Religion fails to provide believers with sound epistemological tools

Wow. That original correspondent from the email I dissected in Wednesday's post, whose name I now know but will not reveal out of courtesy, has replied. She's written a very lengthy, sincere, eloquent, and almost entirely misguided letter in which she basically confirms an opinion I've held for a long time (and one which I share with blogger Dawson Bethrick): The reason religious people so readily accept the silliest beliefs, and defend them so earnestly even when they are shown to have no sound basis in fact for holding their beliefs, is that religion in general and Christianity in particular fail to provide believers with the right epistemological tools for distinguishing fact from fantasy. This is all over this correspondent's latest letter, to which I'm replying in parts due to its length. Here's the first bit. Hopefully you'll find some of this an interesting insight into the believer's mind, and my replies to be worthwhile explanations as to how and why they get so much so wrong.

---

She begins:

Thank you for writing. Do you mind if we continue? I'm going to assume you are okay with that. I really do enjoy a good debate. It does not threaten my faith at all. I have walked this road already. I have demanded God tell me, show me and some things He has and sometimes He has said, No, just like any good father who really knows what his child needs.

I would not continue this debate if you were not a man of reason, but you are, and so...

1. "Whether this god that believers wants us to believe in is wise, creative, loving, vengeful, long suffering, or however (and one thing we always see is that believers define God in a way that makes God most appealing to them personally, which is why your God is kind and long suffering and the God of, say, Donald Wildmon is a total homophobe and the God of white supremacists is a racist), none of God's supposed character traits matters. Describing a being for which we have no credible evidence in appealing ways is not in and of itself evidence. It doesn't make the being more worthy of belief just because it's a really really nice being.

There is only one true God and so just like your belief that there is no God discredits the one true God so does anyone else's false beliefs, such as the man-made God of the white supremacists or Donald Wildmon's (don't know who he is) homophobe god. These false gods do not cause the one true God not to exist they simple muddy the waters. Let's say an car accident happens. There are five witnesses. Each gives a different testimony because of their vantage point at the time of the accident, maybe because of their selfish desire to gain from the accident, etc. Did the accident still happen or do we say the accident didn't happen because all five testimonies are different?

This is what is known in military terms as a "target rich environment."

My replies:

It's going to take a while to respond to your latest email, since it's lengthy and will require a lot of detail. It's nice of you to write, and I enjoy these debates too. What I will say, and in the friendliest possible way, is that, like most other believers who contact us or call our show, you seem to confuse and conflate a lot of issues. You seem to think emotion is a cognitive tool, when it isn't. You don't really seem to know how knowledge works; you confuse knowing something with pretending to know something. You also take for granted the existence of your God, which I'd expect you to do, but then you use this as the basis for a number of your arguments (relying on "God of the Gaps" in many instances), which is the wrong way to go about things completely, because you need to realize that before you can base an argument on "God says..." or "God wants...", you have to prove your God's existence first. Arguing with a nonbeliever from the assumption that God exists means you're going to be talking past one another the whole time.

I'll start with the first couple of questions, do the rest in a second email. I'd appreciate it if you'd hold your responses till I answer all your questions, because otherwise I'm put in the very time-consuming position of replying to your next set of replies as well as the rest of the first set.

There is only one true God

See, here you go with your first mistake right out of the gate. You have NOT established this claim as factual. I understand about your faith, and how believing this has given you emotional fulfillment, and all that, and you have taken those personal and subjective feelings as some sort of validation of the truth of your beliefs. Yes, that's how religion works. It bypasses the rational mind, goes straight to the limbic system, and confuses the irrational and the rational in believers' minds. But we need to cut through all that here, and just stick to basic fact finding. As I said in my last email, a fact is a fact regardless of how you feel about it.

So, in order to establish the above as factual, you need to:

A) Define what you mean by God. What kind of being is this? Is it bigger than a breadbox? Does it have metabolic processes? Does it eat and sleep? However you answer those questions, you have to then explain HOW you know, and present me with means by which I can independent verify your answers. (Hint: "Prayer" doesn't count.) This is called testing a claim's falsifiability, and it's a key factor in determining scientific truths. And whether you like it or not, the claim "there is one true God" is one entirely appropriate to examination by the scientific method.

B) Define what you mean by "one true God." Once we establish what a God is in the first place, how do you arrive at the distinction between a true one and a false one? What you don't understand is that you only happen to think the Christian God is "true" because you grew up in a Christian culture. If you had grown up in a Shintoist culture you'd have a very different idea of what "true God" meant, and you'd be just as devout and insistent about that as you are here. I'll go into more detail below.

and so just like your belief that there is no God discredits the one true God so does anyone else's false beliefs, such as the man-made God of the white supremacists or Donald Wildmon's (don't know who he is) homophobe god. These false gods do not cause the one true God not to exist they simple muddy the waters.

Again, what epistemological tools are you employing here to determine that their gods are false and yours is "true"? Shall I give you a hint? You're not employing any. This is a perfect example of what I was trying to explain to you, when I said that emotions do not help you determine facts in any way, nor are they something you "have to" bring to bear when faced with gaps in your knowledge.

Now, you might offer such "evidence" as "God has spoken to me" or "God has answered my prayers." But here's the kicker. All those people you think worship false gods come back at you and say the same thing! Uh oh! Now where are you? Will you continue to insist that their gods are false, and therefore any message these people may have thought they heard from their gods are merely demonic deceptions, or simply those people talking to themselves? Whoops! Here they go again, saying the same thing about you! Dangit!

This is a serious problem you've got here, and I think you need to take time to think it over. From what I'm reading here, and from (many!) similar conversations I've heard from other believers, my conclusion here is that your religion (religion in general, actually) does not provide its followers with the right tools to tell facts from comforting fantasies. You certainly don't seem to have those tools.

I'm not trying to be mean, just honest. In order to get past this problem (and this will be difficult for you), you really need to ask yourself how you would explain to someone like me, for instance, how it is possible to distinguish that your god of choice is the "true" one and their god of choice is the "false" one. And (here's the difficult part) you need to divorce your emotional commitment to your beliefs from the process, because the methods you provide need to be independently verifiable by pretty much anyone, especially people who have a far different emotional history and character than you. So strip away the subjective and concentrate on the purely objective.

Let's say an car accident happens. There are five witnesses. Each gives a different testimony because of their vantage point at the time of the accident, maybe because of their selfish desire to gain from the accident, etc. Did the accident still happen or do we say the accident didn't happen because all five testimonies are different?

You do love your analogies, don't you? :-) Just make sure the one you're employing is an appropriate fit for the argument you're making. This analogy fails on a basic point.

In a traffic accident, there will be physical evidence of the event. Eyewitnesses my be interviewed, but ultimately, their testimonies won't have to be the only things relied upon to determine the facts of the accident.

And this is your big stumbling block: Your religious beliefs have only testimonies and unsupported claims backing them up. Determining whether they are true or false is just about as opposite a process from investigating a traffic accident as you can conceive. Like, 180 degrees the other way.

Her next point:

2. "See, you might as well ask, "Why wouldn't you want to believe in a loving and sweet magical pink flying unicorn who will give you rides to the Candy Mountain?" The same answer applies: What is the sense in embracing such a belief?"

We both know that comparing God to unicorns or fairies is like comparing Christopher Columbus to bugs bunny. There is real credible testimony or proof for magical pink flying unicorns. There is credible testimony and proof for God. Creation is proof and Jesus is testimony, to name just two examples. Yes you have to believe his testimony and the testimony of his followers just like you have to believe the testimony of the witnesses at a trial and Jesus already told us that there will be some who refuse his testimony and the testimony of his followers and Jesus knows there is nothing that will change their opinion in heaven or under the earth. Free will has a way of doing that. Have you ever been a witness to something? Have you ever had your testimony refuted. Did it make your testimony false just because that person wouldn't believe you. Or on the other hand, did your testimony become true just because someone believed it?

Creation offers proof everywhere. From the magic of new life to the decay of the old and how it all works, from the earth's exact position from the sun and it's revolution. Where does all the energy from the sun come from? We know that energy naturally slowly depletes. And if we really need to go back to the beginning to find out how God came into creation then you need to use that same argument for your belief. Where did the first primortal sludge or neutron or gas or whatever you believe was the first thing to start evolving, come from?

Don't you love us here at AE for dealing with this stuff? Here are my replies to #2.

We both know that comparing God to unicorns or fairies is like comparing Christopher Columbus to bugs bunny.

No, it's like comparing Bugs Bunny to Daffy Duck. Christopher Columbus was a real historical figure, for whose life the evidence is sound. There is no good reason to think of God as any less a fictional character than unicorns or Bugs. (Certainly none that you've provided.)

There is real credible testimony or proof for magical pink flying unicorns.

Uh, I'm going to assume you meant "There is NO real credible testimony or proof for magical pink flying unicorns." Otherwise, I'd really start to worry about you.

There is credible testimony and proof for God. Creation is proof and Jesus is testimony, to name just two examples.

Nope, and here's why. We have no verifiable, extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus as depicted in the Gospels. (The passages in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews are widely held to be later insertions.) Personally, I happen to think the character was likely inspired by a real person. But beyond that, we have no way to verify any of the claims concerning Jesus, particularly the supernatural claims, as conveyed in the NT.

Since I know how you'll probably respond to this, let me save you trouble. How can we decide not to trust historical claims about Jesus, and yet accept them about other historical figures, like George Washington or Julius Caesar? The basic answer is we cannot take all those at face value either, and historians know this, which is usually why a number of sources are pooled in order to get to any kind of approximation of truth about historical people and events.

In the case of Washington, we can pool a great number of direct records about his presidency, but then we get to dismiss the popular myths, like chopping down the cherry tree, when we realize they're not supported and are extremely fanciful anyway.

In the case of Jesus, even if we had ironclad evidence of a real person's existence right now, how do we confirm the supernatural claims? (Hint: "The Bible says..." doesn't count.) Walking on water? The virgin birth (borrowed from at least two previously existing religious traditions at the time of Jesus)? The 500 witnesses? We only have Paul's word about them. Why didn't he give us their names, allow them to write their own accounts? The resurrection, which all four Gospels give a radically different account of?

Without any possible way to verify these things independently, we have to bring in our understanding of myths and legends of the time. People routinely created these kinds of stories about prominent figures in those days. Supernatural stories about the gods anointing Roman generals before battle were told, and fervently believed, by Roman legionnaires. All throughout history, certainly long before the development of the scientific method, people have sought to explain what they otherwise cannot through the creation of myths and legends.

Your beliefs are no different.

Yes you have to believe his testimony and the testimony of his followers just like you have to believe the testimony of the witnesses at a trial and Jesus already told us that there will be some who refuse his testimony and the testimony of his followers and Jesus knows there is nothing that will change their opinion in heaven or under the earth.

All of this is hopelessly wrong.

I don't have to believe a thing that isn't supported by credible evidence. There is no requirement for a jury to believe the testimony of witnesses at a trial, because witnesses can lie, just as in the traffic accident analogy you gave above. Eyewitness testimony is, in fact, not held to be reliable on its own in court, and is called "hearsay" for that very reason. (Actually, I made a slight error here — see addendum for details.) It's the physical evidence the prosecutor is going to have to show, if he wants to win his case. You're insisting I have to accept your religious beliefs on hearsay. Sorry, no sale. No more than I would simply rely on hearsay to send a guy to jail for life.

So what if Jesus is supposed to have warned that people would not believe him? This fact alone does not establish the truth of anything. I could say right now, "Yesterday I flapped my arms and flew to Mars, but most people will say I'm crazy and nothing on earth will change their minds." That still wouldn't prove I actually flew to Mars.

I'm trying to explain to you how we know things, and how we differentiate that what what we only think we know, or from what we simply believe or want to be true. I don't if it's sinking in, but I hope I'm being clear all the same.

Free will has a way of doing that. Have you ever been a witness to something? Have you ever had your testimony refuted. Did it make your testimony false just because that person wouldn't believe you. Or on the other hand, did your testimony become true just because someone believed it?

You're kind of confusing your argument here, because it's no longer clear whether you're arguing that testimony alone should be good enough (which is what you started arguing), or if you're suddenly agreeing with me that it isn't, and that evidence also must play a role. I'm going to take a wild guess and continue here on the basis of the former.

If I were in a situation where it was my word against someone else's, I would have to realize that 1) I may be right or I may be wrong, and 2) even if I'm confident I have my facts straight, I will NEED TO PROVIDE STRONG EVIDENCE IF I WISH MY TESTIMONY TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

I hope you're noticing that every example you give comes back to this: eventually it all comes back to evidence. You are trying (very earnestly, I'll give you credit for that!) to construct an argument in support of the position that in the absence of evidence, it's right and proper to fall back on emotions and faith to determine the truth. What you are in fact doing is presenting me with examples that always have me leading you back to evidence, regardless of whatever your emotional investment in the outcome might be.

Since you are fond of analogies, let me give you one relating to your courtroom example: Let's say you're on a jury where a guy is on trial for murder. Let's say the crime scene was compromised and there was no good physical forensic evidence pointing to the accused. But there are several witnesses on the stand, and boy, they're all very sympathetic. They're crying a lot, and they really seem to be decent, upstanding, sincere people. They may even go to church! And they go on and on about how they always knew the accused and the victim really didn't like each other, and had had loud arguments in the past, and so on. And so based on this very sincere and heart wrenching testimony, you vote to convict the guy, even though all the prosecutor had was hearsay. Five years later he's put to death.

A few years after that, it turns out that DNA evidence is recovered from a weapon belonging to another person entirely, and both that person's DNA and the victim's DNA are on the weapon. Furthermore, more physical evidence has arisen that puts the poor chump who just got executed 20 miles away at the time of the killing. It's official. All that emotional testimony, sincere emotional testimony from decent people, was horrifically wrong. And now an innocent man has been executed for it, for which you're partly responsible.

This may seem an extreme example. But situations like it have happened. And I hope, if nothing else, you can see just how wrong you are to insist anyone "has to" trust eyewitnesses in a trial, because without real confirmation, the results can be wrong, and have horrible consequences. Emotion is clearly not the bridge we must use to cross gaps in our knowledge. It can lead us astray in the worst possible ways!

Creation offers proof everywhere. From the magic of new life to the decay of the old and how it all works, from the earth's exact position from the sun and it's revolution. Where does all the energy from the sun come from? We know that energy naturally slowly depletes. And if we really need to go back to the beginning to find out how God came into creation then you need to use that same argument for your belief. Where did the first primortal sludge or neutron or gas or whatever you believe was the first thing to start evolving, come from?

Since I don't have time to run you through a full battery of remedial science courses, I'll simply mention that there are very highly developed fields of scientific endeavor, peopled by well educated professionals with a true sense of awe about the universe and everything in it, who have dedicated their lives to the study of these questions and what evidence might point to.

Do we know everything there is to know about the universe? Not even close. But that is the greatest strength of the scientific method. One must always be open to new ideas and see where the latest evidence takes you. Sadly this is an openness you have closed yourself off to, since you opened this letter with the statement "It does not threaten my faith at all," which is pretty much an admission you aren't willing to accept the possibility you might be wrong. (And the irony of your demanding that I be "open minded" to belief in God while in the same letter boasting of your own closed-mindedness has been noted.) I will say in all confidence that, yes, I and every working scientist alive are a lot more open minded to new evidence and answers than you are, by your own declaration. The thing is, it has to be evidence in the first place.

More replies later, maybe tomorrow. Remember, do me the favor of holding off replying until I get them all in, so that I'm not backtracking and having to keep track of two sets of replies at once.

---

Her email had a whopping 15 numbered points. I probably won't have to time to do each and every one, but I'll continue with the salient ones soon enough.

---

Addendum: Actually, uncorroborated eyewitness evidence presented in court is not quite what's defined legally as "hearsay." That term refers to statements made outside of the court that one side or the other is attempting to present, without the speaker having been under oath when the statement was made.

Emotion is not a cognitive tool

Oh, we get email.

A lot of it is simple enthusiastic "thumbs up!" fan mail from atheists around the globe, who've discovered the show on Google or YouTube. Big hug to you lot. A surprising amount is from atheist wags with a surfeit of spare time, who think it would be fun to Poe us and see if we catch them out (we usually do, but it's still funny). Some are challenges and demands from Christians to be guests on the show, where they promise to clean our clocks with their ironclad arguments for God, usually backing it up with the requisite playground taunts ("...of course, I understand if you're reluctant...") as if trying to make us insecure about our manly manliness were some sort of exploitable chink in our armor or something. These guys we politely invite to call any time they please: 4:30 - 6:00 PM CST Sundays, just make sure you dial in within the show's first 15 minutes to be assured a place in the queue...

I'll be dealing with one of those writers soon. But here's a nice theist email we got just tonight, that I responded to as an exercise in pointing out just where the rationality of atheism and the irrationality of theism clash most profoundly. It's the old "appeal to other ways of knowing," a falling back on emotion over reason that is an all too common refrain in Christian misology. With only minor edits, here's the letter with my replies included.

The writer, who doesn't identify him/herself, begins...

I have been listening to your show on the internet. It is very interesting. I cringe when people get so upset at you. I like how you can put them on mute so they will listen because you often make very good points.

Without getting to much into everything, can I ask you Why? Why would you not want to believe in a God who is wise, creative, and loving? I know most people don't see him that way. They see him as the Old Testament God who zaps people when they disobey, but if you really study the Bible this is not true. He is long suffering.

Whether this god that believers wants us to believe in is wise, creative, loving, vengeful, long suffering, or a Miley Cyrus fan (and one thing we always see is that believers define God in a way that makes God most appealing to them personally, which is why this person's God is kind and long suffering and the God of, say, Donald Wildmon is a total homophobe and the God of white supremacists is a racist), none of God's supposed character traits matters. Describing a being for which we have no credible evidence in appealing ways is not in and of itself evidence. Reassurances that a being is a really really nice being does not validate belief in its existence.

See, you might as well ask, "Why wouldn't you want to believe in a loving and sweet magical pink flying unicorn who will give you rides to the Candy Mountain?" The same answer applies: What is the sense in embracing such a belief?

In the next paragraph, our writer offers emotional reasons, predictably enough...

I understand the desire to want proof that you can touch, feel, taste, multiple, divide, equate. However, you can not understand the unknown Creator solely on science because He is more than science. He is personal and emotional. Just as we are capable of reason, we are also capable of emotion. So you can not figure out God only using reason and discount your emotions.

Copy...Edit...Paste...

"However, you can not understand the Magic Pink Unicorn solely on science because He is more than science. He is personal and emotional. Just as we are capable of reason, we are also capable of emotion. So you can not figure out the Magic Pink Unicorn only using reason and discount your emotions."

Do you begin to see what's wrong with this argument?

There are several things a believer needs to consider, if he really wants to hold onto an argument like this when trying to persuade unbelievers.

First, why should God hide himself behind some kind of reason-dampening cloaking device? The simple question "Does God exist?" is epistemologically no different than "Do unicorns exist?" It is a question that simply pertains to whether or not something — in this case, a deity's very existence — is a factual proposition. There is a reason people consider evidence and reason valid tools for distinguishing true claims from false claims: these tools work. And if God gave us our reason in the first place, then why — to quote Ben Franklin (I think it was Franklin) — would he want us to forego its use?

If you are relying on your emotions rather than your reason in making decisions about what is true or false, how do you determine the difference? How precisely do emotions help to establish facts? Our writer doesn't explain how, choosing simply to insist that emotions must take precedence over reason in deciding to believe in God. I happen to agree with that. It's just that I recongnize that exercise as an indicator of the pure irrationality of religious belief, whereas believers seem to see it as something positive.

But here's the thing. Say that our humble correspondent encounters someone from another religion, who believes in a different God. And let's say this non-Christian theist gives exactly the same argument for his God. "Just rely on your personal emotional feelings, and you'll realize my god is the true god!" Does our Christian think he's right or wrong? If wrong, how does he propose to demonstrate that? After all, the non-Christian theist has the exact same emotion-based rationale for his beliefs as the Christian has! Will he now propose that his emotions are somehow "truer" and more reliable than the non-Christian theist's, because his led him to Christianity's God and the other guy's didn't?

In such a circumstance, face it. Christian's got problems. He's got no viable means to show his God-belief is any more valid than the other guy's, because they're both bypassing reason and the need for evidence in order to trust their emotions.

Simple fact that many theists have a hard time with: REALITY IS NOT THERE TO SATISFY YOUR EMOTIONAL DESIRES. Everyone has emotional insecurities to deal with in life. But it's the smart person who recognizes that dealing with those in a rational manner is part of the lifelong process of growth. There's no growth in covering up your emotional weaknesses and neediness under a security blanket of beliefs.

A second point to consider, and this one involves studying the Bible more closely:

When you say we cannot rely on evidence or our reason and senses to know your God exists, remember the story of Saul's experience on the road to Damascus. The Bible is full of stories in which God is revealing himself directly and unambiguously to his followers: disembodied hands writing on walls, etc. But in Saul's conversion story, God reveals himself in the most direct possible way to a man who was not merely an unbeliever but an active persecutor of Christians. Hell, God forced himself upon Saul. So why, suddenly, when regular folks like us ask for evidence of God's existence, he's this being that we just can't know through our reason, but have to rely on our emotions, etc.? Fer pete's sake, if direct physical revelation was good enough for Saul, why not us?

Can I ask you, if you were born but never saw your father because you were stolen at birth and raised by a group of women, would you still not have a father even though you know nothing about him, have never seen, touch or heard him. You could chose to tell yourself that you have no father, because of the evidence, but you would be missing out on a loving father who longed to see you, talk to you, be with you.

Sorry, but that's a lovely exercise in Analogy Fail. For one thing, unless this group of women kept me locked in a closet all my life, they'd have a hard time keeping me from finding out that, from a standpoint of plain old biology, babies are made when a man and woman have do the nast-ay. So it would stand to reason I had a biological father out there, about whom I'd likely become curious. I'd have to find out the full circumstances of my life at that point: was I kidnapped or given away? Did my biological father really love me, and if so, has he been looking for me or not? And you know what I'd have to employ in order to learn these facts about my life? That's right, my reason. I'd have to dig up the evidence of my past. My emotions might play a part in determining how dedicated and involved I got in the search, but they alone would not be the tool that ultimately revealed the facts to me.

We could get into the whole debate about the laws of science and how do they come into existence without intelligent design but I will never prove and you will never disprove God absolutely.

Yes, well, that would be another short discussion, as it would be quickly pointed out that fundamental physical laws would have to exist in the first place in order for an intelligent designer of any kind to exist. But no matter. Just remember, it's not our job to "disprove God absolutely". All that it's necessary for us to do is give sound reasons for our skepticism. The burden of proof for any claim, whether it's a God or a flying pink unicorn, always rests upon the person claiming the existence of the thing in question. And since our writer confesses he cannot provide that proof, allow me to say in a friendly way that 1) it's not like I didn't see that coming and 2) his admission constitutes a sound reason for me to remain a skeptic.

I'm okay with it if this fellow's/lady's religious beliefs provide emotional comfort, though I can assure you that, if one day, realization comes that such "security blanket" beliefs do not in fact contribute to personal growth and that real emotional contentment lies in accepting one's reality, for better and worse, and learning to make your life today the best it can be, it will be a great day for him. That's just my view, but I think I've got good evidence for it.

Our writer wraps up on a pious note.

God tells us that He will prove this one day. Every knee will bow He says. But for now He tells us to love one another. And so I end this with love and wish you blessings and peace in whatever you choose to believe. Just don't sell yourself short, you are a child of God, created in His image. You are beautiful and perfectly loved by God and not so perfectly by some of His creation.

That's sweet and all, but frankly, if God exists, and he's a big boy, he can tell me that himself.

Ray Comfort odds and ends

There seems to be a lot of Ray Comfort related stuff on my radar lately, so I'll dump it all in one post.

• Sam, a grad student in New Zealand, debated Ray for $100.  Considering all the sneaky tricks regarding format, and Sam's status as a novice speaker, I would have asked for a lot more.  But according to people I've heard from, Sam made a surprisingly good showing, and Ray turned out to be incredibly bad at it.  You can judge for yourself by reading Sam's post, and there are even audio files attached.
• Everything Else Atheist mocks a recent blog post by Ray for his very, very bad understanding of sex and relationships.
• Guy P. Harrison, author of 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God, made us an interesting offer.  He wanted to see a good takedown of Ray Comfort's new book, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think: Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics.  But he didn't want to read it himself, so he sent it to us instead.  I've read it, and now Matt's reading it.  At some point in the near future, the plan is to either appear together on Atheist Experience or do a Very Special Episode of Non-Prophets that will give this, ah, very enlightening book the attention it deserves.

Science fiction story

I'm sure this is not terribly original, but here's my story.

One day, spaceships appear in the sky.  Appearing on every television screen, radio, and pool of water, the ships broadcast the following message to everyone:

"Greetings, citizens of Earth! We are a race of life forms so vastly superior to you that our ways cannot be understood by your puny human brains. We also possess knowledge of morality that is advanced far beyond your own understanding and cannot be refuted by any of your Earth philosophers.

"According to our high moral standards, which we cannot explain to you, you all deserve to die the most painful deaths imaginable.  We shall now execute this sentence. Your insides will be melted, and your eyes will explode in their sockets. Your children and spousal units will be vaporized before your eyes. Your planet will then be incinerated.

"However, our laws also require mercy, and therefore you will have one chance to save your own miserable lives. If you become our slaves and do as we say from now on, you will be transported to another planet and allowed to survive. However, your unrepentant family members will still remain behind and be destroyed."

I don't know about you, but I've seen this movie many times. It involves the entire human race justifiably uniting to fight off the alien menace. Depending on what kind of movie it is, either we're victorious or everybody dies for nothing.

Now the question I have is: How is this scenario any less outrageous if you rename the alien beings "God"?

Can the SBOE be abused enough? No

Another brutal editorial excoriating the Texas State Board of Miseducation appears in today's Statesman. Now that they've voted to undermine evolution, the next target of the theocratic ideologues is climate change. And this is take to task by Jim Marston of Texas' Environmental Defense Fund. Again, he exposes that the board's seemingly reasonable "teach the controversy" position is really designed solely to allow politically motivated and ideological objections to science to be introduced into curricula as if those objections were equally scientifically sound simply by virtue of being voiced.

On its face, the board's requirement that Texas science textbooks "analyze and evaluate different views on the existence of global warming" seems reasonable. It's not. Just because you can find a handful of "experts" who disagree with thousands of climate scientists doesn't mean our children should be taught that the science is still up in the air....

But besides tainting the reputation of our children's science education in the eyes of the world, the board's mandate has other ramifications: It suggests to our children that their economic and lifestyle choices might have no effect on global warming, thus eroding many parents' efforts to instill in their children the ethic that they must be responsible for their own actions.

Hasn't Marston been paying attention to fundie rhetoric? We don't need to protect the environment, or be responsible stewards of the Earth at all. Jeebis is coming! (Or at least, that's what they keep saying. It looks like the right's getting a little worried about that, actually.)

Kirk Cameron to Host Atheist Experience

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

In a press conference today, Matt Dillahunty, host of The Atheist Experience, announced that he would retire and hand over the reigns to film actor, long-time atheist, and master comedian Kirk Cameron.

The 38 year old Cameron is a former child actor who starred in the hit comedy series Growing Pains, before going on to perform in popular Christian apologetics movies including Left Behind and Fireproof. "I'm thrilled and honored to be joining the cast of the prestigious Atheist Experience," Cameron told reporters today. "This apologetics thing has been a great joke to pull, but I think it's time for me to move on to a new challenge worthy of my stagecraft."

Cameron staged a fake conversion to Christianity in 1987, at the height of popularity for Growing Pains. He went on to deliberately alienate many of his friends and coworkers by loudly complaining about the "immorality" and "pornography" on the family sitcom.

"I'm a lifelong fan of Andy Kaufman," explained Cameron. "Even after a few years had passed, the world was still abuzz with stories about Andy's death.  The guy had terminal cancer, and still everyone believed that he faked it. I mean, his practical jokes were legendary -- the myth has long outlived the man. Once I grew out of my 'cute kid' stage, I knew that my acting career was in danger of stalling out. That's when I decided that the best way to jump start it would be to take on the role of a lifetime. I had to convince the world that my whole personality had changed."

Cameron went on to ingratiate himself with unsuspecting Christian filmmakers, conniving his way into several promising film projects and ultimately ruining them. "This was my gift to atheism," said Cameron. "I'm just relieved that I can finally say what I really think on The Atheist Experience, and stop playing a double role."

Some of Cameron's dupes took news of the prank in good humor. "Now there's an actor," gushed Left Behind director Vic Sarin. "Everybody else seemed to recognize that the script we were working with was complete crap. But Kirk approached the project with such apparently sincere excitement that we kind of felt bad... we were all just collecting a paycheck. Now I understand that his awful hack performance was all part of a grand meta-theater project of his own devising. What an artist!"

Not everyone took the news kindly, however. New Zealand evangelist Ray Comfort, 59, was shocked by Cameron's revelation. "I'm simply stunned by this turn of events," Comfort told reporters despondently outside his home in Bellflower, California. "My goodness gracious, I've known the bloke since 2001. The crocoduck was his idea when we debated the Rational Response Squad. We bloody well worked on every episode of Way of the Master together. To receive news like this out of nowhere? I mean... crikey."

When told of Comfort's distress, Cameron was nonchalant. "Yeah, you kind of have to feel sorry for the guy... but come on, fooling Ray was not exactly the feat of the century. I mean, he fell for Christianity."

Cameron then added: "God damn it, where's the nearest bar? I haven't been laid properly in 22 years. I can't believe I passed up on that Julie McCullough chick for the sake of a joke. Now she was one fine piece of ass.

"What can I say? I'm dedicated to my craft."

Well, it's nice to know she's not nuts or anything

By now this story, about some pathetic cult member who has pled guilty to the starvation death of her infant son provided the charges are dropped once he comes back to life (a condition I imagine the DA's office gleefully agreed to), has made the rounds. It would be easily to laugh at this kind of arch-stupid irrationality if it weren't for the fact it claims the lives of innocent victims. Here's a poor little kid who died because the adult charged with his care was a deluded idiot, in the thrall of similar deluded idiots. The cult she belonged to was something called "One Mind Ministries". Replace "One" with "No" and you're a little closer to the mark.

It's also tempting to comfort yourself with the reassurance that, at least, this is the sort of thing that takes place in lunatic fringe cults, and fortunately mainstream religion, risible as it is, doesn't go around killing and hurting its kids as much. This is the point where it's helpful to be reminded of the tens of thousands of kids sexually molested by benign, trusted, avuncular Catholic priests, and the numerous cases of parents, not belonging to some wacko church obviously on the farthest of far-out fringes, arrested and charged with killing their kids by refusing to take them to doctors for easily treatable illnesses, preferring "faith" healing and prayer instead.

Unreason kills. Period. That one form of unreason happens to gain mainstream acceptance over others makes it no less an example of unreason, and no less dangerous. It's time to deprogram, not just extremist nutjobs like Ria Ramkissoon, but the whole frackin' human race from this insidious thing called religious faith.

BIRTH CONTROL IS SINFUL!!!!

We had a caller on the March 22nd show who was hearing impaired and we attempted to interact with him via a TTY service. Unfortunately, we didn't get very far with the caller as the interaction was so painful, but he did get out a rather strange phrase having to do with abortion. Matt and I didn't get gist of the call, so we moved on.

Some of our sharper fans figured out what the caller was trying to say. He was quoting a rather amusing book title, "BIRTH CONTROL IS SINFUL IN THE CHRISTIAN MARRIAGES and also ROBBING GOD OF PRIESTHOOD CHILDREN!!". It's being sold on Amazon and it's worth checking out if you'd like a chuckle. Especially check out the description (mostly capital letters), reviews of the book, and its price. If it weren't so expensive, it might make a nice book for a devout family member.

So, thanks to our caller. The message finally got through.

Recent headline roundup

I've been away from the blog several days, but the slack has been more than capably taken up by the rest of the team. Thought I'd pop by with a quick post today with my observations on some recent events in the news and around the globe.

---

A: Nothing fails like prayer.

Just in is this report about the imprisonment of a Tunisian charter pilot in Italy. It seems that, instead of taking the proper emergency measures when his plane started going down, he chose to pray instead. Result: 16 dead. Now, Christians might gloat that this fellow was Muslim, and therefore this proves that Allah (who is just the Abrahamic God in a different outfit, but hey...) is a false God. And they would, of course, be ignoring all the times that their own prayers fail. But there's an easy way to test this. The next time a Christian finds himself in an out-of-control aircraft plummeting towards a fiery doom, then he should simply pray. We'll see how well he gets out of it.

B: He must be really counting on that "forgiveness" thing!

And here's a hilarious piece about Baptist minister Henry L. Lyons, who is running for the presidency of a prominent organization of African-American Baptist churches. What's the big deal? Well, only that ten years ago, he held that very position, only to be forced out of it when it was revealed he'd been embezzling millions from the org in order to support his luxury lifestyle, which included more than one mistress. Ah, that superior Christian morality! Can you get enough of it?

Anyway, it all went sour for Lyons when his wife twigged to his extramarital dalliances and burned down one of the homes he shared with a mistress. Go girl! Lyons was later convicted of racketeering and fraud and did some time. And now, he's not only a pastor once again, he running for the same office he stole from! The man must need a wheelbarrow to carry around balls that big.

"I prefer building on the present and the future and being as positive as possible and really don't want to go back to that era and talk about those negatives," says Lyons. We'll see if Baptist voters share his forward-looking positivity.

C: Reeeding iz hawrd!

In Dallas last weekend, an ambitious Christian Book Expo was held, with the goal of connecting "publishers and authors directly with readers in the evangelical Christian market." I expect they overestimated the actual existence of readers in said market, because the expo was a dismal flop, drawing only 1,500 attendees. The hoped-for numbers were in the 15-20,000 range.

Well, is this such a surprise? After all, how many different updated Bible translations does one need? After all, the damn thing's been translated into everything from hip-hop slang to LOLcat, so where else can you go after that? Klingon? And since everyone there has probably already slogged their way through the Left Behind saga, what's the big draw? Oh well. Maybe they just weren't promoting Ray Comfort's new book enough?

D: Uh-oh! Is atheism vanquished?

It looks as if we have ironclad proof of God's existence after all! I mean, I don't what else you could possibly call this!

---

And a quick PS: Only 16 more T-shirt orders needed to get the second print run going. Thanks to all!

When Does Ignorance Become an "Answer"?

As you likely know, Texas recently has become the new Kansas as unabashed YEC and school board member Don McElroy pushes for new education standards in Texas science classrooms. The Austin American-Statesman editorial section has become a really interesting read for any interested atheist. An idea was expressed this morning in the letters to the editor by one citizen, and I wanted to add some input. Unfortunately, my response would be longer than the letters section would allow, so, I am adding my input here:

Claim 1: Each spring supernatural garden fairies make my garden grow using magical techniques that are a mystery to my limited human mind. I know this is true, because I have seen my garden grow each spring. And I can demonstrate to others that my garden grows each spring; so, my garden fairy belief is not based on ignorant faith, because I have demonstrable evidence to support it.

Claim 2: In the beginning, a supernatural being made the whole universe exist using magical techniques that are a mystery to limited human minds. A letter-writer knows this is true, I am guessing, because he/she can see the universe exists. And he/she can demonstrate to others that the universe exists; so, his/her god belief is not based on ignorant faith, since he/she has evidence to support it.

In a letter to the editor in this morning’s Austin American-Statesman, Pat H. noted that science has no answers, but “God does.”

The difference between my fairy claim and Pat’s god claim is that more people believe Pat’s claim, and Pat’s claim (assuming Pat is basing this claim on the Bible—and statically speaking, here in Austin—there are pretty good odds of that) comes with a few thousand pages of pretty much irrelevant window dressing to distract adherents from the fact that the claim is nothing more than a promotion of willful human ignorance.

I'm thinking Pat would likely reject my fairy claim.

So, my question is this: How many distracting details and adherents do I need to add to my fairy story before it stops being a promotion of willful human ignorance and becomes an “answer”?

Shameless self-promotion

The exceptionally intelligent and discerning students that comprise the Penn State Non-Theists have, as a demonstration of their great wisdom, arranged to fly me to their fine University to address an audience of however-many-show-up.

They've setup a Facebook page for the event and I've decided that I'd rather not speak to an empty room when there are hundreds of seats that we could fill with people of varying beliefs. So, if you're in the area, or can be in the area, you're invited as well. If you want to invite some theist friends, feel free.

When: Tuesday, March 31st, 6:30pm-9:00pm.
Where: 101 Chambers, State College, PA

Not coincidentally, March 31st will be my 40th birthday. On the list of 'Great Ways To Spend My 40th Birthday'...this was very near the top. It'll be much better, though, if we fill the room and I get to spend nearly the entire time answering questions and having interesting discussions.

Since mentioning this on my Facebook page, the two questions I've been asked most often are:

1. Will this be recorded?
2. When will you come to [insert city/university here]?

The answer to #1 is: I don't know, but I hope so.
The answer to #2 is: As soon as someone makes the arrangements.

I'll speak pretty much anywhere I'm invited, as long as there's no out-of-pocket expense to me and as long as we can work it around my schedule (I actually have a real job with limited vacation). Several other university groups have asked and I haven't turned anyone down...but so far, only Penn State has managed to follow through.

You're not really going to let your group be shown up by Penn State, are you? Is Penn State really the best university in the world? Are universities in the United States really superior to universities in Tahiti, Greece, Australia, Great Britain and Japan?(I've got a passport and I'm not afraid to use it!) Has Penn State managed to out-do the Atheist Longhorns at UT Austin? It seems they might have...

In all seriousness, if you're able to come to the event, we'd love to have you there. The bigger the turnout, the less actual 'lecture' work I'll be doing in order to accommodate as many questions as possible. I'm much better 'under the gun' (just don't bring a real gun), so let's put me to the test.

It's one week from today. Start planning.

Survey research project

Reader Robert Eldredge sent me a request, and I've decided to post it here on the blog since I didn't get around to mentioning it on the Non-Prophets this weekend:

I am in a research methods class for my graduate school program. Listening to several years of the atheist experience and non-prophets spawned my interest in my research topic: How does the threat or presence of hell effect the relationships and lives between religious and nonreligious people. Because we have no funding I will not actually be doing a full on research study, but merely, an in depth proposal. However, because little to no research has been done on my specific topic (that I have been able to find anyway) I will be doing a little pilot study, one directed at religious people, and one directed at atheists. It would be extremely helpful if you could mention this survey on the air, and/or put it up on the atheist experience blog. While all atheists who want are encouraged to answer, I am specifically looking for those that have religious family members or loved ones. I will be asking about their experiences coming out to those people, or, if they have not, why not. As this is a pilot study and I have nothing to offer the participants but my gratitude, I have worked real hard to keep the survey as short as I possibly can, and I think most will be able to complete it in about 10 to 20 minutes. I will be posting the results of the survey sometime in May at my blog importantandsmart.blogspot.com, or people who are interested can go to a website I set up specifically to publish results of the survey: religionpilotstudy.blogspot.com (I did this so I could direct fundie Christians to a website without the rantings of a liberal atheist). The survey is currently open, but will close Saturday April 4th at 11:45pm eastern time. This should give me about 3 weeks to study the results and put together my proposal to be graded for class.

My end goal is that hopefully more research (hopefully it will be me doing the research!) will be done on this topic. People have differences of opinion on religion, but hopefully, if we understand the emotions and attitudes that go along with the differing opinions, how people react when such things come up, and the reasons for conflict, strategies can be developed in dealing with these situations so that these issues need not tear loving families apart, and suffering over these issues can be minimized.

Go help out with the survey if you feel like it.

Don McLeroy's idea of a real science book

The intrepid crew at the Texas Freedom Network inform us that the reliably moronic Don McLeroy, the creationist dentist who's devoting his career to painting a bullseye on the educations of millions of Texas students, has found a worthy book on the subject of evolution. What might it be, you ask? The Ancestor's Tale? Why Evolution Is True? Or Ken Miller's perennially assigned Biology textbook?

Uh...no. How about: a book-length histrionic rant self-published by a frothing anti-evolution crank named Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.

Johnson is a wackaloon's wackaloon, a West Point graduate whose pet projects have included tortured reinterpretations of Greek mythology in an effort to show they're simply variants of the Adam & Eve story. Yes, it's bizarre to try to prove your myths have some veracity by referencing other myths; seriously, the guy's position is that Athena is really Eve, therefore, the Bible is true! But that's how nutcases like Johnson think. And nutcases like Johnson think the same way monkeys drive trucks.

Johnson's "thinking" on evolution, which impressed that cretin McLeroy enough for him to refer to the book as "unique," "insightful" and "important," includes such gems as the following.

Creationists do not want to bring religion into the classroom… Creationists simply want the God hypothesis brought back into the science classroom, and recognized for what it is—a scientifically valid hypothesis.

What are they doing coming into all of our elementary schools, all of our junior highs, and all of our high schools with a disguised demand that our children embrace their evoatheism? What are they doing teaching our children that they are descended from worms and reptiles? What are they doing imposing their atheistic religious faith on our children when we’re not around? What are they doing sowing atheism in our schools?

The obvious problem here is that it is simply not possible to be a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, and at the same time, embrace the tenets of atheistic evolution.

What kind of monster parents teach their children that they’re descended from rodents and reptiles?

Come on in, everybody, especially you kids, and join the great evolutionary festivities! Learning about your descent by chance from worms and reptiles will strengthen your faith in “a creator,” with a small “c,” whoever he is.

So you see the kind of "science" textbook McLeroy thinks "deserves a hearing": a bombastic, hysterical, spittle-flecked tirade by a throughly scientifically illiterate moron, who, like Ben Stein, bases his whole overwrought screed on selling the idea of "Big Science" as some monolithic entity with stormtrooper-like enforcers (the first chapter literally opens with an absurd men-in-black scenario) out to quash dissent.

The egregiousness of all this cannot be condemned forcefully enough, and I encourage everyone far and wide to shine as much light on McLeroy and his pet cockroach Johnson as possible. Bring the absurdity and emotionalism of the creationist anti-science crowd right out into the open, and correct their angry lies with calm, sober scientific facts (which, contrary to Johnson's ravings, do exist to support evolutionary biology in its totality). Let ridicule and derision drive them back into the obscure darkness of their own superstitious fears, where they belong.

You can't legislate reality away

While the creotards continue to try to push one anti-science, anti-evolution bill after another through their respective state legislatures, under the guise of "academic freedom," the NCSE reports that another one of these has died in committee in Iowa. No one is fooled by their attempts to hide their true agendas — slipping Biblical creationism over the transom into classrooms — but that doesn't seem to stop them. Poor benighted idiots.

Special rights for creationist morons!

Okay, so you may recall how the creationist asstards at the "Institute for Creation Research" (snicker, giggle) couldn't get approval from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for their proposal to offer an online master's degree in science education, right? There is a very obvious and excellent reason for this: they're a bunch of pseudoscience-peddling frauds, motivated not by a desire to expand humanity's scientific understanding of the world but by a desperate and childish need to protect their precious bronze-age fantasies about an invisible magic sky daddy who's going to give them presents if they're good little boys and girls.

Well, this being Texas, home to quite a few childish idiots of that stripe, the ICR has found a friend in idiot representative Leo Berman, who demonstrates his brilliant scientific acumen with such sagacious statements as "Personally, I don't believe in evolution. I don't believe I came from a salamander that came out of a pond." Berman has — you'll love this — proposed legislation to exempt the ICR from the Coordinating Board's requirements, effectively granting them privileges no other educational body has.

What a great life you have when you're a Christian. Rules don't apply to you! And if the facts don't back up your ideologies, why, just legislate your need to provide those facts away!

But hey, the Texan anti-science onslaught doesn't end there. The aptly named Wayne Christian has proposed the sweeping HB 4224, which, in the words of the TFN, "would open the door to teaching public school students almost any cockamamie concept that any crackpot wants to portray as 'science,' regardless of what mainstream scientists and school administrators have to say about it." This is just another one of those weaselly-worded bogus "academic freedom" bills, which declares that "no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because he or she subscribes to a particular position on scientific theories or hypotheses..." In other words, if Little Johnny Inbred wants to answer a question on a science test to the effect that covalent bonds are the result of angels holding hands, his teacher couldn't "penalize" him by marking the answer wrong.

I often ask myself, is there no depth of sleaze and dishonesty to which creationist fools won't stoop? And the answer is always no. Remember, they do what they do not because knowledge captivates them, but because they're afraid for their immortal souls.

But...don't be so quick to console yourself that this behavior is the desperate last-ditch flailing of a movement whose race is run and whose horse broke its leg long ago. This kind of stupidity needs to be slammed harder and harder, each time it comes up. Nothing less than the future of an entire generation of minds, let alone America's scientific and economic standing on the global stage, is at risk. These sad, debased little people can live in the 18th century all they like, if it's what keeps their fears at bay. They just have no business dragging those of us moving forward into the 21st century down into their mire with them.

Oh, we get email

Been too busy to blog this weekend, so I thought, just in the interest of moistening the drought around here a little bit, I'd offer up some amusement from the show's inbox.

yup it's hard to satisfy people that God really does exist.

i just wanna know if you believe in evil spirits??
if there are evil spirits, it somehow will state a fact
that there are more of them which the Bible stated
and it could be a link or can be a connection.

I would just want to know
if you guys have tried this ouja board?
it's been known to contact spirits or something evil,
maybe if you could get contact with a spirit,
it would show you things in a different level.

scientists don't believe spirits do exist,
I wonder if they've ever tried using materials people use
to contact spirits.

I want you people to try it,
conduct an experiment with it,
just to state a fact,
or may just it be a theory?

we believers of God can't try it
since we are against to do so for it is a sin
as it was said on the Bible.

Hope i could get a reply once done,
thanks and peace be with you.

Okay, in fairness, I don't think English is this fellow's first language. Still, what he's asking is deliriously fun, isn't it? He seems to think ouija boards are real and not just a quaint parlor game for drunk people who like giving themselves a little scare. And he thinks the only reason scientists don't believe in evil spirits is because they've never played with a ouija board themselves? That's just...adorable! So now he wants us to play with a ouija board and contact an evil spirit, and then tell him what it says.

Sure, happy to help. Here's what I wrote back.

After consulting my ouija board, here's what my local evil spirit had to say: "Pick up bottle of milk, extra cat litter. Plus TiVO Galactica series finale. Peace out."

Dress godless for teh comfy!

See? Here they are. Sweet, eh? Thing is, you can't have one. All the shirts in that box there? They're all sold. But I am willing to do one more print run. However, I need at least 49 more orders to do so. So flood 'em in, my heathen fashionistas! If you've got one of the RDF scarlet-letter Out Campaign T-shirts in your wardrobe, be assured these are every bit as soft, light and comfy. Rub them against your tender nipple buds. The ecstasy!

A headline to warm your heart

Some of you have probably already seen this CNN article, with the eye-catching headline "America becoming less Christian, survey finds". Even more full of awesome is the lead.

America is a less Christian nation than it was 20 years ago, and Christianity is not losing out to other religions, but primarily to a rejection of religion altogether, a survey published Monday found. [Emphasis added.]

Still, don't start throwing confetti and popping corks yet. We're a long way from being, say, Norway. The US is still the most benighted country in the civilized world in terms of its addiction to supernaturalist twaddle. Perhaps only Turkey and Saudi Arabia are worse, and as for some of the even more radical Islamist nations, well, we could probably argue about the degree to which they're "civilized" in the first place. I'd be dubious about applying the term to Saudi Arabia even, considering they're still entrenched in attitudes and rules that are indistinguishable from pure barbarism.

The sobering flipside to this shift away from religion is that, among those identifying as Christian (still the humiliating majority), they are shifting further away from traditional denominations and churches, and towards the kind of blinkered, butt-ignorant evangelical fundamentalism represented by the likes of Ray Comfort, Brannon Howse, and the Texas SBOE. So the job of the reality-based community to ensure that such things as science and freethought survive into the 21st century has in fact gotten harder.

The article is, on the whole, typically bad of what you see in the MSM, as they interview numbskulls like the odious Bill Donahue and gay-basher Tony Perkins, while failing to interview anyone representing atheists or the religiously indifferent. But it's still nice to see that the growing rejection of religious idiocy in our country is, at least, being noticed. It's the kind of thing the AE blog and TV show are proud to contribute to.

Does the term "atheist evangelism" acknowledge that atheism is a religion?

Dale writes:

Russell,

I am 40 years an atheist and have countless communications with theists. The blogoshere has opened a deversified line of communications with theists. I have just watched your lecture series on You Tube and thoroughly enjoyed them.

I am presently debating a theist that is trying to perpetuate the myth that atheism is a religion. He is now pointing out your lectures and saying, "see, they are "evangelizing." That proves that atheism is a religion.

My observation is that using the term "evangelizing" may not have been the best choice of words. I understand that it is meant to mean "carry the message," but it seems that "evangelize" is strictly used in a religious connotation.

I was wondering if you you have had any other feed back on this and how you might respond to my dilemma.

I know you must be very busy but hope you have a moment to respond.

I will be supporting you and the ACA more in the future and keep up the great work that you are doing!

Best Regards,

Dale

When I titled my lecture "How atheists can be effective evangelists," of course I was intentionally invoking the obvious religious connotation of the word.  I would say this was partly a joke -- I like to use a little bit of clever wordplay in the titles of my posts and lectures whenever any occurs to me, and I picked the image of an atheist evangelist precisely because the words are so jarring together.

I recognize, though, that it's a problem that atheists grapple with already.  Theists frequently dismiss atheism by saying it's "just another religion" -- which is hilariously ironic, since the implied irrelevance of religion makes our point for us.  But let's tackle this question of whether atheism is really a religion.

A while ago I came up with a strategy for dealing with the "Atheism is a religion" charge on the show.  My reply can be summed up in two words: "So what?"

That's a bit glib, sure, but let's look at the accusation.  The problem with the charge is that "Atheism = Religion" is a huge equivocation fallacy.  It relies on the fact that "religion" is poorly defined and has many different meanings.  So when somebody tells you that atheism is a religion, the appropriate follow-up question is "What do you mean by that?"

This puts the ball more squarely in their court, and lets you evaluate the MEANING of the word rather than quibbling over the word itself.  One perfectly acceptable definition of religion is: "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Gosh!  Fighting prejudice is a religion!  I certainly don't have a problem fighting prejudice, I guess I am pro-religion!

On the other hand, another definition is: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."  Atheism is not that.  Duh.

So you see, the active meaning is the important thing.  Not the word.  There are ways that atheists do the same things religious people do.  For instance, I like the way religions form social outlets for people to get together and discuss common interests.  I think atheists should do more of that.  If they did, they'd be more like religions.

So what?

I don't think you should take things on faith.  I don't think you should form major unwavering beliefs on the basis of little evidence, or in spite of contrary evidence.  In that sense, atheism should not emulate religion, and probably never will.

For the purposes of the Supreme Court, secular humanism is a religion.  So what?  Should we revile secular humanism on those grounds?  Or should we say "Yeah, I can see the relevance of the legal definition, and I'm glad that this is used to confer more rights on secular humanists that were already implicit in the legal meaning of religion"?

Next time people tell you that atheists are just as religious as Christians, ask them what they mean by that.  And if they use a definition of religion that is so broad that it really does include your concept of atheism, then just reply, "So what?"

Shirts ship Friday the 13th

A quick note about the AXP T-shirts (see sidebar), which will at last be ready this Friday. If there's one thing cooler than having two months in a row with a Friday the 13th in them, it's that you get AXP shirts into the bargain.

The initial print run is sold out. But a second print run will be a much simpler (and faster) thing to do, as it will only involve a phone call saying "I need more shirts." To make it worthwhile though, it'd be nice to have a good healthy second run ordered — say, 50 shirts. I know we're all keeping tight belts right now. But everyone could use a sexay new shirt, if only to replace the one that living under eight years of a religious right presidency stole off your backs.

Any shirt orders placed between now and Wednesday will be ones I'll try to have ready for the Friday shipping, along with the first batch. Don't forget to include your size, which is something a lot of folks have been forgetting. There should be a text field you can use for that.

Stem cell research at last

I'm pleased, as is anyone in the pro-science camp, at Obama's expected reversal of Bush's ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. I especially appreciate these comments he made.

"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

That last is another richly deserved rebuke of the Bush administration, and its kowtowing to fundamentalist ignorance in issues of science. In particular, the Right Wing Cult of the Fetus is driven berserk by the idea that "babies" are being "killed" so that mad scientists can do their freakish lab experiments. The point that the fetuses being used are among those routinely destroyed as surplus by fertility clinics is not the kind of inconvenient fact that will pierce the armor plating of their righteousness. Nor is the fact that these fetuses will still be available for infertile parents who wish to conceive in vitro.

As for the results we may one day enjoy from such research, which are also disputed by the RA crowd (Righteous Anger), well, we cannot say for sure right this minute that, fifty years from now, paraplegics will be dancing the rhumba after having their new spines installed as an outpatient procedure, or that we'll have eradicated dozens of diseases, or what have you. But the possibility is there, and not to be ignored, and that's why research is so vital. If we can better the lives of people, we should. That's basic.

Still, though, sometimes I think conservatives cannot only think long-term, but literally can't understand anything that doesn't appear to have an immediate, tangible benefit. It's as if scientific research isn't worth doing if it doesn't work like an ATM, spitting out instant gratification. Get a load of Republican Rep. Eric Cantor's ignorant and hypocritical whimper, which he tries to couch in terms of the economy.

"Why are we going and distracting ourselves from the economy? This is job No. 1. Let's focus on what needs to be done," Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, told CNN's "State of the Union."

Once more with feeling: Cantor's party bequeathed us this tattered economy, so that's quite enough pretense from their side of the aisle that theirs is the party that's all about fiscal responsibility, thank you kindly. And with the stimulus package now signed, well, let's say that the l-o-n-g road to economic repair is, at least, being mapped out.

But what's doubly stupid about Cantor's remarks is his failure to understand that a country engaging in strong and well-funded scientific research is one whose economy is thriving. Not only does it put researchers to work — you know, jobs — but if their research really does bear fruit, and we begin to see real treatments emerge that we've never had before...well, that means money, dammit, and plenty of it. It means medicine we can export, it means more students getting advanced degrees in the sciences due to the increase in jobs in the wake of these new treatments...I mean, there's no downside.

The only downside to scientific research is when ideology hurls itself bodily in science's path. I'm glad that, for right now at least, we have a president who respects the role of science in benefiting humanity. And the economy.

Oklahoma has the dumb!

By now most of you have been made aware of this.

Just now I sent an email to the august Rep. Thomsen, at todd.thomsen@okhouse.gov, as follows:

Dear Rep. Thomsen,

Are you trying to make Oklahoma a nationwide laughingstock?

It's working.

Cordially,
Martin Wagner

I'll let you know if he writes back.

A retrospective on the millenium bug

I wrote a post on my other blog looking back at Y2K.  While it is still primarily a blog about software engineering, a lot of the post is repeating and expanding on some things I said about Gary North in my show about Dominionism last year.  Besides, you can never have too much making fun of people for their failed end-of-the-world predictions.

Hey, everyone!  Remember that one time when the banks failed, governments collapsed, truckers were immobilized, people everywhere were starving, and civilization as we know it ended?  Good times, good times.

In the immortal words of John Cleese, "I got better..."

Do Moderate Christians Enable Fundamentalist Agendas?

I have a theist friend who thinks I’m too quick to blame some of the world’s ills on religion. After all, he was raised in religion. He believes in god, and he doesn’t care if anyone else does or not. He isn’t trying to force it onto anyone else. He isn’t writing to legislators to ask them to incorporate his beliefs into laws that impact anyone else. And none of his friends or family has ever done anything like that, either. Christianity isn’t impacting U.S. policy. I’m simply imagining things.

My friend is an example of what Sam Harris discusses in his writings when he describes how moderate Christians act as a buffer—a safety net—for fundamentalist Christians who are pushing their agendas into public policy and legislation. To criticize such a Christian agenda insults moderate Christians (like my friend) who are quick to defend that their religion should not be blamed for public ills. After all, what moderate wants to be held responsible for harmful public policies and legislation?

Say that religion is at the root of such a problem, and you get shot down before you’re even out of the gate (if I can mix my metaphors)—not by overzealous fundamentalists, but by moderate, liberal Christians—like my friend. Point out where religion harms society, and you’re met with the shout down—from moderate, middle-of-the-road Christians—that you’re guilty of painting religion with too broad a brush. You’re cherry picking lunatics and fanatics and trying to impose that dysfunctional mess upon all Christians, who are, for the most part, socially benign.

To be honest, I have no idea if the majority of Christians are “moderate”—in the sense that they have personal beliefs they don’t try to spread around or impose on others. I have no aversion to assuming most Christians fit that bill. Certainly most believers I have met personally aren’t any different. But whether they have majority numbers or not, it’s the fanatics that are running the program, invading politics, and shaping law and policy in this nation to bend it to a fundamentalist Christian agenda.

If a silent majority doesn’t like being represented by a squeaky-wheel faction—I recommend they should learn to speak up against their brethren whom they condemn privately as “lunatics” and “fanatics.” Instead, from what I can see, moderates would rather use their collective, “majority” voices to speak out against anyone else who condemns their fanatical members publicly. And here I have to excuse (and applaud) more responsible, moderate Christians—few though they may be—who do actually counter fundamentalism publicly, such as Barry Lynn Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

But it can no longer be denied, by any reasonably informed person, that public policy is being shaped by Christian agendas—whether it is the work of a fanatic, but highly politically efficient, minority of Christians or not. And if the moderate middle rebuffs criticisms of their more fanatic brethren, denies there is any problem in their midst, and refuses to join anyone in confronting the negative elements within their own camp—how are they not part of the problem? These moderates aren’t just guilty of letting the fundamentalist element run roughshod while they sit silently by, they’re actually protecting fundamentalist actions against legitimate criticisms by throwing the accusation “gross generalization” and “prejudice alarmist” at anyone who dares claim there even is a problem to criticize within the Christian ranks.

In the editorial section of this morning’s Austin American-Statesman, there are two articles that address the statistically observable supreme failings of Texas’ abstinence-based sex education in public schools. One article, “Learning Sex the Texas Way,” has this to say:

“Gov. Rick Perry's office said he is comfortable with the abstinence-based approach. ‘We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until heterosexual marriage,’ said his spokeswoman.”

Make no mistake, Perry has won re-election in the past. I cannot claim that he is unpopular. And I’m guessing he knows who his supporters are. What politician doesn’t? If he put forward policies not backed by the majority of voting Texans—how would he remain in office? Any thinking person might legitimately then ask, “what constituency would support failing programs and policies that put their own children at risk of deadly STDs and unwanted pregnancies?”

Let’s examine that question.

At the American Family Association (AFA) online, in their article, “Abstinence-Only Education Proves Effective,” it states, “there is no logical reason why abstinence-only education would not be effective in reducing sexual activity among teens.”

Logical or not, we come pretty close to abstinence-only in Texas—and it’s not working as it “logically” should.

Just to cement that this is a Christian organization, in their section “Does AFA hate homosexuals?” the site states:

“The same Holy Bible that calls us to reject sin, calls us to love our neighbor… AFA has sponsored several events reaching out to homosexuals and letting them know there is love and healing at the Cross of Christ.”

Make no mistake AFA is a Christian coalition.

Another supporter is The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. On their site is an article “Support Abstinence Education,” that says, “Don’t let the Senate jeopardize the future of abstinence education. Call or e-mail today!”

Do I need to keep going? The religious right has code words as well, such as conservative, family values, traditional, moral, and so on. They have less overtly religious organizations as well, such as the National Review—which bills itself as a “conservative” media source. Not every group is an outright Wallbuilders. But the more you educate yourself about these issues, the faster you begin to recognize the words that equal “Christian.” Doubt me? Try following a few of these sites for a month to see if you don’t start seeing particular words and phrases that begin to stand out as secular, yet repetitive.

Why use codes? Why not simply say, “This is my religious belief, and I’m going to do all I can to promote it in public policy and legislation”? AFA pretty clearly does this—so why not all organizations with a Christian base?

There is one clear advantage to hiding a religious agenda. Ask Intelligent Design proponents. When the courts tell you that teaching Creationism in schools is using the government to promote religion, and you can’t do that, you are forced to find more subversive, secular-sounding means to reach your goals. You take out “god” and put in “Intelligent Designer.” (Just make sure to double-check the search-and-replaces in your documentation really well before going to court.)

Still, today I realized something different and new and as enlightening as it is disturbing. I realized that even powerful mainstream critics of these religious fundamentalists have learned to pretend that this is actually a battle between secular ideologies—Republican vs. Democrat—and religion plays no part. In both opinion pieces, religion is oddly absent—as is any mention of who might be promoting such policies. Why call out Perry alone? Yes, he’s a politician, and his performance should be examined in the paper. I can’t deny that. But is a public official who has won re-election really the cause of bad policy or is he merely the elected representative for it? Again, without the support of the majority of voting constituents in Texas—he could not have won re-election. Perry is doing the will of the (voting) majority in Texas. And when his office can issue a statement such as the one quoted earlier—can there be any doubt it’s a Christian Right majority he intends to please?

What would happen if the paper published an editorial critical of the “Christian” agenda to promote abstinence-only education? In addition to raising the ire of far right groups like AFA, Wallbuilders, Liberty Commission, and so on—they would upset, as well, huge numbers of “regular” people—like my friend—who would cry “foul” at being lumped under the umbrella of the fundamentalist “lunatic fringe” who are causing this harm.

But if I say Christians are at the root of the abstinence-only policy, I’m not generalizing any more broadly than if I were to say that horses run in the Kentucky Derby. The group promoting these policies consists of self-identified Christians. And the animals running in the Derby consist of horses. Do all Christians support these policies? No more than all horses run in the Derby. So, what’s the problem? I don’t care if some Christians—even most Christians—aren’t supportive of these policies. It’s no less true that the policies are, by the largest margin, Christian created, promoted and supported. But if we say that, nobody will hear—not because the Religious Right will shut us down, but because religious moderates will.

My friend made this point loud and clear. “There’s nothing religious in those articles. It’s just about the schools and education. Where do you see religion even mentioned?”

He’s right that I don’t see religion even mentioned. But I have to ask if he sees any mention of who is at the root of these policy directives? Does my friend imagine Perry just made this up himself?

Fundamentalist Christians use public policy and legislation to push their religion onto everyone else. Anyone who criticizes the far right source is immediately shot down by the moderate middle. And, for the most part, we all pretend religion has no bearing on public policy—to the point that many people actually believe this is true. Anyone who says otherwise is just an overly excited alarmist. And the fundamentalists proceed, without mainstream majority opposition or interference, to push their religious agenda onto everyone else, with absolute gratitude toward their moderate brethren—the ones who would never do anything to push their religion onto anyone else.

Fireproof

Here's another Kirk Cameron movie that I'll never have to watch now. Thanks, Everything Else Atheist!

After a heroic rescue and doctor drama, Cameron's at home again, on the Internet looking at boats, an established hobby. An ad pops up - "wanna see? Click here!" Adblock plus and firefox will take care of that little annoyance, I tell you. I think it leads to porn, but since they dance around it and never say the word porn, it's a bit hard to tell. Maybe the sexy girl in the photo wants to show him her enormous Jenga collection, maybe it's a rickroll. We will never know, because he flips out, gets up and emotionally beats himself for thinking about clicking on that link. With the help of the advice book, he decides not only to not click the link, but to take his computer outside and destroy it with a baseball bat.

Honestly... who among us has psychological problems that can't be solved with a simple baseball bat?

Regarding Ray Comfort, the World's Stupidest Christian™

Ray Comfort, the World's Stupidest Christian™, is the world's stupidest Christian. When you consider the competition, that's quite a feat. Ray's degree of stupidity is truly stunning to behold. It's so monumental it serves as a kind of strange attractor towards which other Christians, not necessarily as stupid as Ray but not especially smart either, are inexorably drawn. It's Stupidity as a force of nature, implacable, unwavering as the tides, and entropically hurtling towards greater and greater stupidity until any remaining vestige of what might be determined intelligence has been broken down into its constituent molecules, and scattered to the voids of space.

So like, the guy's frackin' stupid. Really. I've blown boogers into tissues during a bad cold that are Nobel laureates compared to this guy. Stoo-pid.

Not content with the minor notoriety one gains from being the World's Stupidest Christian™, Ray has decided he really needs to earn the title. After all, a man's gotta have something in the way of an achievement in life. So, to this end, as those of you who've been hanging out on RDnet and Pharyngula have already heard, he has "challenged" Richard Dawkins to a "debate". This is as funny as Verne Troyer challenging Mike Tyson to three rounds in the ring.

But it gets funnier. Ray Comfort, the World's Stupidest Christian™, thinks Dawkins will be impressed by money. So he's offered $10,000. Thinking a millionaire will be impressed by your $10,000 is like thinking a supermodel will be impressed by your Honda Fit. But, bless his heart, that's why Ray is the World's Stupidest Christian™!

Dawkins was unimpressed with the $10,000 offer, shockingly enough, replying to someone claiming to rep Ray that the offer "is less than the typical fee that I am ordinarily offered for lecturing to a serious audience (I often don't accept it, especially in the case of a student audience, because I am a dedicated teacher). It is not, therefore, a worthwhile inducement for me to travel all the way across the Atlantic to debate with an ignorant fool." Gold! Dawkins then added (and you can see him smiling as he wrote it) that he'd consider playing along if Ray donated $100,000 to the RDF "so that that money will NOT be available for buying animatronic dinosaurs with saddles, or other similar nonsense. The fact that he would be making a substantial donation to a charity dedicated to Reason and Science adds to the humour of the situation."

Now it gets even funnier. Get this: Ray Comfort, the World's Stupidest Christian™, thinks Dawkins is haggling. So he raised the offer to $20,000, imagining, I suppose, that Dawkins is now obliged to come back with something like, "How about 90?" At which point the haggling continues as a matter of form until they settle on 50.

Of course, Dawkins isn't playing. He doesn't have to. And the funniest thing of all, in a long list of funny things, is that without this stupid "debate" even taking place yet, Dawkins has already humiliated Ray! D'oh! That's what you get for being the World's Stupidest Christian™, cupcake!

And Dawkins has humiliated Ray simply by letting Ray be Ray. It's uncontrollably funny the way Ray's very offer essentially amounts to nothing less than an admission of inferiority in all respects. To wit, Dawkins doesn't need Ray. Ray desperately needs Dawkins. Dawkins has everything Ray doesn't have and cannot gain through merit: prestige, respect, authority, legitimacy, expertise. Ray wants all of those things, and hopes an association with Dawkins will cause them to rub off on him, especially as he's deluded himself into thinking he can prove evolution false in a debate with one of the world's leading scientific authorities on evolution. But you see, that's Ray Comfort, the World's Stupidest Christian™, all over!

I love Ray. Really. I heart him like a hearty thing. He cannot know what joy he brings into the daily lives of atheists, just by the million little loving ways he reminds us that he's the World's Stupidest Christian™.

So Dawkins has named his price, because he can, because Ray has nothing Dawkins wants or needs. And the mere fact that Ray has already upped his previously pathetic offer to a slightly less pathetic level has pretty much bagged this "debate" for Dawkins right out of the gate. In the same way it's funny to see the no-hopers at the Discovery Institute still trying to convince themselves of their relevance more than three years after Dover put a howitzer shell through ID, by their continuing efforts to find scientists to debate them, it's even funnier seeing Ray running after Dawkins, like some loser at a bar trailing after a hot chick pleading, "Well, maybe if I gave you my number..."

Gang, this is exactly the right way to treat creationists every time they try to make a grab for legitimacy and shore up their inflated sense of importance: pure derision. Because you know, it works! It really gets their gander up.

How did Ray Comfort, the World's Stupidest Christian™, react to being dubbed an "ignorant fool"? Well, nosir, he dint like it! And he whined about it in entirely predictable fashion over at — where else? — the Christian Worldview Network.

During the more than 5,000 times I have spoken in the public forum, I have engaged hundreds of little Richard Dawkins' and have noticed that when their argument is very weak, they always revert to personal insults. While I won't condescend to insults, I will point out that Mr. Dawkins does believe that we were created by aliens.

Which, of course, he doesn't, but that's beside the point. Ray doesn't realize that Dawkins is not insulting him by saying he's an ignorant fool. He's simply stating a fact, as I am when I refer to Ray by his unofficial title, the World's Stupidest Christian™. It's like, imagine that Dawkins has a bowl of chocolate ice cream in front of him. And he looks at it and says, "The flavor of this ice cream is chocolate." Is he calling the ice cream a name? Is he insulting it? No! He is merely stating an observable fact about the nature of the ice cream. Likewise, when he points out Ray is an ignorant fool, he is merely stating an observable fact about Ray Comfort. Ray will never get these points. Because — what is he, everybody...? All together now...