A number of interesting topics came up in our forums over Christmas.

The Salvation Army

Ginger The Instigator started us off:

Do you give to them in light of their being 1) a religious group and 2) anti-gay and lesbian.

How do you deal with them when you pass them?

David E. summed up how most of us felt:

Ever since I became aware of their anti-gay viewpoint a few years ago, I’ve made a point of not donating anything to them. When I have old clothes or the like to donate, I always take them to Goodwill rather than Salvation Army.

If they were solely a religious organization, it wouldn’t bother me, but I can’t knowingly support an organization that discriminates against people just for being who they are.

Fred W:

No, I do not give. There are many organizations which help the poor. I give to the secular ones. I see no reason to promote a religion in which I do not believe in order help the needy. I can help the needy without the unwanted baggage.

Mark T. The Clarifyer sourced the problem:

Their biblical “frown” on homosexuality aside, a lot of the claims of discrimination against gays by the Salvation Army seem to stem from a deal they attempted to strike with the Bush white house back in ‘01:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20010802.html

And Bruce O. offered a minor dissent that I personally don’t disagree with in principle:

Reading through their position statement, yes, they do believe the bible says “gay sex is bad”, but they explicitly state they are also against discrimination against those who are gay, and still offer all their services to anyone, regardless of their sexuality.

So, obviously not ideal, but still a LOT better than some Xtian groups that seek to do anything they can to put down/discriminate/hate gay people.

Personally, even though I’m not Xtian, and agnostic, I do not have too much of a problem giving to a religious based charity, as long as I know the funds I am giving are going towards an actual program I believe in. For instance, I’ve donated blankets to the Haven of Rest shelter in Akron, even though they are a Xtian based homeless shelter, as I know they fill a need that’s not met too well in the Akron area. I would not donate to a fund for a church to evangelize, or to bring bibles to children, etc.

Guess what I’m saying is, if the motive is still good, the deed is still good, then I can overlook some minor religious ties sometimes.

But that’s just me.

Fatheism

The Josh started us off with a piece by Michael Shermer:

From Faitheist to Fundagnostical by Michael Shermer

This is a great piece on the whole “accomdationist” crap that skeptics, like Michael Shermer, get accused of. Read this piece and you’ll find out that Michael Shermer is anything but an “accomodationist”.

I will always call religions out on their BS. I will always call them out when they abuse/rape women and children. When religions circumcise women, kill abortion doctors, promote suicide bombing as a legitimate form of martyrdom I will be right there to shine a critical light on it. When religions teach children & adults that it’s a virtue to believe things in the absence of hard evidence, I will shout at the top of my lungs, “THIS IS WHAT’S WRONG WITH RELIGION AND IT SHOULD STOP!”

There are religious people/theists who would stand right next to me and shout those very words, too. There are religious people who think that critical thinking is important and creationism is nonsense. Kenneth Miller is a great example of this. Ken Miller fought against teaching intelligent design in schools and was crucial in the victory of the Kitzmiller VS Dover Area School District case. The last thing I would ever want to do is alienate people like Kenneth Miller when they could be great allies in the fight against teaching nonsense in our science classrooms.

It’s a great article written by Michael Shermer and I recommend it to everyone.

I (as always) threw my 2 cents in:

I agree. We Atheists do ourselves a tremendous disservice by refusing to cooperate or collaborate with moderate believers; so far as politics is concerned, short term concessions very often result in long term gains. To present our critique in a manner that is palatable to believers in no way undermines our position, but rather increases the likelihood that some of them will find themselves unable to continue turning a blind eye to the nonsense their religion espouses.

Mark T. The Clarifyer strikes again:

While Shermer’s original piece in the NYT was done with the noblest of intentions, I understand why he caught flak for it. Here is that article:

Religion, evolution can live side by side

Shermer’s gist, as I see it:

“Accepting the theory of evolution doesn’t clash with your beliefs in an omnipotent god, or in Christ rising from the dead; or that he hears you when you pray to him; or that he will come again to judge the living and the dead; or that nonbelievers will be “cast into the lake of fire” (etc., etc) … so just look at the evidence, and accept that evolution is true, ok?”

There are 2 ways of looking at this- one one hand, Shermer is going easy on religious folk in order to promote science; on the other hand, he is unwittingly treating them as children. The fact of the matter is, the supernatural beliefs associated with religion DO clash with science. (Find me one example in which they don’t, and I will eat my words).

This is why many of us prefer the “stark fist” of a Dawkins or a Hitchens… it is more directly honest. There are plenty of Kenneth Miller & Frances Collins types who espouse the “evolution doesn’t have to clash with God” thing- which is good, but should atheists & skeptics have to play the same angle?

Josh makes a good case for doing both:

If you want to take the Hitchens and Dawkins approach when you’re trying to teach critical thinking or science to people, that approach wont work. For the most part we are dealing with friends, family, co-workers and other members of our own community. If I start saying their beliefs are bullshit then the conversation ends right there and I have now alienated that friend or family member. Anything important I have to say to them about a matter as far as religion goes or science will be ignored.

Like Shermer says, it depends on what your goal is. When you’re debating creationists or religious leaders or apologists or fundamentalists then the Dawkins/Hitchens approach is the way to go. When you’re trying to teach people science and critical thinking then the Michael Shermer, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Jay Gould approach is the way to go. It depends on what you’re goal is. I know the difference between the two goals and the two approaches. I know when to use one and not the other to be as effective as I can be.

Nathan agrees with Mark T. the Clarifyer:

I agree with Mark, the more direct approach is more honest.

The only way to reconcile any two conflicting ideas or beliefs is to compare them to something unrelated.

Evolution doesn’t conflict with Jesus rising form the dead or the existence of a creator being. (But it does conflict with the idea that the creator being created us.)

The theory of gravity doesn’t conflict with the existence of a creator being or someone rising from the dead. (But, it does conflict with the notion that Jesus or Mary ascended bodily into heaven or that angels can fly.)

The sexual theory of reproduction doesn’t conflict with the existence of a creator being. (but, it does conflict with the idea of Jesus (or any other god) being born of a virgin.) SO as long as we never compare the scientific theory to the part of theology it proves absurd, we’re good.

Now, if the debate/discussion is about evolution (or any other scientific topic), you can stick to the facts without ever bringing religion into it. I agree, at that point religion isn’t even part of the discussion and shouldn’t be brought up (now if the theist or denier brings it up, i’m all for smashing them to bits (metaphorically speaking)). If the discussion is theological in nature, then the most honest approach is the most direct, and will end up with some pissed off believers.

Mark O. chimes in with a different opinion:

Religion and science can be a marriage that works. Like most marriages, it takes a
little work. If one does not accept the Bible as literal, the two can co-exist.

“God made man in his image”. Does this refer to the spirit, or are we to believe
that God is 5′-7″ (if male), has one head, two eyes, two arms and two legs?

Nathan doubts:

Religion and science can be a marriage that works if religion relinquishes any truth claims which it holds and allows science to prove it wrong every time. Is there a claim made by a religion that is true, and can only be made in a religious context? Similar to Hitchens’ challenge. Is there a claim made by religion (any of them I guess) that could not be made secularly and/or explained secularly?

We know the big ones don’t hold up (virgin birth in humans, resurrection 3 days after death, flying to heaven on a donkey, existence of hell, etc.)

I don’t believe God made man, so that second question means nothing. Man made God in his image.
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/13/christianity-is-self-projection-as-god/
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/12/23/spag-and-the-liberal-christian/

Michael The Moor dissents:

There are just some couples that just shouldn’t be together, this being a great example. Why try and shoe horn a complex, cobbled together, contradictory book with the cumulative wisdom of science? Where does that even make sense? Science and (Western) religions are compatible only in a semantic sense, not a rational one. Religion is an ossified concept from the dark genesis of mankind and science is the light, the torch that guides our way. Trying to make them work together is an insult to human progress and intellectually dishonest.

And I agree with him:

A better question than “can religion and science coexist” is “should religion and science coexist”? If our objective is the marginalization of religious thinking in our society, then it would be to our detriment to even consider the possibility that the two are not mutually exclusive. If, however, that is not our objective, then I must ask, what is?

Ginger chimes in:

I think Josh’s point is one of strategy. For example, I am an animal lover. It makes more sense for me to go after the low hanging fruit first such as spay and neuter your cat before taking out the big guns such as stop wearing leather shoes and never eat meat or dairy again.

Mark O. responds:

Remember that religion came before science. Religion was/is a way of explaining
the natural world. It has a good 50,000 year head start on science.
And I return to my premise that religion is rational.

As I wrote on Dec 08: The foundation that all religions are based is Power, control, and fear.
To a lesser degree governance and health.

Michael, I agree some religious belief systems are ossified (good word), but not all.

Michael The Moor responds in kind:

And a lack of religion also preceded science, just because religion has a veneer of oldness to it doesn’t make it special or worth keeping. The premise of religion is rational in the context of its time not now given what we know about reality. To say religion explains the world now is just flat out wrong. Also, let me clarify by saying Western religion (though eastern ones like Hinduism are guilty as well) As for the head start, it reminds me of the tortoise and the hare. The hare represents quick, meaningless answers that mean nothing whereas the tortoise represents the slow, cumulative, honest, methodical approach of science. I’m also calling you on using a veiled argument from authority (religion has a 50,000 year head start)

Anthony T. contests my position:

I’d like to think our objective is to maximize rational thought, rather than the negative goal of marginalizing religious thought. If that is the goal, than Shermer has a valid point. That doesn’t mean he is right in coddling irrational thought (such as his poor performance on Larry King, vis-a-vis life after death).

As for the rest, I have to say, I am most definitely *not* an accomodationist. I am more in agreement with Dawkins and P.Z. Myers and Hitchens. Religious belief hobbles such great scientists as Francis Collins, who believes god answers the questions of such silly things as physical constants, and so are beyond science. This is, of course, the most ludicrous position a scientist can take, as history is filled with people claiming a god of the gaps.

Mostly, though, I don’t care what people believe, as long as it doesn’t interfere with other people. Rational thought and objective perception of reality should guide public policy, and interaction with others outside your own faith.

That’s just me, of course, idealist to the end.

Bruce O. affirms the value of consensus over conflict:

Just a reminder that a number of scientists throughout the ages have been inspired to discover more by their faith. Not all just accept that there are things that can’t be known that are for only God to know. Instead, they seek to discover how and why the world works in the hope to better understand how and what God is, and how and what creation is.

While this isn’t necessarily my belief, I believe that there is no problem with people holding these beliefs. I see no need to demonize people for holding such beliefs either. Yes, it would be wrong of people to advocate their belief in God within a scientific argument, however, after the scientific paper has been presented, there is no problem in my eyes with going back and providing a philosophical argument to augment the papers findings.

I’m a firm believer in finding consensus between people. There ARE cases where none will ever be found (literalists) but, with people with more moderate, enlightened views of faith, I DO believe there can be enough common ground to discus items rationally with people who do not share our world views 100%, and thus be able to come together to help society as a whole.

Michael The Moor takes the hardline:

I’m sorry but coddling nonsense does not help humanity in the long term. And by finding a “consensus” with sympathetic religites, we hamstring ourselves because apologists and religious moderates won’t let us criticize fundamentalists. By living and let live, progress is eroded more and more as we see. And what sense does it make to let a man not come to terms with reality? By letting persist in the fantasy that there is something more after this life with no pain and eternal bliss, he will not truly live this one. He will be a bystander in his own life in the hopes of getting a better one. That is immature. We atheists tend to live with courage and passion because we know this is all we have. Also what can be known to be true is more important than someone’s “precious” feelings. I represent a courageous humanity, one that faces nature and reality on it’s terms rather than persisting in a ridiculous delusion.
…
Bruce, yes many scientists were men of faith simply based on what they knew or reality at that time and were educated by the church. However, after the Origin of Species was published and found to be true, the number of religious scientists fell drastically or they become vague believers in belief. There is no logical reason to believe in gods, fairies, elves, ancestor spirits. Intelligent people who do believe these things are genuinely mistaken due to cognitive dissonance or have a fear of truly living without the god crutch(and losing familial ties).

Ed brings up the reality of the conflict:

…
In a debate once with a creationist I asked at some point that since “the Bible has already shown the universe to be only a few thousand years old and we are not evolved from previous species” should astronomers and biologists working in these areas just quit their jobs since it has all been answered already? He could not respond. The correct answer is of course not!

I believe every time we have not accepted an answer provided to us by religion to explain the natural world we have found out something that has helped humanity progress and reduced suffering.

Science has allowed us to communicate faster, live more diverse lives, heal illness faster, etc., etc., etc. I am sure it could be debated if science could be managed better to give us more benefit versus the negatives science also brings (advanced weaponry causing global extinction at once, climate change, pollution, overpopulation, lack of physical exercise, etc.) Even with the tax we must pay for science and technology it is still more beneficial than religious doctrine.

A review of the last 2000 years of life on this planet would include the question of “Is human life more enjoyable than it was in the past?” How does this change correlate with technology and science. I believe where we see less religion and more science we see less suffering and more general enjoyment of life. The human condition has improved in the last 100 years for MOST people and I believe this is due to science and technology. Where we are going is another question but I do not think it has to do with religion but instead with mass human behavior.

And I respond to Anthony T.

I don’t see any distinction; religion is an institution that requires the suspension of one’s critical faculties. If our objective is as you say, to maximize rational thought, then in addition to promoting the virtues of science and skepticism we should be working to marginalize religious thinking; while we could target any institution that promotes non-nonsensical reasoning, as religion does, it would be more effective of us to concentrate on the biggest, baddest, most intellectually dishonest entity; the effect of revealing religion to be the scam that it is to the society as a whole would have far reaching effects, more so than a multitude of small and easy battles.

I also responded to Bruce O. earlier:

If the crediting of a person’s faith is a valid defense of religion, then the actions of those such as Al-Ghazali, who is almost single handedly responsible for ending the era of great scientific advances in the Islamic world due to his determination to find god as the cause of all things, must be equally considered as a critique of religion. Also, we must ask ourselves whether a person who did use science to clarify his faith would not have behaved similarly in the absence of religion? If the application of science was only used to reconcile a religious idea with the realities of the physical world, then why should that be taken as a positive influence of religious thinking?

Randall T. expounds a bit on that:

I have come to the conclusion that when it comes to religion (other the fundamentalism wackos) that most followers do NOT really believe that Jesus turned water into wine or raised lazarus from the dead. That deep down inside they know that the physical laws of the universe were not suspended because some Rabbi had a great deal of influence. But what they do take from religion is the hope of ever expanding optimism that there is some hope and possability. Its a sheer optimism veiled over by rationalization. They NEED to live with hope. Im fine with that until the more intrusive believers filter into politics and science.Thats the fight we should worry about………

And Bruce O. makes a good point against dismissiveness:

The main thing that can be learned from holy documents, besides appreciating some of them for their literary value, are philosophical ideas.

For instance, from Buddhism, we get Zen and meditation.

From Christianity, we get a message of non-violence, in a time much more brutal than our own. (wish more would actually get that message)

Yes, all ideas CAN be gleaned from other sources, as there are always multiple paths towards the same philosophical goals. All I’m saying is that, beside the loony bits that are in most holy books, there can be interesting ideas that can be extracted, explored, and used too, and it’d be a shame to just dump those by the wayside because one saw them as coming from a “tainted” source.

Nathan disagrees:

I’m not saying that every idea in a holy book is loony. But, for example, the idea of non-violence that you claim is espoused by Christianity was present in other religions/cultures 1000’s of years prior to Christianity. It is also prevalent in non-religious culture, so the holy books don’t matter in regards to such ideas or ideals. You’ll have to provide a working definition of “Zen” for us to discuss. Meditation was also around in Indian cultures prior to Buddhism being adopted. You could also say that relaxation of any kind is good, so meditation is simply focused relaxation. Again, non-religious cultures can come up with those. The religious texts have no use.

On a contrary note, do you really think that Christianity stresses non-violence? Also, do you think that today’s world is less brutal?

I don’t dismiss the ideas from holy books because they are from holy books, I dismiss them because they are either bad ideas (genital mutilation, human sacrifice, etc.) or, in the case of non-violence, aren’t from holy books.

MichaelV

Plato’s Myth Of The Cave, or Allegory Of The Cave, is one of my favorite writings on humanity’s relationship with knowledge.  In context with the rest of The Republic, it is one of the best treatise on politics, justice, and philosophy ever written.  Definitely one of those few things to which there is no downside in reading.  Having just reread it for the first time a few years, I was surprised to discover (and peeved for having not done so earlier) that the piece perfectly sums up the nature and contrast of the relationship between theism and atheism.

(I included my favorite version at the end of my essay.)

The prisoners, representing the theist, are restricted in their actions by their environment, one which has been crafted by others intending to deceive and control them.  They are slaves.  They are given nothing but the images on the wall before them and the ability to communicate amongst themselves.  The images are distorted, recognizable only by those with the ability to see and the knowledge of what causes them; to the prisoners, they are all that exist, as even the fire remains obscured.

The human impulse toward knowledge is demonstrated in the prisoners attempts to explain the shadows; they give names, project motives, create rituals, and postulate origins for the shadows, all in a vain attempt to give some greater definition to their own existence.  It probably wasn’t long before it was determined that the shadows were responsible for their condition, and likely the light itself.  The shadows became the explanation for everything, as their ability to create the prisoners, the chains, the light, and the cave clearly demonstrated an omnipotent and all powerful entity.

Human beings prefer a false explanation to no explanation, and it was this desire that likely led to the naming of the shadows, the imbuing of attributes, the genesis story of how the cave came to exist, and the story of how the prisoners came to be where they are now.  Authority on these subjects was a purely observational exercise; the person who could best predict the movement of the shadows, or the responses of the echoes,  found themselves with a ready and willing audience, and with that authority bequeathed upon them came the confidence to interpret the shadows.  Signs of anger, malaise, joy, jealousy, and ambivalence were soon decoded, further confirmation that their speculative efforts were not in vain.

One can only imagine the shock that first liberated prisoner must have felt, to discover that the source of what they had come to believe an all powerful agent was a set of sticks, rocks, and people identical to the prisoners, though probably healthier.  It is one thing to discover oneself to be wrong on a single assumption; to have one’s entire worldview shattered must have been terrifying.  If the very thing one bases their entire existence upon turns out to be false, then surely all other assumptions must be false as well.

The progression out of the cave parallels our own journey out of the religious mindset; the painful but necessary abandonment of old explanations, old securities, and old comradery is reflected in our own history of violence, struggle, and ultimate redemption.  False ideas do not fall like rain, growing steadily and reaching a point of unsustainability before rushing neatly into obscurity; false ideas stand firm as trees do, growing all the more resilient until something stronger tears at it violently and casts it aside, or until age has rendered it decrepit, unable to sustain itself any longer.

The pain of adjustment to the new reality must have shocked the prisoner, though it certainly paled in comparison to the wonder and amazement they soon discovered.  The sudden realization that life is both a far greater and equally familiar thing would have been seductive, and the newly liberated mind would have given in eagerly.

What would it take to cause a person given this opportunity to free themselves, both mentally and physically, to reject it?  Faith.  Faith in something that is only perceived to be real; faith in an aberration of something real, or faith in something that never was real.  Humanity’s ability to discern truth is rivaled only by our collective resistance to it.  Plato commented on this when he suggested that violent reprisal would be the consequence of sharing one’s new found insight with the other prisoners; it is still a reality today that conflict follows those who dare to lead the confined to freedom.

Plato may not have had the gods in mind when he wrote this metaphor 2400 years ago, but the similarity is striking.  We live in a society in which religion has been reduced to the primary proprietor of nonsense and superstition; we also live in a society in which far too many of us are frequent clients.  Human progress can be measured by how closely we adhere to the myths of our ancestors.  Plato wrote the Myth Of The Cave in reverence of knowledge and wisdom; atheism is the philosophy of rejection of all ideas not based on real knowledge or wisdom.  Just as the freed prisoner found themselves engaged in a new study of existence, standing at the precipice of true knowledge, so too is atheism at the end of intellectual enslavement, and the beginning of something far greater.

MichaelV

——————————————————————————————————

The following is a translation of Plato’s The Myth Of The Cave, from The Republic, c. 380 BCE, translated by Manuel Velasquez for his text on Philosophy.

Now let me describe human situation in a parable about ignorance and learning. Imagine there are men living at the bottom of an underground cave whose entrance is a long passageway that rises through the ground to the light outside. They have been there since childhood and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move. The chains hold their heads so that they must sit facing the back wall of the cave and cannot turn their heads to look up through the entrance behind them. At some distance behind them, up nearer the entrance to the cave, a fire is burning. Objects pass in front of the first so that they cast their shadows on the back wall where the prisoners see the moving shadows projected as if on a screen. All kinds of objects parade before the fire, including statues of men and animals whose shadows dance on the wall in front of the prisoners.

Those prisoners are like ourselves. The prisoners see nothing of themselves or each other except the shadows each one’s body casts on the back wall of the cave. Similarly, they see nothing of the objects behind them, except their shadows moving on the wall.

Now imagine the prisoners could talk with each other. Suppose their voices echoed off the wall so that the voices seem to come form their own shadows. Then wouldn’t they talk about these shadows as if the shadows were real? For the prisoners, reality would consists of nothing but the shadows.

Next imagine that one prisoner was freed from his chains. Suppose he was suddenly forced to stand up and turn toward the entrance of the cave. Suppose he was forced to walk up toward the burning fire. The movement would be painful, and teh glare from the fire would blind him so that he would not see clearly the real objects whose shadows he used to watch. What would he think if someone explained that everything he had seen before was an illusion, that now he was nearer to reality and that his vision was actually clearer?

Imagine he was then shown the objects that had cast their shadows on the wall and he was asked to name each one – wouldn’t he be at a complete loss? Wouldn’t he think the shadows he saw before were more true than these objects?

Next imagine he was forced to look straight at the burning light. His eyes would hurt. The pain would make him turn away and try to return to things he could see more easily. He would think that those things were more real than the new things they were showing him.

But suppose that once more someone takes him and drags him up the steep and rugged ascent from the cave. Suppose someone forces out into the full light of the sun. Won’t he suffer greatly and be furious at being dragged upward? As he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled and he won’t be able to see any of this world we ourselves call reality. Little by little he will have to get used to looking at the upper world. At first he will see shadows on the ground best, next perhaps the reflections of men and other objects in water, and then maybe the objects themselves. After this he would find it easier to gaze at the light of the moon and the stars in the night sky than to look at the daylight sun and its light. Last of all he will be able to look at the sun and contemplate its nature. He will not just look at its reflection in water but will see it as it is in itself and in its own domain. He would come to the conclusion that the sun produces the seasons and the years and that it controls everything in the visible world. He will understand that it is in a way the cause of everything that he and his fellow prisoners used to see.

Suppose the released prisoner now recalled the cave and what passed for wisdom among his fellows there. Wouldn’t he be happy about his new situation and feel sorry for them? They might have been in the habit of honoring those among themselves who were the quickest to make out the shadows and those who could remember which usually came before others so that they were best at predicting the course of the shadows. Would he care about such honors and glories or would he envy those who won them? Wouldn’t he rather endure anything than go back to thinking and living like they did?

Finally, imagine that the released prisoner was taken from the light and brought back into the cave to his old seat. His eyes would be full of darkness. Now he would have to compete in discerning the shadows with the prisoners who had never left the cave while his own eyes were still dim. Wouldn’t he appear ridiculous? Men would say of him that he had gone up and come back down with his eyesight ruined and that it was better not even to think of ascending. In fact, if they caught anyone trying to free them and lead them up to the light, they would try to kill him.

I say, now, that the prison is the world we see with our eyes; the light of the fire is like the power of our sun. The climb upward out of the cave into the upper world is the ascent of the mind into the domain of true knowledge.

Plato

Holiday Warriors Unite!

I am a non-believer, an atheist and agnostic. Yet I decided long ago that there is no reason not to celebrate the winter holidays. Actually, there are many good reasons to celebrate. I have a wonderful wife and kids, good friends, life, liberty, love. All these things are worth celebrating on their own merits.

I am also a curious person, and have learned that gift giving, decorating, feasting, and togetherness are traditions that transcend cultural boundaries. Celebrations of the seasons and human accomplishments are as old as our species.

I also understand that this is a deeply spiritual time of year for many people. No one is trying to take that away, or to prevent them from celebrating their beliefs. However, the most important holiday traditions practiced around the world cross cultural, national, and religious boundaries. They are universal concepts that can and should be shared by all.

The act of acknowledging that our traditions and celebrations draw from multiple cultures and beliefs, as well as secular influences, is not an attempt to demean one particular group. It is easy for a group accustomed to a position of dominance and majority status to feel threatened when a minority begins to speak out. It is irrational, however, for such a group to fear. It is also irrational for that group to claim that challenging their privileged status is equivalent to repression of their beliefs.

Those who ascribe religious significance to the winter holidays have never been prohibited from celebrating according to their beliefs within their homes or churches or other private property. And no has made any attempt to do so. The controversy stems from the use of government or publicly owned property to promote one belief above others.

The problem with this is, if one group is allowed to use public property to promote their beliefs, every group must be allowed the same privilege, morally, legally, and ethically,. The public square is then turned into a competition of proselytization. This benefits no one, and causes an unreasonable burden on the government. More importantly, it gives the government greater control over whose message is treated better. Will a Catholic council member give his church the prime location for their display? Will the local Baptists, who have fewer representatives on the council be relegated to a back corner of the property?

The solution is simple. A secular display that does not promote any one group over the other is allowed. Those who wish to promote their interpretation and version of the holiday are still 100% free to do so on private property. This is fair and equitable. Unfortunately, there is a very vocal group who are not happy with fair, they want to be treated special. They want privileges other’s will not get.

The supposed “War on Christmas” is nothing more than intentional misinformation, hyperbole, and outright lies.

We’ve been having a rather intriguing series of back-and-forths on the issue of grace or blessings said at a meal such as Thanksgiving; exactly how should an Atheist/freethinker respond to such a situation?

Lisa started us out by describing a situation many of us go through; “At my family’s house, which is a tradition every year, we say the “Our Daily Bread” prayer. I have been biting my tongue for years now, giving in to my family’s belief and tradition.” I didn’t feel that this was fair unless the non-religious at the table were given the opportunity to offer their own blessing, and James suggested this:

“Michael gives me an idea you could try, if you are game. After you wait patiently for them to conclude their blessing or prayer, you can ask for their attention. You could then give a brief secular statement about what you are grateful for (i.e. the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the scientific method, tolerant society, etc…). If you are patient and tolerant enough to accommodate their beliefs, they should do the same for you. If they are so discourteous as to ignore your statement and not allow you to be heard, then make it clear that you feel you have been disrespected. I would let it stand there, for this year at least. Next year I would stand up and walk out until the prayer is done.

Of course this all depends on how confrontational you are willing to be.”

That last bit references the main issue that I have with grace; I don’t think that it is unreasonable to conclude that asking to give a secular humanist grace would be met with antipathy at best, hostility at worst, by the very people who expect to be allowed to give their religious blessing. I wasn’t alone in this thinking, and several other members chimed in that the best solution would be to grin and bear it; sometimes, picking a fight over religion just isn’t worth it, especially not on a day when we are supposed to be celebrating something.

Not everyone agreed, though, and Gary suggested that “I like the secular prayer idea, but don’t do it after theirs. That makes it so…I don’t know…contrived, unnecessary…. (“Oh, look, now our little girl wants to say something. How cute.”)

Instead, ask (ahead of time or as you sit down) if you could give the prayer. Be polite, be sincere, just don’t mention god. They may not even notice. (“Today, we are thankful to be surrounded by a loving, understanding family, and for all this food, etc, etc….”) Don’t even go into the tolerant society thing. Show them that you’re thankful for all the same things that they are, but, matter-of-factly-by-omission, that god has nothing to do with it.”

Roni offered her own version of a secular grace:
Today we are thankful for the joy and gladness in our lives,
For mirth and exultation, for pleasure and delight,
For love and friendship, peace and peoplehood.
May we all witness the day when the sounds throughout the world
Will be these sounds of happiness:
the voices of lovers, the sounds of feasting and singing
and the song of peace.

And then Jim R gave us my favorite secular blessing:

Given the opportunity I will share this prayer with my (very religious) family this year.

Today we give thanks not only for this wonderful feast but for the abundant life we enjoy. We are thankful for all that we have, for the love and support of family and friends and for the freedom to follow the courage of our convictions. On this Thanksgiving Day may we begin to show our gratitude by committing ourselves to the opportunity we have to use our compassion and our intelligence, our wealth and technology to provide an abundant life for every inhabitant of this planet.

(The last line comes from the late Carl Sagan in the last chapter of Cosmos)

I’m going to try this one out tonight.

Some may be wondering, why exactly is this such an issue? Why are Atheists fretting over grace? Why can’t we just bow our heads and take it?

Because we don’t want to offend our friends, family, colleagues and neighbors over something as small as grace; we don’t want to put an end to a tradition we have a disagreement with when we can find a suitable compromise that excludes no one; we do not want to compromise our own beliefs to accommodate those of someone else, but we do wish to retain the spirit that often accompanies the blessing. Most of all, and I say this as an observer only, I think most of us like the traditions whose origins lie in religion, and if we can preserve the positive elements of something as innocuous as grace, while updating and secularizing the actual language a bit, we will. Or at least I will.

MichaelV

Through The Infidel Guy I found a song called, “Fuck the Creationists” by M.C. Hawking. It is a hip-hop song performed by the Stephen Hawking computer voice. It has a pro-science (not atheist) message but contains all the in-your-face elements you’d expect from gangsta rap:

“Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.”

You can hear the song by watching a video someone created for it. NSFW!!

It turns out there are entire albums of these songs, all just as funny. For example, “Entropy” is set to the tune of “O.P.P”, and there is an official video for the song, “What we need more of is science:”

“New age motherfuckers? Don’t get me started,
I made more sense than them, last time I farted.”

Another song talks about how he gang-bangs a bunch of MITers.

Be sure to listen to the available mp3s and read all the lyrics to the songs here. These songs make me laugh until I hurt.

Recenlty I stumbled upon rational thought musician, Greydon Square. Square is a hip-hop artist who almost became a minister, but instead deconverted and is getting a college degree in physics. You can buy his album, “The Compton Effect” at his site. He makes many allusions to religious philosophy and science; it will take many listens to get it all.

He describes his interesting life story in this video . I really like this one of a performance he did at an atheist convention. Ever hear a rap about Pascal’s Wager before? More songs at his myspace page.

While looking up info on Greydon, I was surprised to find even more rationalist themed music. Proclaim grew up in the East L.A./Montebello area and got bachelor’s degrees in psychology and philosophy. He wanted to combine his love of hip hop culture with his intellectual interests. His album is called, “Question Everything,” and you can hear his songs at his site.

In my last post, I linked to George Hrab, a very hot freethinking guy who creates great music as well as as the Geologic podcast. I found George through “brainsbodyboth” which cleverly describes his love of women who can “make (his) Oscar Wilde.” I am still trying to digest all the lyrics, including:

“She’s the queen of conversation, a panel member on Face the Nation, but she can (listen to the song to hear bawdy lyric!) without hesitation.”

Freethought is a common thread in George’s music with titles like, “Heaven Must be Boring” and “Think For Yourself,” which can apply to anything from dogmatic veganism, to religion, to the sucker-funded monstrosity called “The Secret.” His music is available for sale at emusic.com as well as the usual hard copy sources.

I hope you all enjoy discovering some new Freethought music, and please leave in your comments links to any other suggestions you might have.

MichaelV

“Why do Atheists need to join a group?” This question, and others like it, are among the most common questions we tend to receive. What reason does an Atheist have that compels him/her to join or form a group? Why should anyone who professes to believe in nothing need a group to support that notion?

There are many answers; the human impulse to find a community we belong to, a desire to surround oneself with like minded individuals, the numerous common interests we tend to share, the fact that religion and free thought are chief among the few public avenues for serious philosophical contemplation and debate. However, one reason in particular serves as the primary motivation for our coalescence around our philosophy of nothing.

The religious in our society do not want us to exist.

When one is under assault, it is foolish not to form a defense. Circle the wagons, if you will. I’m not referring to literal combat, of course, although there are a great many within the Christian religion who have given us sufficient reason to be concerned. Talk show hosts who tout their Christian faith as the center of their moral philosophy, and subsequently encourage the attack by terrorists on cities they deem too immoral to remain unpunished. Or the religious leaders who point the finger of blame for hurricanes and terrorist attacks, AIDS epidemics or school shootings squarely on the shoulders of those their religion has identified as unacceptable. Internal terrorism, be it the assassination of abortion providers, the slaughter of soldiers by a religious fanatic, or the eagerness by which so many of the faithful embrace capital punishment or Crusader ideology when talking about our military campaigns in the Middle East.

Nor am I specifically referring to the legal mechanisms by which the religious try to undermine any idea they consider hostile, or contrary, to their own. 5 years into the 21st century saw the shameful escapade in Dover, Pennsylvania, initiated by a Christian so concerned over the threat that learning about evolution posed to his (and others) children’s indoctrination into Christianity that he tried to replace the standard science textbooks with modified Creationist versions, versions which made it clear to any reader that evolution was more than likely false. Failing that, he tried to require teachers to read a warning to students, essentially undermining the credibility of evolution before it was taught and suggesting the Creationist text “as an alternative source.” Ultimately, a district court Judge determined that Intelligent Design (which was the name used for the creationist alternative to evolution) was little more than the progeny of Creationism. His decision echoed those of the Supreme Court and lesser courts from years earlier, across hundreds of legal battles, all the way back to the Scopes trial in Tennessee.

Nor am I targeting the the fact that in 233 years we have had 1 Atheist serve openly in Congress (statistically speaking, we’ve probably had dozens of closeted Atheists serve in Congress, likely a few on the Supreme Court, and at least 1 Atheist President, all covertly so), or the 8 states whose constitutions mandate a belief in god as a requirement for public service, or the practice of swearing to god with a Bible when testifying in court, or any other legal situation which requires or suggests the same.

Ultimately, what many of the religious in our society want to destroy is the idea that is freethinking; that there exists a philosophy that encourages skepticism, inquisition, rational deduction, and rejection of unsubstantiated ideas is so threatening to their faith, church, and the very existence of their god that it must be suppressed, segregated, and destroyed. State Rep. Monique Davis, a Democrat from Illinois, put it best when she shouted at an Atheist testifying in a case about corruption, “It is dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy even exists!”

What they seek is to punish thoughtcrime, and they have tried to do this for a very long time. That they have failed so completely is more suggestive of their own ineptitude than anything else, and the swelling ranks of the non-religious have the abuses of the more extremist of the faithful to thank. It is not the Atheist who started this fight; but being branded a sinner, a heathen, a corrupter of youth, a sycophant, an immoral servant of Satan will tend to lead a person to think in terms of conflict. Ultimately, if the scores of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other religious people in America were to make no effort at all to impose their views and suppress any they dislike, then there would be no point to declaring oneself an Atheist beyond that of clarification. If they did not seek to define religion as necessary for a person to be moral, and to declare religion immune from criticism and investigation, there would probably be no freethinkers meeting as we do.

Thus, the purpose of an organization of Freethinkers has been decided for it, by those who have for so long tried to suppress it; to serve as a bastion of rationality, reason, and civility in an uncertain era of revolution.

We champion secularism, as it offers the greatest balance between church and state; each with it’s own sphere of influence, restricted from suppression or influence of the other, the state allowed only to step in when the abuse of the church violates the law of the land, the church allowed only frame public participation for it’s members. The principle of religious equality is such that only when no religion is supreme, nor is the absence of religion supreme, are the liberties of members of all faiths, and non-faiths, truly secure.

We champion science, as it offers us the greatest and only mechanism through which the mysteries of the universe may be deciphered. In the last 150 years we have discovered our origins, gained the ability for the poorest woman in Somalia to communicate visually with the wealthiest man in California, in real time, and to be understood by one another with little issue, gained the ability to decimate a city and to power one with the same technology, to move materials that have not existed a decade ago to a facility that would not have been possible 50 years ago to create a device that will not be usable for a year that allows a person with no clue as to how it is made gain the ability to do just that. We are in a sense, living in a time of miracles, but miracles created by man, unfathomable to the ancients, and only increasing in their ability to stupefy the uninitiated. Tens of thousands of years of religion serving as an anchor to human progress has been overshadowed by the magnanimity of our accomplishments in the years that science has taken over as the primary of epistemology progress, and we are better for it.

We champion humanism, for one simple reason. The longer man has been on this earth, we have learned how to be more moral, and we have done so. The more closely we have grown to one another, the less harm we feel compelled to do to one another. The more we have come to rely on one another, the more we have learned to work together, and the more wondrous things have come from this. We turned to each other in the face of great suffering, and we have created a life with far less in it. Man came into this world with no morality, and has created a beautiful one.

We champion logic, as it offers us the simplest and greatest means of discerning that which is real, from that which is not. Logic has allowed us to determine that disease is the result of micro-organisms, not the pettiness of gods. Logic has taught us that the infliction of pain is far less appealing when it is inflicted upon oneself. Logic has revealed that observation and experimentation get things done, something the millions of hours wasted on bended knee has not. Logic allows us to ask why with purpose, and to analyze the response. Faith has done none of these things; given the great proliferation of faith, it can be said only that if it were capable of answering questions, it would have done so long ago.

We champion equality and balance; without it, there is only chaos. It could be said that man’s sole purpose for much of our existence has been precisely that; to bring order and balance to a world of chaos.

Religion has much to offer; fear, ignorance, hatred, tribal social dynamics, structure, community, a rich history, but also a bloody one, a connection to the past, and a bulwark against the future, and hope, be it for something better, or the avoidance of something worse, both ultimately unnecessary, and a morality which has been defined out of necessity and refined with experience to a point where it is unrecognizable. It may be true that mankind has prospered in the first place because of religion, but it is more true that we no longer do. Religion has been rendered obsolete; it either defers to a superior morality or science, or it stands in stark contrast to the same. Much of the battles fought to today are fought because of the resistance to change that is so prominent in the religious community.

Why form a group of freethinkers? Because we need to; only in force can our influence be felt as it should. 40 million voices are far louder and infinitely clearer when spoken in unison; like a choir, our message is most lucid and best heard when sung in concert.

MichaelV

ATHEISM & NONRELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHIES: DEFINITIONS

(Courtesy of The Pluralism Project at Harvard University)

The following quotations were collected as a resource to help define some of the terms that are commonly used to describe non-religious peoples, organizations, and movements. The terms include: agnosticism, atheism, brights, freethinkers, humanism, naturalism, rationalism, skepticism, and universism.

Agnosticism:

“Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God is impossible. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism. Understood this way, agnosticism is skepticism regarding all things theological. The agnostic holds that human knowledge is limited to the natural world, that the mind is incapable of knowledge of the supernatural. Understood this way, an agnostic could also be a theist or an atheist. The former is called a fideist, one who believes in God purely on faith. The latter is sometimes accused by theists of having faith in the non-existence of God, but the accusation is absurd and the expression meaningless. The agnostic atheist simply finds no compelling reason to believe in God.” – Skeptic’s Dictionary

“Agnosticism may simply be the state of not knowing whether any gods exist or not, but people can take this position for different reasons and apply it in different ways. These differences then create variations in the ways in which one can be an agnostic. It is thus possible to separate agnostics in two groups, labeled strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism as analogs to strong atheism and weak atheism. If someone is a weak agnostic, they state only that they do not know if any gods exist or not. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if some god exists or not is also not excluded. This is a very simple and general position and it is what people often think of when they think of agnosticism. Strong agnosticism goes just a bit further. If someone is a strong agnostic, they don’t merely claim that they don’t know if any gods exist; instead, they also claim that no one can or does know if any gods exist. Whereas weak agnosticism is a position that only describes the state of knowledge of one person, strong agnosticism makes a statement about knowledge and reality themselves.” – Austin Cline, About.com

Atheism:

“The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived from a, meaning “without,” and theos, meaning “deity”.” – The Atheist Empire

“An Atheist has no religious belief. An Atheist does not believe in a god or gods, or other supernatural entities…We are not a “religion.” The concept of an agency outside of nature with the ability to reach into natural law and control events is supernaturalism, the foundation of any religion. Belief in the existence of that agency is based on faith. An Atheist has no specific belief system. We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable. Since god concepts are unverifiable, we do not accept them. ” – American Atheists

“Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods. Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods – no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it – that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.” – Atheism.com

Brights:

“The defining attribute of the person (a Bright)…is this: possessing a worldview that is naturalistic…”Brights” include the many and various types of persons whose perspective, values, ethics, and conduct derive from a naturalistic worldview, free of any supernatural sorts of entities or forces. While they differ in the particulars of their outlook, they have this commonality…The simple noun term, “bright” has the potential to gather under the same umbrella all persons who hold a naturalistic worldview, whether or not they see themselves part of any of the various organizations in the communities of reason.” – The Brights’ Net

Freethinkers:

“free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief.

Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists. No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.” – Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.

“The concept of freethought refers to the process of making decisions and arriving at beliefs without relying solely upon tradition, dogma, or the opinions of authorities. Usually the context of this is only in religion, although a person can be a freethinker in other areas as well. In place of tradition or dogma, freethinkers insist upon using reason, logic, and evidence as the bases for forming reasonable and justified beliefs. Superstition is rejected in favor of science. Most freethinkers are also atheists, although that is not required. It is possible to be an atheist without also being a freethinker, or to be a freethinker without also being an atheist.” – Austin Cline, Glossary of Religion & Philosophy at About.com

Humanism:

“As Kurt Vonnegut succinctly described: being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead. Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.” – American Humanist Association

“Humanism is a philosophy of life inspired by humanity and guided by reason. Humanists think that science and reason provide the best basis for understanding the world around us. Humanists believe that moral values are properly founded on human empathy and scientific understanding. Humanists see no convincing evidence for gods, the supernatural, or life after death. Humanists believe we must live this life on the basis that it is the only life we’ll have — that, therefore, we must make the most of it for ourselves, each other, and our world. Humanist philosophies have arisen separately in many different cultures over many thousands of years. Today, even though most have never assigned a label to their most cherished ideas about life, knowledge, ethics, purpose, and the universe, a significant portion of society shares this non-religious approach to life. Whether or not they use the term humanism, tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of people around the world agree with the humanist philosophy of living a happy and productive life based on reason and compassion.” – Institute for Humanist Studies

“Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.” – Council for Secular Humanism

Naturalism:

“Naturalism is a metaphysical theory which holds that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes and laws. Naturalism posits that the universe is a vast machine or organism, devoid of general purpose and indifferent to human needs and desires…naturalism neither denies nor affirms the existence of God, either as transcendent or immanent. However, naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation. Reference to moral or divine purposes has no place in scientific explanations. On the other hand, the scope of science is limited to explanation of empirical phenomena without reference to forces, powers, influences, etc., which are supernatural.” – The Skeptic’s Dictionary

“The hypothesis that the physical universe is a ‘closed system’ in the sense that nothing is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it. So naturalism entails the nonexistence of all supernatural beings, including the theistic god.” – Paul Draper, as posted on The Secular Web

“Naturalistic – not only do we hold that evidence for the supernatural has not been convincingly demonstrated, but that belief in the supernatural has lead to a great deal of misery for humanity and needs to be rejected and replaced with critical inquiry, accountability, and science.” – Secular Student Alliance

Rationalism:

“Rationalism: The mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a system of philosophy and ethics verifiable by experience, independent of all arbitrary assumptions or authority.” – American Rationalist

The doctrine of rationalism holds that the source of knowledge is reason and logic. This is usually contrasted with the idea that faith, revelation and religion are also valid sources of knowledge and verification. – Austin Cline, Glossary of Religion & Philosophy at About.com

Skepticism:

“Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this is not a practical position to take. Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are false. Other claims, such as hypnosis and chaos theory, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.” – Michael Shermer, as posted by the Skeptic Society

“Philosophical Skepticism is a critical attitude which systematically questions the notion that absolute knowledge and certainty are possible, either in general or in particular fields. Philosophical Skepticism is opposed to philosophical dogmatism, which maintains that a certain set of positive statements are authoritative, absolutely certain and true. Philosophical Skepticism should be distinguished from ordinary skepticism, where doubts are raised against certain beliefs or types of beliefs because the evidence for the particular belief or type of belief is weak or lacking. Ordinary skeptics are not credulous or gullible. They don’t take things on trust, but must see the evidence before believing. Ordinary skeptics doubt the miraculous claims of religions, the claims of alien abductions, the claims of psychoanalysis, etc. But they do not necessarily doubt that certainty or knowledge is possible. Nor do they doubt these things because of systematic arguments that undermine all knowledge claims.” – Skeptic’s Dictionary

Universism:

“Universism is the world’s first rational religion…We celebrate faith in reason, inspiration in nature, and hope in progress…A Universist is an individual who applies personal reason and experience to the fundamental questions of human existence, derives inspiration from the natural uncertainty of the human state, and denies the validity of revelation, faith and dogma.” – United Universists

All contents copyright © 1997–2009
President and Fellows of Harvard College and Diana Eck. All rights reserved.

Image courtesy of http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/