The Boston Atheist: August 26 - September 1, 2007

FURTHER SCRUTINY OF SCRUTON
In the last Boston Atheist bulletin, I directed your attention to Roger Scruton’s discussion in Prospect Magazine of the connection of the human and the sacred. I enjoyed batting around some responses to his article when we last met. My main objection is mainly to his assertion that there is a valuable “kind of knowledge and understanding that comes to us through the experience of sacred things.” Begging the question, the knowledge that comes from which kind of sacredness? The world’s religions have diverse and incompatible means for connecting to the sacred: animal sacrifice vs. animal veneration; peyote vs. temperance; erotic congress vs. abstinence. Maybe different kinds of sacredness pass on different kinds of knowledge, but if that’s the case, what kind of sacred knowledge should be obeyed in the halls of power, in the boardroom, the courtroom, the legislative chamber, the Oval Office? If we go to the sacred as a source of useful knowledge, we shall have to choose between two unattractive options:

1) a theological relativism in direct competition with scientific empiricism, so that the contradictory knowledge of different sacred traditions are resolved by fiat as being ‘different paths to the truth’ and sacred diversity is valued over truth

2) a Balkanized society in which different communities form around different sacred truths and compete with each other; pity those secularists among them whose only source of knowledge is objective inquiry, and who must hope that their faith-filled leaders are accommodating of their unbelief.

Either we are a single culture united in diffidence toward the truth, or a culture divided by our allegiance to incompatible truths. Neither option is attractive.

That there are so many potential sources of the sacred (and that the term itself can be applied to whatever experience blows the believer’s hair back) means that sacredness is a poor source for the sort of knowledge that we need in order to make important decisions. The three situations Scruton gives as examples of sacredness—birth, copulation, and death—are rich with meaning that has nothing to do with consecration. I think Scruton loves believing; I think he is addicted to the private satisfaction known only by those who are assured of possessing the rare and subtle Truth, and doesn’t realize he gets it’s the wrong way around. The intensity of love, sex, birth and death isn't important because it's sacred; rather we call it sacred because it's important. If Roger Scruton were as scrupulous a philosopher as he is an Anglican, he’d have never made this elementary mistake.

PAUL GILBERT’S ATHEIST RADIO
Down in New Zealand, Paul Gilbert has started a music station devoted to Atheism. It's called The Pagan Station and is freely available on live365 internet radio. Paul has many hundreds of Atheist, Free-Thinker & Pro-Science songs in his library, so there's plenty of variety already, but new material is being added every week thanks to the help and generosity of listeners worldwide. To have a listen, go straight to http://www.live365.com/stations/paganstation. Registration is free and straightforward. In keeping with the sciencey theme, I've uploaded two music files to the BA Meetup site: They Might Be Giants' "Why Does The Sun Shine?" and Tom Lehrer's "The Elements." Download them from http://atheists.meetup.com/59/files.

"BURN DOWN THE THINKERIES!"
Jonathan Gottschall reviews a tempting new book in his essay “Burn Down the Thinkeries!,” appearing in this week’s Skeptics’ Society newsletter. He begins by starts by reminding us of Aristophanes’ 5th century comedy The Clouds, in which the playwright lays satirical waste to the phrontistera operated by Socrates and other Sophists. In these “Thinkeries,” “any ambitious young scoundrel” can be taught to “seem right in any argument, no matter how wrong. The play ends with an ex-student, who has come to understand the institution’s true nature, setting fire to the Thinkery and inciting his fellow citizens to drive the sooty knaves from town with stones.” According to Gottschall, author Frederick Crews, in his new collection of essays Follies of the Wise, “performs a similar public service, figuratively speaking: he sets fire to corrupted Thinkeries.” The modern-day Thinkeries that Crews is set to skewer are those institutions manifesting “most of the features that characterize religious fanaticism, such as undue deference to authority, hostility toward dissenters, and, most basically, an assumption that intuitively held certitude is somehow more precious and profound than the hard-won gains of trial and error”; they have a ruinous penchant for guruism and question-begging, and little regard for the basic lessons of Reasoning 101.” [Source: eSkeptic, 08/29/07]

“GOD AND THE COSMIC BIG BANG”
Brian Quail of Glasgow wrote a letter to the editor of the Scottish paper, The Herald, defending the reasonableness of belief: "Following Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas gives five proofs for the existence of God. The first is the argument from causality, to which I have referred. To argue against causality is to argue against all science and rational thought." Aquinas argument, known to Muslim philosophers as the Kalam cosmological argument, and by other names in other traditions, isn't the slam dunk Mr. Quail thinks it is, nor does the Big Bang 'mirror and triumphantly vindicate' Aquinas's logic. The comments are a hoot. [Source: Canada.com, 08/13/07]

The Skeptigator blog had a different response to the same editorial:
In question is the comment by Dawkins of Gould, “I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rock of Ages.” This bothers me as much as Hitchens claiming that Martin Luther King, Jr. was some kind of secular humanist cloaked as a pastor. No Hitchens, MLK Jr. was a Christian pastor whose beliefs (while certainly humanist) were informed by his religion (at least his interpretation of his religion). Claiming MLK Jr. is a humanist first and second only consequentially Christian is a bit disingenious, IMO.

THE ANTI-ATHEISM BACKLASH CONTINUES
Steven Plaut, a professor of business administration at Haifa University, is a regular contributor to FrontPage. This week in The Jewish Press, he launches a comically disordered and abusive attack on Richard Dawkins and the spate of "Three Cheers for Atheism" books. It's rife with straw man arguments, no true Scotsman evasiveness, and other familiar fallacies. I encourage everyone to read his head-shakingly confused essay as part of our campaign to better know the anti-rational enemy. In his discussion of Dawkins' argument that theology is not needed to foster morality, Plaut perplexingly dismisses benign secular alternatives to the Ten Commandments, such as "Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice", with a single derogatory syllable: "Yawn." This from the author that accuses Dawkins of failing to take seriously the arguments of his opponent. Near the end of his diatribe, Plaut briefly mentions Rabbi Nathan Slifkin, who has been critical of Intelligent Design's attempts to argue for God’s existence from the gaps in scientific knowledge. Slifkin argues that there is "proof of God and His presence in the parts of the universe that have been understood and explained; that is, in the miracles of mundane and ordinary life." Therefore, Slifkin would conclude, a superfluous god is a necessary god. QED. Such are the astounding feats of rationalization possible when you absolutely gotta believe. [Source: The Jewish Press, 08/29/07]

ATHEISTS IN LOWELL
If some of you are in the mood for travel, or are already near there, consider stopping by the September meeting of the The Atheists of Greater Lowell at The Java Room on September 5th, at 7 PM. Ginger Ale Plaza, Route 110, 14 Littleton Road, Chelmsford. The organizer of their group, which like ours is an affiliate of American Atheists, is Steve Berthiaume. He posts news and commentary at http://lowellatheists.blogspot.com.

CHECK OUT: Steve B is also one of the contributors to AtheistParents.org. The site has not been updated recently, but the forums are active and of certain interest to those of you who are currently raising or considering producing offspring. Spread those skeptical genes!

Craft the Vote!

From a Slate feature by Jessica Vitkus, showcasing the ways to increase civic participation via handicrafts.

The Boston Atheist: August 12 - August 18, 2007

IS ATHEISM AT THE WHEEL WHILE REASON SLEEPS?
Roger Scruton, writing in Prospect Magazine, is not surprised that "decent, skeptical people, observing the revival in our time of superstitious cults, the conflict between secular freedoms and religious edicts, and the murderousness of radical Islamism, should be receptive to the anti-religious polemics of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others." Is he right, do we need an intervention by true reason, lest we be pushed by demagoguery into a irreligious nightmare.

The title of Scruton's essay is "The sacred and the human." I take his point to be that when the rabid 'new atheists' denounce religion, they are attacking a straw man that bears no functional resemblance to the mature and measured practices of actual believers. Biologist PZ Myers calls this a courtier's reply, referring to the rationalizations sputtered by the members of the Emperor's court when confronted by someone so audacious as to point out His Majesty's nakedness. Gordon Lynch, writing on The Guardian group blog "Comment is free", makes just this kind of mistake when he leaps from the observation that Dawkins writes books to the conclusion that the new atheism is of a kind with the media-savvy televangelists: "The sheer ferocity of many of the atheist critiques of religion also suggests that we are not in the territory of reasoned debate, but witnessing the birth pangs of a new, anti-religious cultural identity."

In the comments following Lynch's article, one writer says it is difficult to imagine an atheist hijacking an airplane or blowing up a bus. That's not true at all. Who among us can't imagine an anti-religious zealot with the poisoned will enough to build a bomb and explode it among Catholics in Mass or Muslims in mosque? I am surprised that Scruton doesn't predict this scenario as one of the monsters brought forth in the sleep of our collective reason.

TONIGHT'S MEETING
This evening, I'd like to consider the increasing visibility of atheism, aspects of which are touched upon by all of the above authors. We will gather at seven in the private dining room at MC2 American Bistro in the Cambridge Marriott; ask for our group or my name at the hostess station when you arrive to be taken there. I shall have brought copies of the several articles mentioned here, and will read out a brief response, my own hope for a secular future -- which looks very little like Scruton's patronizing caricature. When we talk tonight, let us talk about what role atheists should take in deciding the future structure of the state and culture, and what principles should govern that future. Anyone wishing to step up on the soapbox to give their own thoughts on the matter will be invited to do so, before we table discussion and enjoy our usual relaxed godless gossip. You'll find these several articles related to this theme at http://atheists.meetup.com/59/files/, in PDF format.

OUR NEXT MEETING
Would anyone like to host a viewing of "The God Who Wasn't There" at their home in the first week of September? The next scheduled dinner meeting will be September 18th, at Boston Beerworks. Please suggest your preferred alternative location! RSVP at http://atheists.meetup.com/59/calendar/6159830/.

CHECK OUT: The Atheist Discussion Group (ADG) of Greater Boston.

"ALL THE MISTAKES OF THE GODLY ARE MERELY METAPHOR"
In a blog post, the aforementioned Myers makes the point that people who kneel in prayer are NOT behaving metaphorically: "... if this god is a metaphor, why are people always building real monuments and cathedrals to him, and donating real money and effort to his worship? Why not just stay home on Sundays, watch football, and say you're metaphorically being religious?" The faithful really do tithe, vote according to the convictions of their faith, and infect their children with the toxic idea of original sin. [Source: Pharyngula, 07/18/07]

"THE AGNOSTIC'S PRAYER"
From Roger Zelazny's novel Creatures of Light and Darkness, 1969. The book was just reprinted after being notoriously hard to get ahold of for many years. This sacred muttering might be the most famous prayer in all of science fiction and fantasy.

Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen.

CANADIAN ATHEISTS NEITHER DISAPPEARING NOR REPRODUCING
This article, about the stability of Canada's atheism population, makes the important point that atheists represent all socioeconomic classes, and come from every walk of life. The affirming message I see in this demographic data is that no matter who you are, where you come from, or what you do, there's no reason to think you can't begin to think more rationally about the meaning of life. A gem of a quote from the study's author, sociologist Reg Bibby: "You may be a non-believer but that doesn't mean you're going to trash your grandma's long-held beliefs when you get together for a family reunion." [Source: Canada.com, 08/13/07]

"IGNORING CENTURY'S GODLESS ATROCITIES"
Episcopal priest Borden Painter wants to block our movement into an increasingly rational, secular future. The inevitable outcome of such a campaign, he argues, is genocide and oppression. He feigns a willingness to consider his opponents, quoting Hitchens' "god Is Not Great": "All that the totalitarians have demonstrated is that the religious impulse - the need to worship - can take even more monstrous forms if it is repressed." Thus we return to Scruton's argument, that religion isn't about God, it's about the inborn need to be worship the sacred. By the way, Painter's opinion is ignorant, angry, prejudicial rubbish -- check the comments for confirmation, where the words "disingenuous," "dumb," and "yikes" are characteristic of readers' responses. [Source: Hartford Courant, 08/05/07]

Evolution, Religion and Free Will

I've uploaded to the Meetup files directory a fascinating article about belief among prominent scientists. In "Evolution, Religion and Free Will," authors Gregory Graffin and William Province examine the surprising views on how religion relates to evolution, as are held by some of the most eminent evolutionary scientists. One interesting finding: "Evolutionary scientists are strongly motivated to ameliorate conflict between evolution and religion." Though such professionals discount the existence of personal gods or the possibility of life after death, they nonetheless see no incompatibility between scientific knowledge and religious beliefs. Goes to show that social and cultural pressures to conform to and not confront the prevailing "wisdom" can lead to all kinds of dissonant cognition among those persons who most deeply understand the nature and origin of our human selves, the

If you have difficulty accessing the article, please contact me at bostonatheists@gmail.com, and I will be glad to send the PDF to you directly.

The Boston Atheist: July 29 - August 4, 2007

FOXHOLE ATHEISTS FACE FRIENDLY FIRE: Bart Meltzer, coordinator of state and regional operations for American Atheists, asked that I send along a message from AA Military Director Kathleen Johnson, who is currently serving on active duty in Iraq. Following her report you'll find a link to the article she mentions from Stars and Stripes.

Per Kathleen's request, please send any emails of encouragement to the brave young soldier mentioned below via Kathleen. Kudos to this brave young soldier for having the courage to stand up for his beliefs and right to express them freely in the face of such drastic opposition. Kudos to the other brave soldiers who had the courage to participate. Let him know he's doing work in the service of a far greater good than the shockingly tyrannical, and unsurprisingly pious, officer who disrupted their meeting. If you have a perspective on this report, I strongly encourage you to forward it to the Boston Atheists mailing list by sending an email to atheists-59@meetup.com. We know how unwelcome vocal atheism can be in the workplace, academe, and civic life -- it should be no surprise that members of the military can be just as hostile toward nonbelievers.

Bart shared his opinion on the matter: "If all Atheists stood up for their beliefs and were as vocal as these soldiers we would not be facing the discrimination we are facing today. We would be perceived as a much larger majority that should not be trifled with. I'm proud to be a part of the national organization that fights for the civil rights of Atheists in the face of this discrimination." The large majority Bart mentions is that eclectic group of forty million Americans, united only by disbelief. If there is to be a future in which religious institutions are displaced by civic organizations, in which faith is rightly disenfranchised, and in which belief is become only a historical fact, those forty million Americans need to coordinate their desire to work against the nearly-universal fallacy that religion is necessary. Give this young soldier your encouragement and your support; let your atheist neighbors know that you share their intolerance of this kind of bigotry. If we're going to come out of the woodwork, an email is an easy way to start. Here's Kathleen's report:

One of our members, a young Atheist enlisted soldier, thought he would like to see if he could generate some interest in MAAF [Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers] meetings at his Forward Operating Base (FOB) here in Iraq (not the base I'm at, by the way). He got things coordinated and started hanging flyers, and after weeks of having to re-hang his flyers almost daily because some vandal kept tearing them down, he finally succeeded in having a small MAAF meeting. I wasn't there because the meeting wasn't on my FOB, but I knew he was holding it and was expecting to hear from him after the meeting. Keep in mind that this young soldier did everything right - he went through the Chaplain's office and jumped through all the hoops it takes to legally hold meetings that are religiously or philosophically based. Four soldiers attended this meeting - all of them very junior enlisted soldiers with the exception of one Major (an O-4), who claimed to be a "freethinker". Well, to make a very long story a little shorter, the Major turned out to be a fundamentalist Christian who verbally berated the other attendees, accused them of plotting against Christians and disrespecting soldiers who have died protecting the Constitution, and threatened them with punishment under the UCMJ for their activities (said they were "going down") and said he would do whatever it took to shut the meetings down. Keep in mind that by this point, he had two of the attendees (one soldier fled when the shouting started) standing at the position of attention so that he could yell at them, berate them, and humiliate them. This apparently went on for several minutes at which time the Major shut down the meeting by saying he wasn't some "push-over Chaplain" and that he would not tolerate the meetings to continue. The young MAAF member who hosted the meeting is absolutely freaked out about what happened, but he said he's going to continue with the meetings and isn't going to be bullied by the prayer warriors. I've advised him to immediately notify the Chaplain sponsor of what happened to get guidance while I try to figure out what to do next. I should hear something back from him tonight sometime and there's even a small possibility I might be able to score a mission to his FOB and attend one of his meetings in the next few weeks (if I do, I'll meet with the Chaplain in person). As for immediate action, he's going to get me the names of his Chaplain sponsor and the name of the officer who disrupted the meeting. My intent right now is to make a formal report to the most senior Chaplain I can find along with possibly an Equal Opportunity complaint against the officer if we can get him fully identified. I may not be eligible to make that complaint because I wasn't there, but I can at least smooth the way for this young troop to make one if he elects to. At the very least, I can make the EO office formally aware of what happened there. More info will follow when I get it, but right now, feel free to disseminate this information since I've intentionally sanitized it for names and locations.

Related items include Staff Sgt. Gene Horrigan's letter "Read the Constitution" in response to Spc. Matthew B. Cravens' letter "Atheist 'revival' bad for U.S." Also of interest are "Camp Quest is legal"by Spc. Jeremy Hall; "Religions' 'dangerous attitude'" by Senior Airman Matthew Frazee; and "Our country's values" by Michael Breslin, all at this page. Please let me know if anyone finds a link to the original article, "Atheists are happy campers at Ohio retreat," which appeared in the July 8th issue of that paper.

• COMING EVENTS: The Boston Atheists will take to the lanes next Friday, August 10th, at Boston Bowl. (RSVP) Guests are of course welcome. The following Tuesday, the 14th, we'll be meeting at the MC2 American Bistro in Cambridge for a salon-style discussion of a topic to-be-determined this weekend. (RSVP)
• "A TEACHER WITH FAITH AND REASON": Jeff Jacoby is an inimitable columnist, though for reasons of taste rather than skill. In this latest dispatch from the hinterlands of intellectual credibility, he wistfully wishes for a science as informed by spirituality as was Newton's, thus confusing cause with coincidence and suggesting that his awareness of the scientific enterprise is about 330 years behind the times. Boston Globe, 07/22/07
• "CREATION SCIENCE 101": Tongue-in-cheekiness by guitar-totin' teacher Roy Zimmerman.
• THE OUT CAMPAIGN: Says Fark.com: "Atheists urge atheists to come out of the closet by wearing an 'A' to make it even easier for fundies to round them up and stone them as required by the Old Testament." Do any designers want to try designing an atheist pride shirt that is just a little less ugly?
• HELP WANTED: Camp Quest of Michigan is seeking one or two responsible males or females who are unafraid of commitment to volunteer as camp counselors for one week this August. Atheists preferred, but will consider all freethinking applicants. Immediate openings available due to 11th-hour cancellations by soft, spineless wannabes. If you are interested, contact Len Zanger, Director of Camp Quest: 248-330-5061. Spread the word as you see fit.

Responding to Mary Fairchild

In this post, I don't tackle theology or politics, analyze current affairs or ask questions of ultimate concern. In this post, I'm going to talk about vent about an email I got this morning from About.com: Christianity moderator Mary Fairchild; for such venting was the blog invented.

Mary is sweating bloody bullets -- it seems the Church is once again being threatened by the cosmic might of U.S. representatives. One wonders why her omnipotent deity doesn't simply smite the armies of secularization, instead of waiting for the pleading prayer of the pious to pass a critical threshold before acting to preserve religious liberty. Mary's panicked report:

If the plan proposed in H.R. 1592 (The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007) is passed in Congress tomorrow (May 3, 2007), according to its opponents, it will severely hinder religious freedoms, including the ability to openly express the doctrines and beliefs of the Christian faith.

Already on the website poll, more of the About.com Christians have voted that H.R. 1592 is not going to undermine freedom. Now, I don't think it's prudent to legislate civic values, but I am bemused by the spectacle of Mary's histrionic performance. She writes:

What happened to America? I thought we had religious freedoms here, not to mention free speech? What do you think? Is it a crime to be a Christian now? Should believers be prosecuted for expressing the convictions of their faith?

One hopes that the answer to her question, "What has happened to America?", is that we are beginning to want to shrug off the cloak of idiocy called dogma. Just as we have religious freedom, there is a freedom from religion -- don't be surprised if the modern population realizes is far more free without religion than with. We have free speech -- don't be surprised if others exercise that freedom by making speeches declaiming the untruth of the Bible (and the Torah, and the Book of Mormon, and the Vedas, and the Qu'ran, etc).

I wrote a little note to Mary, confront her with a different perspective:

I fully believe that adults should have religious freedom. For if I would grant myself the authority to permit or prohibit certain actions as a campaign against nonsense, I'd be hard put to explain why my neighbors would not have a similar authority. And surely they'd soon begin to call my habits nonsensical and therefore prohibited as well. As I do not trust the voting public to leave me unmolested, I shall continue to support the broad protection of civil liberties. So believe what you will; worship as you like. But don't expect that I'll be as willing to acknowledge your "right" to cultivate in your children all the old superstitions, prejudices, and cosmological confusion that we call "church," or that I see some compelling legal reason to exclude anti-gay and anti-female (to name two of many biases) from public criticism.

Believers should, indeed, be prosecuted for expressing their convictions -- for those convictions are medieval, false, and injurious to civic health, and deserve to be prosecuted in the court of public reason. Let us hope that judgment is passed in favor of reality, and that religion can finally be sentence to eternal ignominy, as one of those curious institutions that any society must grow out of if it is to call itself truly civilized.

I don't think this bill should pass, but neither should we be afraid to be increasingly intolerant of rationally indefensible belief in our daily private lives.

From a Jewish Atheist

Robert Wolfe contacted me last week, asking that I spread the word about his new project: The Jewish Atheist Website, http://www.kofersite.com. He writes:

I see a need for a better understanding of Jewish history and tradition within the atheist movement. Because both Christianity and Islam are derived in one way or another from Judaism, there is a certain tendency among atheists to blame the Jews for the power and appeal of the God idea. Yet despite its theistic image, Jewish tradition also contains a powerful anti-theistic current, one which is reflected in the considerable percentage of Jews who consider themselves atheists or agnostics. My website seeks to explore the roots of this anti-theistic current and bring out some of its aspects and manifestations.

There'll be more from Robert, as well as a commentary on his website, in the forthcoming issue of Boston Freethought. If you are not already on the mailing list, please send a message to bostonatheists[at]gmail.com and let us know to which email or mailing address you'd like the newsletter to be sent.

Tasteless Attack in WSJ

Sam Schulman's column, "Without God, Gall Is Permitted" from Friday's Wall Street Journal is a litany of misquotes, misunderstandings, and invective. I submitted a response through the WSJ online form, but I am not optimistic about the chance of my comments being posted. Many thanks to Steve Berthiaume of the Atheists of Greater Lowell for bringing this article to our attention. Those of you that believe snarky dogmatism is tasteless will find it ironic that it was published as a "Taste Commentary." Mr. Schulman's diatribe is a litany of misquotes, misunderstandings, and sneers. Though practically every sentence is weasely and chock full of fallacy, I'll responsd to just four points. I encourage readers to respond to the WSJ as well! Let them know that the audience gets ticked off when the editors allow invective to displace intelligent opinion.

1. "The faith that the new atheists describe is a simple-minded parody."
     Dawkins et al are not grappling with your straw-man, Mr. Schulman. Their discussion of the psychosocial, neurological and philosophical dimensions of worship is deep and demanding. The writing in the recent crop of books is clear, forceful, and elegant; we should be so lucky to have such authors make every complex subject seem so simple! The suggestion that these "new atheists" are debunking a caricature suggests that the critic has not personally read The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell, and other recent books that smartly and stylishly critique religiosity.

2. "It is impossible to see within it what might have preoccupied great artists and thinkers like Homer, Milton, Michelangelo..."
     Mr. Schulman is correct: religion has been indeed the preoccupation of great minds. Do not the accomplishments of Avicenna — physician, scholar, philosopher — demonstrate the sublimity of Islam? Is not the veracity of Buddhism proven by the genius of Bhavaviveka? That persons of intelligence — indoctrinated since birth, educated by religious teachers and offered no alternative to a supernatural worldview — have thought about religion does not mean their god exists. A number of luminaries have thought long and hard about Hamlet, as well.

     In the same paragraph Mr. Schulman falsely ascribes religious belief to Albert Einstein. I hope that in his prominent publishing position, his example does not encourage business leaders to likewise pass on received wisdom without checking sources.

3. "The new atheists fail too often simply for want of charm or skill."
     We should applaud, not deride, advocates who rely upon logic. Mr. Schulman's criticism here is self-serving, for he knows that his own position is defensible only if rhetoric can persuade without reference to fact. Unfortunately, that's the standard tolerated in our public space. I myself prefer truth to charm, and I am deeply suspicious of anyone who prefers a genial manner to rational thought. Of course, this is no sacrifice; Richard Dawkins' lively writing fairly crackles with wit.

4. "When the very first population of atheists roamed the earth in the Victorian age..."
     Well, if you believe that the creation of the universe was only ~6,000 years ago, it stands to reason that you'd have to bump up the appearance of freethinkers. Don't tell Democritus; he's rather infatuated with the idea of having lived in ancient Greece. Now, I don't believe that Mr. Schulman is a creationist, but he does seem laughably unfamiliar with the powerful intellects that shrugged off supersitution long before Lyell, Darwin, Wallace, and Dawkins.

Note: This Sam Schulman is not the now-deceased former owner of the Seattle SuperSonics; this Sam is a pundit whose writing appears frequently in Commentary and the Spectator. (Among other questionably-reasoned positions, he asserts that a person cannot marry a member of the same sex for the same reason that a man cannot be brother to a dog.)

How We Fight Baloney

In a gladdening demonstration of federal intelligence, the FTC hit four marketers of weight-loss pills with $25 million in fines for falsely advertised health benefits. In a Houston Chronicle article, FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras is reported to have said, "Testimonials from individuals are not a substitute for science ... And that's what Americans need to understand." This sounds pretty good, but I'm not exactly cheering. How is it that worthless products remain in stores as long as manufacturers admit their medicinal impotence? Shouldn't there be some public mechanism by which snake-oil salesmen are booed from the marketplace, even if their sham is technically legal?

In another news item -- I'll explain how these are related -- a petition was submitted last month to the British PM "to make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16." Richard Dawkins signed the petition but later asked that his name be struck from the roll after he read a fuller description:

In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought.

Though Dawkins is quick with a mea culpa for not having read more carefully, his involvement has been jumped upon by critics in the ID community and self-designated paladins defending religion from rabid secularists. No surprise!

So, how are quack therapies like religious inculcation? Both problems require a solution in the form of cultural pressure instead of legal force.

If we are serious in our collective effort to expunge as much as possible the irrational from the public space, shame sure is a savvy tactic. Embarrassment is by far a more effective motivator than federal intervention or philosophical rigor:

"The final test of truth is ridicule. Very few religious dogmas have ever faced it and survived." -H. L. Mencken

Though it is of course necessary to be both legally correct and philosophically sound! Dawkins identifies his campaign as one of consciousness-raising; Sam Harris in The End of Faith asked that we become "conversationally intolerant" of religious -- and by extension -- irrational beliefs. I think James Randi sounds a similar clarion call: that individuals find the courage to confront flim-flam, baloney, and the propagation of dangerous norms anywhere we see them. His weekly SWIFT newsletter is a handbook for identifying the enemy and his critical commentary is a training manual for dispatching it.

Whether our chief personal concern is with dogmatic religion, malfeasant drug-peddlers, wonky politicos, or any other threat to civic health, the fight against baloney might begin with a sense of humor. Wherever the absurd takes sanctuary, let us laugh in its face. It's difficult to take seriously what has been exposed as incredibly, indefensibly, mind-numbingly ridiculous. E.g. immaculate conception; intelligent design; natural cures; or political piety.

[This post is modified from a letter sent to James Randi]

Boston Atheists

Boston Atheists

I'd like to pose a question to members of this and other, related blogs. Since this is a question to which I suspect myself of already having an answer, my posing it is perhaps more akin to an experiment. My question is: Are there any instances in which the concept of 'tradition' is invoked as a causal explanation and defensive assignment of legitimacy to a belief, action or practice, that don't, in reality, represent an attempt--conscious or unconscious--on the part of the person providing the explanation, to conceal either an element or an essence of irrationality, illogic, illegitimacy, or moral/ethical failure? For instance, claiming that hoisting a Confederate flag above a state capitol is a matter of "tradition" is a clear example of an (usually conscious) attempt to conceal a moral failure and, therefore, an illegitimacy. Another way to ask my question is: Are any of the beliefs, actions or practices that are typically chalked up to 'tradition' actually rational, logical, moral/ethical, and therefore legitimate? I propose that this question is substantially more difficult to answer than most readers will realize at first glance.

On Merullo's Timidity

Member Robert Skole wrote in to say that a lot of atheists would be interested in reading Roland Merullo’s Op-Ed in yesterday’s Globe, and the writer’s forthcoming book about the “big subject” of God, as well. You can read it here, and maybe you'll agree that it's just a hapless shrug in the direction of sectarian rancor. “This God stuff is what makes the world go 'round, I guess,” writes Merullo. You guess? Surely, there is something more to be said on the incompatibility between societal progress and religiosity? On the categories of ignorance we file away in confidential, eyes-only folders labeled “faith?”

Today’s argument in favor of an increase in our collective intolerance of religion: Grandview Valley Baptist Church North, where old men are reported to molest the children of the community in service to their concept of God. Though some, even or especially in the atheist community, that would condemn religion for charging man with a powerful impulse for wrong-doing, this is not a just attack. In both explicit and implicit ways religion propels many toward an otherwise unachievable goodness. No, religion is not bad (however incorrect), but it can be bad, and when it is bad there must be a way of preserving lawfulness and protecting potential victims from harm and keeping actual victims from further harm. Religious belief and religious practice enjoy protected status in a nation where such status protects the most shameful of practices. Why do we give religion such a reckless privilege? There isn’t any answer from Merullo, who closes the case with a mantra from the Dalai Lama: “My religion is kindness.” All well and good if all believes were benign, but how does “kindness” zealous bigotry? To name one of the many excesses to be found where faith resides.

It would have been nice if the Globe editors had chosen to print an article that engages the issue of religion and modernity, instead of giving Merullo space for market his new book? In which book I hope the author will be less nonplussed by child abuse in the Ozarks, the Crusader spirit of the neo-conservatives, the rational capacity of the voting pious, etc, etc.

Looking Into Boy Scout Recruitment

Margaret Downey, a board member of the organization Scouting For All and President of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, has written to ask for the help of anyone who agree that atheists shouldn't be excluded from Scouting. When I think back to the tension during my own board of review for the Life rank, I realize now that the questions were narrowly concerned with the expression of Christian faith in my life. What made me uncomfortable back then at the age of 15 makes me indignant now. The institution of Scouting has much to offer young men, yet a hypothetical youth of impeccable virtue and advanced rationality would be denied those benefits, and forced to seek the same camaraderie and wholesome experiential learning... where? Religion is irrelevant to Scouting's broader program of moral and physical development. I would rather see the religion expunged from Scouting before Scouting ejected from public schools, but on the chance that such expulsion will instigate change you can be sure I will personally be contacting local schools, as Margaret asks requests in the following missive:

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) are currently involved in their annual recruitment drive usually held at all public elementary and middle schools. The Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia contends that if BSA (as a declared private organization) only wants religious children as members, they should conduct their recruitment drives at private religious schools only.

I am currently presenting this argument to the Unionville/Chadds Ford School District in an attempt to stop the Boy Scout recruitment drive. Furthermore, I am using the school districts' own policy as evidence that BSA should not be allowed to use school facilities free of charge. Policy 707 reads in part, that free use of the facility is granted to non-profit organizations "...whose membership is open to district residents."

I really need your help, everyone. I can't cover the entire area (or other states) alone. I am working hard in my own area and I beg all of you to put pressure on BSA and the school where you reside. Contact your local elementary and middle schools and ask the following:

1. Is the school allowing BSA to recruit on school grounds?
2. How is BSA conducting its recruitment drive in the school?
3. Does the recruitment drive involve teachers or administrators (handing out flyers, hosting BSA representatives in the classroom or cafeteria, etc.)?
4. Does a teacher or administrator advocate for BSA membership either by announcements or posting of signs?
5. Does BSA have free use of the school facility for their meetings?
6. Where can a copy of the "Use of School Facilities" policy found?
7. Can I have a copy of that policy?

You are taxpayers whose money is used to support the public school system. You have the right to protect Atheist families from discrimination scenarios. Your calls are actually an attempt to protect the school district from becoming entangled with a discrimination lawsuit should an innocent child be treated like a second class citizen within the confines of his public school. School district funds should not be jeopardized in this way.

More Against City Council Prayer in Lowell

Steve Berthiaume wrote to let us know that another letter to the editor has appeared from a local atheist speaking out against the violation of church of state inherent in opening a city council meeting with sectarian prayer. From The Lowell Sun:

Stop prayers before City Council meetings

I join those opposing prayer before City Council meetings. Besides violating at least the spirit of the Establishment Clause, it violates the principle of separation of church and state. The Wars of Religion, which devastated Europe for centuries, and the tyranny and oppression in the Middle East today largely stem from one group trying to impose their religion on others.

Such conflict is inevitable because government is an agency of coercion. That's why we use it to stop criminals and foreign enemies, who can only be stopped with greater force. Turning government force against a religious minority only changes their behavior, not their minds. A mind cannot be forced. A gun is not an argument, as Ayn Rand said.

The result is an oppressed group just waiting for their chance to seize power and force their religion on everyone else. Civil strife is the inevitable result. Are we not seeing this now on a tiny scale here in Lowell -- religious groups arguing over which prayer the government should impose on people at City Council meetings?

Separation of church and state protects everyone from having religion imposed on them. The result has been centuries of relative religious peace and freedom here in the United States.

It's wrong for the city of Lowell to employ any prayer before council meetings because government exists to protect our rights and not to promote a religious agenda. The Lowell City Council should stop saying prayers before meetings and recognize people's right to make their own religious decisions.

DANIEL E. CALESS, Gloucester
Member, Atheists of Greater Lowell

He's probably a Saints fan...

Some of you may be familiar with my (decidedly not compelling) Disproof from Mundanity argument, being that any deity worth his salt wouldn't be caught dead acting as an ontological foundation to material existence, seeing how so much of the world is crumbly, dirty, and ragged. Example: cigarette butts. If the presence of the Creator really does suffuse all of the universe, wouldn't a soggy butt floating in a toilet bowl be just as full of the divine spark as any child's eyes? By which I mean really nothing more than the god concept seems exceedingly silly in a certain light. This silliness is seen clearly when theists carry out the notion that theirs is an anthropomorphic god, to extreme ends. Although this has been seen elsewhere on the Net, really, it's worth seeing again. I present: Jesus playing football. Here's a question: does a child's willingness to tackle his Lord and Savior make him a better Christian, or a worse one?

As someone who doesn't subscribe to any religious belief, it's easy for me to enjoy a laugh at the expense of religion; I don't have anything invested in it. That doesn't mean atheism, for me, is just an excuse to disdain believers and their traditions. Far from it; since I am relieved of the influence of religious dogma, I have one less excuse to be belligerent, unsympathetic, or callous toward my fellow man. But because I don't laugh at theists, does that I mean I cannot laugh at the spectacle of the Nazarene accepting a forward pass?

Political Prayer Bothers Us Now

Steve Berthiaume of the Lowell Atheists wrote earlier this month last week to tune us in to the pious habits of his local elected representatives. He wrote:

"The Lowell City Council is starting session with the Lord's Prayer! I've posted an article at the blog , and there's a hearty discussion going on at the Left in Lowell forum (didn't know there were so many atheists in Lowell!). What we need to do is write to these councilors and let them know that prayer is unacceptable at government functions. It doesn't matter whether you're from Lowell, this is happening in our Commonwealth!"

If you find the time to dash off a note objecting to this unwelcome intrusion of personal shortcomings into what should properly be a forum for clear and rational thinking, visit the Lowell Atheists blog and share your letter with Steve. Let him know that he isn't the only one who thinks religion should be kept out of government.

In an article by Nick Brown of the Lowell Sun, 79-year-old Lowell resident Terry Byrne, says, "To each his own. It hasn't bothered anybody before. Why start now?" I couldn’t do better than Steve’s own resounding answer: “Because it bothers us now.”

I’m always bothered by politicians who haven’t outgrown belief in the invisible; such beliefs call into question their competency to deal with visible affairs like reproductive rights, municipal budgeting, freedom of speech, acts of war…

Adolescent Protest is Toxic

In a profile of Maryland student Ian Gibson in the July issue of American Atheist, we learn that he proudly defied the prevailingly pious atmosphere on May 4th, the National Day of Prayer. Rather than keep quiet with his revulsion for the proceedings, he wore a subtly critical tee-shirt under his jacket. He writes:

"... as soon as I saw the hands-clasped, heads-down group talking to themselves I ripped off the coat like I was Superman."

My initial reaction to this escapade was triumphal applause. Go get 'em, etc. But as I thought about the incident, I realized that Mr. Gibson's act failed as protest and as an act of rational criticism. Atheists often respond with indignation to the suggestion that their professed worldview is a religious one, but isn't the proud and defiant defense of his beliefs shown by our young compatriot here just as fundamentalist as the culturally-determined prayerfulness of his classmates?

What teenager doesn't imagine himself a superhero, endowed with a superhuman righteousness? It's a foolish thing, to hold up a discontented student as a model of atheistic integrity, when there is no way to tell whether Mr. Gibson is acting as an autonomous and rational person, or as an adolescent content to rally against the closest form of authority at hand, whether parental, governmental or theistic. Without delving deeper than the "amazing rush" of expressing beliefs "in a loud and obnoxious way", the American Atheists profile wastes an opportunity to remind readers that it is not merely a lack of belief that unites atheists, but rather a devotion to critical thought. A commitment to reason produces atheism just as it produces justice, freedom, sensible public policy, and humane treatment for each other. When atheists define themselves through the wearing of wiseass tee-shirts, they are obscuring the thinking behind the critical.

An entire gallery of anti-this and anti-that 'political' tee-shirts can be seen and purchased at zazzle.com/igibson. There, you'll see the other side of the Toxic shirt sports a much more productive motto: "Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church."

Ultimately, I have to remain agnostic on the issue of Ian Gibson and his Religion is Toxic sentiment; I'm prepared to believe that his was a reasoned and deliberate act of protest against his Pharisaic culture. Unfortunately, it's more likely that he was motivated by the falliable zeal fueling so many protesters on either side of any debate: "I'm right and good, you are wrong and stupid." I for one am unwilling to define atheism as the belief that religion is toxic. We're altogether too interesting, complex, humane, and intelligent to be reduced to belligerence.

Ann Coulter's book "Godless"

Ann Coulter's widely popular and blisteringly ignorant new rant, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, is given a sensible brush-off by Jerry Coyne at Powell's Books.

That reminds me, fellow atheist. I haven't seen you in church recently. Perhaps you sat in the back? Or maybe I was just so immersed in our fiendish scripture of baby-killing and god-mocking that I failed to notice you. To be fair, Ms. Coulter's book seems to be more concerned with flaunting her avid and misinformed enthusiasm for Intelligent Design than with connecting liberalism, atheism, and depravity. I will sometimes plug a book for the sake of understanding someone else's perspective, but in this case I will tell you to take Coyne's word for it that Godless is not worth the read. Let's as a nation choose instead to turn away from her repugnant rodomontade, and hope she packs it in.

NB: In the Book Description section of the Amazon listing for this fresh wound against rationality, the publisher informs the potential book-buyer that Ms. Couter is "writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science." Wickedly malapropos, I initially thought the line said "a keen appreciation for Genesis science."

Krauss on Scientific Literacy

Matthew West directs your attention to a typically rousing essay by Lawrence Krauss in today's Times, concerning Kansas creationists: "How To Make Sure Children Are Scientifically Literate" (log-in required; e-mail me if you'd like to borrow my copy of today's issue). Says Matthew:

The article is concise, but he doesn't go far enough. By characterizing the reaction against school board creationism as "not against faith, but against ignorance", he fails to acknowledge that such ignorance is predicated upon an anti-intellectual religious culture... a culture that in various ways impedes progress toward a more competent democracy.

When Krauss says elsewhere that Intelligent Design is "not just bad science, but bad theology to imply that it is better to remain ignorant," one wonders what comprises good theology. But of course the complaint should not be directed at theology, which is a profession carried out to good effect by intelligent men and women. ID isn't theology, but rather an inviable chimera, misbegotten offspring of incompatible parents. Faith is not found through reason, though reasons it may have. A battle against faith is a battle against ignorance, and indeed shall in the long run have more enduring benefit by undermining the cause of ignorance as well as correcting it.