Bones of Contention...

Outspoken atheists are occasionally accused of “jamming atheism down other people’s throats”. The sheer fact that we aren’t cowering in the shadows, afraid to stand up to the all the righteous religious folk running around out there, just sticks in some people’s craw. We stand accused of “intellectual snobbery”, “dogmatic naturalism”, and, of course, all kinds of throat-jamming. There’s a certain irony to all this that isn’t lost on us, but it quickly becomes tiresome and the specific accusations need to be addressed.

A commenter recently left a rather long post elsewhere on this blog regarding the “Out Campaign” logo in my sidebar. The Out Campaign is a campaign being run by Richard Dawkins to help atheists find the courage to publicly acknowledge their rejection of religion. Would that there had been such a campaign when I was in high school, to give me a bit of moral support in the face of the jeers of my classmates. (I caught a lot of flak in school for being an atheist. I won’t pretend that it was from everyone, or even from a majority of people, but there was a large handful of folks who took every opportunity to give me a hard time about it.)

To quote the Out Campaign site, it’s all about

“[allowing] individuals to let others know they are not alone. It can also be a nice way of opening a conversation and help to demolish the negative stereotypes of atheists. Let the world know that we are not about to go away and that we are not going to allow those that would condemn us to push us into the shadows.”

Naturally this is considered throat-jamming of the highest order. There’s some beautiful irony to this as our dear commenter is Garret from over on Ray’s blog. Ray, as you’ll recall, is all about street preaching, evangelizing, and blindsiding random folks with threats of hell if they don’t pray to his fearsome God Yahweh. I know of no atheist equivalent to this. I have never, nor has, to my knowledge, anyone else, set upon a believer on the street, harshly admonishing him that his religion isn’t real and that no he won’t go to hell when he dies ("There'll be no hellfire for you, and you'd better learn to accept that, damn it!") . That being said, I’m more than willing to do such things, with what I hope is a bit more nuance, on internet discussion boards – after all, if people didn’t want to discuss things they wouldn’t be there.

There are a number of fearsome stereotypes about atheists. We’re called amoral monsters, depraved sex fiends, and minions of the devil. The current president has even gone so far as to say that atheists should be considered neither citizens nor patriots. And most of all, whenever we contest these claims, whenever we talk about our atheism without apologizing for it, we’re accused of jamming atheism down everyone’s throats.

One thing that is of particular concern to me is that a lot of Christians who feel threatened by organized atheism seem to confuse the two concepts of secularism and atheism. I don’t know that this is the case with Garret, but it crops up enough that I’ll address it here anyway. When atheists such as myself talk about things like removing “in God we trust” from our currency (added 1865 for coins, 1957 for bills), deleting the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance (added 1954), or teaching empirically based rather than religiously based science in public schools, we aren’t talking about an atheist state, we’re talking about a secular state.

A secular government exists to, among other things, secure the freedom of conscience of all of its constituents. Specific endorsements of Christianity (in the United States) or any other religion (Islam in Iran, for example) undermine that principle. Recall, for example that the only mention of religion in our Constitution (I keep a copy in my jacket at all times) is Article VI, section 3 and explicitly states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust.” It may also be worth noting that the addition of God to the Pledge has, very literally, divided “one nation, indivisible”. A secular government provides for “equal separation”*, wherein neither the religious or the nonreligious are favored over the other. The desire here is for everyone to be protected equally, rather than having some folks held up as "more equal than others". There is no desire to place the religious at a disadvantage, but there is considerable desire on the part of atheists to pull religion down from its privileged place and put it on equal footing with the rest of us.

In any event, Garret’s two main concerns are not really so much about the Out Campaign itself but assumptions that he feels it unfairly makes. I will quote him in full and address each in turn:

“The claim to intellectual superiority because of rejection of supernatural claims such as miracles. This is an entirely metaphysical, philosophical construct, a BELIEF that is based on a "lack of evidence", and is a representation of what exactly constitutes knowledge, and how we come to know things.
This is not the only possible legitimate metaphysical reality, though it is presented as such. As an educated person, I realize that I COULD be deluded - that in fact (atheists) might have it right. This should always be an option on the table, for civility to remain. The claim to all logic, reason and knowledge fall within multiple worldviews and philosophies, and is a debatable reality. To not acknowledge this is intellectual snobbery, and intellectual suicide. One can claim that they are right, but to add that they are intellectually superior is another thing altogether.”

As usual, there’s an extent of course to which Garret is right. As the old canard goes, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Arguments from silence are never definitive. However, when it comes to the issue of the supernatural, this argument from silence becomes somewhat stronger because the silence is just deafening! Ghosts, miracles, the afterlife – to accept these things leads to assumptions about the world that can be empirically tested. Are there ghosts? Then we should be able to measure, interact with, or detect them. Is there an afterlife? Then NDE reports shouldn’t correspond so neatly with the physiological reactions of the brain to oxygen deprivation with occasional details of the individual’s religion training (regardless of what religion it is) shoe-horned in. Miracles? Should there not be miracles in modern times, measurable by modern means and flying in the face of understood natural mechanisms? What of “miracles” experienced by members of other religions (recall that Garret is speaking for Evangelical Christianity, not just general theism)?

It is not that people are not looking for evidence of these things – they are. Some people dedicate their entire professional lives to the search for ghosts or the verification of miracles. Yet always they fail. There is specific evidence that we would expect to find if such supernatural claims are true, but we do not. That is a powerful argument from silence. Sure, at some point in the future some supernatural phenomenon may be verified – something that so defies the current understanding of science that it forces a radical restructuring of our view of the world. When and if that day comes, I will be forced to seriously reevaluate my position on a lot of things.

That being said, those of us who prefer an experience-based worldview simply don’t have the evidence in front of us to decide in the way that our friend Garret has decided for himself. He, I can only imagine, would not buy into the contention that there is a magical purple unicorn flying invisibly around the solar system just outside of Pluto’s orbit. It's a patently ludicrous statement, but it cannot be disproved. Someone making that assertion would cause him, at the most, the slightest moment of pause. Why then, should we be compelled by his purple unicorn?

As for claims of “intellectual superiority”, I would note that it is a methodologically materialist worldview that yields useful results. As many of you know, I live in Louisville, Kentucky. One of the greatest sources of pride for my city is that it was the site of the country’s first hand transplant. A man named Matthew Scott lost his left hand to an M80 firecracker in 1985. 14 years later he received a transplanted hand from a cadaver and now has a functional left hand. Pictures of Mr. Scott at his 8-year check up are available here. It was methodologically materialistic science that gave this man a new hand, not metaphysics, spirituality, or miracles. In terms of real world results, it is naturalism that works, not supernaturalism. Another example, one that I am quick to point out, is that of Francis Collins, project leader of the Human Genome Project. Collins is an Evangelical Christian and devout believer in Yahweh (He is very impressed by the anthropic argument.), but his considerable contributions to the field of human genetics come entirely from his use of methodologically naturalist research strategies.

No one, to my knowledge, makes the claim that atheists are smarter than theists simply because we are atheists. (There is statistical correlation between level of education and non-belief in deities, but both of these things primarily correspond to socioeconomic class. That is to say that they often occur together because they both share an underlying factor, but they do not necessarily flow from one another.) Indeed, some theists, such as Dr. Collins, are eminent members of their fields. To pretend that religiosity is tantamount to stupidity is, in itself, asinine. We sometimes speak, however, of the irrationality of religious belief. Though he would disagree with that choice of terms, I suspect Garret would agree in spirit to what that means.

He believes, he has faith, in his deity despite the lack of concrete evidence. His god either lurks behind the natural laws that run the universe or dwells entirely outside them, never to be quantified by empirical methods. Nonetheless, he believes, not through evidence, but through faith. It sounds almost noble in some strange way, and it is something that most religions ask of their followers. Yet when we aren’t talking about religion, when we’re talking about purple unicorns and Sasquatch and faeries (or even science-ish things like orgone energy, n-rays, and Velikovskian cosmologyl), such claims of “faith” are quickly seen as irrational. Faith is inherently irrational. There’s an extent to which that’s the point.

His second concern is this:

“The claim that Christianity is illogical. It is perfectly logical IF the claims of supernatural in it are true, then Christianity logically follows from it! It is logical within itself and its own metaphysic, as it were. Even if one were to disagree- if you understand it properly and are able to understand the metaphysical concept that undergirds it, then you can see its logic.”

I understand what he’s saying here: Christianity makes perfect sense if the supernatural claims upon which it is based turn out to be true. Well…yeah. He’s 100% right on that one. He was, however, quite right in capitalizing his “if”. It’s an enormous if. There’s also an issue here that he doesn’t confront. I assume that it’s obvious to him and he simply left it out for the sake of brevity, but I’ll go ahead and state it here: ANY religion is logical if the supernatural claims under-girding it are true. That goes for Christianity. It goes for Judaism. It goes for Islam, Hinduism, Paganism, the Cult of Cthulhu, and Dungeons and Dragons. He’s right to say that “if it’s right, it’s right”, but there’s a limit to how far that logic can take us in a discussion.

On the other hand (and I run the risk of becoming snarky here), it must be admitted that there are doctrines of Christianity that, on their face, are quite paradoxical. The Triune Godhead, for instance. God is Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and all of these are simultaneously parts of a whole and yet also distinct. (Like Voltron.) This is a strange act of mental gymnastics – preserving monotheism while still claiming full divinity for Jesus and making reference to an autonomous “Holy Spirit” that acts in hearts of the people. Clearly it is understandable that proto-orthodox Christians endured long periods of controversy over just how many gods there were and do what extent Jesus was divine. Likewise the very idea of the Passion of Christ as redemption for humanity’s sins makes little sense on its face, given the Triune Godhead. Jesus is simultaneously both God and God’s son, ergo God sent Himself to earth to suffer horribly in order to redeem humanity in His own eyes and move Himself to mercifully stay His own hand…? I could go on – theodicy, free will, and numerous other issues have confounded theologians since antiquity. The internal logic of Christianity is therefore obviously not self-evident even to people who spend their entire lives discoursing on it.

Again, Garret is right that if it’s all true, Christianity makes sense, but that “if” is enormous.

Well, I think I've said I need all I have to say at the moment. I suspect my friend will have numerous objections to the issues I've addressed here. Notably I anticipate that he will claim that he does indeed have solid evidence for the veracity of Christian doctrine, though I would be quick to remind him that the approx. 3.9 billion non-Christians on the planet, the vast majority of them belonging to some other religion, also feel that their faith is fully justified, and he needs to address their contentions as well as my own.

* See this excellent book by the late Dr. Paul J. Weber, one of my mentors. We didn't agree theologically - he was a believer and former Jesuit - but his Constitutional analysis of church-state separation is tight.

Words to think on from Hitchens...

An article by Christopher Hitchens that was recently posted on RichardDawkins.net contains the following quote that I think I lot of people should read and think on for a very long time:

"..."faith" is at its most toxic and dangerous point not when it is insincere and hypocritical and corrupt but when it is genuine."

What he's getting at here is that the Falwells and Hinns and Swaggarts of the world, vile swindlers that they may be, don't have the strength of conviction to do any of the really crazy stuff. Hitchens is using Mother Theresa as an example - The more profoundly she felt God's absence, the harder and harder she (genuinely) searched for his presence through the advocacy of Catholic-based, counterproductive social policies. The application, however, is much broader than that.

How many suicide bombers do you think would actually carry out their missions without the promise of heaven? How many "witches" and "blasphemers" were tortured, hung, burned, and pressed by the zealous and sincere agents of the Church? How many abortion clinic bombers and assassins were only going by half-measures?

When it comes to religion, maybe we need more hypocrites...

By the way, check out Hitchens' book on Mother Theresa here, complete with a brief review from yours truly.

I wanna be next!

Lookie - here comes a new pack of whackjobs. The fellas at PreachYourFuneral.com do mock funeral services for folks who aren't living their lives the way these guys would prefer, apparently in the hope of frightening people with the threat of hell. Then they burn the "victim" in effigy. They've already done Heath Ledger and Richard Dawkins, and now they want to know who's next.

Here's a hint guys:

Me, me, me, me, me, me!!

Sure there are higher profile atheists out there like PZ Myers, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and James Randi, but c'mon guys! You're obviously southern, I'm southern, let's jazz! I'll be e-mailing you daily until you make my dream come true.

Please support me in my quest and e-mail them here.
comment@preachingyourfuneral.com

Bumper stickers rule

I rarely feel threatened on a personal level by my religious neighbors. Granted, I don't walk around wearing a shirt that says "atheist" on it either, but in general I want to think that most people aren't quite as reactionary as a casual glance at the internet would have you believe. Heck, I live about 20 yards away from a giant Protestant church, and aside from causing tons of traffic congestion every Wednesday night and Sunday morning, they're pretty nice people. Heck, one of them even gave me a cookie the time I passed out after giving blood there.

That being said, one thing that I've been reluctant to do for a long time is put a good ol' fashioned atheist bumper sticker on my car. Tires and tail lights are expensive, man. Still, every so often I'll sit around looking at some of the swanky stuff on Cafe Press and wishing I had more cajones. Recently I've been even more inspired because of the awesome sign erected by the Connecticut Valley Atheists, so I think the time for my first atheist bumper sticker is nigh. At this point I've narrowed it down to three finalists:

- A point I've been trying to make for years.

- Short and sweet.

- Awesome, if not as 'in your face' as I might like.

The problem is that I live in Kentucky, and the gigantic "Hell is Real" billboard you encounter shortly after you cross the river from Cincinnati sets a bit of a tone. There's an extent to which some of the more "pious" folk around here just aren't satisfied with the whole "agreeing to disagree" thing.

The Golden Compass

Well, I made it out to The Golden Compass the other night, and I have to say that it's not the ferocious atheist recruiting tool that it has been made out to be by various aspects of the Christian Right. It was, in fact, a decent enough movie, though I can't see myself paying to see it again in the theaters. It seems to be the case that fantasy just isn't my schtick these days. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel like I wasted my money or anything, but it wasn't a film that really stuck with me past the closing credits.

The funny part, of course, is that now some of the rightists are complaining that it isn't ferociously atheistic enough. What!?! Well, it turns out that since the film's anti-theistic message has been toned down from the books, it's now an insidious atheist trap to trick Christian children into reading the books and therefore going to hell. No lie. Check out the Christian Spotlight on the Movies review here. This "review", such as it is, spends the first half dozen paragraphs or so shrieking and moaning about Phillip Pullman and only talks about the film as a bit of an afterthought at the end.

What it comes down to is this- Atheistic views, whether stated in a fierce and forward fashion or in a circumspect and "inoffensive" way, will always be loathed and hated by the religious folk. Somehow it will always be somehow "unfair" and "persecutorial" for atheists to say what's on their minds. I'm inclined these days to agree with P.Z. Meyers - if speaking our minds quietly is unacceptable anyway, then we may as well just speak our minds as loudly as possible.

Parallel Worlds...

One of the weird things about some species of Christianity is their propensity to take things that became popular in the mainstream years ago and mutate them into Christianized dopplegangers. A few months ago, even Youtube got a Christian mimic, Godtube, on which the faithful get the chance to post in the name of their fearsome deity without the risk of accidentally stumbling across some evil secularist's videos.

At the end of the day there is, of course, absolutely nothing wrong with all that, even if a lot of the Christian output seems pretty freakin' goofy. After all, secularists make parodies of Christian symbols, and are in turn parodied right back and so on. As long as everyone is laughing and no one is getting all that hot under the collar, then everything is wavy gravy. The real problems start when discussion and good-natured ribbing (and, yeah, that's a legitimate part of most discussions) break down and folks start having conniption fits.

Of course, people on all sides of religious issues have conniption fits more often than would be optimal. (Honestly, just Google "William Donohue".) Sure, the internet gives a lot of people enormous amounts of keyboard courage, and video exchange sites are rife with puerile videos about how religious folks are dumb or how atheists are lame, but them's the breaks. Problems only really come up when people start claiming that they have the right not to be questioned or insulted. Threats of violence are rare from most mainstream religious groups, but we still have enough Pat Robertsons and Islamic Jihadists who are more than happy to advocate doom and despair for their detractors. And, of course, we'll always have Bill Donohue, who has enough free time to write a 23-page pamphlet (available for a mere pittance of $5) about how a film involving talking polar bears is "most dangerous movie of all time."

All that being said, when the last time you saw anyone carrying a sign that said "Behead those who insult Darwin"...?

Consitutionally speaking...

I recently finished reading The Godless Constitution by Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore and I have to recommend it to anyone interested in the the historical and Constitutional roots of secular government in the United States. My only real gripe is the odd system of citation used in the book, which has no footnotes but utilizes a chapter by chapter bibliography just before the index. Regardless, the book is a worthwhile and easy read (an unusual combination) about one of the most important subjects facing our nation today.

I've grown somewhat bolder about leaving my nontheistic books lying around in the open at work lately, so a couple of days ago the title of The Godless Constitution happened to be noticed by one of my (quite) religious colleagues. "What's that about," she asked, "are they saying that they want to establish a Constitution without God in it?" I assured her that no, the book was a discussion of the Constitution under which we currently live. "No," she said, "we have a Christian Constitution. Don't we?"

The discussion went on briefly about how, for one thing, the Constitution contains no direct references to God and only mentions religion in the context of the "no religious tests" clause in Article 6, section 3. My coworker was courteous about everything but seemed unconvinced, especially when I mentioned that "under God" was only tacked onto the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s as a way of giving the finger to the godless commies. In the end, all she said was "I'm shocked", though it was unclear to me whether she was shocked about the enshrinement of secularism in our nation's founding document or shocked at the realization that one of her coworkers was an atheist.

In any event, the whole episode reminded me that there has been a colossal hijacking of our national narrative on the part of the religious right. They labor under an inaccurate belief that somehow the United States was founded as some sort of uber-Christian utopia that has slowly been perverted by us maniacal secularists, when in fact the reverse is true. While peopled at all times by at least a nominally Christian majority, the United States government was founded principles of secularism and government non-involvement with religion. The Constitution, with its complete lack of Christian symbolism and rhetoric, has been under attack since even before its ratification for its secular stance, as has the idea of a secular government in general. References to God on our money and in our pledge, as well as the end of Sunday mail service and countless other nods to Christianity, are chinks that have been carved into the original wall of separation, not the last few bricks of the Christian Camelot that some people imagine our country to have been.

The most amazing thing about our Constitution is its lack of religion. It serves as a reminder that our leaders get their power from us, not from some unquestionable divine mandate. The Constitution should remind us that our government serves us at our pleasure, not God's, and that the government holds absolutely no control over anyone's conscience. These are important ideas, ideas that our ancestors fought and killed and died for.

The American Revolution ended in 1781. Now, barely two and quarter centuries later,
there are politically powerful elements of our society that are committed to the destruction of one of this country's most important founding ideals. It would almost be funny if it weren't so damned frightening.