About Agnosticism / Atheism

Parapsychology: Does Parapsychology Do Any Harm?

2009-07-09T15:00:00Z

A common objection to critiques of psychic and parapsychological claims is that neither research into them nor belief in them really does anyone any harm - does it? After all, if we are talking about unlikely, but ultimately harmless, beliefs, then why bother making a fuss? Let people continue with their notions about telepathy if it makes them happy and gives them something to do.

Read Article: Does Parapsychology Do Any Harm?

Liberty Counsel: Deny Child Visitation for Gay Parents

2009-07-09T12:00:38Z

Christian hatred of gays can be so extreme in America that they actually want to deny gays a legal right to even visit with their own biological children. In Georgia, the state's Supreme Court ruled against a woman who tried to deny visitation rights to her ex-husband. She didn't want their four children to spend time with him because he had decided that he was gay and some Christian groups backed her legal case by arguing that children would be harmed from being exposed to an environment where homosexuality isn't vilified.

"In this case the court, in order to somehow perpetuate and further the interest of political correctness, has taken what's in the best interest of the child and turned it on its head," [Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel] contends.

"Obviously it is not in the best interest of a child to be taken by his father and introduced to a group of people who are engaging in abhorrent sexual behaviors, who are modeling abhorrent sexual behaviors and celebration of that [which is] demonstrably dangerous from a medical, spiritual, and emotional standpoint -- modeling those behaviors for the child," Barber adds.

Source: One News Now

This is part of a larger effort to marginalize gays as much as possible � to push them outside the usual political, social, familial, and social institutions. Why they seek this is fairly clear: the more integrated gays are in society and the more normal their lives are seen as being, the more tolerant people will be of gays. Tolerance will, over time, deny to conservative Christians one of their most important scapegoats.

Just as a reminder of the origin of scapegoats:

Substitute or ��scapegoat�� rituals constitute a special class of ceremony. In these rites the moral or literal pollution of a patient was disposed of by transferring it through direct contact to a living carrier, such as a goat or even a human prisoner. The substitute is thereupon driven off into the wilderness or hostile territory, or else simply killed, taking the impurity with him to the underworld. The few attestations of human sacrifice found in Hittite texts are examples of this phenomenon rather than true offerings (Kummel 1967: 150�68).

Source: A Companion To The Ancient Near East, Edited by Daniel C. Snell

We prevent this emergence of the shame of nature in our own activities by projecting that shame completely upon an other. That other is the scapegoat, the slave, the native, the black, the enemy who threatens to remind us that beneath the world of class, power, patriotism, and culture remains the shame of our own nature: we are born like every other animal, and we die just the same.

Source: Out of Eden: Adam and Eve and the Problem of Evil, by Paul W. Kahn

Without scapegoats, conservative Christians would lose an important tool for maintaining social unity and preserving a sense of personal identity. Few manage to create an identity that is purely positive, which means that negative elements become critical. For this reason, conservative Christians frequently depend on categories like anti-gay, not-gay, anti-choice, anti-atheist, and anti-communist to define themselves. If the stigma attached to categories like "gay" or "atheist" were lost, then the value of defining oneself as anti-gay, not-gay, or anti-atheist would also be lost. This, in turn, would undermine their ability to define themselves in ways they have become accustomed to.

The political agenda of conservative Christians would also take a serious hit. They have spent much time and money promoting intolerance of gays and preaching that America's social, economic, political, and cultural ills are due (at least partly) to the presence and tolerance of gays. They can't just turn their backs on this investment without losing all credibility. Of course, the growing tolerance of gays is already leading to a loss of credibility for the dominant evangelical organizations among younger evangelicals.

This is the real concern for evangelical leaders and what was driving their position on the above legal case. They want kids kept away from gays, especially gay parents, not because homosexuality can be transmitted but rather because tolerance of homosexuality can be transmitted. Keeping kids away from the father and telling them that it's because he's gay will lead to increased suspicion and distrust of gays � it would increase the overall social stigma attached to homosexuality not just for the kids, but also for any friends who know. Allowing visitation and integrating the kids with the father's life as if there is nothing wrong will lead to increased tolerance of gays.

Weekly Poll: Would Jesus be a Christian in America?

2009-07-09T09:00:02Z

Many Christians ask 'what would Jesus do,' but perhaps they should take a step back and ask whether Jesus would even admit to being a Christian in the context of contemporary American Christianity. What, if anything, do American Christians today have to do with the principles and commands attributed to Jesus in the Bible? This is not a problem or question which many or most Christians seem to have stopped to consider, but does that even matter?

We have to specify American Christianity because there are many differences between Christianity in the United States and Christianity elsewhere in world � never mind at other times in history. Christianity is not a monolithic system or institution which produces a comment set of political, social, economic, and personal beliefs among all Christians all around the world.

Atheism Basics: Who Are America's Godless? Diversity of Godless Americans in the United States

2009-07-08T15:00:07Z

In the past, religion and religious beliefs tended to define most things people did in their lives as well as most public institutions. With the growth of secularism and the increase of religious diversity, however, religious beliefs previously assumed to be common and basic began to fall away. Today secularism and godlessness define an increasing number of people's lives and public institutions. This social development cannot be ignored, though the Christian Right is determined to fight it. Read Article: Who Are America�s Godless? Diversity of Godless Americans in the United States

Indiana: "No Gods" License Plate Offensive to Good Taste, Decency

2009-07-08T12:00:30Z

The state of Indiana offers a specialty license plate with the phrase "In God We Trust" on it. This is an official endorsement of theism (God) and Christian religion (Trust) which residents don't even have to pay extra for � all other specialty license plates come with a special fee, but not this one. Indiana state officials defended this godly license plate by arguing that "God" is ambiguous and courts accepted this excuse.

Now we're finding out just how much Indiana officials really believed their position: an atheist has been denied a personalized license plate reading "No Gods." Their reasoning, apparently, is that this message is "offensive to good taste and decency." What does it say about a government or religious believers when a simple statement that one is without gods is regarded as offensive in any way?

The question becomes, is the phrase "NO GODS" offensive to an "objective, reasonable person"? The only other portion of the guidelines above that could be a sticking point is "or is otherwise prohibited." If by that they include to mean a statement of religion, it is my opinion that a prohibition of religion on license plates went out the window when Indiana approved the "In God We Trust" license plate. If it is okay for citizens of Indiana to proclaim their religion via an Indiana license plate, not allowing me to proclaim my lack of religion seems to be a pretty obvious case of the state government favoring or promoting one religion or belief system over another (or over a lack thereof).

I've contacted both the Indiana ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation for their opinion and possible assistance. The FFRF responded quite quickly, saying they believe I have the BMV "in a pickle" but to wait for the ACLU-IN since the "In God We Trust" license plate issue was their baby back when that plate first came around. I'm hoping to hear from them soon before sending in my official appeal to the BMV for an administrative hearing. Either way, even if the ACLU doesn't take my case I plan on fighting this as much as possible.

Source: Cookieville Minimum-Security Orphanarium (via: Friendly Atheist)

If "God" is truly ambiguous and could mean any deity, how can it be offensive to send the message that one is without any gods at all? It would make a little more sense, perhaps, that people would be offended if the license plate is interpreted as a direct challenge to the Christian beliefs being officially endorsed on the speciality license plates. Then again, many religious theist do act as if any expression of atheism and/or religious criticism is offensive, inappropriate, and militant, whether some particular deity is singled out or if all gods generally are targeted.

How can any religious theist honestly say that it is reasonable for a state government to officially endorse and promote a statement like "In God We Trust" but that it's offensive for one private individual to state "No Gods" on their own license plate? The above writer is not the only person affected because someone else in Indiana has been denied a request for a "Godless" license plate. This establishes a pattern of discrimination against atheistic, irreligious viewpoints.

A lawsuit against the state of Indiana should be successful because there just aren't any valid legal arguments here. This is, however, just one more example that so-called "intolerance" of atheists is more a figment of religious theists' imaginations when they are unable to themselves tolerate the presence of dissent. When something as simple as "no gods" becomes offensive, it's just not possible for atheists to say anything at all that won't be regarded as intolerant � and that means it's time to stop worrying about accusations of intolerance and focus on the substance of what's being said.

Forum Discussion: Atheists' Wagers

2009-07-08T09:00:00Z

Many Christians seem to assume without thinking that Pascal's Wager is a fantastic argument. I don't think I've ever encountered a Christian using anything but the most simplistic version or who was aware of any of the common objections to it, never mind how to counter them. This would make some sense if Christians find Pascal's Wager appealing for emotional and psychological reasons rather than for logical and evidentiary reasons. Perhaps, then, countering Pascal's Wager with logical objections will always fall on deaf ears and we need counter-arguments with their own emotional and psychological appeal.

A forum member writes:

It's nice to know that the Christians can use (or misuse) Pascal's wager to their heart's content, however unreasonable it may be. Why not have our own little "wager"?

I wager this: If this putative God is omnipotent (and possibly omniscient), then his unimaginably numerous supernatural powers would surely exceed his natural powers such that we should see supernatural events more frequently and often on a large scale rather than mundane natural events that follow the fundamental rules inherent in our universe. Since the latter is true but the former isn't true in the least, he would have to be an impotent God, or simply not exist. That is, his very omnipotence juxtaposed with our mundane universe dictates that one of these two "entities" would not exist (you pick).

If I'm right, then you don't go to hell. If I'm wrong, then maybe you'll go wherever this God says so. I'm not looking for it to be logically infallible, although that would be even better. As far as taking credit for this, I'm sure we've all here had a permutation of this idea at one point or another.

There are a lot of ways in which any sort of "wager" will be invalid or at least problematic, but few Christians will listen to the logical objections to them. If we set such objections aside, can we come up with better wagers than the one which Christians try to offer? I've written my own "Atheist's Wager," but can you think of any further alternatives?

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

Philosophy Fundamentals: What is Materialism?

2009-07-07T15:00:00Z

Materialism is the idea that everything is either made only of matter or is ultimately dependent upon matter for its existence and nature. It is possible for a philosophy to be materialistic and still accord spirit a (secondary or dependent) place, but most forms of materialism tend to reject the existence of spirit or anything non-physical. Read Article: What is Materialism? History of Materialism, Materialist Philosophy, Philosophers

New Strategy for Atheists: Petulant Whining & Crying

2009-07-07T12:00:08Z

Religious apologists spend much time complaining about atheists being too "militant" and "rude" for having the gall to criticize religion, but what if atheists changed their tactics completely? There is no level of criticism, challenge, or questioning which is mild enough for apologists � they want religion to be a criticism-free zone. Maybe atheists can play the same victim-game by insisting that every form for criticism of atheism � even implicit criticism � be suspended as well.

Saint Gasoline suggests a new strategy for atheists based on the recommendations of Barbara Forrest and Chris Mooney:

1. Etiquette. Be nice! Atheism is a very private matter, and given that atheists support many of the same things religious people do�like peace, democracy, puppies, riding bicycles, and ponies�religious liberals really have no business questioning our personal way of making meaning of the world. After all, atheists are not trying to force their disbelief on anybody else. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who questions an atheist�s �personal way of making meaning of the world� is thus a fucking asshole who deserves to be condemned and possibly shot. When you talk about God existing, or sing Christmas carols, or wear crosses, just consider how horrible this makes atheists feel. So respect their beliefs by shutting the fuck up or burning all your religious trinkets. This is the only way to appease us, as we are just so sensitive and frail, like trembling, atheistic baby birds. The mere mention of religion could cause us to choke on our own self-righteous vomit.

2. Diversity. There are so many atheists out there, and so much variation within particular philosophies and ethics. So why would liberal theists want to criticize atheists, who have not sacrificed scientific accuracy, who are pro-evolution, who are generally good people, when there are so many rapists, murderers, people who steal hamburgers, and annoying people who talk during movies? There is simply no reason to criticize atheists with all these other, much worse, people in the world! Obviously you cannot attack both at once! THIS IS NOT A FALSE DICHOTOMY AT ALL!

3. Humility. Religion can�t prove a negative: Saying there is a God is saying more than we can ever really know empirically, or based on data and evidence. So why drive a wedge between atheists and religious defenders of evolution when it is not even possible to definitively prove the former wrong about metaphysics? It is clear that religious moderates must be humble, then, and refrain from blessing atheists when they sneeze, or making snow angels in the snow, or crying out to Jesus while having sex, as all of these acts are deeply offensive to we atheists and make us cry and also make us jealous that Jesus is apparently so good in bed. ...

Now, these are the only three things we atheists ask. We want to be respected and treated like anyone else. And because any mention of God, Jesus, Islam, spirits, ghosts, religious holidays, churches, and so on all contradict our dearly-held atheistic beliefs, we ask that you all kindly refrain from doing so, in the interest of social etiquitte. It is the least you could do, seeing as how you demand the same from us.

I realize that all this might sound a bit extreme or absurd, but just how different is it really from how Christians have been behaving in recent years? If it's impolite for atheists to suggest that maybe no gods exist and belief in gods is unnecessary for morality, then why isn't it impolite for theists to insist that gods do exist and are necessary for anything at all? If atheists need to be humbler and not deny gods, why shouldn't theists be humbler and stop affirming gods?

Indeed, if theists have even the remotest case against atheists, then atheists have a much stronger case against theists � after all, theists do a whole lot more prancing around preaching about the existence of their gods and why people need to believe in those gods. Atheists publish a couple of high-profile books each year arguing against gods; theists publish several books each week or even each day promoting their gods. Atheists raise a ruckus with a single billboard or bus sign; theists have signs, billboards, and other advertising all over. Atheists are "militant" for making forceful, pointed arguments while theists run around assassinating abortion providers.

Comment of the Week: Religious, Theistic Hubris

2009-07-07T09:00:07Z

It's common to hear from religious theists and apologists for religion that atheists are "arrogant" for daring to disbelieve in whatever god happens to be popular in the relevant culture. It's amazing that atheists can be accused of being the arrogant ones simply for not accepting a popular belief which insists that the entire universe was basically created for the benefit of believers.

Jules writes:

Reading the comments from religious fundamentalists and evangelicals reflects how narcissistic, self-absorbed and extraordinarily insular people can be when their worldview becomes so unimaginative, dogmatic,delusional and extremely myopic.

They are effectively saying that in this incredibly immense universe, which all of us have just a infinitesimal personal experience with; where time-space contraints (billions of light years) are almost beyond human comprehension; that this same completely unknowable universe revolves around the transitory beliefs of one religious faith on one terrestially habitable planet and that they alone are holders of "the truth"

And they say that atheists and agnostics are arrogant?!

It is sad and scary actually how so many can let their minds be so limited and voluntarily deluded with such utter hubris and irrational nonsense.

[original post]

Do you suppose that religious theists making this argument really believe that atheists are the arrogant ones and they are "humble" for thinking that the universe revolves around their belief system? Or is it perhaps more likely that they are just projecting their own known faults onto atheists in order to more easily avoid dealing with them? It's difficult to comprehend how they can seriously believe what they are saying.

Evolution Basics: Segraves v. California (1981)

2009-07-06T15:00:00Z

There are a number of religious groups which object to evolution and which find that evolution is incompatible with their religious beliefs. Although they may be missing something and their conclusion may be mistaken, they are nevertheless sincere. Does this mean, then, that teaching evolution in science classes infringes upon the rights of these people and their children to the free exercise of their religion?

Read Article: Segraves v. California (1981)

"Controversial" Sign Recognizes Humanity of Atheists; Christians Protest

2009-07-06T12:00:29Z

In Fort Lauderdale, the Florida Atheist and Secular Humanist Society has paid for a billboard stating: "Being a good person doesn't require God. Don't believe in God? You're not alone." There shouldn't be anything the least bit controversial or problematic about this, a simple statement that atheists are not alone and atheists aren't bad people.

There are Christians in Fort Lauderdale, however, for whom such simple statements are just horrible � and the presence of such a billboard near Christians is utterly intolerable. It's not merely "controversial" to say that atheists exist and that atheists can be good people, but it is in fact an insult to these Christians to learn that they don't have a lock on morality and that there might be atheists lurking in their midst. How do they manage to sleep through the night now?

The community said there are two main problems: The business right next to the billboard is owned by born-again Christians, and the billboard is right in the middle of an African-American community.

After seeing the controversial billboard, Big Mama brought her students out to protest it. "Nothing else matters, but that sign needs to come down. In the name of Jesus," Big Mama chanted as she led her students in protest.

Neighboring businesses has called to try to get the sign removed. "Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Christian, whoever you are, we all believe in a spiritual higher being. When you have something like this here, people don't want to come and patronize us anymore," said Theodore Hamilton. "We don't agree with this. We don't like this here in our community, and this is a spiritual based community."

Source: WSVN News

I wonder what Big Mamma is so afraid of? Does she fear what will happen when her students finally do learn that atheists exist, that atheists surely live in their neighborhood, and that atheism doesn�t mean a person is immoral or evil? Does she fear that some of her own students might seriously consider atheism when they come to realize that there is nothing wrong with it?

I find it interesting that some Christians sincerely believe that customers won't come to their stores simply because someone else paid for a nearby billboard stating nothing more than atheists exist and aren't immoral. Does this reflect their own personal attitudes � which means that they are so bigoted that they wouldn't shop anywhere near where atheism is mentioned � or does it reflect their knowledge of how bigoted their own customers are?

Either way it's a very negative statement � whether about themselves, their customers, or both � but apparently Christians like Theodore Hamiliton are unable or unwilling to recognize this. Imagine complaining that white customer will stop coming to your business because the NAACP put up a billboard and insisting that one lives or works in a "white based community." Imagine if white people and white students protested that presence of a BET billboard and demanding that it had to come down.

I suspect that most people would recognize the bigotry of such behavior and attitudes, but here we have Christians who consider such bigotry against atheists to not only be unproblematic, but even perhaps a religious and social duty. It's a sign, I think, of just how deeply immorality, injustice, and irrationality have seeped into American Christianity.

Book of the Week: Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life

2009-07-06T09:00:34Z

_{Image courtesy
PriceGrabber.com}

Critics of atheism and contemporary atheists complain about the tone of so-called 'New Atheism' and insist that it can only have negative effects for atheists in society - as if atheists used to be the subjects of universal adulation and praise. Well, one positive effect of the atheist books which everyone loves to hate is the vastly increased public profile of atheists in society - and thus also the market for even more books by atheists about atheism.

Book of the Week: Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life

Does God Exist? God & Gender - Is God Really Male?

2009-07-05T15:00:00Z

In many religions throughout history, gods have been portrayed variously as male and female, often embodying important masculine and feminine attributes. The tradition of philosophical theism, however, has had difficulty with the issue of gender. Many people act as though God is male rather than female or genderless, but theologians argue that God is genderless. Why does this difference exist? Read Article: God & Gender - Is God Really Male?

Christian Soldiers: Militant, Militarized Christianity in the American Military

2009-07-05T12:00:04Z

_{Image © Austin Cline

Original Poster:
National Archives}

The threat posed by conservative, evangelical Christianity to America's secular democracy is multifaceted, but one significant threat that has gone unnoticed by most Americans is the attempt by certain right-wing religious groups to Christianize America's military and militarize America's Christianity. This phenomenon has developed with little notice for many years, but publicity from secular groups combined with a growth that can no longer be ignored have caused more and more mainstream publications to pay attention.

There is little to nothing good to be said about these developments in the military, but it's not clear that the government is concerned enough to do anything about them. The sad fact is that backers of Christianization of the military have been placed in offices of significant power and influence in the military and they have no incentive to turn against their own religious ideology.

It is influenced in part by changes in outlook among the various branches' 2,900 chaplains, who are sworn to serve all soldiers, regardless of religion, with a respectful, religiously pluralistic approach. However, with an estimated two thirds of all current chaplains affiliated with evangelical and Pentecostal denominations, which often prioritize conversion and evangelizing, and a marked decline in chaplains from Catholic and mainstream Protestant churches, this ideal is suffering.

Historian Anne C. Loveland attributes the shift to the Vietnam War, when many liberal churches opposed to the war supplied fewer chaplains, creating a vacuum filled by conservative churches. This imbalance was exacerbated by regulation revisions in the 1980s that helped create hundreds of new "endorsing agencies" that brought a flood of evangelical chaplains into the military and by the simple fact that evangelical and Pentecostal churches are the fastest-growing in the U.S.

The chaplains minister to flocks that are, on the whole, slightly less religious than the general population and slightly less evangelical. According to a 2008 Department of Defense survey, 22 percent of active-duty members of the military described themselves as evangelical or Pentecostal (although the actual number of evangelical-minded believers is likely higher when encompassing personnel who follow more evangelical expressions of mainline Protestant denominations, as well as a sizable percentage of the additional 20 percent that describe themselves simply as "Christian").

Source: Newsweek

It's disturbing to think that this might be yet another consequence of the Republican deregulation madness of the 1980s, but the question of regulating "endorsing agencies" is a serious problem. It is difficult if not impossible to set standards for such agencies without getting into doctrines, dogmas, and theology, but what competency does the government have to make decisions in such matters? It's inevitable that there will be conflict and complaints.

For example, the military has a legitimate interest in not having chaplains from denominations or groups which teach that other religions are inherently inferior, but what if this is a basic doctrine of a group? This would entail that certain religious doctrines be excluded and that would cause certain people from being ineligible or chaplaincy. That is a type of religious discrimination which someone will surely complain about, which may be why there are now more and more chaplains preaching things that are incompatible with the secular nature of the military's mission.

Of course, the military would have little trouble excluding chaplains from groups which teach that certain races are inferior, even if that belief is a basic doctrine of their religion, but why is that different?

Jim Ammerman's Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches (CFGC) is just such a group because they have been accused of constantly denigrating all other religions and even other Christians � including Catholics and other Protestants. There is a video of CFGC chaplain Maj. James Linzey calling mainstream Protestant churches "demonic, dastardly creatures from the pit of hell," that should be "[stomped] out." Such attacks on racial and ethnic minorities wouldn't be tolerated, but the military doesn't have a problem accepting chaplains from groups teaching such hatred of other religions. This tells us a great deal about the real attitudes of America's military: Christian Supremacism.

Art Schulcz, a lawyer representing CFGC in a lawsuit against the Navy, says that evangelicals are the real victims, at least in that branch of the service. (As of 2008, all three chiefs of chaplains were evangelicals.) Numerous evangelical Navy chaplains, Schulcz says, have been discriminated against, denied promotions and subjected to denominational preferences by a Catholic- and mainline Protestant-dominated chaplaincy that is intolerant of how evangelicals worship. Many, he says, have fled to the more evangelical-friendly Army.

"Mikey Weinstein says they're shipping Bibles there," Schulcz says. "I want to say, 'So what?' The Constitution protects that kind of activity." He contends that General Order Number One's prohibition on religion, which has been in effect since 2000, is overly vague and a violation of religious freedom, and that, in any case, chaplains should be exempt since, he argues, they are not military representatives but representatives of their faith groups: "The Constitution prohibits absolutely the government from proselytizing, but it protects the proselytizer to do so, unless they're harming the public good."

Department of Defense policy says that chaplain-endorsing agencies should "express willingness" for their chaplains to cooperate with other religious traditions. But Schulcz claims that Ammerman, who is not a paid government official, and his chaplains, who are, are entitled to say whatever they want unless they're advocating insurrection.

The above is a good example of what we're dealing with: either complete misunderstanding or disregard for both the Constitution and the primary duties of a military chaplain. Being a chaplain doesn't make one exempt from all military rules and regulations. Being a military chaplain isn't a means for getting free trips around the world so you can pursue private evangelization missions.

Chaplains exist in the military for just one reason: to serve the religious needs of military service members who have taken away from their homes where they can more readily find their own churches. Chaplains are tasked to serve everyone in the military equally, regardless of personal religious or spiritual beliefs � favoritism towards any one religion and denigration of any other religions is strictly prohibited. This is because chaplains serve the needs of everyone in the military, not their personal and private religious agenda.

It's true that private religious organizations have a free speech right to advocate just about anything they want, but the military has not only a right but an obligation to set restrictions and standards for the agencies allowed to train and endorse candidates for military chaplaincy. If Ammerman's group doesn't want to live up to those standards because they conflict with the group's religious beliefs, then they should refuse to accept them � but that entails not having their members become military chaplains.

There is no Constitutional right to say and believe whatever you want while still getting an endorsement from the government or a chance to provide employees to the government. Art Schulcz doesn't seem to recognize that bans on the government from proselytizing are bans on government employees and representatives from proselytizing � there is no such thing as a "government action" that isn't some sort of action being performed by some person. Thus, so long as a person is acting as a chaplain in the military, they are an employee and representative of the government. This means that whatever the government is prohibited from doing, they are prohibited from doing.

What I see here is an attempt to claim special exemptions from generally applicable laws and standards: Art Schulcz doesn't think that the CFGC should have to abide by some (or any?) standards which the military has for "endorsing agencies" and military chaplains. Art Schulcz doesn't seem to think that military chaplains should be in any way limited by basic restrictions on government action. In each case, the exemption is based o the principle of religious liberty � apparently, religious liberty is so broad as to exempt a person (or at least a Christian) from the rules everyone else has to follow.

Mailbag: No Truth Here, Part 4

2009-07-05T09:00:00Z

From: "Truth Liberty"
Subject: Re: Atheism

I never believed in a god, but after experiencing God for the first time after a near death experience. I could never and can never deny the experience I had with God and the fulfilment since then.

Near Death Experiences are often used as justifications for believing in things like souls, gods, spirits, an afterlife, etc. Are they, however, a very good justification for such beliefs? No.

The first serious problem is the fact that so many people confuse the truth of an interpretation of an experience with things like: the intensity of the experience, the apparent sincerity of the person reporting the experience, the sorts of changes that an experience brings to a person, etc. A person can have an intense experience, report it as honestly as they can, and change their life based upon it even while completely misinterpreting and misunderstanding it. There is no logical contradiction in such a situation.

As a matter of fact, people who have intense experiences should be especially careful about how they interpret them as well as what they claim about them. It's a known fact that people have a very poor track record when it comes to accurately reporting traumatic events that carry a lot of emotional intensity, like accidents or injuries. Why should we believe that a "near death experience" would be any different?

A second problem here is one that is also true of mystical experiences and the attempts by some to use them as justification for religious beliefs: how can a person claim to recognize God? What arguments or evidence, without resorting to question begging, can a person use to claim that whatever they experienced is necessarily that of the god they believe in? TL here, for example, claims to have never believed in god � so what basis for evaluation did he use to conclude that his experience was of God and not something else?

Michael Martin offers the example of someone claiming to have spoken on the phone with a person who seemed to be the strongest man of County Cork. How could such an identification possibly be made merely on the basis of a voice? Perhaps if the person was an expert on Irish accents at least a small part of the claim could be justified � but only a very small part.

These same problems occur with the claims made that someone has spoken with God or even just �experienced� God. This claim cannot be taken at face value: we need to know what part of this experience justifies the conclusion that it involved �God� � with all of the qualities and attributes alleged for this god, like omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc. � and not an experience of something else, even if it is another supernatural being.

A traditional question based upon this dilemma is, �Are you so sure that you can�t be fooled and it wasn�t Satan who spoke to you?� You don�t have to be a believer in God or Satan to recognize the importance of such a question. The point is, no one has offered a sound basis for differentiating between an experience of �god� and of something else entirely. TL certainly didn't bother trying.

People can try and disprove my beliefs through science, evolution or any other means, but no-one can ever take away the life changing experience, no one can take away the complete change of heart and mind that came with. My family and friends still cannot believe how quickly I changed, for the good.

TL here doesn't seem to understand an important distinction: the truth of the existence of an experience is not the same as the truth of the interpretation of that experience. One can grant that TL had a very important, very profound, very intense experience that changed his life in a multitude of (good) ways. This does not, however, require agreeing that TL had an experience of "God," either in the orthodox Christian sense or in some personally defined sense. TL could be completely wrong in his interpretation of what he experienced without that affecting the truth of having had an experience.

I'm not quite sure why so many people feel to realize and appreciate this crucial distinction. It's one that they are able to make in other situations, but when it comes to "religious" or "mystical" experience, all common sense and skepticism go right out the window.

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...

Epistemology: Truth as Emotions, Intuition, & Instinct

2009-07-04T15:00:00Z

This second group of criteria for truth are very personal and internal, involving the manner in which a person reacts to the outside world and even the very nature of their character. Although the development of all three (emotions, intuition, and instinct) certainly depends upon one�s social circumstances and background, they are in the end fundamentally very subjective.

Read Article: Truth as Emotions, Intuition, & Instinct - Criteria of Truth from Inside Us

Making War on God in Iran

2009-07-04T12:00:02Z

Regular readers may be familiar with an argument I've frequently raised about theocracy: one of the chief problems with any degree of theocracy in a government is how dissent against the government can easily be translated into dissent against God. Thus political disagreements become apostasy and political protesters become sinners. It's not often that apologists for theocracy admit to this, but the Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami in Iran has.

"I want the judiciary to . . . punish leading rioters firmly and without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson," said Khatami, an influential cleric close to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "Based on Islamic law, whoever confronts the Islamic state . . . should be convicted as mohareb [those who wage war on God]. . . . They should be punished ruthlessly and savagely."

Iran's judiciary said Tuesday that a special court would be set up to make an example out of "rioters" arrested during the demonstrations. Source: Denver Post

In no way are the Iranian protesters less religious or theistic than the rest of Iranian society. The accusation that protesters are "waging war on God" is thus not an objective description, but rather a pronouncement designed to achieve particular political goals. First and foremost, the statement places people outside the religious community. Rebelling against God is a serious violation in any religion, but it's especially significant in Islam.

This drives an even deeper wedge between the protesters and other Iranians. People who might have argued over politics but worshiped side-by-side on Fridays are now told that they have no values in common � they are, instead, bitter enemies who are locked in a cosmic struggle. Executing the protesters would simply become the final step in a process of separating the protesters from the community. This is necessary to deny that they have any legitimate political, social, complaints. Communal and social unity are to be preserved at the cost of destroying the principles of free speech and free assembly, not to mention the destruction of many lives.

There were similar reactions from hard-liners during reformist protests in 2003:

...the unrest has also been openly incited by TV and radio stations and websites run largely from the US by Iranian exiles bitterly opposed to the Islamic regime.

The stations broadcast their message in Farsi directly into Iran, and are widely followed.

This, and encouragement for the protesters voiced by American officials from President Bush down, has allowed the regime's hard-liners to dismiss the demonstrators as hooligans and traitors dancing to Washington's tune.

The extreme hard-line former head of the judiciary, Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, called on the courts to treat those arrested as moharebs, people making war on God - a charge carrying an automatic death penalty.

The Public Prosecutor, Ayatollah Abd an-Nabi Namazi, said that "those who spread insecurity in society" would be handled "with repressive force".

Source: BBC

It's so interesting that neoconservatives did then what they are calling for now and it turned out then just how their critics today insist it would turn out if it happened again. Didn't they learn from their own history and the consequence of their past actions? Well, no. Neoconservatives don't merely fail to learn from history, but they actively deny that there is any need to learn from history. They believe that force of will is sufficient to overcome any opposition and reshape reality in any manner they wish. Thus failure is merely a sign that one didn't act with enough force and will, not that one picked an idiotic course of action.

Hernandez v. Commissioner Internal Revenue Service (1989)

2009-07-04T09:00:01Z

If a person pays a religious or other non-profit group for services rendered, do those payments count as a charitable contribution that can be deducted from taxes? This ruling emphasized the difference between paying a non-profit group for its services and giving that same group a free gift. Just because the services are claimed to be religious in nature does not therefore mean that payments for those services qualify as a gift. However, this decision was made moot when the IRS made a deal with the Church of Scientology to allow payments for auditing and training sessions to be tax deductible as charitable contributions.

Read Article: Hernandez v. Commissioner Internal Revenue Service (1989)

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

2009-07-03T15:00:00Z

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

2009-07-03T12:00:00Z

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?

2009-07-03T09:00:58Z

_{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

2009-07-02T15:00:00Z

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

2009-07-02T12:00:37Z

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 Mickaël 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?

2009-07-02T08:00:00Z

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?

2009-07-01T15:00:00Z

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?