GET CAUGHT THINKERING

BA organizer Calvin Fisher brings to our attention an article on Examiner.com, whose author looks at Dave Silverman's proposed alternative to the silly practice known as Tebowing. It's called Thinkering.

Get in on the trend, hepcats.

COOTIE CONFLICT IN ISRAEL

As the ultra-Orthodox Haredi community in Israel continues to grow its numbers, its coming into contact with a, let's say, more modern culture, which isn't accustomed to segregating the genders. At the Wall Street Journal, you can read about the latest fracas, occurring when a female member of the IDF had the brazen audacity to sit in the front of a bus, to the horror of the Orthodox men who expected her to take her place in the back, where her sexual cooties couldn't brush off on anyone else.

In past weeks, there have been marches and even physical clashes in Israel, relating to similar incidents. Thank goodness the culture of the US isn't subject to, or under threat of being subject to, the religious puritanism of patriarchal fundamentalists! (Wait.... )

Introducing the National Atheist Party

If you stopped by the Boston Atheists solstice party last month (a great time!), you may have met Tanya Walker, the Massachusetts chapter leader for the National Atheist Party. "The what?", you might ask. Well, the NAP is "a diverse, all-inclusive, progressive, secular political movement and a response to the lack of representation for all free-thinking people who are legal, law-abiding citizens of the United States." Further, the NAP "is not against anyone's religion. We are not a group convened to combat religion. We are not an evangelical group for the promotion of atheism. We are a political party, convened to give atheists a voice in government that they have never had before. Open atheists, voting on issues. That's it."

There was a useful piece this week in WashPo about the NAP, whose officers over the past few months have been as Amish barn-raisers, raising funds, developing their web and social media networks, installing the expertise and logistical structure of an organization with state and national presence, and so on. Learn more about them at http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/atheists-face-uphill-climb-with-new-political-party/2012/01/03/gIQAjs4oYP_story.html.

If you'd like to learn more, two good points of access are 1) the MA State Chapter page on Facebook, s, and 2) the state forum on the NAP website.

I invited the Facebook page moderator, Mason Eaton, to introduce himself:

My name is Mason Eaton and I am the group administrator for the Massachusetts chapter of the National Atheist Party. As a young Atheist, I believe in equality amongst everyone regardless of their religious upbringing, and I feel that the secular populace in America is grossly misunderstood and not given a proper chance to share their voices. In the NAP, the voice of one is accompanied by the voices of many others, and as a group, we will not be silenced out. Equality and Reason, evolving our politics.

A most timely announcement about the NAP is, of course, its co-sponsorship of the Reason Rally in Washington DC this March. There is still time to reserve a seat on one of the buses driving down there from Mass.

How excellent it would be to have just an enormous number of people from Boston, Massachusetts, New England, down there at the Rally. To hear, among other speakers, Tim Minchin! See you there.

"This season, tell your family." -- stories of coming out atheist

For many cultural traditions, this time of year -- the solstice, the winter revels, the New Year, Christmas, Sinterklaas, Ashura, Hanukkah -- brings families together for celebration. For atheists who aren't yet out of the closet, these gatherings can be tense. And even for atheists who have been open about their worldview, the holidays can be a succession of confrontations between their values and beliefs and the disapproval, or hostility, of family members.

I'd like to invite members and friends of the Boston Atheists community to share their stories of coming out about their atheism to their family, friends, and co-workers. How did it happen, when did it? Do you have advice for people who are wondering whether or how to come out of the closet themselves?

In these last weeks of the year,  many of us could use the comfort of knowing that our difficult choices aren't unique; that there are lots of folks -- hundreds in our local community alone, I suspect -- who have faced these challenges and come out on the other side with greater peace of mind.

Feel free to post your "Tell Your Family" stories on the mailing list, by replying to this message, or at the Boston Atheists Facebook page.

From "How Do I Tell My Family I'm an Atheist? A Question of Moral Atheism" (PDF format) by Dominick Cancilla:

Some religious people associate atheism with immorality or with a rejection of God that leaves no accountability for indulging carnal desires. If your family falls into this group, you can reassure them that you are still the same good, honest, moral person you always were, but that now you are moral because it is the right thing to do, not because you fear eternal punishment.

From "How to tell your family you are an atheist", by Chris Jarvis:

Saying things like 'While I respect your world view I don't feel comfortable with it, I need to find my own way.' is the way to go. This does not put the other party in the position of having to fight for their view. It also leaves the door open 'I need to find my own way.' This is giving them a place where they can accept your current position as it could well not be your final position. A number of religious figures have spent time on their own finding their own way. I seem to recall Jesus is supposed to have spent 40 days and 40 nights doing exactly this. So you're in good company.

From "Coming Out to Your Family: Should You Reveal Your Atheism to Family, Parents?" by Austin Cline:

Precisely because telling others about your real beliefs and real feelings can be difficult, it can be an important step towards becoming more self-confident and mature. You could also being doing a lot to encourage better attitudes towards atheists by demonstrating how they can be moral and mature people. Perhaps there are other members of your family who also have doubts or who disbelieve — by speaking up, you will find that you share more in common with them and will also help them come to terms with who they are.

From "How Do I Reveal My Atheism To My Family?" by Austin Cline:

So, you've decided that you cannot rationally or reasonably continue with the religion which you have always been involved in and which your family continues to belong to. Indeed, you can't even continue to call yourself a theist anymore — you find belief in the existence of God to be unreasonable for one reason or another have to abandon the label altogether. Now what?

From "Coming Out to Family and Friends Without Offending" by Richard Wade:

Emphasize that your lack of belief does not reduce your love for them, or your interest in their well-being. Tell them that even though you are not convinced of what they believe, you are very convinced of their goodness as persons. Then ask them to consider you in the same way.

Two easy actions for secular culture...

.. that you can do today.

1. SIGN this petition, being presented to the White House, which asks that that "under God" clause be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance (which, as James Croft of the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy pointed out, should really be asking that the Pledge be RESTORED to its original no-god form.)

2. SHARE your stories of discrimination against atheists, in order to raise awareness of this form of prejudice, and to show solidarity with others who are exposed to the same sort of bias. From The Friendly Atheist:

A writer from BBC News is working on an article about atheist discrimination in the workplace and it’d be great to tell some of our stories in the hopes that other people will understand what some atheists have had to deal with. The reporter writes, "I have seen a few stories on this site about people who felt excluded by their co-workers or even lost their job after expressing their beliefs. I would like to talk to people who have been through such an experience." In case you’re curious, the folks at Think Atheist have verified the posting — he is who he says he is." 

The writer's contact information can be found at this post on the Think Atheist forum.

Ben Edward Akerley reviews Good Without God

GOOD WITHOUT GOD: WHAT A BILLION NONRELIGIOUS PEOPLE DO BELIEVE by Greg M. Epstein. HarperCollins, New York. 10/10. 250 pages. $14.99 (paperback)

Greg M. Epstein holds the post of Humanist chaplain at Harvard University. For Good Without God, his Humanist primer, he chose the statistical subtitle to drive home the surprising fact that almost 1/6 of Earth's teeming billions constitute nonbelievers (with a bewildering array of various labels for their skepticism). Even in the U.S. as the developed world's by far most religious nation, at least 15% (approximately 40 million) now claim no religious affiliation with "nonreligious" representing the fastest-growing "religious preference" in all 50 states and an astonishing one in four young adults professing no religion at all.

In 1915, a Unitarian minister named John Dietrich (1878-1957) first adopted the term "Humanism" as the name for his religion since he especially liked that it echoed a connection to renaissance humanists in Europe. Finally, by 1941, Dietrich, together with others of similar belief, founded the American Humanist Association, still the leading body for Humanist activism in America.

The chaplain eschews calling Humanism a religion because it has no divinities and no supernaturalism. Instead, he opts for the European coinage "lifestance" meaning more than just a philosophy but not a divine or revealed belief system. Since Humanists only have faith in humanity, they constitute the true believers because their secular philosophy dictates that our dignity of mutual concern and self-fulfillment through service to humanity's highest ideals offer more than enough reasons that we can and should be good without God, focusing more on the "good" than on the "without God" half of the equation.

Believers and nonbelievers alike have to contend with life's three most pressing concerns: aging, sickness and death. Fear of the latter is incontrovertibly the most intense and provides the most rational explanation of how religion capitalizes on this human frailty by promising solace, comfort and seductive reassurance of immortality. The religious believe in life after death. By contrast, Humanists believe only in life before death with no need of supplication to an imaginary heavenly father.

God is the most important, influential, literary character ever created by Earthlings, but one must know precisely what is meant by God, since the more a word can mean anything, the more it means absolutely nothing. Consequently, the apologist outlines a brief history of the definition of God from Spinoza to modern day theologians whose wildly divergent take on the God question really settles nothing definitively.

Just as anthropologists have never found a culture without some form of religion, a survey of the world's major religions indicates that basically every belief system contains the equivalent of the Golden Rule and the author gives verbatim, side-by-side comparisons of this universal moral principle from eight of the leading faiths. He also undertakes an extensive exegesis of the Ten Commandments and translates the Humanist equivalent of six of them while arguing that even the most ardent nonbelievers can find total concordance with the remaining four (re: murder, adultery, stealing and slander).

Acceptance of Humanism and Atheism was severely hampered and demonized during the last century because of their connection in some cases to socialism and communism. In our new millennium, the demonization comes from the Religious Right, with leaders like Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback megachurch, spearheading the vicious attack. His book, The Purpose Driven Life, has become the best-selling non-fiction book in the history of publishing and its author now ranks as one of the most influential leaders of our generation. The evangelist's condemnation of every nonbeliever to spend all eternity in Hell, constitutes a profound insult and gratuitous affront to all those outside of his "fold" and his statement broadcast on national TV that he could never vote for an atheist president only served to greatly compound the offense.

My only negative criticism of this valuable entry is that as helpful as his excellent appendix is with its list of Humanist and secular resources, in a work of this wide a scope, Epstein does readers a distinct disservice by not also appending an index.

_ _ _ _ _

Related reading:

• Can We Be Good Without God? Biology, Behavior, and The Need to Believe by Robert Buckman
• The Good Book: A Humanist Bible by A. C. Grayling
  

Views of marriage in the Bible

Hat tip to BA member Jake J. for sending this along; original source unknown.

Vote in this poll: Does "under God" belong in the Pledge?

Presumably in recognition of Flag Day, the editors of the metro-west Massachusetts newspaper Sentinel & Enterprise have asked a poll question on their homepage for today, June 14: "Do the words 'under God' belong in the Pledge of Allegiance?".

Just two months ago, Atheist activist Michael Newdow failed to convince a federal court in California that references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on US currency are unconstitutional endorsements of religion. Newdow was not discouraged, and continues to develop legal strategies to attack this unconstitutional endorsement of a religious view by the government.

Let's encourage Newdow and others who are working to further and defend the separation of church and state, by making our views known. There are many people for whom the defense of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a reflex -- they're just not thinking about that they're doing. That doesn't stop them, of course, and it doesn't discourage politicians who want to be seen as defenders of traditional values, no matter how prejudicial the status quo is against secular members of the community.

Please go to http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com today, Tuesday June 14th, and share your vote. It's just an online poll in a local newspaper, sure, but we need to make a little noise, push back a little, every time we see someone trying to drum up support for inappropriate church-state entanglement.

As of writing, there are 133 votes for the God clause, and 11 against. One of those is mine. Let's push back a little, please.

I'll be writing a letter to the editor today, to hopefully appear in the paper tomorrow. I'll share what I write on the mailing lists / message boards, and I encourage others to write as well.

So! Go to http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com and vote NO, the words "under God" should NOT appear in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Zak Bos on NPR, on the meaning of life

At the show page for NH NPR's The Socrates Exchange, you can hear me, BA director Zachary Bos, opine on the meaning of life, from 26:45-31:00. I'm sure the zampolits will tell me if I deviate from Atheist Command's official dogma. (Direct link to audio file here)

Quick answer: yes, life is *ultimately* meaningless, but so what? There are more than enough kinds of subjective, personal, human-sized meaning to keep ourselves busy with.

I had this answer ready where I talk about the impressive ways our Boston Atheists members flaunt the old idea that a life without gods is a life devoid of meaning, but it isn't in the final cut of the show. Too bad -- it would be have good to hear about we've got folks who are raising kids, who volunteer, who work in fields with low pay but high yield of social benevolence, who possess sophisticated views of the universe and their place in it, etc. Long story short: it's real nice to be a part of this crowd.

"The Last Answer" by Isaac Asimov

[NB: Amazing coincidence, that the protagonist of this famous short story by Mr. Asimov, shares a name with the founder of the Templeton Foundation. Asimov's character devotes his existence to the destruction of a 'spiritual' force with seeming limitless powers; the real life Templeton devoted his fortune to the shoring up of flimsy theological doctrines.]

Murray Templeton was forty-five years old, in the prime of life, and with all parts of his body in perfect working order except for certain key portions of his coronary arteries, but that was enough.

The pain had come suddenly, had mounted to an unbearable peak, and had then ebbed steadily. He could feel his breath slowing and a kind of gathering peace washing over him.

There is no pleasure like the absence of pain – immediately after pain. Murray felt an almost giddy lightness as though he were lifting in the air and hovering.

He opened his eyes and noted with distant amusement that the others in the room were still agitated. He had been in the laboratory when the pain had struck, quite without warning, and when he had staggered, he had heard surprised outcries from the others before everything vanished into overwhelming agony.

Now, with the pain gone, the others were still hovering, still anxious, still gathered about his fallen body –– Which, he suddenly realised, he was looking down on.

He was down there, sprawled, face contorted. He was up here, at peace and watching.

He thought: Miracle of miracles! The life-after-life nuts were right.

And although that was a humiliating way for an atheistic physicist to die, he felt only the mildest surprise, and no alteration of the peace in which he was immersed.

He thought: There should be some angel – or something – coming for me.

The Earthly scene was fading. Darkness was invading his consciousness and off in a distance, as a last glimmer of sight, there was a figure of light, vaguely human in form, and radiating warmth.

Murray thought: What a joke on me. I’m going to Heaven.

Even as he thought that, the light faded, but the warmth remained. There was no lessening of the peace even though in all the Universe only he remained – and the Voice.

The Voice said, “I have done this so often and yet I still have the capacity to be pleased at success.”

It was in Murray’s mind to say something, but he was not conscious of possessing a mouth, tongue, or vocal chords. Nevertheless, tried to make a sound. He tried, mouthlessly, to hum words or breathe them or just push them out by a contraction of – something.

And they came out. He heard his own voice, quite recognisable, and his own words, infinitely clear.

Murray said, “Is this Heaven?”

The Voice said, “This is no place as you understand place.”

Murray was embarrassed, but the next question had to be asked. “Pardon me if I sound like a jackass. Are you God?”

Without changing intonation or in any way marring the perfection of the sound, the Voice managed to sound amused. “It is strange that I am always asked that in, of course, an infinite number of ways. There is no answer I can give that you would comprehend. I am – which is all that I can say significantly and you may cover that with any word or concept you please.”

Murray said, “And what am I? A soul? Or am I only personified existence too?” He tried not to sound sarcastic, but it seemed to him that he had failed. He thought then, fleetingly, of adding a ‘Your Grace’ or ‘Holy One’ or something to counteract the sarcasm, and could not bring himself to do so even though for the first time in his existence he speculated on the possibility of being punished for his insolence – or sin? – with Hell, and what that might be like.

The Voice did not sound offended. “You are easy to explain – even to you. You may call yourself a soul if that pleases you, but what you are is a nexus of electromagnetic forces, so arranged that all the interconnections and interrelationships are exactly imitative of those of your brain in your Universe-existence – down to the smallest detail. Therefore you have your capacity for thought, your memories, your personality. It still seems to you that you are you.”

Murray found himself incredulous. “You mean the essence of my brain was permanent?”

“Not at all. There is nothing about you that is permanent except what I choose to make so. I formed the nexus. I constructed it while you had physical existence and adjusted it to the moment when the existence failed.”

The Voice seemed distinctly pleased with itself, and went on after a moment’s pause. “An intricate but entirely precise construction. I could, of course, do it for every human being on your world but I am pleased that I do not. There is pleasure in the selection.”

“You choose very few then?”

“Very few.”

“And what happens to the rest?”

“Oblivion! – Oh, of course, you imagine a Hell.”

Murray would have flushed if he had the capacity to do so. He said, “I do not. It is spoken of. Still, I would scarcely have thought I was virtuous enough to have attracted your attention as one of the Elect.”

“Virtuous? – Ah, I see what you mean. It is troublesome to have to force my thinking small enough to permeate yours. No, I have chosen you for your capacity for thought, as I choose others, in quadrillions, from all the intelligent species of the Universe.”

Murray found himself suddenly curious, the habit of a lifetime. He said, “Do you choose them all yourself or are there others like you?”

For a fleeting moment, Murray thought there was an impatient reaction to that, but when the Voice came, it was unmoved. “Whether or not there are others is irrelevant to you. This Universe is mine, and mine alone. It is my invention, my construction, intended for my purpose alone.”

“And yet with quadrillions of nexi you have formed, you spend time with me? Am I that important?”

The Voice said, “You are not important at all. I am also with others in a way which, to your perception, would seem simultaneous.”

“And yet you are one?”

Again amusement. The Voice said, “You seek to trap me into an inconsistency. If you were an amoeba who could consider individuality only in connection with single cells and if you were to ask a sperm whale, made up of thirty quadrillion cells, whether it was one or many, how could the sperm whale answer in a way that would be comprehensible to the amoeba?”

Murray said dryly, “I’ll think about it. It may become comprehensible.”

“Exactly. That is your function. You will think.”

“To what end? You already know everything, I suppose.”

The Voice said, “Even if I knew everything, I could not know that I know everything.”

Murray said, “That sounds like a bit of Eastern philosophy – something that sounds profound precisely because it has no meaning.”

The Voice said, “You have promise. You answer my paradox with a paradox – except that mine is not a paradox. Consider. I have existed eternally, but what does that mean? It means I cannot remember having come into existence. If I could, I would not have existed eternally. If I cannot remember having come into existence, then there is at least one thing – the nature of my coming into existence – that I do not know.

“Then, too, although what I know is infinite, it is also true that what there is to know is infinite, and how can I be sure that both infinities are equal? The infinity of potential knowledge may be infinitely greater than the infinity of my actual knowledge. Here is a simple example: If I knew every one of the even integers, I would know an infinite number of items, and yet I would still not know a single odd integer.”

Murray said, “But the odd integers can be derived. If you divide every even integer in the entire infinite series by two, you will get another infinite series which will contain within it the infinite series of odd integers.”

The Voice said, “You have the idea. I am pleased. It will be your task to find other such ways, far more difficult ones, from the known to the not-yet-known. You have your memories. You will remember all the data you have ever collected or learned, or that you have or will deduce from that data. If necessary, you will be allowed to learn what additional data you will consider relevant to the problems you set yourself.”

“Could you not do all that for yourself?”

The Voice said, “I can, but it is more interesting this way. I constructed the Universe in order to have more facts to deal with. I inserted the uncertainty principle, entropy, and other randomisation factors to make the whole not instantly obvious. It has worked well for it has amused me throughout its entire existence.

“I then allowed complexities that produced first life and then intelligence, and use it as a source for a research team, not because I need the aid, but because it would introduce a new random factor. I found I could not predict the next interesting piece of knowledge gained, where it would come from, by what means derived.”

Murray said, “Does that ever happen?”

“Certainly. A century doesn’t pass in which some interesting item doesn’t appear somewhere.”

“Something that you could have thought of yourself, but had not done so yet?”

“Yes.”

Murray said, “Do you actually think there’s a chance of my obliging you in this manner?”

“In the next century? Virtually none. In the long run, though, your success is certain, since you will be engaged eternally.”

Murray said, “I will be thinking through eternity? Forever?”

“Yes.”

“To what end?”

“I have told you. To find new knowledge.”

“But beyond that. For what purpose am I to find new knowledge?”

“It was what you did in your Universe-bound life. What was its purpose then?”

Murray said, “To gain new knowledge that only I could gain. To receive the praise of my fellows. To feel the satisfaction of accomplishment knowing that I had only a short time allotted me for the purpose. – Now I would gain only what you could gain yourself if you wished to take a small bit of trouble. You cannot praise me; you can only be amused. And there is no credit or satisfaction in accomplishment when I have all eternity to do it in.”

The Voice said, “And you do not find thought and discovery worthwhile in itself? You do not find it requiring no further purpose?”

“For a finite time, yes. Not for all eternity.”

“I see your point. Nevertheless, you have no choice.”

“You say I am to think. You cannot make me do so.”

The Voice said, “I do not wish to constrain you directly. I will not need to. Since you can do nothing but think, you will think. You do not know how not to think.”

“Then I will give myself a goal. I will invent a purpose.”

The Voice said tolerantly, “That you can certainly do.”

“I have already found a purpose.”

“May I know what it is?”

“You know already. I know we are not speaking in the ordinary fashion. You adjust my nexus is such a way that I believe I hear you and I believe I speak, but you transfer thoughts to me and from me directly. And when my nexus changes with my thoughts you are at once aware of them and do not need my voluntary transmission.”

The Voice said, “You are surprisingly correct. I am pleased. – But it also pleases me to have you tell me your thoughts voluntarily.”

“Then I will tell you. The purpose of my thinking will be to discover a way to disrupt this nexus of me that you have created. I do not want to think for no purpose but to amuse you. I do not want to think forever to amuse you. I do not want to exist forever to amuse you. All my thinking will be directed toward ending the nexus. That would amuse me.”

The Voice said, “I have no objection to that. Even concentrated thought on ending your own existence may, in spite of you, come up with something new and interesting. And, of course, if you succeed in this suicide attempt you will have accomplished nothing, for I would instantly reconstruct you and in such a way as to make your method of suicide impossible. And if you found another and still more subtle fashion of disrupting yourself, I would reconstruct you with that possibility eliminated, and so on. It could be an interesting game, but you will nevertheless exist eternally. It is my will.”

Murray felt a quaver but the words came out with a perfect calm. “Am I in Hell then, after all? You have implied there is none, but if this were Hell you would lie to us as part of the game of Hell.”

The Voice said, “In that case, of what use is it to assure you that you are not in Hell? Nevertheless, I assure you. There is here neither Heaven nor Hell. There is only myself.”

Murray said, “Consider, then, that my thoughts may be useless to you. If I come up with nothing useful, will it not be worth your while to – disassemble me and take no further trouble with me?”

“As a reward? You want Nirvana as the prize of failure and you intend to assure me failure? There is no bargain there. You will not fail. With all eternity before you, you cannot avoid having at least one interesting thought, however you try against it.”

“Then I will create another purpose for myself. I will not try to destroy myself. I will set as my goal the humiliation of you. I will think of something you have not only never thought of but never could think of. I will think of the last answer, beyond which there is no knowledge further.”

The Voice said, “You do not understand the nature of the infinite. There may be things I have not yet troubled to know. There cannot be anything I cannot know.”

Murray said thoughtfully, “You cannot know your beginning. You have said so. Therefore you cannot know your end. Very well, then. That will be my purpose and that will be the last answer. I will not destroy myself. I will destroy you – if you do not destroy me first.”

The Voice said, “Ah! You come to that in rather less than average time. I would have thought it would have taken you longer. There is not one of those I have with me in this existence of perfect and eternal thought that does not have the ambition of destroying me. It cannot be done.”

Murray said, “I have all eternity to think of a way of destroying you.”

The Voice said, equably, “Then try to think of it.” And it was gone.

But Murray had his purpose now and was content.

For what could any Entity, conscious of eternal existence, want – but an end?

For what else had the Voice been searching for countless billions of years? And for what other reason had intelligence been created and certain specimens salvaged and put to work, but to aid in that great search? And Murray intended that it would be he, and he alone, who would succeed.

Carefully, and with the thrill of purpose, Murray began to think.

He had plenty of time.

Support the effort to protect secular rights in Cranston, RI

 

Support the Removal of the Cranston High School West Prayer

Atheist offers to take stuff off your hands, avoid Rapture hassle

Fear of Faith in Cambridge

(Photo by Jenna Dee; fear mongering by Harold Camping et ilk.)

Creationist lecture this Sunday

When was the last time you stopped to think about why you believe in evolution? Join Nathaniel Jeanson, Harvard PhD in Biology, THIS SUNDAY in Boston, an in-depth look at his reasons for thinking that modern biology has failed to substantiate Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis. Q&A to follow.

Free admission and free parking available at the center -- look for signs.

Jeanson has given this presentation before -- get a full report from a BA member, at http://bostonatheists.blogspot.com/2009/08/report-on-nathaniel-jeansons.html.

You can download full audio files for the lecture and Q&A session at http://w74.org/ij.

The Boston Atheist Examiner wrote it up (http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-boston/reports-from-a-creationist-lecture-boston) and a letter I circulated about the lecture was posted at Richard Dawkins' website (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4176).

The Institute for Creation Research thought we Boston Atheists weren't very open-minded last time: http://www.icr.org/article/harvard-phd-lecture-exposes-prejudices. This time around, we can be even more open! Open, that is, to establishing ties with members of the congregation, and being open to finding ways to help them avoid being misled by Creationist flimflam.

Where: Longwood Galleria Conference Center, 42 Longwood Avenue Boston, MA (accessible via the mall food court)
When: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 6:30 PM

Sponsored by http://calvarychapelinthecity.com/.

RSVP at http://www.meetup.com/bostonatheists/events/17048404/

STOP [praying]

As seen on Dwelly Street in Fall River, Massachusetts.
Photo by Katie Goldman.
NB: This blog does not condone gratuitous graffiti.

Something like the Golden Rule

Stefan Collini, in his new, small book, That’s Offensive! Criticism, Identity, Respect:

Where arguments are concerned—that is, matters that are pursued by means of reasons and evidence—the most important identity we can acknowledge in another person is the identity of being an intelligent reflective human being. This does not mean assuming that people are entirely—or even primarily—rational, and it does not mean that people are, in practice, always and only persuaded by reasons and evidence. It means treating other people as we wish to be treated ourselves in this matter—namely, as potentially capable of understanding the grounds for any action or statement that concerns us. But to so treat them means that, where reason and evidence are concerned, they cannot be thought of as primarily defined by being members of the ‘Muslim community or ‘Black community’ or ‘gay community.’

Says Isaac Chotiner in his review of this book:

What is crucial here is the ability of people to evaluate and to criticize, and to not feel as if their doing so is given more or less respect based on the groups to which they belong. Their words do not gain force or lose force—or “credibility,” to deploy a nonsensical and overused term—because of their specific identities.

Collini's suggestion -- that we treat others in a high-minded way, as if they had the capacity to be reasonable, is a a good rule for engagement for Atheists hoping to engage believers in discussions critical of their beliefs. (As is DBAD).If you hold to that high standard, you can hardly be faulted if the other person backs out of the tete-a-tete. Hey, all you were doing was giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Tell your rep: Support SOCAS and Vote No on "In God We Trust"

The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee will vote today on whether to reaffirm "In God We Trust" as the national motto of the United States, and encourage its public display in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions. The text of the resolution says in part, "... in times of national challenge or tragedy, the people of the United States have turned to God as their source for sustenance, protection, wisdom, strength, and direction." Some Americans have found in their religion the strength to bear up against difficult times; others have found reason in their religion to deny medical care to children, to commit murder, to collude with terrorism, to deny other Americans their equal part of civil liberty, and other anti-social behavior.

Congressman Randy Forbes (R-VA) is behind this resolution -- it may be said that he's leading the current legislative effort to confuse church and state. He and 64 co-sponsors (nearly all Republicans -- see list below) are hoping that the resolution's passage will encourage public display of "In God We Trust" in public schools and buildings -- a wholly unsavory practice that establishes one religious perspective (that of theism) as official, national, and patriotic, and promotes the notion that another religious perspective (that of atheism) is subversive, elitist, and un-American. Forbes is known for his promotion of Judeo-Christian doctrines and values, and for equating theism with patriotism e.g. "Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first, the most basic expression of Americanism."

The same bill failed last year -- can we do it again? How excellent it would be good if a significant portion of the large and growing population of secular Americans, would come forward and ask their Congresspeople to represent them just as well as their theistic neighbors, by voting against this resolution.

Congressman Forbes recently told Politico, "to a lot of people, the fact that this country was built on faith, the fact that faith is important, 'In God We Trust' is important." Of course, to a lot of people, that sounds like balderdash. This country was built on a Constitution, and according to that Constitution, the government use its authority to promote any position on the questions of religion, theistic or atheistic.

On this subject, Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State challenges the notion that efforts to change the national motto are motivated by anything other than the intention to adopt a slogan that represents ALL Americans. "No organization or group of graffiti artists is going around trying to cover up" the motto, Lynn told CNN, "the motto should be 'In God, or in no God, or in multiple gods we trust.'"

The text and status of House Continuing Resolution 13 can be found online at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:hc13:.

AN EASY WAY TO MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD
Americans United has a webform which will allow you to instantly contact your Congressperson, at http://action.au.org/au/issues/alert/?alertid=35875506.


The following U.S. Representatives have co-sponsored Randy Forbes' bill to reaffirm the national motto. Is your rep listed below? If so, please call 202-224-3121 today and say, "I'd like you to reconsider your co-sponsorship of House Continuing Resolution 13. The national motto 'In God We Trust' is a statement of religious belief, contrary to the letter and spirit of the First Amendment, and fails to adequately represent the diversity of views present in America. I want you to represent my interests, and the interests of all your constituents, by not affirming a divisive national motto."

CO-SPONSORS of "IN GOD WE TRUST"

• Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 3/3/2011
• Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 3/3/2011
• Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 3/16/2011
• Rep Black, Diane [TN-6] - 3/3/2011
• Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] - 2/11/2011
• Rep Canseco, Francisco "Quico" [TX-23] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] - 2/11/2011
• Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Ellmers, Renee L. [NC-2] - 2/16/2011
• Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 3/16/2011
• Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] - 3/16/2011
• Rep Griffith, H. Morgan [VA-9] - 2/16/2011
• Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 3/16/2011
• Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] - 3/3/2011
• Rep Huizenga, Bill [MI-2] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 1/26/2011
• Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 2/28/2011
• Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 3/16/2011
• Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 2/11/2011
• Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 3/16/2011
• Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 2/16/2011
• Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 3/16/2011
• Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] - 2/16/2011
• Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 3/16/2011
• Rep Pompeo, Mike [KS-4] - 2/17/2011
• Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-3] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Ross, Dennis [FL-12] - 2/8/2011
• Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 2/8/2011
• Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] - 2/8/2011
• Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 1/26/2011
• Rep Young, Don [AK] - 3/11/2011
• Rep Young, Todd C. [IN-9] - 3/3/2011

Is your Congressman listed above? If so, please call 202-224-3121 and encourage him or her to defend freedom of conscience and the separation of church of state, by voting against this resolution.

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD
Use this webform, http://action.au.org/au/issues/alert/?alertid=35875506, to instantly contact your Congressperson.

NB: NB: A petition campaign to support this resolution is being led by Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt. More about him at http://blog.au.org/2009/04/24/naval-maneuvers-exchaplain-admits-hes-not-all-he-appeared-to-be (and elsewhere online).

[Please circulate.]

Who Killed More in the Bible?

From Brazilian advertising agency, Abacaxi Atomico.

Boston-area 2011 Darwin Day events

Cheers to Charles: Darwin Day pub night!
Meet up with a crowd of Boston Atheists and friends, to raise a toast to Mr. Darwin. Saturday, February 12, 8 PM, at Cambridge Common.

Boston Skeptics at the Museum of Science!
Saturday, February 12, 1-4 PM; buy your ticket and meet Liz Gaston inside the lobby -- look for the sign for the Boston Skeptics.

The Ledge screening at Harvard!
This film by Matthew Chapman stars Liv Tyler, Charlie Hunnam, Terrence Howard, and Patrick Wilson. Saturday, February 12, 6 PM, at Harvard Science Center, Hall C. Free and open to the public. Writer/director Matthew Chapman to attend.

Darwin Day Toast in Dorchester!
Saturday February 12, 8:30 PM at The Connection, 560 Dorchester Ave in Andrew Square. For questions contact William.

Matthew Chapman at Humanist Sunday Meeting!
A discussion on the role of science in American politics, at the Harvard Humanist Student Center at 12 Eliot Street, Harvard Square. Sunday, February 13, 1:30 PM. The meeting includes yoga, meditation, live music, and potluck brunch. Free and open to the public.

Lecture on biology and ID!
Abby Hafer, Professor of Anatomy and Physiology at Curry College, will deliver a talk titled "Biology and Intelligent Design: They Really Speak Different Languages." Saturday, February 26, 1:15 PM, at the Learning Center at Brookhaven, 1010 Waltham St., Lexington. Free and open to the public.

Please forward this list to interested parties. Visit DarwinDay.org for more events.

Free Thought Radio

One of my favorite weekly podcasts to listen to regularly is produced by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). The show is hosted by co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor.

Last week's show was really interesting; the discussion concerned Mitch Kahle, a SOCAS activist from Hawaii, . Click here to hear (in mp3 format) how he persuaded the Hawaiian senate to end prayer in their assembly.
This episode also focuses in on on prayers taking place during sessions of the Wisconsin State Assembly. They ask Jesus for guidance, which is unconstitutional, in addition to being a little silly.

What I appreciate most about the FFRF is its dedicated focus on the separation of church and state. Ours is a secular government, and in no way, shape or form should any religion (or absence of religion) be endorsed by our government. This principle acts to protect all citizens, including those who profess religious belief.

Why I listen to podcast on atheism and science.

I like to listen to atheist and science based podcasts. Lots of them. While I drive, doing chores and everything in between. There are so many podcasts on this topic that its hard to know which one to listen to. I will be sharing some of my favorite podcasts with a link to listen in and my comments.

Before I do though, I would like to share a little bit about my self. I was born in Honduras but raised in the Boston area. My family indoctrinated me in the Catholic tradition. I was a believer until my teenage years when my questions on the bible, and the nature of god, for instance, how can a good god kill everyone in the Noah's Ark story, were answered in a unsatisfactory manner. Simply saying god works in mysterious ways seemed like it didn't answer anything.

After rejecting the idea of god, I came to realize that it was easier to believe than not believe. That's why I like to listen to atheist and science based podcasts. I knew I didn't believe, but why didn't I believe? These shows have helped me form my arguments and ideas to counter those of theists.

I hope you all enjoy.

Quote of the Week #1

So my friends tell me about how their god talks to them, and they feel His presence inside them. I want to ask them, What? That's incredible! The creator of the UNIVERSE is literally INSIDE you? Did you shit your pants?!?"

A comment on the epistemic and existential mismatch between the scale of human experience and the purported scale of the Christian god, which I overheard new BA member Aaron S. at the other end of the table while about 25 of us enjoyed the Latin-themed brunch at Tavern in the Square this morning.

Boston Nonsense Watch: New Acropolis Boston

There are signs throughout town for an outfit called  Acropolis Boston; they make regular appearances on the T and on bulletin boards in places like Porter Square. These ads invite you to discover ‘the secret to happiness’ or ‘the meaning of life’, via free seminars based on the wisdom of ancient philosophy. Looks like this is a local chapter of a larger organization, called New Acropolis. According to the website,

New Acropolis embraces and promotes principles of union inspired by such philosophies as Pythagoreanism, Neoplatonism, Theosophy and others, which in their time brought about real progress in civilization.

The mascot used in these ads is an inoffensive and amusingly pensive orange fish. Fun! The descriptions of their seminar topics are appealingly eclectic: Confucius, Aristotle, Buddha, Pythagoras, Bruno, Plato. My interest piqued, I decided to look into the history and activities of the group, and see if the information I could find would square with the benign, inviting tone of their ads. What I discovered is that the educational activities of this independent school are only a portion of their mission, and that New Acropolis Boston is part of a worldwide network. Similar facilities can be found in cities and countries around the globe. I also learned that New Acropolis has been labeled a cult by some governments and scholarly researchers.

If you’re thinking about popping by their center in Porter Square, and seeing what they’re all about, it’s a good idea to start with some questions. I thought of a few, which you’re welcome to use:

1. TITLES. Why did the founder of the organization, Jorge Ángel Livraga Rizzi, title himself Supreme Commander of the worldwide New Acropolis organization? Are the opportunities good for new members to be promoted quickly?
2. SPIRITS. Were the “Masters” that spoke with Mr. Livraga, to guide his spiritual development, real or imaginary, and in either case, why did they have the same names and personal histories as the spiritual beings that inspired Madame Blavatsky to found the esoteric religion of Theosophy? Is New Acropolis really just New Theosophy? Were Confucius and Pythagoras Ancient Theosophists?
3. MONEY. After the free seminars are over, what financial obligations do members of New Acropolis have to the organization? Are members still the primary source of funding for the World Commander’s private collection of ancient artifacts?
4. PROTOCOL. Is it preferable to be an “Axe-Bearer” or a representative of “the 3 Living Forces,” if we are to follow the instructions the World Commander left in his will to be followed during his official funeral ceremony?
5. MARTYRS. When Mr. Livarga said to a group of New Acropolis officers, “We too need martyrs! I want Acropolitan martyrs!”, what sort of martyrdom did he have in mind? Do the staff teaching philosophy at the Cambridge or Boston Centers for Adult Education, also want martyrs for their cause? Is martyrdom a more important part of understanding the meaning of life, or the secret to happiness?
6. LABOR. When Mr. Livarga said, “I make people work and make Acropolis until they are too tired to think of anything else,” what kind of work was he referring to – solicitation of funds, or manual labor of some kind?

The facts I refer to above – the founder’s weirdness; the Theosophy hidden behind a front of mainstream philosophy; the claims the group makes on members’ time and money – can all be verified with a little straightforward Googling. For that reason, I haven’t hot-linked to any of the sources I referred to myself when putting together this short article. My purpose here is to provoke your curiosity, and to gently challenge the benevolent, “normal” image the group projects through its advertising campaign. Without speaking to the motivation or beliefs of any given member, I can state with conviction that the organization started by Mr. Livarga in 1957 has a deeply weird and often malevolent history: shades of L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology, certainly. That doesn't mean that Acropolis Boston isn't chockful of folks who are just interested in expanding their knowledge, and exploring the history of ideas and of ideas in action.

If you’d like to learn more, do your searches and you’ll find lots of information to consider. And if you’re just interested in learning about ancient philosophy, renew your library card -- for free! Though I can't promise you won't run afoul of the secret esoteric cult that runs the BPL system. 

Boston Nonsense Watch, a free service of the Boston Atheists, examines woo-woo, pseudoscience, and dangerous religion.

Lo, the twain meet (as religious bigotries cool)

Not angels but apes

But we were born of risen apes, not fallen angels, and the apes were armed killers besides. And so what shall we wonder at? Our murders and massacres and missiles, and our irreconcilable regiments? Or our treaties whatever they may be worth; our symphonies however seldom they may be played; our peaceful acres, however frequently they may be converted into battlefields; our dreams however rarely they may be accomplished. The miracle of man is not how far he has sunk but how magnificently he has risen. We are known among the stars by our poems, not our corpses. 

-- anthropologist and writer Robert Ardrey, in his book African Genesis (1961)

An Atheist runs for Congress in Virginia

The former president of American Atheists has sent around a bulletin of potential interest to many in the freethinking world. There is a Congressional race in Virginia which seems to be between an Atheist Democrat and a Christian Republican. Ellen Johnson writes:

We need your help to elect Dr. Wynne LeGrow to Congress.  Dr. LeGrow is the Democratic candidate for the 4th district in Virginia and he is an Atheist.  He is also a veteran and a physician.

His opponent is Republican Randy Forbes, who founded and chairs the Congressional Prayer Caucus [!!! - ZB]. Forbes has introduced such resolutions as H. R. 397 "America’s Spiritual Heritage Week" and H. R. 274 reaffirming the phrase "In God We Trust" in all public buildings and institutions.

We cannot sit back and allow Randy Forbes to be reelected in November. It's time to get serious about  electing Atheists to Congress. Dr.LeGrow is a candidate we can be proud of. Our goal is $10,000 to begin purchasing advertising and mailings for Dr. LeGrow.

We need to start this campaign now. We cannot allow this opportunity to pass. Please send your donation today so we can get to work to elect Dr. LeGrow to Congress.

And please ask your friends to visit http://www.enlightenthevote.com and sign up for our e-mail alerts.

Please note that I am publicizing this message because of its news content, and not because I know anything about either candidate or seek members of the Boston Atheists or other groups to support one candidate over the other.

Dawkins: of course the repulsive burka should be legal

‘I do feel visceral revulsion at the burka because for me it is a symbol of the oppression of women.’

‘As a liberal I would hesitate to propose a blanket ban on any style of dress because of the implications for individual liberty and freedom of choice.’

-- Richard Dawkins, as quoted on separate occasions, for an article in The Daily Mail. Yes, Virginia, it is possible to be against the burka since its use is for the most part coerced, and be against legal remedies. Let us not forget that we have any number of extra-legal (not illegal!) means of resisting patriarchal, medievalist, and theocratic practices in our shared culture.

Turn the Bibles into frappes

That said, I think we’d be better off if all the world’s Bibles turned to vanilla milkshakes tomorrow. Over the centuries, humans have devised all sorts of diabolical institutions – genocide, slavery, misogyny, child abuse, homophobia, heretic hunts, witch cleansings, anti-Semitism – and you’ll find each and every one of them endorsed in Scripture, and almost no unequivocal denunciations of these evils.

James Morrow, author of The Last Witchfinder and other excellent novels that foreground a freethinking perspective, in an interview with Eric Mays at The Authors Speak blog.

Don't fool children with fake phone calls from your god

Dear Mr. Greg Bettencourt:

I was discouraged to read, in the Taunton Daily Gazette, that children attending the St. Nicholas of Myra vacation bible school were the recipients of phone calls purportedly made by the Christian god. Perhaps the article got it wrong, and the phone calls were placed not by someone pretending to be a deity, but by someone meaning only to talk to each child about issues of faith. I'd be glad to hear that this was the case -- perhaps you can confirm, one way or the other, what the nature of these calls has been?

In view of the chance that the article is accurate, and children have been receiving phone calls from someone claiming to be a god, I wanted to write and share my concern. It distresses me to think that the trust of children might have been abused in this way. As adult citizens and parents, we are entrusted to raise our children in this reality, and not to misrepresent the nature of that reality. The consequences of failing to meet this responsibility can be severe.

One example hits us particularly close to home here in Massachusetts, that of the Church of Christian Science. Christian Scientists who misrepresent reality engender in their children the notion that disease can be cured with wishful thinking instead of medical intervention. This game of make-believe has led to suffering and death -- children become the victims of medical neglect, and those who grow to adulthood inflict the same unreality on their own children. I'm sure as someone who works professionally in a pastoral capacity, you are aware of such risks.

Children are particularly vulnerable to believe in unrealities that are made real through the collusion of the parents and teachers -- think of how common belief in Santa Claus is. But then, childhood belief in Santa Claus doesn't often factor into a person's decision in adulthood to vote for one political candidate or another, or modify the way they raise their own children. A phone call from someone claiming to be Santa Claus will delight a child without causing harm, since belief in Santa has an extremely limited scope. Belief in deities like the Christian god, however, will resound throughout life, informing decisions such as where to live, who to vote for and how to raise one's own children.

Few issues are as serious as belief in the existence of gods; surely you can educate children on the history and nature of your tradition of faith without relying on outright trickery. If there are reasons to believe in the Christian god, I should hope you introduce them to children who are of such age as to be able to evaluate that evidence for themselves, and in such a way as to ensure that their ethical intelligence is allowed to judge that evidence rather than the less rational and more emotional components of our human selves. I find it ironic that this kind of betrayal of trust would occur in the parish of Nicholas of Myra, whose special regard for children is so famous. Using trick phone calls to reinforce belief isn't near the violation of the butcher who baked children into a pie, but I think St. Nicholas would be displeased just the same.

Although it is not for me to say how best for you to live according to the dictates of your religion, I would like to observe that this form of false witness seems not only to misrepresenting reality, but also to misrepresent your own faith. The expectation that a god is accessible by phone can only lead to disappointment.

Neither theology nor the trust of children should be treated so frivolously as this article suggests they have been in the program operating under your supervision. For such reasons, I encourage you to discontinue this practice of deceptive phone calls at the St. Nicholas of Myra VBS.

Sincerely,

Zachary Bos
Massachusetts State Director, American Atheists
E: zbos@atheists.org

CC: Kendra Miller at the Taunton Daily Gazette; Tim Goldrick of Saint Nicholas of Myra Catholic Church

Freedom of conscience in the US and elsewhere

Freedom of conscience, what we non-theists call freethought, is called arrogant in these our United anti-intellectual States. Elsewhere in the world, however, the exercise of such freedom threatened with execution.

In thinking about Ron Rosenbaum's silly appreciation of "the New Agnosticism," I have been self-consciously this week evaluating my own "militancy." Am I one of those rude New Atheists who has never learned to live and let live, who takes pleasure out of calling other people wrong in their beliefs.

(The kind of New Atheists that many blogs and articles call-out for being so antagonistic.)

I think not; I'm proud of the work I've done to examine my beliefs,knowledge, and values, and not ashamed of having strong reasons to be confrontational against religious belief and religious authority. This video from P. Z. Myers blog gives me good reason to think that a confrontational attitude isn't just acceptable, it is essential.

About the video: "In the Muslim-majority nation of Maldives, a man stunned an audience during questions and answers period in a lecture given by an Islamic cleric, by stating that he had chosen freedom of conscience not to follow Islam. The man, Mohamed Nazim, was promptly attacked, taken into custody, and has been threatened with death and beheading, or other punishments for choosing his freedom of conscience. Maldives media are reporting that it is the first time in many hundreds of years that a Maldivian has publicly renounced Islam, since Sultan King Hassan IX converted to Christianity in 1552 and was deposed."

It is very easy, in our democratic republic, for members of the majority culture to confuse their numbers with their superiority. In a country with near-universal religious belief, it is possible for a speaker (as in this video) to dismiss a freethinker with the most feeble of arguments, and be supporting by rounds of enthusiastic applause. The same audience that endorses this dangerous nonsense will shun the freethinker, and not come to his defense when the police take him into custody, when public figures denounce him, and when his life is threatened for his minority beliefs.

Thinking about the Fourth of July, In view of Sunday's holiday, I recommend we all think about what it means to be a member of a dispossessed and unorganized minority community, one which is labeled as depraved, subversive, immoral, and arrogant.

When I sent a message to the Boston Atheists mailing list, to share the news of Nazim's situation, I told the list members -- I really like you arrogant, militant, atheistic people. And I am glad none of you live in the Maldives.

Thanks for P. Z. Myers for the critical, confrontation, conscientious work he does at Pharyngula, the source of the links I use above. More information about the incident of apostate Nazim can be found at RealCourage.org.

David Hart thinks atheism is dumb.

David Hart has written an outrageously condescending article for the Catholic journal First Things, in which he dismisses entirely the intellectual credibility of New Atheism -- that is, the fusion of scientifically informed, change-driving nontheism that he and other theists have good reason to be worried about. He's read ALL the new books, he writes, and finds them all boringly ignorant.

That sounds like just the kind of ad hominem position which is the last resort of a man with no other options. His worldview isn't defensible -- socially, empirically, ethically, logically, or, I'll go whole-hog, aesthetically -- and he's unprepared to identify the logical failings of atheism, so, he just sneers at it.

He writes, "A truly profound atheist is someone who has taken the trouble to understand, in its most sophisticated forms, the belief he or she rejects, and to understand the consequences of that rejection. Among the New Atheists, there is no one of whom this can be said, and the movement as a whole has yet to produce a single book or essay that is anything more than an insipidly doctrinaire and appallingly ignorant diatribe."

Really? Must I bother myself with fully grasping the deep incorrectness of every non-self-evident belief before I can fairly claim that I lack belief in it? Let's go all enroll in unicorn zoology, 101: or do you want to be accused of appalling ignorance for having rejected belief in unicorns?

He has a solution for our failings: get a little godliness in you. Because, you see, the best atheists are really closet prophets: "Skepticism and atheism are, at least in their highest manifestations, noble, precious, and even necessary traditions, and even the most fervent of believers should acknowledge that both are often inspired by a profound moral alarm at evil and suffering, at the corruption of religious institutions, at psychological terrorism, at injustices either prompted or abetted by religious doctrines, at arid dogmatisms and inane fideisms, and at worldly power wielded in the name of otherworldly goods. In the best kinds of unbelief, there is something of the moral grandeur of the prophets—a deep and admirable abhorrence of those vicious idolatries that enslave minds and justify our worst cruelties."

God save me from ever feeling the "moral grandeur: of the prophets -- as distasteful a collection of woman-hating, sex-fearing, reality-rejecting delusionals as I can imagine. Though, there is something to possessing a deep abhorrence of "vicious idolatries that enslave mines..."

It is a mark of the true believer that irony has entirely left the building.

I hope many of us in the BA world will stop by the article and give it a read. It should put steel in your step and resolve in your work: this is the kind of diatribe that a huge proportion of believers finds entirely credible, and which lends to ant-atheistic prejudice a false polish of sensibility.

Write to Hart, personally. His pen is a pulpit, and he's spewing venom. That kind of demagoguery needs to be challenged, and not just with an anonymous comment in a message thread. Compassion and intelligence may not have the rhetorical efficiency of his fallacy-filled whitewashery, true; but we've constrained by good taste and principles to just be better than that. We all have our handicaps.

I read these articles and get so exasperated. One does wish that the children would step aside and let the adults handle things. Even with all their wailing, I am optimistic that we're participating in the dismantling of religion. I'm glad for it.

Read more about Hart at Wikipedia. I'm tempted to do a line-by-line response to his article, but this seems already to have been done by others elsewhere -- in parts by different authors, though it looks like all the necessary points have been made -- and in any case, does it matter? When a person believes in the nonexistent, and makes the study of such their professional career, you have to feel like evidence, logic and reasoning are all a bit beside the point. A variety of sensible responses appear at RichardDawkins.net. Comment #195 by Edward T. Babinski is fantastic.

Bonus: Read more horrendous twaddle from Hart at New Criterion, part of his campaign against the obvious and boring manifestations of modern atheism. Gosh, everything he writes is either theologically evil (Google to find his article on theodicy and tsunamis!) or piously, depravedly smug.

What Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini Get Wrong

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini are no creationists, but 'outright, card-carrying, signed-up, dyed-in-the-wool, no-holds-barred atheists'. That, however, only makes worse the incoherence of their understanding of Darwinism. There is much that Darwin got wrong, from his views of racial struggle to his occasional espousal of Lamarckism. There is nothing in this book, however, to suggest a fundamental flaw in his central argument about evolution by natural selection.

-- Kenan Malik, in "Pigs Won't Fly", his review of What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini (Profile Books 262pp £20).

Poll: "Milennials" ain't very religious

A Christian polling agency has determined that the members of the Milennial generation are not very religiously observant, according to an article in USA Today:

Most young adults today don't pray, don't worship and don't read the Bible, a major survey by a Christian research firm shows.

If the trends continue, "the Millennial generation will see churches closing as quickly as GM dealerships," says Thom Rainer, president of LifeWay Christian Resources. In the group's survey of 1,200 18- to 29-year-olds, 72% say they're "really more spiritual than religious."

Feel free to join a discussion of this latest development in the demystification of American youth, over at the Boston Atheists message board.

Weighing intelligence in Atheists and the religious

In an article for Psychology Today, Satoshi Kanazawa -- "the Scientific Fundamentalist" -- examines the hypothesis that Atheists are more intelligent than the religion (since it requires novel features associated with intelligence to overcome the evolved tendency to believe in gods).

Christian healthcare in the Houston Chronicle

Apparently if you watch the sex and the smokes, your fellow churchgoer may pitch in to cover your medical bills. It wouldn't hurt if you drop in a little prayer to make sure they pay, though, since they won't be under any legal obligation to do so. That's the thing with insurance: it's assured. It should also be non-profit, but that's another blog post.

From an article in the Houston Chronicle:

Here's how it works at Christian Healthcare: Members send in a monthly fee, resembling an insurance premium, which can range from about $50 for a single person to $450 for a family of four. That money, along with the payments from thousands of other members, is then distributed to pay sick members' medical bills. [...]

But they've been steadily growing in numbers and prominence — so much so that the recent federal health reform legislation has language exempting members from paying penalties most uninsured Americans will eventually have to pay. [...]

Said Chandler, the UH law professor: “People participating in this do need to have a little concern about solvency. You've sort of got to be relying on God here that this scheme will work out.”[...]

There are, however, a few catches. The ministries require members to be Christian, and they check with pastors for confirmation.[...]

There are also health care costs that can't be shared, most notably abortions or sexually transmitted diseases contracted out of marriage. Participants must also refrain from using tobacco and avoid sex outside of marriage, among other lifestyle requirements. [...]

Instead of paying more than $700 per month for premiums, Mark McLeod, a self-employed Houston geologist, currently pays Samaritan Ministries about $300 per month to cover himself, his wife and four of his children in a sharing plan.

“Who is going to take care of you — a company or people? I'd rather put my faith in people who believe in God.” McLeod explained.

Emphasis mine. Judging from the people I've met in the non-god-believin' community, I'm glad to say that Mark McLeod would be happily surprised to see how much he can rely on people of evolved ethics who happen not to share his religion. I've got no problem citing Scripture on this one, Galatians 6:2, "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ."

Oh, you Bible you. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. For "law of Christ" here, read "the law of decency."

Dennett in the Globe on the unbelievers

The Boston Globe today has an interview with Daniel Dennett, on his research into the number of clergy that lack belief in a higher power:

It’s true, here are these young people in seminary, they have come with the purest of hearts and the noblest of intentions and they’re going to devote their lives to God. And one of the first things they learn is textual criticism. They’re looking at all the existing papyruses and scrolls and so forth and learning about the recension of the texts — the tortuous and often controversial historical path from Hebrew, Greek, and Latin versions of the books of the Bible — and all the Apocryphal books that got rejected — to the King James Version and all the later English translations. And that’s not what they taught you in Sunday school.

That’s the joke that we often provoke from people when we talk about this: Anybody who goes through seminary and comes out believing in God hasn’t been paying attention.

The article cited in the interview, containing initial anecdotal results from Dennett's collaborative investigations, appears at the Washington Post website. An excerpt:

The interviews were all conducted by Linda LaScola, a clinical social worker with years of professional experience as a qualitative researcher and psychotherapist, and, until recently, a regular churchgoer. Like her co-author, philosopher Daniel Dennett, the author of Breaking the Spell, she is an atheist who is nevertheless a sympathetic and fascinated observer of religious practices and attitudes. For this pilot study we managed to identify five brave pastors, all still actively engaged with parishes, who were prepared to trust us with their stories. All five are Protestants, with master’s level seminary education. Three represented liberal denominations (the liberals) and two came from more conservative, evangelical traditions (the literals). (We decided to concentrate this first project on Christians, and we would have included a Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox priest, for instance–if we had encountered any, but we didn’t.) We initially had six participants, but one, a woman in the Episcopal church, had a change of heart as we were about to go to press and, at her request, all further references to her and quotations from her interviews have been removed.

Dawkins, Hitchens support legal challenge against Ratzinger

Richard Dawkins writes, in response to a Times article suggesting that he plans to arrest Joseph Ratzinger:

Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my 'Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope' article here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341

Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson's subsequent 'Put the Pope in the Dock' article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal.

The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.

Even if the Pope doesn't end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn't cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit, let alone pay for it.

Also from the Times, an article surmising that the practice of sending abusive priests to therapy (rather than jail) contributed to high abuse rates.

What do members of the Boston-area nontheist community think -- how should the man known as Pope Benedict XV be held to account for the crimes of Catholic priests protected by the Church? Submit your vote.

Members of the Boston Atheists will be collaborating on a letter to the Archdiocese of Boston. We think the Catholic leadership should know what their secular neighbors think of the current situation. We're all in this together, eh? I don't think it is a legitimate argument that this is a Catholic problem to be dealt with by Catholics; rather it is a social problem to be dealt with by whomever is willing to step up and be counted as adult enough to accept responsibility for enforcing a durable ethics.

"Finding God after losing a job"

From the T rider's daily scrapsheet, the Boston Metro: "The religious community is responding to those who ... are turning towards the church in their time of need. Across the greater Boston area, institutions of faith are providing support programs for the jobless, based mostly on professional help as well as spiritual guidance."

Spiritual guidance is of little help for secular problems. Whatever benefits there are for a religious person in seeking spiritual solutions to their problems, depend entirely on the degree to which they've framed their social and ethical worldview in religious terms. Everyone can use a little guidance, support, and aid from time to time. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if everyone could enjoy such help without having to believe in untrue things about the world?

Christopher Hitchens proposes new commandments

In Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens considers -- and finds fault in -- a version of the Biblical commandments. Not one to tear down without suggesting we prepare to rebuild soon thereafter, he concludes his column with an attractive alternative draft:

• "Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or color.
  
• "Do not ever use people as private property.
  
• "Despise those who use violence or the threat of it in sexual relations.
  
• "Hide your face and weep if you dare to harm a child.
  
• "Do not condemn people for their inborn [sexual] nature.
  
• "Be aware that you too are an animal and dependent on the web of nature, and think and act accordingly.
  
• "Do not imagine that you can escape judgment if you rob people with a false prospectus rather than with a knife.
  
• "Turn off that fucking cell phone—you have no idea how unimportant your call is to us.
  
• "Denounce all jihadists and crusaders for what they are: psychopathic criminals with ugly delusions.
  
• "Be willing to renounce any god or any religion if any holy commandments should contradict any of the above.

"In short: Do not swallow your moral code in tablet form."

Smut for Smut Program

CBS News reports that an atheist group at the University of Texas, San Antonio is giving out pornography in exchange for Bibles, a campaign they call "Smut for Smut". This of course prompted complaints from the University's Christian group with complaints that it is offensive. However, University officials have decided to let students conduct the swap.

"As long as students are not violating laws or violating the Constitution, they have the freedom of speech and assembly," stated University spokesman, David Gabler.

Personally I think the Smut for Smut Campaign is pure brilliance and I think more groups should follow this example. Although, I must admit, the comparison isn't quite fair. With pornography, you at least get something out of it.

German Christian homeschoolers receive asylum

The NY Times is reporting on a German Christian family that sought and has won asylum status here in the United States. A Tennesse court agreed that the German state ban on home schooling is a form of unconscionable political oppression. The rationale behind the German policy is that home schooling enables different communities -- of faith, of national origin, etc. -- to diverge from the mainstream culture. By prohibiting homeschooling, the government seeks to avoid the creation of parallel or pocket cultures -- such as the Christian "quiverful" families in the US Bible Belt.

We've discussed the issue of homeschooling on the Boston Atheists podcast, and how it pertains to childrearing and cultural ownership. Opinions vary, but education is obviously a topic of central importance.