In genuine science, no one argues that a lack of alternative explanations is by itself a sufficient reason to consider their theories correct and accurate. In pseudoscience, such arguments are made all of the time. In logic, this is commonly referred to as an argument from ignorance: something is claimed to be true merely because it hasn't been proven false and/or no alternatives have been proven true.

 

Read Article: Argument from Ignorance in Parapsychology

The Sacramento Area Coalition of Reason, a coalition of atheist, skeptical, freethought, and humanist groups, has purchased ten billboards in the Sacramento area. Three were vandalized -- with one being ripped apart so completely that no one who hadn't seen it before would know what had been there. This is how some Christians react when atheists dare to speak their mind in public.

One critical aspect of this is the fact that these billboards among the mildest sort: "Are You Good Without God? Millions Are." In the past, apologists for religious privilege supported efforts to suppress atheist advertisements by arguing that those ads have been "offensive" and "arrogant," despite the fact that they were far more mild than so much religious advertising.

Apologists for religious privilege haven't found anything to complain about in these ads, but I also haven't seen them condemn the vandalism. Isn't that curious? Read more...

Subject: Homosexuality in Georgia
From: Redneck Genius

Georgia appears to be heading for a second vote on the Ban Gay Marriage amendment as a court struck down the amendment. The amendment passed the first time by a 76 percent majority. The court ruled the ballot measure apparently covered more stuff that it was supposed to. Gov. Bubba plans to call for a special session of the General Assembly if the Ga. Supreme Court doesn't overturn the lower court ruling.

I haven't been following the Georgia story too closely, but it is my understanding that the amendment was struck down because the original ballot measure asked multiple questions and, according to the law, such measures can only ask one question at a time. From what I've read, the Christian Right is very upset over this -- they are howling about how a judge would have the audacity to overturn the "will of the people," completely ignoring the fact that the judge's decision was based upon a neutral matter of law completely independent of the question of gay marriage.

Of course, acknowledging that the judge acted not as an "unelected legislature" but, instead, as a neutral arbiter would entail acknowledging that those who created the original ballot measure screwed up in a major way. I won't shed any tears over the fact that it was overturned, but it seems clear that someone messed up by not writing it correctly. Wouldn't it be mature to admit the mistake and move forward with a new one -- one that is written correctly?

 

It's a religious issue to me.

I, however, am in an incredibly small minority of devout and fundamentalist Christians on the issue . I voted against the amendment and will continue to do so. Marriage is not a legal institution from my perspective and, continuing this way, government has no business regulating marriage. Civil unions, etc and so forth are a different matter. I will, however, vote against any amendment whatsoever that attempts to dictate who may cohabitate with whom. Again to me, this is a religious matter. Religious law supersede's man's law for me and I see no need to duplicate laws.

I personally disagree with RG that marriage is not a legal institution -- I would argue that by trying to define marriage according to particular religious doctrines, the government is trying to transform it from a civil into a religious institution. Marriage can only be a "religious institution" from the perspective of religious organizations; for organizations like the government, it must be a civil institution and a civil matter.

Once we adopt the perspective of a religious organization like a church, then it is appropriate to be concerned in the way that RG describes. There are many religions, many churches, and many different religious perspectives on what marriage means. Government involvement with marriage must be a neutral as possible -- it must be equally fair to all people, whatever their religion and even if they have no religion. This isn't possible, however, if the government adopts rules on marriage which reflect the perspective of one religious group.

Many Christians don't seem to recognize the danger in this because, as far as they are concerned, it's their rules which the government would be adopting. Since they think they will benefit, they don't mind so much. In fact, some regard this as a form of justice because in the past so much of American culture was defined according to Christian traditions or doctrines; therefore, more explicit blending of church and state is perceived as a way to rectify their losses.

RG is different, though -- he is a Christian who recognizes the danger inherent in granting the government the authority to interfere in these matters. Most such Christians tend to be liberal or progressive in their theology and politics, but RG is explicitly and unapologetically fundamentalist. People often see fundamentalists as enemies of things like gay marriage -- and while RG certainly wouldn't approve of gay marriage, he at least isn't interested in using the power of the state to ban it in this manner.

He is similar to civil libertarian who abhors the Nazis, but is willing to go to court to fight for their right to publish or march in public. In this way, fundamentalists like RG can be far greater friends to liberty and freedom than some of their more liberal counterparts.

 

It is a matter of separating a church and a state. I believe government has no right to dictate how I choose to practice my religion, so long as no one is physically affected against their will (emotional, mental and all the other like "harms" like that are a crock).

The question about things like emotional and mental harms is important -- though to this we should add "spiritual" as well. Very often, when the Christian Right seeks to ban something, they argue that it creates a moral or spiritual harm which the state has the authority to prevent. Is this necessarily a "crock," though? Perhaps not, depending upon how far we take it.

The law does appropriately recognize emotional and mental harm in some cases. Civil lawsuits can collect money based upon such harm, for example. Perhaps a more relevant example might be child abuse: it's possible for parents to engage in abuse of children that is psychological and emotional, not physical, and in some cases I think that the state can move in to protect the children. I really don't think that it would be appropriate for the state to disregard every sort of mental, emotional, and psychological cruelty which a parent might visit upon a child on the assumption that no such "harm" is possible.

On the other hand, it's clear that the state has to tread very lightly in such matters because this power can be abused. Some atheists, for example, think that all religion of any sort is a form of mental abuse being visited on children. Some of them might argue for children to be taken out of any religious household, which is simply too extreme -- even though mental and emotional abuse shouldn't be tolerated simply because it occurs in the context of religion.

 

While I'm here, my apologies for the Christian Idiots (I read your mailbag) who attack you. Despite you and I sitting on opposite sides of the fundamental issue, I think highly of what I've seen on your site.

The earlier passages in RG's email prove that it is wrong to generalize about all fundamentalists, much less all Christians. RG may be part of a small minority, but he proves that it's possible to be a fundamentalist while also strongly supporting the separation of church and state -- even if it means allowing gays to marry. This final paragraph demonstrates support of such principles can bring together people who are otherwise very different.

As RG writes, he and I are far apart on some very basic principles, but this doesn't mean that we don't share other important principles. Perhaps even more important is the fact that RG doesn't appear to arrive at his support for the separation of church and state based on "faith" -- he doesn't accept it because someone told him he should. Instead, his support for separating church and state is based more upon pragmatism and reasoned argument. RG is the sort of theist that an atheist can have a serious conversation with -- and that, too, puts him ahead of some of his more liberal counterparts.

 

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...

Megiddo is an ancient city which is today associated with the Tell el-Mutesellim. Occupation of the site can be traced to the early 4th millennium BCE. It is most famous for its association with Armageddon, a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew for 'Mount Megiddo.' No such mountain exists, but the book of Revelations describes the site as that of the apocalypse.

 

Read Article: Megiddo - Will Armageddon Occur Here?