About.com Agnosticism / Atheism

Bible Commentary: Apocalyptic Gospels: New Testament Gospels and Apocalyptic Literature

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:00:00 +0000

Although apocalyptic writing constitutes its own independent literary genre, it still plays an important role within the gospels of the New Testament. In each of the four canonical gospels, a central story involves Jesus describing a coming apocalypse in a manner that is consistent with traditional apocalyptic literature.

Read Article: Apocalyptic Gospels: New Testament Gospels and Apocalyptic Literature

Carry Nation: On a Mission from God to Fight Alcohol

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:00:00 +0000

America's time with Prohibition is generally looked upon as a failed political experiment, but it should be recognized for what it really is: the consequences of what happens when the American government adopts an essentially religious agenda and ideology to enshrine in the law. This is because Prohibition was originally pursued by Christian fanatics for religious reasons and was ultimately adopted by the government on the basis of those religious reasons.

The original prohibitionist organization was the Anti-Saloon League of Ohio which was founded in 1893. The national Anti-Saloon League of America was founded just two years later in 1895. It probably won't surprise people familiar with the Religious Right that even this movement was characterized not just by its anti-alcohol agenda, but also by strong currents of anti-immigration, conspiracy theories, and anti-Catholicism. Whatever the era, there are certain themes which the Religious Right keeps returning to.

Fritz Allhoff writes in Wine & Philosophy: A Symposium on Thinking and Drinking:

Prohibition�s most potent and enduring symbol was a pinched, violent, disagreeable woman named Carry A. Nation who was famous for attacking saloons armed only with a hatchet and her firm belief (insane notion?) that she was striking out at what Jesus �doesn�t like� (her words, not mine). Nation�s mother had actual verifiable psychotic delusions and believed long and actively that she was Queen Victoria. Nation may never have thought she was a member of the royal family, but she did believe her name was an assignment from God and that it was appropriate to attack people and property in the name of temperance with a hatchet, still awfully delusional in my book.

She and her followers chopped up a lot of bars and barrels and broke a lot of bottles with their hatchets of righteousness � these attacks were called �hatchetations� at the time � but better even than all that, she got tons of publicity doing it. After one flamboyant arrest in Wichita, Kansas, the photograph of Nation kneeling and praying in her jail cell looks like a well-styled studio shot: her face is softly illuminated from above (by the light of what: sobriety, morality, bail?) and the backlighting of the prison bars is almost Oscar-worthy.

The Christian Right today may not still be using hatchets, but the desire to "strike out" at whatever they think "Jesus doesn't like" remains a primary motivation behind their overall ideology. At every point of the Christian Right's political and social agenda, you will be able to discern the background premise that God and Jesus are opposed to whatever they oppose and that this is more than enough reason to use the force of law to restrict, regulate, or even ban it.

To be quite honest, though, I'm not sure that believing that one is fulfilling the will and desires of a god are any less delusional than thinking that one is Queen Victoria. At least Queen Victoria was a real person, so someone had to be Queen Victoria, and this belief probably didn't cause more than some inconvenience to anyone who happened to get too close.

You cannot buy publicity like that, but you can sell official Carry A. Nation brand saloon-busting hatchets, which is exactly what she did, in addition to hiring a manager and traveling the country on a speaking tour as �The Famous And Original Bar Room Smasher.� Her name was a registered trademark in the state of Kansas.

Carry Nation wasn't the first right-wing Christian to combine profitable marketing with religious fanaticism. If you can encourage fanatical religious beliefs in followers, you can make a bit of money off of them in the process. Selling official Carry-Nation-branded hatchets isn't too far off from selling purity rings or bracelets, specially branded Bibles, etc.

A book deal in 1905 brought us The Use and Need of the Life of Carry A. Nation, an autobiography in which she spelled out her quaint views on family, morality, race relations, food, alcohol, pseudoscience, and, strangely, Masons. Nation believed there was an underground cabal of Euro-centric Masons encouraging wine and alcohol consumption in the US to further their unspecified but nefarious goals. �I believe the masons were a great curse to Dr. Gloyd,� she wrote, referring to her first husband who died a raging alcoholic.
Nation made no distinction between her diverse enemies. Beer, wine, whiskey, and Masons were not just equal in her eyes, but equally bad. She rarely limited her enforced self-improvement to one vice. Nation opposed cigarettes and she railed against foreign foods of all kinds, wine being a special target, both foreign and alcohol.

She devoted substantial space in her only book to debunking the myth that wine is food, one of the core principles of great European cuisine. The science behind her assertion is an almost medieval vision of two �classes� of food: �flesh formers� and �body warmers,� a rhyming distinction we find both creepy and vague these days. By her frontier science, alcohol is neither a flesh former nor a body warmer (according to whom? the Flesh Forming and Body Warming Foods Association?) so it is not a food, and if it is not a food, it is a toxin. Simple as pie, which of course is a food.

Do you notice some of the parallels between Carry Nation and today's radical Christian Right? Both have a suspicion, fear, and/or hatred of all things European � America's Christian Right has always had strong nativist and xenophobic tendencies, even towards other Christians who had the misfortune of being born brown and/or Catholic. Being a Christian isn't as good as being born an American evangelical Protestant Christian.

Carry Nation and today's Christian Right also share a fascination with conspiracy theories. Masons aren't quite as popular a target for Christian conspiracy theories today, but other groups work equally well: humanists, gays, socialists, communists, etc. Conspiracy theories have proven important to extreme right-wing religion because it is a very narrow view of the world which consistently fails to work according to expectations. This failure has to be explained somehow and for Christians a popular explanation involves nefarious organizations plotting against good, wholesome Christianity � usually either knowingly or unknowingly under the direction of Satan.

Carry Nation may have been bizarre and deluded, but in the tapestry of American Christianity she was by no means an aberration. Although some details of beliefs and attitudes vary, she stands firmly in line with a host of right-wing, conservative, and fundamentalist Christian groups, denominations, trends, and leaders. Some liberal and moderate believers try to address these in isolation, pretending that they are all unique aberrations and attempts to hijack Christianity when in reality they are all as much a part of American Christianity as anyone or anything else.

Why did Mike Huckabee Leave the Pulpit and Enter Politics?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:00:58 +0000

_{Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
March 2, 2008 in Houston, Texas
Photo: Dave Einsel/Getty Images}

Although Mike Huckabee may not have a theology degree, he has been and continues to be an ordained Baptist minister. Why did he make the move from the pulpit to political life? According to Huckabee, he wanted to bring Jesus Christ to the nation: "I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives." He also said "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ." Although he admits that he would phrase it differently today, he doesn't repudiate his original views.

Read Article: Why did Mike Huckabee Leave the Pulpit and Enter Politics?

C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:00:00 +0000

Many fans are aware of that C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien were close friends. Tolkien helped convert Lewis to Christianity, whereas Lewis encouraged Tolkien to expand his fictional writing; both taught at Oxford, both were interested in literature, and both wrote fictional books which propagated basic Christian themes and principles. At the same time, though, they also had serious disagreements - in particular, over the quality of Lewis' Narnia books.

Read Article: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien

Intelligently Designed? Chaos and Catastrophe in our Solar System

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:00:37 +0000

Religious apologists often offer the argument that the design of the universe is evidence of the existence of a God. When asked about where this evidence is, they will cite examples of they say is "fine tuning" in the universe � like how our solar system is set up so that Earth is right in the zone where life can exist. This is an appealing argument because our solar system does appear to be arranged in a balanced, convenient manner � but the truth may be that our solar system is far more chaotic and precarious than we realize.

Stephen Battersby explains in New Scientist (June 13, 2009) that planetary orbits which appear to be regular and reliable are actually quite unstable in the long run because, over time, tiny gravitational interactions can add up in ways that we cannot predict � and which might lead to catastrophe:

Mercury is the key to catastrophe. It is especially susceptible to Jupiter�s influence because of a small celestial coincidence: Mercury�s perihelion, the point where it gets closest to the sun, slowly moves around at a rate of about 1.5 degrees every 1000 years, and Jupiter�s perihelion moves around only a little slower. One day, the two will probably fall into sync, at which time Jupiter�s incessant gravitational tugs could accumulate and pull Mercury off course.

A study led last year by Jaques Laskar of Paris Observatory in France found a slim chance that Mercury�s orbit could be pulled into a highly elongated ellipse, putting it on a potential collision course with Venus. That work used a mathematical trick to calculate average changes over many planetary orbits, so the method was limited. �Close to a collision, it loses its validity,� says Laskar. He and his colleague Micka�l Gastineau have taken a more thorough approach by directly simulating 2500 possible futures, calculating the planets� orbits over 5 billion years, up to when the sun turns into a red giant.

In some of those simulations, Mercury's orbit goes so wrong that it plunges into the sun or even slams into Venus. Before that happens, though, Mercury's orbit would cause its gravitational field to affect other planets, causing them to start going out of control as well. In one simulation, Mars end up colliding with the Earth; in another it merely passes close to Earth � but close enough that our gravity pulls the Red Planet apart, leading it to fall on us in pieces. Other simulations have all the inner planets shifting about, colliding with each other or just moving to new, irregular paths.

The notion that nature operates like clockwork is one that can be traced back to the earliest days of modern science and the modern era � once humans started to build clocks and clockwork machines, they started to assume that nature itself was constructed by God in a similar manner. Put another way, humans concluded that nature works in much the same manner as anything we ourselves build. This ignores the fact that we have much greater limitations on what we can build than exist on nature as a whole -- or that would exist for a deity.

Nature doesn't operate like clockwork. It only appears to because there are regularities which work consistently over long enough spans of time that we humans conclude it must always be so. In reality, there are small, subtle irregularities which we can't observe very readily and which lead to chaos without our recognizing it � at least until it's too late. What we think of as "intelligent design" is just a set of favorable circumstances which we have grown accustomed to and which won't necessarily persist.

This, then, is a key difference between religion and science: religion tells comforting tales about how the universe is set up for our comfort and convenience while science reveals the truth that things in the universe are more hostile, unstable, and dangerous than we previously assumed. Religion tries to comfort, even if that requires lies; science tries to tell us the truth, even if it discomfits. Which you prefer says a lot about what sort of person you really are.

Weekly Poll: Should Religion get Special Privileges, like with Anti-Blasphemy Laws?

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:00:00 +0000

Religion, and especially Christianity, is often treated as though it should be immune from criticism, much less harsh attacks. Blasphemy laws are a primary means used by religions to control critical speech and ideas. Criminalizing blasphemy uses both the power of the state and the idea of sin to suppress both the expression of ideas as well as the contemplation of those ideas. This causes people to self-censor before the state has to get involved by imposing censorship.

Blasphemy laws have lost a lot of credibility over the years, but some believers continue to support them as valid and effective. For some, just calling into question whether Christianity is true or rational is scoffed at by � and these same people think nothing of lambasting political ideologies like liberalism or socialism. Is such a double-standard justified? Do you think that religion should be protected by anti-blasphemy laws? This may sound like an odd question on an atheism site, but even some atheists seem to believe that religion should be treated differently from other ideologies and belief systems � though not many advocate going so far as to provide legal protection for religion alone.

Atheism Basics: Is Atheism Morally & Intellectually Significant?

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:00:00 +0000

The mere fact that a person doesn�t happen to believe in any gods isn�t very meaningful. Thus, if atheism is going to have intellectual or moral significance, it must be for other reasons. Those reasons can�t be found simply in critiques of religion or arguments against theism; instead they must be found in a general program of reason, skepticism, and critical inquiry. Read Article: Is Atheism Morally & Intellectually Significant?

Confidence vs. Uncertainty: Confidence Sells, Even When You're Wrong

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:00:29 +0000

It's common to see criticism of science based on the idea that science's provisional nature makes it less reliable. This is contrasted with belief systems like religion which purport to provide absolute truth. Such criticism is obviously common from creationists and other religious apologists, but we can also see it coming from apologists for pseudosciences like astrology.

Defenders of science will normally respond that the provisional nature of science is an advantage, not a disadvantage, because it allows science to take into account new ideas and new evidence. This, in turn, helps ensure that science adheres to reality rather than to our expectations, assumptions, and ideologies. This seems like a reasonable defense, but it seems that human psychology isn't prepared to accept it.

According to recent research, people are more likely to believe someone who makes their claims with more confidence regardless of how wrong they have been in the past.

Peter Aldhous writes in New Scientist (June 6, 2009):

The research, by Don Moore of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, shows that we prefer advice from a confident source, even to the point that we are willing to forgive a poor track record. Moore argues that in competitive situations, this can drive those offering advice to increasingly exaggerate how sure they are. And it spells bad news for scientists who try to be honest about gaps in their knowledge. ...

The findings add weight to the idea that if offering expert opinion is your stock-in-trade, it pays to appear confident. Describing his work at an Association for Psychological Science meeting in San Francisco last month , Moore said that following the advice of the most confident person often makes sense, as there is evidence that precision and expertise do tend to go hand in hand. For example, people give a narrower range of answers when asked about subjects with which they are more familiar (Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol 107, p 179 ).

There are times, however, when this link breaks down. With complex but politicised subjects such as global warming, for example, scientific experts who stress uncertainties lose out to activists or lobbyists with a more emphatic message. So if honest advice risks being ignored, what is a responsible scientific adviser to do? �It�s an excellent question, and I�m not sure that I have a great answer,� says Moore.

So strong, confident expression makes you seem more credible, even if you've been demonstrably wrong in the past. That's not very surprising � a study not long ago revealed that men wearing scent were more attractive to women, even if the women couldn't smell the men:

Half of Dr Roberts�s volunteers were given an aerosol spray containing a commercial formulation of fragrance and antimicrobial agents. The other half were given a spray identical in appearance but lacking active ingredients. The study was arranged so that the researchers did not know who had received the scent and who the dummy. Each participant obviously knew what he was spraying on himself, since he could smell it. But since no one was told the true purpose of the experiment, those who got the dummy did not realise they were being matched against people with a properly smelly aerosol.

Over the course of several days, Dr Roberts�s team conducted a battery of psychological tests on both groups of volunteers. They found that those who had been given the commercial fragrance showed an increase in self-confidence. Not that surprising, perhaps. What was surprising was that their self-confidence improved to such an extent that women who could watch them but not smell them noticed. The women in question were shown short, silent videos of the volunteers. They deemed the men wearing the deodorant more attractive. They were, however, unable to distinguish between the groups when shown only still photographs of the men, suggesting it

Source: The Economist

It's reasonable to think that basically the same phenomenon is likely at work in both cases: strong self-confidence is noticed by others and makes a person � or at least what they are selling/claiming � more attractive. This is even true when it shouldn't be, i.e. when what's being sold has a poor history and shouldn't be attractive. Perhaps this is why people known to have bad relationship histories or even known to treat partners poorly still keep finding new partners: they are so self-confident that the attraction of their confident behavior outweighs the factual evidence of past performance.

This creates a dilemma for skeptics, scientists, and atheists: their message can be at a disadvantage when compared to the messages presented by religious apologists because people presenting a properly scientific message are cautious in what they say while religious apologists seem to have little compunction about confidently making broad, sweeping, absolute claims which they can't possibly back up.

Atheists and skeptics could level the playing field a bit by being more confident and aggressive in what they say (we certainly can't expect religious apologists to adopt a more skeptical, cautious, scientific attitude), but such an approach wouldn't always be scientifically justifiable. It may be that the "new atheists" refusal to abide by the traditional expectations that atheists be meek, quiet, and cautious is precisely why their books and ideas are gaining in popularity. They aren't saying anything very new, but they are saying it with a confidence and assertiveness that sells.

This also has implications for the critics of "new atheism" who say that atheists are too aggressive and militant in their approach. Remember, such complaints are made even when atheists offer an exceptionally cautious statement like "There is probably no God" while religious apologists who make far more dramatic and absolutist claims are given a free pass.

I and others have pointed out the rank hypocrisy of this many times before, but now there is an additional problem to bring up: insisting that atheists can't even go as far as to say "there is probably no God" means insisting that the playing field be tilted even more in favor of religion and religious apologists. It means insisting that atheists can't come anywhere close to the sort of language and rhetoric which is demonstrably more attractive and appealing to others. In effect, the critics are complaining that atheists are doing exactly that which is needed for their ideas to get more attention and consideration � which means that what those critics really want isn't "civility" but rather for atheists to go back to rhetoric and tactics which are guaranteed to be ignored.

And isn't that ultimately their point or goal? I suspect so.

Forum Discussion: Proving Logic & Fallacies

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:00:00 +0000

If you've ever had any sort of discussion with theists about the validity of religion or existence of gods, chances are good that you've had to raise basic principles of logic like pointing out logical fallacies or a failure to construct a genuine, valid logical argument. This should cause a person to go back and revise what they have said because what good is making an argument if you rely on fallacies or aren't making a genuine argument in the first place?

Sometimes, though, you might encounter a person who simply denies that recognized principles of logic apply to them or to their arguments. What can you do with such people?

A forum member writes:

If I argue that someone has committed a fallacy, and link them to this very site where it says it's a fallacy, and they just say "Well, it's a fallacy according to THOSE PEOPLE but who are they?" So is it really argument ad vericundiam (appeal to authority) anytime I call anyone on any fallacy? ... For example, I say that (true premises) + (valid logic) -> (true conclusion). Joebob says I can't prove that. I say that it's the definition of valid logic. Joebob says "It's the definition according to THOSE PEOPLE. PROVE to me that it's the definition of valid logic."

Is it possible to support the basic principles of logic and reason, or must they always be just a matter of "appealing to authority" where you either believe one authority or another? If logic can't be proven, what about subjects like math?

Add your thoughts to the comments here or join the ongoing discussion in the forum.

Philosophy Fundamentals: Philosophy of Religion: Religious Belief, Theism, Practice

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:00:00 +0000

The Philosophy of Religion is the philosophical study of religious beliefs, religious doctrines, religious arguments and religious history. The line between theology and the philosophy of religion and theology isn�t always sharp because they share much in common. Theology tends to be apologetical in nature, committed to the defense of particular religious positions. Philosophy of Religion is committed to the investigation of religion itself, rather than the truth of any particular religion. Read Article: Philosophy of Religion: Religious Belief, Theism, Practice

Francis Collins' Conversion from Atheism to Christianity: What's the Truth?

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:00:32 +0000

Francis Collins is a popular figure among liberal Christians today. Many regard Francis Collins as an excellent authority on how science and religion, but especially evolution and religion, can be reconciled. Collins' authority depends, however, on not only the quality of his arguments but also the accuracy of his claims about religion and science. Both are highly debatable, especially since he gives us reason to question even the accuracy of his claims about his own life and beliefs.

On the one hand, Collins says, "I had never really seriously considered the evidence for and against belief." On the other hand, he says, "...if I could no longer rely on the robustness of my atheistic position..." It makes no sense to consider a position never seriously examined to be robust.

Source: The Barefoot Bum

Both can't be true � it can't be the case that Collins held an "atheist position" that was "robust" and that Collins "never really seriously considered the evidence for and against belief." A "robust" position is one that is necessarily strong, sound, well-reasoned, multi-faceted, hardy (stands up to many challenges), etc. You can't have a robust position if you've never spent much time seriously examining arguments for and against it.

What's the truth? We may never know and perhaps Collins just isn't introspective enough to know himself � that would be one reason why he's unable to provide a consistent account of his own position even over the course of a couple of paragraphs.

Personally, I think it's far more likely the case that he "never really seriously considered the evidence for and against belief." Why? Because I think it's abundantly clear that he still hasn't done so � his current rationalizations for his Christian beliefs are so profoundly weak that they don't even qualify as good rationalizations:

Collins turns to Christianity because he finds "no satisfactory explanation in Darwinian evolution" for the presence of moral law. But why do we teach to children precisely those fundamental ethical beliefs that C.S. Lewis (whom Collins references as key to his conversion) uses to support the idea of moral law, especially fairness and the mutual benefit of sharing? And why do we blame the parents, teachers and/or culture, not God, when those beliefs are not properly inculcated?

The inability to find an explanation of moral law in specifically Darwinian (presumably biological, genetic) evolution should not immediately turn one to a supernatural explanation; perhaps the scientific explanation might lie in scientific psychology, sociology, anthropology or some as-yet-undiscovered social science.

What's more, even if the inability to find a naturalistic explanation for some feature of the world could reasonably justify a supernatural explanation, it doesn't necessarily justify "god" as an explanation � any other supernatural claim is equally justified given the absence of reliable information about gods or any other alleged "supernatural" entity. Furthermore, Christianity in particular isn't automatically justified by such a situation either � another religion like Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam has just as much to support it. We can hardly consider it a coincidence that Francis Collins just happened to decide upon the religion that is most prevalent where he grew up and where he lives.

However, we could hypothesize that Collins never thought very much about arguments for or against theism and lacked the skills to address the claims and arguments made by apologists around him. Eventually such arguments may have inclined him to adopt Christianity but at the same time he needed to rationalize this in order to maintain an image as a rational, reasonable person � so he ends up emphasizing his earlier atheism as if it were a reasoned, considered atheism while describing abysmal arguments as if they were powerful proof for his position.

Now why is it again that anyone should regard Francis Collins as an authority for how and why religion and science can be reconciled? If Collins can't even provide serious, sound, reasonable arguments for believing in a god, how can his arguments on behalf of reconciling belief in that god and science be trusted?

Comment of the Week: Are Believers Entitled to their Own Facts?

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:00:47 +0000

Whatever one might think about the theoretical compatibility of science and some set of possible religious beliefs, it remains an undeniable fact that there are a significant number of popular beliefs which are contrary to science, reality, and/or history. There is no compatibility between these religious beliefs and reality, but rather than amend their religion many believers insist on trying to amend reality � or at least pretend reality doesn't matter.

Zayla writes:

My brother moved to the Atlanta area a couple of years ago and told me his 12 year old daughter had a sticker on her biology book about "evolution being one theory".

Since I live in New Jersey about 50 miles outside of NYC this is not the kind of thing that registers in my brain so I had a hard time even understanding what the f*** he was talking about (long before I got so involved in all this).

After he explained it to me, I was speechless (you need to understand the magnitude of that). �

Does that mean that a few of us can get together and come up with our own version of the Civil War and demand that it at least be "considered"? �We don't need historical proof, correct? �Don't we just need lawyers to get it through legislators and be really, really loud and obnoxious?

Wow. People really believe this stupid nonsense.

[original post]

As has been noted by others: everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but people aren't entitled to their own set of facts. No matter what some people believe to be true or want to be true, some things just aren't true and trying to live in denial of the truth is a fool's game at best. Having to use the legislature to impose your opinions because historians and/or scientists don't accept them is little more than an admission that no one will believe you unless you use force � that argument, reason, and facts just aren't on your side.

Evolution Basics: McClean v. Arkansas (1981)

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:00:00 +0000

If evolution is taught in public school science classes, shouldn't other theories about the origins and development of life also be taught at the same time? Isn't the focus on just one idea narrow-minded? Some believe that it is and therefore argue that there should be "balance" - if one theory (evolution) about life is taught, then "the other" theory (creationism) should also be taught.

Read Article: McClean v. Arkansas (1981)

Correlation: Secularization and Honesty

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:00:31 +0000

Subliminal or unconscious messages that you are being watched can increase people's honesty � apparently, if you think or feel like you are being watched, you'll act like you are being watched and follow the rules more carefully. One way to get people to feel like they are being watched is to communicate religious messages and teach religion because this causes people to feel like they are being watched by a god.

One implication of this is that religion improves honesty, though not necessarily in a good way because the effect seems to be entirely based on fear. Would this, however, mean that society as a whole would be better off with more religion? This is certainly what a lot of religious apologists believe and argue, but the empirical evidence tells us a different story. Around the world secularity correlates highly with honesty whereas religion correlates highly with public corruption.

In the graph, frequency of prayer (an average of how often people report praying, taken from the World Values Survey and International Social Survey) is plotted against the 2001 Corruption Perceptions Index. As you can see, there is in fact a weak (although very statistically significant) relationship between the two. The perhaps unexpected result is that the relationship is the opposite of what religious advocates would have us believe. As religious fervour in a country goes down, so does corruption. More religion equates to more corruption, not less. ...

This does not mean that religion causes corruption. A more likely explanation is that a common, third factor explains both. And the obvious explanation is wealth. Rich countries tend to be both irreligious and honest. Poor countries have endemic corruption and religion. Indeed, after controlling for GDP, the statistical relationship between corruption and religion disappears.

Source: BHA Science

So while religion may not cause corruption, it certainly doesn't look as though it reduces corruption either � but if religion is unable to reduce corruption, an important argument offered by religious apologists is revealed to be false. What's more, even if the relationship between secularism and honesty is merely correlative, that's another nail in the coffin of religion if that correlation is necessary � i.e., if both increase secularity and increased honesty are necessary consequences of some third social development.

Book of the Week: Conversations with Carl Sagan

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:00:06 +0000

_{Image courtesy
PriceGrabber.com}

Carl Sagan was one of the most important scientists of the latter half of the 20th century - not so much because of original research or ground-breaking discoveries, but because of his passion for sharing his love of science with the rest of the world. Through his lectures, books, and videos, innumerable people came to better appreciate science and what it can tell us about the universe we live in. Many went on to become scientists themselves and his impact on science will be long remembered.

Book of the Week: Conversations with Carl Sagan

Atheism Basics: Definition of Atheism for Early Freethinkers

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:00:00 +0000

Atheists and freethinkers have defined atheism relatively consistently over the past couple of centuries. Although a few have focused solely on the sense of 'strong' atheism, many more have differentiated between 'weak' and 'strong' atheism. Included here are definitions of atheism from nonbelievers and freethinkers from the early 20th century and before.

Read Article: Definition of Atheism for Early Freethinkers

Fundamentalist Agenda

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:00:00 +0000

If you pay close attention, you�ll find that Muslim fundamentalists hate the same things about modern American culture that Christian fundamentalists (not to mention conservative evangelicals, conservative Pentecostals, conservative Catholics, etc.) do: feminism, sexual liberation, secularism, equality for all religions, individuals freedoms that contradict traditional religious mores, and so forth. These are, in fact, the complaints of fundamentalists everywhere and says something very important about religious fundamentalism.

Davidson Loehr wrote a couple of years ago in UU World:

The only way all fundamentalisms can have the same agenda is if the agenda preceded all the religions. And it did. Fundamentalist behaviors are familiar because we've all seen them so many times. These men are acting the role of �alpha males� who define the boundaries of their group's territory and the norms and behaviors that define members of their in-group. These are the behaviors of territorial species in which males are stronger than females. In biological terms, these are the characteristic behaviors of sexually dimorphous territorial animals. Males set and enforce the rules, females obey the males and raise the children; there is a clear separation between the in-group and the out-group. The in-group is protected; outsiders are expelled or fought.

What conservatives are conserving is the biological default setting of our species, which has strong family resemblances to the default setting of thousands of other species. This means that when fundamentalists say they are obeying the word of God, they have severely understated the authority for their position. The real authority behind this behavioral scheme is millions of years older than all the religions and all the gods there have ever been. It is the picture of life that gave birth to most of the gods as its projected champions.

Fundamentalism is absolutely natural, ancient, powerful... and inadequate. It's a means of structuring relationships that evolved when we lived in troops of 150 or less. But in the modern world, it's completely incapable of the nuance or flexibility needed to structure humane societies.

_{Photos © istockphoto/Jesse Kunerth
& Julie Macpherson
Poster © Austin Cline}

Loehr argues that modern liberalism is in part responsible for the rise of American fundamentalism because it fails to respect the instinctive drive towards territoriality. For example, emphasizing individual rights without acknowledging the need to balance rights against community needs ends up driving others to cling to �the needs of the community� without regard for individual rights.

I can accept that perhaps some of the rhetoric in modern liberalism may exacerbate trends in fundamentalism, and it is true that religious fundamentalism is very much a modern political movement that targets modernity as its primary enemy. However, I don�t think that Loehr makes a good case that �liberal visions have been too narrow, too self-absorbed, too unbalanced� and this is why fundamentalism is the way it is. The examples he uses (abortion Vietnam, protests) are all from the latter half of the 20th century when most fundamentalisms - and especially Christian fundamentalism, which is the original religious fundamentalist movement - developed in the first half of the 20th century. Where was �modern liberalism� then?

Those early fundamentalists didn't concern themselves with abortion, contraception, or anti-war protests; they were concerned with modern interpretations of the Bible coming from German scholars, evolutionary biology telling a different story about human origins than they learned in the Bible, and progressives trying to perfect human society. Since this was the context in which fundamentalism originally developed in America, why doesn't Loehr complain about that as "unbalanced" or "self-absorbed"? Perhaps it's because it would look bad arguing against them.

I think it's more accurate to say that modern fundamentalism is a reaction to modernity as a whole, not simply modern liberalism. Fundamentalism would not exist without modernity and, as such, fundamentalism is in many ways a mirror image of modernity - though one which highlights many of its darker and more intolerant aspects. Politically fundamentalists are not inclined towards democracy and liberty because such notions are theologically anathema. They are convinced that they possess the Truth from God; insofar any of that truth can or should be applied to the political realm, what motivation could there be to introduce Falsehood in its place?

Mailbag: No Truth Here, Part 3

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:00:00 +0000

From: "Truth Liberty"
Subject: Re: Atheism

People are being taught to supress their conscience's untill it no longer exists. People refuse to believe in God simply because if there is a God then they have to be accountable, and thereby convicting their life-styles. I find it hard to believe that atheist's would think that Godly priciples would be anything but good for our world today.

Personally, I don�t know of any gods that exist and, therefore, don�t know of any gods that have principles that would be good or bad. I do know of god-believers who proclaim principles they attribute to their god(s) and I can say with great confidence that quite a few of them not only wouldn�t be good for our world today but would, in fact, be so horrible that they would undermine modern society (which is, in fact, what many would like to see happen).

It is simply nonsensical to insist that people don't believe in some particular god simply because they don't want to be held accountable to that god. Do Christians disbelieve in Zeus because they don't want to be held accountable to him? Do Muslims disbelieve in Kali because they don't want to be held accountable to her? Of course not � that's so patently absurd that Christians and Muslims would laugh if it were seriously suggested and they might even be offended.

Why, then, do so many Christians (and some Muslims) insist on saying much the same thing about others? I think that it might be a product of their own personal attitudes towards their religion. It's a common feature of many people that they tend to assume that others are pretty much like themselves, at least in the most important things: same desires, same motivations, same fears, same hopes, etc. It's not always an unreasonable assumption, but at times it can be. People need to learn how to place themselves in the shoes of the "Other," a person who can have radically different desires, motives, fears, hopes, etc. while still being a decent human being.

I think that this attitude manifests itself in part when religious believers assume that atheism is a religion. After all, their beliefs are a religion and therefore anything that seems to take the place of them must also somehow be a religion. Perhaps something similar is occurring in the above: if a religious believer places their moral "accountability" in the center of their relationship with their god, then they might assume that others place a similar emphasis on being morally accountable. Why, then, don't they believe in this god? Because they don't want to be morally accountable � they want to be free to sin and do evil things without guilt.

Perhaps I am way off the mark here, but it is the most generous explanation I have for what is a patently absurd assumption to make about atheists that one doesn't know and has never met.

When people violate any of the first four commandments in the bible, which dealt with their relationship with God, God's judgement comes swiftly. Japan's defeat in World War II is a good example of this truth. During the war, the emperor of Japan proclaimed that World War II was the war between the Japanese god of Amateras and the God of the Christians. Because Japan had thus profaned the holiness of God, God made that nation the victim of a horrific atomic bombing, and it finally had to surrender. Likewise, the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler produly claimed that later history would record him as a god, if there was any such being like a god. And God struck him down. For decades the communists have been arrogant. They have blasphemed God and denied his existence. They have devastated churches, prohibited education about God and forbidden the worship of God. So we are not surprised to see it's downfall and disapperance from this stage in history - for they too have attacked the very nature of God. We are now seeing the same occurance in Iraq.

Arguably I violate the first four commandments all the time � yet, somehow, "judgement" hasn't come very swiftly at all. I find it interesting that TL would cite Iraq as an example of people who "attacked the very nature of God" because it is a Muslim country. Even Saddam Hussein seemed to find some use for religion in the last few years of his reign, although that use was rather cynical. The accusations that TL is making here about other nations mirrors those made by Muslims about America. Even America of the 1950s was regarded as a locus of depraved sin and ungodly behavior � precisely the 1950s regarded the "golden age" for religious conservatives in America. Who is right?

The similarity in rhetoric used by the Christian Right and Muslim extremists is striking at times. By "rhetoric" here I mean specifically the attacks made on modernity, liberalism, feminism, secularism, and other aspects of contemporary culture that have moved away from traditional religion. Their recipes for solving these "problems" are also depressingly similar. Tragically ironic about all this is the fact that the Christian Right regards America as the instrument of God and God's plan for humanity while their Muslim counterparts regard the same America as the instrument of Satan.

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...

Morality of War: Just War Theory

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:00:30 +0000

There is a tradition in Western religion and culture of differentiating between "just" and "unjust" wars. Those opposed to war in principle will surely disagree that any such distinction can possibly be made, but the basic ideas involved seem to present a plausible argument that there are times when war is, at the very least, less just and as a result should receive less support.

Read Article: Morality of War: Just War Theory

Dirty Secrets of Christian Evangelism

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:00:00 +0000

Both Catholics and Protestants spend a lot of money on missionary programs in the "Unreached Bloc," a largely non-Christian region stretching from Africa to East Asia, with India being a primary target. The tactics can be very unethical and the results very poor. So why do people go through with it? For Christ, they say. I suppose anything can be justified in the name of Jesus, no matter how unethical and harmful.

S. R. Welch writes for the Secular Web:

Missionaries exploit the sick:

Catholic priests had been instructed to learn something of medicine in order to gain access to the bedsides of sick Hindu (and Muslim) children. There, on the pretext of administering medicine, the priests secretly baptized the children before they died. What is troubling are the reports that this practice continues today, with formulas of baptism whispered and holy water sprinkled surreptitiously over non-Christian patients even in the hospices of such well-known orders as the Missionaries of Charity.

Both Westerners and Indians are exploited via fake "orphans":

Exploiting customs that make female children economic burdens on their families, missionaries reportedly induce tribal mothers to relinquish baby girls shortly after birth. Often the mothers are promised that rich Westerners will adopt their daughters and they will live a "much better life." The mother is typically paid about $70 for her child, which is then adopted by Western parents for a "donation" of $2,500.

There is an irony to the notion of tribal "orphans," according to Arvind Neelakandan, a volunteer with the Vivekananda Kendra (VK), a Hindu nonprofit that works among the tribals. In most tribal communities, Neelakandan explains, "Orphans as we know them are nonexistent"; parentless children are typically cared for by their extended family. But, he explains, missionaries will "fleece money from their foreign donors by projecting these very same children as 'orphans'" in fundraising campaigns.

Is it immoral to solicit "conversions" by offering food or medicine? Missionaries don't think so:

Whatever one calls the offer of material allurements in exchange for religious conversion, it does not deserve the appellation of "charity." But this is lost on missionaries like Paul, who offers no apologies when confronted with Hindu objections. "If Hindus believe that certain tactics like offering money, food or clothes to their naked children in return for embracing Christ is immoral, then what can I say?" he protests. "All congregations and missionaries have been advised to follow these techniques, as others will only fail. Sounds immoral but that is the only way."

And just how successful is this, anyway? Not very:

According to the World Evangelization Research Center (WERC), there are more than four thousand mission agencies. Collectively they operate a huge apparatus, manned by some 434,000 foreign missionaries wielding an annual global income of eighteen billion dollars. And yet, for all the money that is spent--an astonishing average of $359,000 for every person baptized--the benefits of evangelism are meager. ... Meanwhile, the quality of life for India's Christian population remains dismal. Despite "crocodile-tears for the oppressed," says Edamaruku, and contrary to apologists' frequent boast that Christianization brings justice and equality to the "untouchables," dalits who convert find that as Christians, they remain "as 'untouchable' as they had been as Hindus." While more than 75 percent of the Catholics in India are dalits, dalits make up less than 5 percent of Indian priests. Most priests come from upper castes.

This is supposed to be the "charitable" face of Christianity. As Welch explains, the helps to breed ethnic and religious strife as new converts are often induced to adopt fanatical attitudes towards their former faith. Missionaries feed and clothe people, but at what price? They are paying a serious ethical price themselves and extracting a large price from local society through increased tensions � not to mention the funds and time that could be better spent on more productive programs.

Punishment in Hell for the Deadly Sin of Anger is to be Dismembered Alive

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:00:28 +0000

_{Image Source:
Jupiter Images}

Angry people, those guilty of committing the deadly sin of anger, will be punished in hell by being dismembered of alive. I don't see any connection between the sin of anger and the punishment of dismemberment, unless it's that dismembering a person is something an angry person would do. It also seems rather strange that people will be dismembered "alive" when they must necessarily be dead when they get to hell. Don't you still have to be alive in order to be dismembered alive?

Read Article: Punishment in Hell for the Deadly Sin of Anger is to be Dismembered Alive

Does God Exist? God is Provident & Sovereign, Acting in Human History

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:00:00 +0000

Although not usually given much attention, one critical attribute of God for many believers is the idea that God is �provident,� which means that God acts in some fashion that requires God to become involved with humanity and causes the course of human history to be aligned with God's ultimate desires and purposes. Read Article: God is Provident & Sovereign, Acting in Human History

Mooney Framing: Rejecting Science for Religion Means They're Compatible

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:00:51 +0000

Chris Mooney regularly insists that all he wants is to promote the "pragmatic" position that science and religion are compatible. He doesn't want critics of religion and theism to "shut up," he just doesn't want them to keep being so publicly critical. This differs from shutting up in that... well, Chris Mooney can't quite explain how it differs. But it does, really. You can trust him on that.

As a demonstration of just how trustworthy Chris Mooney is, as well as a demonstration of just what he he thinks "framing" is all about, he recently cited a report which reveals that there is a "silent majority" of Americans who agree with him that science and religion are compatible. You might be aware that the term "silent majority" doesn't have a positive history, but it doesn't look like Chris Mooney does � which is great, because it means he doesn't recognize the irony of using it.

Chris Mooney writes (emphasis added):

I heartily agree�my sense, too, is that the silent majority doesn�t side with either of the extremes. And I think the polling data eminently supports this. For instance, as David Masci of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life writes in a survey of that evidence: "These data once again show that, in the minds of most people in the United States, there is no real clash between science and religion. And when the two realms offer seemingly contradictory explanations (as in the case of evolution), religious people, who make up a majority of Americans, may rely primarily upon their faith for answers."

At the same time, though, let�s face it�in the science blogosphere, we don�t hear a lot from the �silent majority.� Rather, and admittedly with some important exceptions, we hear from the New Atheists.

Yet I am arguing on behalf of the silent majority, and that is what keeps me going. So my question is this: How can we wake them up, make them realize that this is their issue too, and help them reclaim the debate for the middle ground?

The data is pretty interesting, especially in that most people recognize that evolutionary theory is standard in science and that science is important for society:

Interestingly, many of those who reject natural selection recognize that scientists themselves fully accept Darwin's theory. In the same 2006 Pew poll, nearly two-thirds of adults (62%) say that they believe that scientists agree on the validity of evolution. Moreover, Americans, including religious Americans, hold science and scientists in very high regard. A 2006 survey conducted by Virginia Commonwealth University found that most people (87%) think that scientific developments make society better. Among those who describe themselves as being very religious, the same number � 87% � share that opinion.

What's most significant here, though, are some different numbers:

How can Americans say that they respect science and even know what scientists believe and yet still disagree with the scientific community on some fundamental questions? The answer is that much of the general public simply chooses not to believe the scientific theories and discoveries that seem to contradict long-held religious or other important beliefs.

When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory.

This reliance on religious faith may help explain why so many people do not see science as a direct threat to religion. Only 28% of respondents in the same Time poll say that scientific advancements threaten their religious beliefs. These poll results also show that more than four-fifths of respondents (81%) say that "recent discoveries and advances" in science have not significantly impacted their religious views. In fact, 14% say that these discoveries have actually made them more religious. Only 4% say that science has made them less religious.

Source: Pew Research

So according to Chris Mooney, the "silent majority" which is willing to ignore science in favor of religion isn't "extreme." Apparently, the only thing "extreme" for Moony is atheists pointing out the conflicts which the "silent majority" is trying to pretend don't exist. Chris Mooney openly and unapologetically proclaims that he argues "on behalf of the silent majority" which doesn�t think that science conflicts with religion � and since they don't think science conflicts with religion because they are willing to ignore science whenever such a conflict might appear, Chris Mooney is necessarily arguing on behalf of this tactic as well.

I can't say that I'm surprised by the results above. People recognize the importance of science and so support science. It's also likely that many want to appear to be supporting science when surveyed about it. People also believe that their religion is important to them � and there is far greater pressure to appear to be supportive of religion in America. Admitting any conflict between the two would often require choosing one and rejecting the other, at least in part, but rejecting either science or religion would entail rejecting a part of an identity which one has built up for themselves.

People have trouble doing this, so they compartmentalize. They ignore the inconvenient bits they don't like rather than engage in any of the hard work necessary to examine what they believe, why, and whether any of the beliefs they've taken for granted should be amended or abandoned. Doing this allows them to pretend that conflicts between religion and science don't exist. So long as they don't feel conflicted, there is no conflict; so long as they are able to ignore or deny reality, they won't feel conflicted.

When I wrote not long ago that Chris Mooney had abandoned reason and science, I didn't realize just how thoroughly he had done so. I thought that his previous statements and falsehoods were bad, but this is actually quite a bit worse � and he still hasn't hit bottom. Chris Hallquist noticed that the Pew report revealed something rather different from what Chris Mooney was claiming and stated that this qualifies as a deliberate, unambiguous lie. He concludes his indictment of Mooney's honesty with this (via: Barefoot Bum):

It Mooney can�t get his facts straight about something so simple, it�s time to ignore him. For my own future reference, though, and that of anyone who�s morbidly curious about this mini-fiasco, Jerry Coyne has a nice compilation of relevant posts, which he seems to be continuously updating. Though it doesn�s include this most lovely-titled of posts. Notice how Mooney has nothing of substance to say in reply, saying only that the debate is a waste of time�in which case, why doesn�t he shut up?

Given the long history of so many people complaining about Chris Mooney telling critics of religion to just shut up, he naturally took umbrage at someone telling him to shut up... although Hallquist doesn't actually tell him to shut up. Instead, he asks why Mooney doesn't shut up if in fact the debate is the waste of time Mooney admits it is. Sounds like a good question to me, but remember Chris Mooney's standards of honesty just aren't very high here so we get this as a "response":

And now, an atheist blogger actually tells me to �shut up,� using precisely those words. I trust there will be round denunciation of this behavior?

Right, Chris Hallquist should be "denounced" for asking why Chris Mooney doesn't quit whining about something which Mooney himself says is a waste of time? OK, since I have been a person who has complained about Chris Mooney arguing that atheist critics should just shut up, I'll do it:

Chris Hallquist, how could you? You should know better than to ask Chris Mooney why he doesn't quit wasting time with something that he admits is a waste of time. Any sort of decent answer to this question would require a level of self-introspection which Mooney has never, ever demonstrated. No matter how many times people have critiqued his perspective and agenda, he has never, ever revealed that he has subjected them to his own internal review. Why would he stop to reconsider this?

Far, far worse though is the fact that you gave him an easy excuse to ignore the substance of your argument. I know, the question was tempting and I'm not sure I could have resisted either, but since I'm benefiting from 20/20 hindsight I get to pretend otherwise. You've noticed I'm sure that he never even answered the question that sparked his response (speaking of a waste of time: all that whining about a question he won't even answer), but more significant is the fact that he doesn't even begin to address why he is coming down on the side of people who openly, frankly, and unapologetically are willing to ignore science in favor of religion.

He's avoiding the fact that his "silent majority" only believes science and religion are compatible because they ignore science whenever a conflict appears. He avoids having to answer for the fact that he cites a quote stating "there is no real clash between science and religion" while ignoring the context of that quote � a dishonest tactic frequently employed by creationists and other science-deniers.

Granted, we have no reason to think that he would have directly and substantively responded to this issue even if the question hadn't appeared, but his spinning, dodging, weaving, and "framing" would have been far more amusing if he hadn't been distracted by the bright, shiny question you left dangling at the end of your post.

Naughty, naughty Chris.

So if science conflicts with religious beliefs, Chris Mooney's "silent majority" will simply ignore � which in practice will mean denying � the science in favor of their religious beliefs. The only way to "frame" such science is to lie about what it really says. You can "frame" things in an honest manner if there isn't direct conflict, but just problematic implications � if the science raises questions or problems for a religious belief which can't be easily answered.

When there is direct and unambiguous conflict, however, you can't get around that conflict without changing what either the science or the religion say. Religious believers won't accept it when an outsider tries to tell them that their religion teaches something different from what they thought (though internal religious authorities are free to amend their doctrines!). This only leaves changing what science says, but if you present the conclusions of science to appear to not conflict with religion when in reality they do conflict with religion, then you are lying about science in order to make religious believers feel better about their religious beliefs.

This is rather similar to telling people that there is a "silent majority" of Americans who don't think there is a conflict between science and religion without also telling them that this isn't because most Americans believe the two are always compatible, but rather because most Americans are willing to deny the science whenever a conflict threatens to appear.

Weekly Poll: Is It Appropriate For City Councils To Begin Meetings With Prayers?

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:00:04 +0000

We regularly read about city councils and other small government entities like school boards insisting that they should begin their meetings with official, organized prayers - often sectarian prayers to Jesus. They believe this is appropriate because most citizens are Christians who agree with the prayers � an argument that will become more difficult over time as religious minority groups grow in numbers and strength. Others argue that no government entity should favor Christianity in this way.

It's curious to see government officials acting as though they had the authority to pick particular gods for prayers, praise, etc. One gets the impression that they think their job is to be a priest or minister who is tasked with aiding people's spiritual and religious development.

On the other hand, the other popular option of giving an official stamp of approval to some "non-sectarian prayer" is problematic as well. Either the prayer will be so vague as to say nothing in order to say nothing that contradicts anyone's beliefs, or it will express some particular religious, theistic, supernatural beliefs.

In the former case, this will be perceived as insulting to some sincere and devout religious believers � many would prefer no prayers over a prayer like that. In the latter cases, we'll still see a government body endorsing particular religious, theistic, and supernatural beliefs over others. Why? What legitimate government purpose does that serve?

If members of a town council, school board, or other public institution feel a need for prayer of some sort before meetings, they can do so on their own � and that way, they will ensure that they will have prayers that accurately reflect what they personally believe. They would get what they feel they need but also leave the government out of it. Why insist on making them an official part of the proceeding unless it�s to specifically endorse, promote, or encourage their private religious beliefs?

Atheism Basics: Belief vs. Disbelief - What's the Difference?

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:00:00 +0000

People�s misunderstanding about the nature of atheism can sometimes be traced to a misunderstanding about the nature of disbelief. Comprehensive dictionaries generally define atheism as the �disbelief in or denial of the existence of gods,� and atheists commonly refer to atheism as simply not believing in any gods � but is not believing something the same as denying it? Read Article: Belief vs. Disbelief - What's the Difference?