly claim the status of Michael Shermer’s ‘heretic’ if it would procure their credibility, and likeability is of course no measure of a person’s ability to speak truth.

What I am advocating is a reasonable response - to take reasonable precautions against the pigsty of woo and bias while sifting out the pearls of rationality and science. The polarization of nonbelievers into different camps makes all nonbelievers weaker. It makes us weaker at the worst possible time, when advocates of religion in America have learned to ignore their differences in order to achieve common goals.

I’m advocating that we all see each other both as unique individuals and as part of a family of nonbelievers. Since we are unique, we are allowed to disagree on many points while at the same time we all agree as a family that rational thought is better than religious dogma.

I believe that cutting people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins out of Atheistic circles because they rub some the wrong way is literally self-defeating, for without their very vocal presence all nonbelievers are weakened. No matter what you may think of them as people, the ideas that they stand for are pearls.

Evangelical Atheism

At the time I didn’t realize it, but my first step toward Atheism came in the form of a Jehovah’s Witness who knocked at the door one hot, sunny day.

It was late spring, but hot, well into the high 80’s or low 90’s. He had brought his wife and daughter with him; both dressed in Sunday school dresses. His wife looked tired, and his daughter – who couldn’t have been 8 years old – looked hot and tired. He just looked driven, perhaps even a bit oblivious to the condition of his wife and daughter. I noticed that the knuckles of his hand were scuffed and raw and I remember wondering what drove him to keep knocking.

Usually I would have just said “No thanks” and shut the door, but I was in a mood to talk that day. The condition of his daughter worried me, so I offered them all some water. We sat outside in the shade, drinking ice water and talking for maybe 20 minutes. Re-hydrated, the little girl had perked up and started playing with the neighbor’s cat. After a while I realized I had other things I needed to do that morning, so we said our goodbyes.

That wasn’t the first time I had spoken to someone who evangelized door to door, but on that occasion I asked myself why Jehovah’s Witnesses believed that THEY were right, why this man would be so passionate about his beliefs that he would cause himself and his family pain and discomfort. This led me to study and compare various religious beliefs over the next 3 years, which eventually led to my own Atheism.


My church didn’t officially practice any sort of door to door evangelism, although members were welcome to do so on their own. So I found the subject interesting when my bible study leader invited her friend from a Southern Baptist church to speak with our group about her experiences.

I recall that she had a lot of doors shut in her face. For every person that shared any sort of meaningful conversation there were twenty or thirty firmly shut doors. Out of the people who actually spoke with her about God, only a very few ended up becoming new church members. For this woman, that was enough to keep her going. I recall her saying something like, “If I only bring just one more person to God, then it is worth it!”

This was somewhat in contrast to the beliefs of the church in which I grew up, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). We didn’t go in for door to door evangelism much in the DOC; instead we were taught to bring people to God by “living a Christian life”. We were supposed to live a good life that others would wish to emulate. If someone asked, then we could attribute everything to our faith in God and Jesus, and oh-so-gently see if we could get the questioner into a church.


Churches evangelize. Should Atheists do the same? And yes, I realize that “proselytize” is the better word because the definition of “evangelize” doesn’t apply toward Atheists – but the connotation is similar and it’s better understood. And the question remains, should Atheists evangelize – ah, proselytize?

I’ve asked myself this before and came to an unsatisfactory conclusion. I had cause to examine this again the other day, when a friend of mine invited me to hand out fliers on evolution at a church sponsored meeting held on a high school campus. According to my friend the church had scheduled a several day event, and spent the first day teaching anti-evolution using the worst, most easily overturned, anti-evolution arguments. I was reluctant and raised objections based on how I would have reacted to such a tactic when I used to be a firm church member. Ultimately we decided it wouldn’t be productive to try this.

I’m convinced that outright Atheistic evangelism would be worse than useless when applied in this manner, but it was Daniel Dennett who helped me put it into words. Dennett said in “Breaking the Spell” that the strength of an insular, cohesive group comes from the price that members must pay to join or to leave, and one of those prices is insularism – the “Us versus Them” and “Our religion is under attack!” beliefs shared by all Christians to some degree.

Any sort of evangelical Atheism specifically targeted toward a church would be seen as an attack. Christians who perceived it as such would only wrap themselves tighter in their illogical beliefs, vindicated in the price they were paying as a member of their chosen group.

But this does not stop Atheists from evangelizing. It could be argued that Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are all evangelists for Atheism. More radical people include Normal Bob Smith, Brian Flemming, and Abe, famous for his “Atheventures”.

So is evangelism (ah, proselytism) good for Atheism? Without it, how do we grow?


I once had a conversation with one of my pastors who spoke to me about how to grow a church. His was a small church serving a niche market – his church was for Korean people living on the island of Okinawa Japan, and I was active in that church through my wife.

Pastor Kim told me that there were really only 3 methods of growing a church – a church has the ability to ‘create’ new members through birth to existing members – which is a slow process but reliable as long as existing members are happy. A church has the ability gain new members by evangelizing to the undecided. An undecided person might actually be a non-participating or low-participating member of a rival church, or it could be someone who is seeking a religion, or it could be someone who never really thought about religion before. Last, a church could grow by enticing new members from the existing membership of rival churches.

Of the three methods, poaching members from rival churches was by far the hardest, but it offered the promise of the largest gain. If done right, a lot of people would switch their allegiance in a very short time. Of course the reverse can happen – the pastor’s own church could suffer a sudden drop in membership if the pastor did or said something that would cause members to flee.

Good rewards but hard to achieve versus easy smaller rewards. It is easy to see why most churches take the middle choice and evangelize the undecided. The only problem is that there are so few people in the “undecided” group.


This is where Atheism, Skepticism, Rationalism, Secular Humanism and others are now. We are trying to spread the word and increase the membership of the “Reality Based Community”. That membership can only be increased by internal growth (births) or evangelical growth from the undecided or from rival groups (i.e. the religious).

The Atheistic / Rational community is operating at some disadvantages. First, we lack group cohesiveness because our price of membership is very low. Yes, we do have a little of the same cost of membership that Christian groups claim. Persecution for our beliefs; disapproval, anger and shunning from family and friends. According to people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins the cost for leaving the Rational and Atheistic community is the slow decline of our science and technology based civilization.

But those prices are more abstract than the price of joining or leaving a Christian group. It is perfectly acceptable to be a closeted Atheist, and the vague decline of society sometime in the future doesn’t compare to the immediacy of Eternal Damnation that any Christian could stumble into if they accidentally died while in a state of sin. On top of this Christians are expected to pay dues in real money and in volunteerism; ten percent of their wealth or more, and at least a half of a Sunday worth of their time. More insulated Christian groups or those higher on the ladder of devotion pay greater membership dues.


So we end up proselytizing to Christians because it has a huge potential payoff, but we do not do this as well as Christians because we are not as invested in our group as they. Knocking on doors, aggressively handing out flyers, holding signs, and even more extreme tactics give little return and only serve to get Christians to “circle the wagons”.

In my opinion, the best way to bring Christians to rationality and non-belief is not through aggressive means. The best way is by gently planting seeds – questions – that cause Christians to examine their own faith-based belief system honestly. Any Atheist who has come to his beliefs rationally, through study, is most likely very familiar with these questions.

Instead of aggressively handing out flyers it would be better to present an ‘information’ table with flyers ready to be picked up by passers-by. Instead of knocking on doors I think it would be better to “live an Atheist life”, showing people through your actions that you are a good person who doesn’t believe in God. Instead of picketing I think it is better to write, write letters to the local paper, write in your blog; write on opinion sites – all while being fair, honest, and non-confrontational. Instead of presenting arguments, present questions. The Socratic method of discourse is very powerful, and does not easily lend itself to arguments over who is right or wrong; instead it leads subjects into discovering the weakness of their position for themselves. (It also leads to learning for the non-believer, and new knowledge is a good thing.)

There are other venues where we can try to spread the word, for instance Col. Robert Ingersoll had great success with his frequent speeches. Other rational speakers like Penn Jillette, George Carlin and Sam Harris also have success in speaking to the public. Their success stems, I believe, from the nature of their venue – they always allowed for voluntary participation, requiring listeners to choose to attend, or not. Whoever arrived at such an event, whether they were Christian or undecided, was at least willing to listen.

And we in the Atheist / Rational community must be ready for those who have listened and now have more questions that must be answered. We should answer those questions calmly, even if they are hurled at us like insults. And I realize how hard that is, how easy it would be to retaliate in kind, because it is human nature to lash back. I’ve done so myself, and I will probably – despite my best intentions – do so again. Still I will do my best to remain calm and patient.

To do otherwise wouldn’t be demonstrating a good, Atheist life.

A Movement in search of a label?

I consider myself to be an Atheist - that is I lack a belief in God(s). That’s all Atheism is really, a lack of belief. Doesn’t it say a lot about our society in general, that a name for a lack of belief is even necessary?

I think it says even more that non-believers shy from embracing the label of ‘Atheist’. The devout have worked hard and long to frame this label so that it is associated with a truckload of negative baggage. For example some dictionaries list “immoral” as one of the definitions of Atheist, and religious leaders claim that Atheism leads to everything from teenage pregnancy to category 5 hurricanes.

I must admit that I also have a problem with this word. Although ‘Atheist’ describes perfectly what I am not, it does not describe all that I am. I am not merely an Atheist; I’m more than that. And I’m not alone – I have seen that there are a growing number of others that feel similar to the way that I do.

I have a lot more to say about this under the fold.


There is a growing movement of like-minded people who have decided to not base their trust in the supernatural; they do not trust authority figures for the sake of authority. These people have decided to ask obvious questions about faith, religion, and the nature of morality. They are advocates of using scientific methods to discover truth and have learned or are learning how to understand and apply science. They understand that to be ‘skeptical’ means being willing to wait for evidence before accepting something as true.

I consider myself to be part of this growing movement, this “reality-based community”. I think that I hold many of the values that other members of this community also hold. We don’t define ourselves by a negative statement of Atheism, of what we are not; we use positive statements for what we stand for and the values that we revere. There is variety in this community, and disagreement, but at the same time I think that the majority would agree with me in many of these statements:

• I am optimistic, both for myself, and for all of humanity. I believe that the happy accident that is ‘human’ has a great deal of potential that should be, must be, encouraged and explored.
• I believe in helping others. I do not think anyone is sufficiently humble until they have served another. I have so little to give to others, but it means so much to them when I give of myself. It would be selfish of me to deny others what I can so easily part with.
• I believe in personal rights and liberties, and I believe they are protected by duty. I own me, and you own you – what a person does to him or herself should be of no concern to anyone else as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s rights and liberties – as long as it does no harm to others, and as long as it doesn’t unnecessarily burden the State. Personal rights and liberties are given as gifts to ourselves, and can be just as easily taken away if we lack vigilance. We all have a duty to protect our rights and the rights and liberties of others.
• I’m patriotic about my country – in the truest Jeffersonian sense of the word. I have given a substantial portion of my life in service of my country. I believe that dissent is the most important right of citizenship, and that disagreeing with my country’s leaders when they are wrong is a mark of loyalty to my country.
• I’m filled with wonder for our natural world, our universe. This wonder only increases as I learn more about nature through science. Knowing why a rainbow forms or why the stars shine doesn’t decrease that wonder – on the contrary those truths only increase my awe.
• I try to withhold my opinion, my trust, on matters of importance until I acquire sufficient evidence to judge the truth of those matters. I distrust an opinion that is held merely because it is the opinion of an authority figure. I’m skeptical about explanations that are backed with insufficient evidence. I’m not afraid to live with not knowing – it is better to admit ignorance than it is to accept, or make up, a lie.
• I am extremely interested in science and technology and what they mean to humankind and to the world. Science has become the best way of truly understanding nature, of understanding how it works and how it came to exist. I think that technology is just as important as science – humans would not have achieved our current population density without technological advances in medicine, agriculture, engineering, industry and information. It is extremely important now that we study how the world is affected by our technology – and adapt it to better coexist.
• I think that compassion and rational thought are more important than religious faith; I think this is desperately important now because those of religious faith are working so hard to negate both compassion and rational thought.

So what kind of label fits me? What kind of label would fit a movement that includes some or most of these values? There are many labels in use now: Secular Humanism, Freethought, Reality-Based, Skeptic, Bright, and even redefining the label of ‘Atheist’ to include many of these positive values.

The label of “Bright” is endorsed by Dawkins and Dennett; it was coined by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell and is defined as a person with a naturalistic worldview, free from supernatural and mystical elements, who bases his or her ethics and actions upon this naturalistic view. This is an elegant way of describing this movement – but the Bright label is not well liked.

I absolutely hate the label “Bright”. Not because it implies that being a ‘Bright’ means that someone who is not one is a ‘Dim’ or ‘Stupid’. No, I hate the label ‘Bright’ because it seems so, well, silly. It’s flamboyant, like a float in the Mardi Gras parade. It is in-your-face, and it lacks any sort of decorum or hint of science and reason.

The label of “Secular Humanism” was coined as a derogatory term by Christian fundamentalists as a way to lump together all the various related non-belief philosophies. In the American tradition of the word ‘Yankee’ this insult was embraced by Paul Kurtz and used to grow the Council for Secular Humanism, and the Centers for Inquiry.

Although I like the label of Secular Humanist, there are many who hate it because it has the word ‘Humanism’ in it. Traditional Humanism includes religious Humanism, which means that Secular Humanism is a sort of schism from a religion. It is hard for many people to accept a label with what is seen to be blatant religious roots.

“Freethought” is an excellent label for this movement. The label has its foundations in 17th century England, and reached it’s ‘golden age’ in 19th century United States. It has been mostly disused since the beginning of the First World War – which is a shame because it does have such a rich and wonderful history. It even has a symbol, the Pansy flower (Viola tricolor hortensis).

But the label of “Freethought” has also been attacked by religious and is seen as analogous to the term, “free love”. In ‘free love’ all sex is permissible, so it seems that “Freethought” could mean that any sort of belief is also permissible, which is hardly a skeptical or scientific position.


So this movement is still missing a label. There are many labels to choose from, but this community is not used to blind acceptance – we won’t accept a label merely because it is advocated by our mentors or heroes.

This lack of a label is a problem because we lack a common banner to join under, and so remain somewhat disorganized. But it may also be an advantage, because if we did form a cohesive group then the leaders of the organization could hijack it for their own benefit. We have seen this happen with religious groups hijacked for the gain of ministers or political candidates.

And with this observation I admit that I’m not helping here. We still lack a cohesive label that would bind together this growing grassroots movement of scientific, skeptical non-believers. Perhaps there must be many labels to indicate the different focus that individuals hold, while at the same time an acknowledgement that we are all on the same “team”. A multitude of like-minded groups organized under different banners would provide needed checks and balances that religious groups seem to have lost.

So perhaps the lack of a single label for rational, non-believing skeptics is a good thing.

Is Religion Necessary to Control Bad People?

I’ve heard the “religion is necessary for some people” argument now from several friends and acquaintances. This argument is that it is fine for some people to be without a religion because they have an good system of personal ethics. However, other people actually require a religion with a built in moral code to prevent them from doing evil.

According to this argument, some people are bad because they lack an internal moral compass, and as such they require the constant threat, guidance, and promise of religion to prevent them from becoming criminal. Religion is also supposed to reform evil people from being criminal, or from just being a non-contributing member of society.

To me, this seems like Alcoholics Anonymous – where the alcoholic acknowledges that he or she requires spiritual guidance and strength to overcome addiction. This works for some people – I know that having a positive attitude is necessary for success in any endeavor, and the belief that you can draw strength from outside of yourself can increase your will to succeed.

When I was taking Tae Kwon Do we were taught that bursts of strength came from focused ‘Qi’ – and yelling the “Kee-YA” during a strike seemed to make the blow more effective. I see the belief in a ‘Qi force’ to be a useful fiction that actually allowed me to focus my mind and body on a very narrow target and increased the force of my punch. I’m under no illusion that this force is real – it is merely a useful way of fooling myself.

And perhaps the belief in a ‘higher power’ is a useful way of fooling yourself to stay sober through AA. Perhaps the belief in a “God the Master” prevents people who lack a moral compass, or lack willpower, from doing evil. Belief in a God who owns both the carrot of Heaven and the stick of Hell ensures that the poor sinner will stay on the straight and narrow path.

And what about falling off of the wagon, so to speak? In AA someone who fails is forgiven, and allowed to try again, for as many times as it takes. Forgiveness enables a person continue on – without forgiveness a person might come to believe that any attempt to change is ultimately futile and may not bother to make a second (or third) attempt.

So, I think I must concur that bad people can use religion to help themselves reform. But I must disagree when such a person gives God all the credit for success. This sort of personal triumph was aided by a useful fiction, but ultimately it is personal actions and attitudes that matter. I think it is as silly to thank God for your ability to change as it is to thank Qi for your ability to break a brick with a Karate chop.


We should ask why there is a belief that only religion can give ethical aid, why can’t we use a non-religious approach?

I’ve been told by Christians that their religion is the only hope of reforming evil people, or of preventing people from becoming evil. After all, the argument goes, in 2000 years Atheism is yet to create the same sort of moral guidelines supported by a community ‘safety net’.

In my reply to Daniel Lewis I state my opinion that there are two reasons why non-belief has not already created a useful ethical system. First, science is a relatively new human invention. Humans have always experimented, but only recently have we learned how to qualify results. Second, the persecution of non-believers and other heretics has stifled progress. (Torture and death tends to cloud people’s minds.)


Karl Marx wrote that religion was being used to create the illusion that everything was okay, that it masked real suffering that had to be addressed, and therefore religion ought to be abolished. In my opinion Marx was very wrong.

I think that getting rid of religion without offering an alternative philosophy is a mistake. Religion is used as an extended social network, binding people and communities together. When done well, it acts as a safety net. It is a very powerful tool which, like any tool, can be used for good or evil purposes.

Non-believers are becoming interested in systems of philosophy based on the scientific and the rational. Secular Humanism is currently my favorite.

Paul Kurtz, founder and chairman of the Council for Secular Humanism has almost single-handedly snatched the insulting label of ‘Secular Humanist’ from Christianity and used it as the foundation of an ethical system based on science, reason, exuberance, and the philosophy that improving the condition of humankind while reducing human suffering is the greatest good.

I think Dr. Kurtz is onto something here – and other non-belief ethics seem to fall in line with the various manifestos of Secular Humanism. (Yes, there are more than one – but the latest manifestos seem to be saying essentially the same things. The Humanist Manifesto 2000 is the latest.)


Is Secular Humanism the replacement for religion? I dunno. The philosophy is in its infancy, and science is only now starting to focus on the evolution of morals. There is a lot to discuss here.

But I’ll leave that for another entry.