All things can speculatively be linked to religion just like all things can speculatively be linked to sex. Can we say that Egyption, Greek or Norse mythology are how the people of those times were able to conceive god? The problem is that even if those people imagined a god different than the gods imagined by Christianity, Islam, Judaism... etc., they're still using their imagination. I think it's a farther imaginative leap to imagine the Christian god as Zeus than imagining that Zeus is the cause for lighting by hurling it from Olympus Mons. So the question is: how can you determine if the religion is the cause of imagination if all the beliefs in god(s) are so varied? Given that there is no reasonable evidence for any kind of god, the idea that imagination comes from god is a farther leap than saying religion comes from imagination.
Humans don't often come up with a completely original concept of anything, mostly we just build upon existing knowledge and concepts. We see something and say "what if it worked this way instead?" Even as a huge fan of Einstein, I doubt he would have developed the theory of relativity without the work of Newton (whom I'm also a huge fan), and Newton would have been farther behind if first mathematics hadn't been built up to point it was when he started... etc. So the idea that people build upon things isn't necessarily because of religion, in fact Galileo might have something different to say about imaginative discovery and religion. Galileo came up with his concept of how the planets move in spite of the religious teachings, not because of.
We use stories to instill and explain the importance of acting certain ways, not exclusively for that purpose but I'm going down a more specific road here. I hardly think that Dr. Seuss was in the business of writing religious stories, I would have to say that the stories are very secular. There is no mention of god, no mention of sin, just story explanations of good and bad things that happen to the characters in the stories because of the actions that they took (or sometimes didn't take). To imagine a world of imagination without religion, just look at all the things created without references to religion or religious principles.
May 13, 2010
Which Came First the Imagination of the Religion?
Mar 24, 2010
This blog has moved
This blog is now located at http://happilyfreethinking.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.
For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://happilyfreethinking.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.
Donate to Camp Quest Texas
If you can spare a few dollars or even a few hundred dollars it would certainly be a big help.
http://campquesttexas.org/donate
Jan 25, 2010
Freethought and Fellowship
There have been numerous, mostly failed attempts, at creating atheist/secular/freethought churches both online and off. I can't speak to why most of these attempts have failed but have noticed a few big issues: 1) lack of true direction: you can't build an organization simply around lack of belief in something; it needs community building activities 2) Dictator-like leadership: you can't make freethinkers do anything they don't want to do 5) Preaching: skeptics don't want to be told what to believe at all. Share ideas, don't present them as fact.4)Uncreative: why is it necessary to have the word 'church' in the name?
As a step away from failed 'church' models I am pleased to introduce to you a new community model for freethinkers, the Fellowship of Freethought (aka FoFDallas). It is a young organization but is built by those who have learned from past experience with other models like those listed above. FoFDallas is member-owned, member-run, and open source and boasts a mission statement that most freethinkers would be proud to stand behind:
To create a positive impact on our shared world, our mission is to provide a community that values and promotes a freethinking life unencumbered by the biases of tradition, dogma, and authority and that encourages people to live a reason and evidence-based life characterized by close fellowship, ethical contemplation, critical thinking, community service, and the appreciation of scientific knowledge and understanding of the universe and our place in it.
I am very happy to say that I am one of the founding members of FoFDallas and look forward to our future as a community in Dallas and as an expanded community when others choose to start groups in their own areas. Freethinkers need fellowship; we just don't need the bs that typically comes with it!
You can learn more about Fellowship of Freethought by visiting http://fellowshipoffreethought.org I'll be posting further updates later as I expect you'll find this as interesting of a concept as many others in the Dallas area have already.
(Names of failed freethought church models have been left out so their feelings won't get hurt.)
Nov 17, 2009
Camp Quest Texas Updates and Fundraiser
Fundraising efforts for Camp Quest Texas help cover the fees of volunteer counselors, allow for enhanced activity options, and covers deposit on future camp locations. Camp Quest Texas needs your support to become a reality! If you are unable to attend the fundraiser, please consider donating to Camp Quest Texas: http://campquesttexas.org/donate
Also, registration for Camp Quest Texas 2010 is open! The camp will run from August 1 to August 7, 2010 at the Texas 4-H Conference Center in Brownwood, Texas. Registration is $480 per child or you can put down a $100 deposit to reserve your child’s spot. Kids ages 8-18 are invited to sign up. Older kids, ages 16-18 have the opportunity to be Junior Counselors. Camp Quest Texas Registration makes a great Holiday/Solstice/Christmas/Hanukah/Festivus (or whatever you may celebrate) gift! So, register today: http://campquesttexas.org/register
Nov 4, 2009
Memory Walk 2009 @ Dallas Zoo: Team NTCOF
Donate 1 dollar (or more) here: http://memorywalk09.kintera.org/dallas/whpford
I'm walking with a team of Freethinkers, lets show everyone just how generous freethinkers can be!
Nov 2, 2009
Camp Quest Texas Fundraiser
When: December 10, 2009 6pm to 9pm
Where: Al-Amir in Addison, TX
Cost (includes dinner): $25 adults; $15 (kids 12 and under)
Attendees can register at:
http://campquesttexas.org/register
Camp Quest Texas is a residential summer camp for the children of Freethinkers. We are dedicated to the promotion of critical thinking, the scientific method, ethics derived from human experience and the separation of church and state as protected by the US Constitution, in our children. Camp Quest Texas will provide our children with a place where they will feel welcome, safe and secure. Camp Quest Texas will reinforce the vales we all hold as dear. Camp Quest Texas needs your support to become a reality! Please RSVP today and be a part of the historic creation of Camp Quest Texas.
In addition to supporting Camp Quest Texas you will have the opportunity to participate in a silent auction (including Cowboys v Chargers tickets and a book autographed by Penn Jillette!) and ‘balloon raffle’ for other great services/events while enjoying authentic Mediterranean cuisine and being entertained by a belly dancer. A generous family style dinner prepared by Al-Amir’s chef is included in the cost of the event. Al-Amir will donate ten percent of all food and beverage sales from our benefit to Camp Quest Texas, so show your support the way a Freethinker would-with your heart and soul stomach!
Questions? Please contact campquest@churchoffreethought.org
Oct 20, 2009
#No God
Surprise, surprise but some people started threatening to delete their Twitter accounts if #No God remained a trending topic. They also made sure to throw some mighty nasty insults at anyone using the #No God tag in any way that was not flattering to their personal (and very sensitive) worldview. Some of these insults were so bad that I won't repeat them here others were as lame as "RT: @djsynical: @HappyAtheist your face proves god has truly shunned you #mudduck//<---look, a true christian!".
Well, apparently, like a kid refusing to quit screaming if they don't get candy, these childish twits got their way and Twitter removed #No God from the trending topics well before activity had died down. It didn't slide down the TT list, it was manually removed by Twitter staff. While Twitter is a private company and can censor however much they like, if censorship becomes a Twitter trend I guarantee they will lose their growing fan base.
Oct 1, 2009
The Camp Quest Texas T-shirt Design Contest 2010
The Camp Quest Texas T-shirt Design Contest 2010 gives contestants the opportunity to express their creativity while helping to further free thought and promote Camp Quest Texas. For additional information and entry form, see the Official Rules (PDF).
Prizes:One (1) first place entry will receive recognition as the winning t-shirt designer as well as one free t-shirt imprinted with their design. All top five (5) entries will receive recognition on the CQ TX website.
Enter from October 1, 2009 till Midnight October 31, 2009
Full rules and entry form located at: http://campquesttexas.org/donate
Jul 10, 2009
Movie Review: Marjoe (1972)
Marjoe is the best documentary film about evangelical religion that you have probably never heard of. I don’t recall exactly how I came across it–but somehow it found its way into my Netflix queue, languished at the bottom for months, and finally made it to my mailbox and DVD player. And what a wonderful, unexpected treasure it was.
The subject of the film, is one Marjoe Gortner–what kind of name is “Marjoe” anyway, you are asking? Why, it is a portmanteau of the names Mary and Joseph! If that gives you a feeling for what his parents must have been like, wait till you see them in the film. For Marjoe was groomed very early on by his devout family to be a child preacher. As the beginning of the film documents, this sort of thing was wildly popular decades ago in the South (and if you’ve seen Jesus Camp, you’ll know the tradition of having children “minister” is still alive). The old footage of a red-haired child shouting from a pulpit is at once a comical and disturbing sight. But the point of the film is not about Marjoe the child, but about the expose he’d create during his adult life.
As he grew older, Marjoe luckily came to reject the religious beliefs that were instilled in him, though he continued to preach as a way to earn a living. Once his conscience began to bother him about the way he and the others of his profession so easily fleeced the gullible, he came up with the act of contrition that is this film: he invited a crew to go “on tour” with him and document the tricks of the trade – not only those he used, but those of his unknowing fellow preachers. As you might imagine, the results can be rather hilarious, in the same way that Sacha Baron Cohen’s films are, since the behaviors captured on celluloid are genuine.
My favorite scene involved a conversation with another minister and his family. They all somehow find themselves discussing the possibility that a charlatan might parade as a preacher with no intent other than to defraud the sheep, but conclude that they’d rather easily be able to spot such a fake. I wondered if they ever saw the film and realized just how badly they got owned?
Marjoe won the Academy Award for Best Documentary in 1972. Apparently it did not have a widespread distribution at the time, especially in the American South, where there were concerns that it would spark outrage. Yes, it would, and it still would, I’d venture. I’ll hold out hope that eventually, our public schools will provide an objective Survey of Religion curriculum and that this film will be part of it. Probably not in my lifetime, though.
Jul 3, 2009
Book Review: The Trouble with Islam Today
A few days ago, while in the grocery store checkout line, I found myself scanning the rack of idiot magazines and tabloids. Between the obligatory images of Angelina and the preternaturally beaming Rachel Ray, I saw this headline on the National Examiner’s cover: “Obama’s Top-Secret Meetings With Muslims: His Shocking Pact With The Enemy.”
This is moronic at several levels. What bothered me the most was not that some portion of the population might seriously believe President Obama to be involved in such a conspiracy, but rather, that their worldviews are so simplistic that they categorically see Muslims as “enemies” of the United States. And what’s more, I reckoned, the majority of such people are almost certainly a subset of those that assert “America is a Christian Nation.” I thought of that embarrassment to my home state of Minnesota, the unnamed woman at a John McCain town hall meeting from October of 2008, that suggested that Obama was “… an Arab!”
These instances are bona fide examples of what has been termed “Islamaphobia.” I’ve seen it firsthand, too, in the form a devout Catholic, conservative coworker of mine, that often voices a concern that will we all one day be forced to “wear a diaper on our head and bow to the east.”
It behooves us nontheists, then, when we take the occasion to put Islam in our sights, to do so with the clarity, even-handedness, and care that these fundamentalist Christians eschew. Pointing out that Islam, as a set of beliefs, is chock full of absurdities and dangerous notions is certainly not a form of prejudice. Just because some bigots continue to paint a huge swath of humanity with a very broad brush should not prevent us from denouncing the irrationalities and consequences of believing in nonsense, regardless of what corner of the globe the nonsense comes from.
In the way of offering an outstanding example of a blistering and fair attack on Islam that is not “Islamaphobic”, I recommend one that comes from a practitioner of the same faith: Irshad Manji. Her critique is in a book called The Trouble With Islam Today.
Manji calls herself a Muslim “Refusenik”: an openly lesbian, feminist, progressive Muslim whose religious views are so far removed from mainstream Islam that it is difficult, for me at least, to consider her an adherent to the same core Muslim faith. Her book is as fiercely critical of the problems with Islam as is Sam Harris’ The End of Faith. Where it differs is that, by mounting her assault on fundamentalism from within the tradition (as a Muslim championing change, as opposed to a non-Muslim calling for it), she is more likely to gain an audience among those that most need to hear the message. And this is nothing to sneeze at.
The book begins in the form of an open letter to all Muslims: a shockingly candid letter that has probably earned her a few death threats. “Islam is on very thin ice with me,” she begins, and then goes on to identify the unique features and problems endemic to the faith she was raised in: “The trouble with Islam today is that literalism is going mainstream, worldwide.” She even acknowledges that fact about the genealogical paths of belief that many others won’t admit: “Most of us Muslims aren’t Muslims because we think about it, but rather because we’re born that way.”
Manji looks at a number of issues with important ramifications: The preponderance of fundamentalism, tribalism, the mistreatment of women (”Those who wish to flog women on the flimsiest of charges can get the necessary backup from the Koran”), terror (”Being self-critical means coming clean about the nasty side of the Koran, and how it informs terrorism”), and the tension with the west (”We can’t pin our basest ills on America. The cancer begins with us.”) And while some of the book is aimed at Muslims, imploring them to take a very hard look at what they believe and how they behave, she is refreshing in her advocacy that Islam should be put under the microscope by the rest of us:
Note to non-Muslims: Dare to ruin the romance of the moment. Open societies remain open because people take the risk of asking questions–out loud. Questions like, “Why is it so easy to draw thousands of Muslims into the streets to denounce France’s ban on the hajib, but impossible to draw even a fraction of those demonstrators into the streets to protest Saudi Arabia’s imposition of the hijab? … Non-Muslims do the world no favors by pushing the moral mute button as soon as Muslims start speaking. Dare to ruin the moment.
It goes without saying that, as I am an atheist, I still regard the watered-down Islam that Manji practices to have features just as much at odds with reality as those in other, more traditional religions. But while progressive theists like her have worldviews dissimilar from our naturalistic one, they share with us much common ground, in that they too seek a world free of theocracy, religious intolerance, and fundamentalism. They are some of the best friends that the non-religious have. The Trouble With Islam Today is a good example of pushing for change from within–change that could lead to a more secular, humane, and peaceful version of a what is still a very immature religion. Will that ever happen with Islam? I’ve no idea, but I welcome Manji’s attempt to make it happen. As much as many of us would like to see religious belief simply jettisoned altogether, it isn’t realistic to expect that to happen anytime soon. I’ll gladly accept believers moving to a more progressive, liberal kind of religion as a second choice.
Jun 24, 2009
An Atheist's Guide to Proselytizing
As proud members of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, we all know about the importance of making sure we trick as many theists out of their god belief as possible. In the past we have done things like planting dinosaur bones and have our guys on the inside mistranslate Biblical texts. These are all great techniques, please keep up the great work, but we must also know how to spread atheism when face to face with a theist. This, unfortunately, is something the theists are largely better at doing since they are so willing to incorporate underhanded techniques. Don't let this get you down as we can use this to our advantage.
Through careful study, we at the EAC have found a way to use good for evil. Yes that's right, good can be evil. If this seems odd to you, just as Christians about God and they'll be sure to set you straight. By taking in this fact, we have developed a system through which you will use good to spread the EAC message. If you have forgotten the EAC message it is on the back of your membership card. I know you have the card as you should be guarding it with your life...because we will kill you if you lose it. Anyway, the EAC message is that god is a big meany and although we know he exists we will throw him out of power. But, don't jump to revealing that message too quickly to new converts, it might scare them. For now, just explain to them why god doesn't exist. We can work up to the real story after they have reached a higher ranking within the EAC. Now, onto the important stuff, how to win over the religious with good:
The first thing you must do is be friendly towards the theist no matter how silly their argument may be. This will make the religious person very angry as they try repeatedly to get you to blow your top over threats of hell and how hard your...erm...heart is. It is very important that you do not fall prey to their techniques. The strategy here is to let them blow up first, thus destroying any argument they have that being religious leads to being a nicer person. Once you have achieved this very amusing technique, it is onto the next step.
Now that you have gotten the religious person to secretly accept that religion doesn't make someone a better person (give yourself on the back if you got them to voice this change of opinion), you can now proceed to prove that the religious person is less moral than yourself. Feel free to cite their belief in a god who allows slavery and the subjectification of women as proof of your moral superiority. If possible, make sure the theist sees you helping an old woman walk across the street prior to engaging in conversation. Keeping a set of fake membership cards to organizations such as ASPCA, Green Peace, Habitat for Humanity, Doctors Without Borders etc will also help your argument if proof is demanded of your volunteer involvement. Btw, we will be setting up some fake atheist charities over the next year to help you in this effort.
If you are successful with implementing the above, you should be well on your way into tricking the theist into thinking that atheists are in fact more moral than any religious person. After all, it couldn't be that some people do good for the sake of good; that's just silly. I hope you all found this guide helpful. Remember to join us at our next meeting...we have cookies.
Book Review: Mark Twain's Letters from the Earth
While browsing on twitter today, I came across a popular new trending topic: #dontyouloveGod. This generally consists of inane babble along the lines of why believers are so personally thankful for their god, and all that he supposedly does for them. It is always startling to come across this kind of piffle; to realize that these people are sincere in these expressions. Here are some examples, verbatim, that I collected from this topic just now:
#dontyouloveGOD for his forgivness and never judging us!
#dontyouloveGOD when he gives us pretty rainbows?
#dontyouloveGOD because He only gives us what He feels we can handle?
#dontyouloveGOD when he saves a premature baby?
#dontyouloveGOD b/c He considered you worthy enough of a saviour?
#dontyouloveGOD for helping me realize that my circumstances could always be worse. I am so thankful
#dontyouloveGOD for always being there when you need Him. Amen he is a PRESENT HELP!!!!
#dontyouloveGOD LOVES you despite of your WRONGs!
#dontyouloveGOD is a Jealous God, remember to keep him 1st!
#dontyouloveGOD for being such an amazing provider! He gives us just what we need when we need it!
You get the idea. Someone needs to get these people a copy of Voltaire’s Candide. Or better yet, since they might not understand how that story relates to them, Mark Twain’s far more direct assault on the Christian version of the “Best Of All Possible Worlds” dementia: his little-known Letters from the Earth.
Letters from the Earth is a brief, witty, and remarkable funny series of reports from Satan about certain behaviors of man (and God) that he has been observing over time. Because it isn’t very long, it is generally published together with other short, irreverent writings from Twain (often including the equally hilarious Diaries of Adam and Eve). The version I own is part of a book entitled The Bible According To Mark Twain, edited by Howard G. Baetzhold and Joseph B. McCullough. I cannot recommend this volume highly enough.
Letters from the Earth begins with a short introduction of how the Creator fashioned the universe out of nothing. A conversation then follows between Michael, Gabriel, and (the then still heaven-dwelling and angelic) Satan, about what it all might mean; this new place where new living beings are being introduced. They have only been informed that it is meant to be some kind of experiment.
Satan shortly finds himself banished to the earth, as punishment for making snide remarks about the character and actions of the human race he has been watching with growing interest. He’s especially interested in how the Creator has instilled in them an entire spectrum of inconsistent traits. And once on earth, he begins to write letters back to his archangel friends, and these notes comprise the bulk of the book.
All throughout, Twain deftly satirizes both God and Man simultaneously, such as in this excerpt describing their dysfunctional relationship:
He requires his children to deal justly—and gently—with offenders, and forgive them seventy-and-seven times; whereas he deals neither justly nor gently with any one, and he did not forgive the ignorant and thoughtless first pair of juveniles even their first small offense… He elected to punish their children, all through the ages to the end of time… He is punishing them yet. In mild ways? No, in atrocious ones. You would not suppose that this kind of Being gets many compliments. Undeceive yourself: the world calls him the All-Just, the All-Righteous, the All-Good, the All-Merciful, the All-Forgiving, the All-Truthful, the All-Loving, the Source of All Morality. These sarcasms are uttered daily, all over the world. But not as conscious sarcasms. No, they are meant seriously; they are uttered without a smile.
What I find so striking about the book is the clarity with which Twain seems to see the inhumanity and idiocy of Christian Bible, and the ease with which he exposes it. It is satire writ very large, lean, and focused.
A considerable portion of Letters from the Earth is devoted to details of the flood story that, not surprisingly, never found their way into scripture. Since every Christian, from childhood, has been immersed in images of pairs of giraffes, zebras, and lions striding majestically up the boarding plank, Satan narrates instead how special lodgings were arranged (within the bodies of the humans on board) to house the multitudes of sundry parasitic, microbial, and viral species: those essential organisms needed to propagate all the terrible diseases (that God so carefully created) into the post-diluvian world. Detailed arrangements were also made for flies, including one that was forgotten and required a voyage of sixteen days to retrieve. We learn that this vector of so many diseases is indeed God’s favorite pet; his darling.
The book builds to its final crescendo with a scathing attack on another portion of the old testament: specifically, the some of the horrific abuses recounted in the book of Numbers. His take on the story that begins Numbers 25:
“And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel.”
Does that look fair to you? It does not appear that the “heads of the people” got any of the adultery, yet it is they that are hanged…
Very well then, we must believe that if the people of New York should begin to commit whoredom with the daughters of New Jersey, it would be fair and right to set up a gallows in front of city hall and hang the mayor and the sheriff and the judges… It does not look right to me.
From here Twain moves on to the infamous genocide of the Midianites from Numbers 31, and begins to work himself into a bit of a rage. The book ends suddenly and with little warning. One gets the impression that Twain is so angry at this point that he cannot stand to consider the matter any further. And that would certainly be understandable. Sometimes we seem to have grown so familiar with the stories, and numb to the nonsense, that it almost seems… normal. The gift that Letters from the Earth offers is that it so effortlessly exposes contradictions at the core of Christianity. The sudden ending is necessary, because any more would be redundant. But despite the fact that you can practically see the old master’s formidable eyebrows scrunching down in an ever fiercer scowl as you go on, what I always think of with this book is how much it made me laugh. Make room on your freethinking bookshelf for this one; you will enjoy many times. I promise.
Jun 8, 2009
A Christian Atheist: Why we need Atheist Church
As I was browsing news articles on the Internet I came across the following headline Finding a community as an atheist in church. This, of course, grabbed my attention. I wondered what type of church and maybe if more people were trying to start churches like the North Texas Church of Freethought. Needless to say, I was surprised to read that an atheist UT professor had decided to start attending a Christian church.
While I understand the need for community, I wonder why Jensen, that's his name, didn't look into the many atheist/free-thought groups that are operating quite strongly in many parts of Texas; including Austin where UT is located. The article does not touch on if he tried atheist or free-thought communities prior to joining the Christian church; but does offer the following quote from Jensen:
I joined a Christian church to be part of that hope for the future, to struggle to make religion a force that can help usher into existence a world in which we can imagine living in peace with each other and in sustainable relation to the non-human world. Such a task requires a fearlessness and intelligence beyond what we have mustered to date, but it also requires a faith in our ability to achieve it.
That's why I am a Christian.
An atheist-Christian? I can't help but find this odd at best and foolish at worst. References to "deeper meaning" in the reference article lead me to think that Jensen was searching for a sort of atheist spirituality that simply doesn't exist and found that personal need filled by liberal Christianity. But I don't want to discuss what it means to be a Christian here or if Jensen made a good decision.
What I do want to comment on is that this demonstrates a need to form stronger communities as free-thinkers so that we do not miss out on the social network and support provided by a religious church. However, at the same time, when discussing attending free-thought groups with fellow non-believers many of them seem unsure about attending. Many of these people are the same people who complain about not having anyone to talk to that isn't religious. So, I'll end this blog by asking a few questions of my fellow non-believers.
What do you think about Jensen's calling himself a Christian while he is an atheist? Is there something about spirituality that fills a need secular communities cannot fill? Do you personally feel the need for community? If so, how do you fill that need?
Jun 7, 2009
The Steak and the Cross
I'm not a vegetarian. I would probably starve. Just want to get that out of the way.
These days, social networks give everyone a soapbox and makes everyone a critic. I'm just as guilty as anybody. Thankfully, I don't get a lot of flak for my secular worldview, though I imagine some people see my anti-religious ranting or tweeting as offensive or unnecessary. My response to them is: it is no different from youth ministers or the very devout discussing how wonderful Jesus is or how blessed they feel or how they need to evangelize more. No difference. They just don't like it when I do it. Some people really don't like it.
A friend of mine decided, after two years of being a vegetarian, to fall off the wagon. He and his girlfriend went to a restaurant, watched the Cavs game and had fish.
Sounds fairly innocent, and it is. When he posted something about it on Facebook, he received a mixed response of cheers and questions about what took him so long. He described the feeling to me:
When you eat meat, nobody asks why. But, if you say you're a vegetarian, they immediately begin to question you: 'What are your motives? Do you feel bad for the animals? Do you not like meat? How can you not like meat?' That, or they try to corner you with inconsistencies: 'Well, I see you're wearing leather shoes, so you're obviously not vegetarian because you care about animals.' Then, when you tell people you've started eating meat again, it's like they welcome you back into society. You're one of "us" again. It's absolutely bizarre.
He wondered if I ever get that sort of thing about my worldview choice. Some of us get it more than others, I'm sure. Being in a very liberal college town, I'm surrounded by secular people. My wife is from Taiwan, where the population ratio of secular to religious is the even smaller than the inverse of what it is here. I'm definitely looking forward to that, when public policies are based on the wellbeing of the people, rather than the ideology of some religious nutjobs.
It got me to thinking, though, that atheists and vegetarians aren't really that different. Here, I'll show you:
Atheists are atheists because they believe that it's fully possible (and, many would contend, preferable) to have a great life without religion and still maintain high moral and ethical standards. In other words, you can still be good without God.
Vegetarians are vegetarians because they believe that it's fully possible (and, many would contend, preferable) to have a great diet without meat and still maintain high dietary and culinary standards. In other words, you can still eat without meat.
Now, I'm not going to say that I feel good that animals die so I can enjoy how they taste. I just don't feel bad enough that I'll stop. Can't remember which comedian said it, but I did not climb to the top of the food chain to be eating broccoli. Still, it's important to know, if you're eating meat, where it comes from and show it due respect.
Jamie Oliver did a show examining chickens, eggs and how they get from the farm to your plate. It's a very revealing look at modern chicken farming and the difference between battery and free range. Or, if you're a seafood kind of person, just watch the former Iron Chef Michiba Rokusaburo take apart an Angler fish (Monkfish, Goosefish, depending on where you are).
Delicious. I guess. I've never had it. I'd love to try it, though. That's one of the things I'm really looking forward to about living in Taiwan: best seafood around.
I'm sure at this point you're thinking, 'How is he going to tie this back into refuting a religious worldview?'
Well, atheists have looked at religion and deemed it disturbing, painful and unnecessary enough that they prefer to live without it, just as the vegetarians have done with meat. The big difference being that atheists do it because they care about human lives rather than animal lives.
Uh oh. Now I'll have PETA on my ass for putting people before animals. I'm not worried; I could probably take Ingrid. Probably.
I think people are more likely to give a vegetarian shit than an atheist because there's no clause in the social contract that says you must be tolerant of what people eat. Even at our wedding, we had three vegetarians out of 60 guests, and we devoted 1/6 of the menu to them. If you have a group of 60 people and 3 of them are avowed atheists (which is about the national average; if you throw non-religious, agnostic and Buddhist/etc in with that group, it'd be more like 12 or 13 out of 60), what are the chances that they'll be considered at all? Pretty slim, I'd say.The steak and the cross: two sides to the same coin, it seems. Having said that, I think I'll have steak for dinner tonight. Pan seared. No wine.
If you would like to follow the anti-religious ranting or tweeting of this carnivorous writer, visit his blog and follow him on Twitter. He'll probably follow you back. He's nice like that. He may even buy you a steak.
Jun 4, 2009
Social Networking - Are you out as an atheist online?
With today's Internet culture what you put online could be viewed by virtually anyone. A good example of this is Wigglez's wife having his blog viewed by a Christian employer.
Knowing this, many of us are hit with a personal (maybe even moral) decision...should be be out online or not? I say that maybe it is a moral decision because I have been told by fellow atheists that it is immoral for me to hold back on being completely outed online. However, I'm honestly not sure if I should consider it a moral choice.
Yes, I do want to support the atheist cause and help to further our progress in being accepted as normal. That's actually one of my main goals...one of Happy Atheist Forum's main goals. But, I'm also pragmatic; if what I say online ends up keeping me from being hired and keeping a job and potentially does the same to my husband (who is a teacher) then that is going to end up harming the efforts I am currently taking since so much of it requires frequent Internet access.
So, I filter what I do online that is associated with my full name verses what I do online that is just associated with my first name. I don't shy away from posting my picture on atheist related sites, but I also don't make my picture my main image on most of them. My profile on MySpace is an atheist profile (which I honestly neglect updating as regularly as I should) where I can post anything without any worry of an employer associating it with me. However I also have a Facebook profile, which won't link here for reasons stated, that is mostly just my IRL friends (some of whom are also atheists) and I don't post any controversial atheist messages there. I also have two twitter accounts...but that's because one of them is potentially for business and shouldn't have any atheist content on it (@HappyAtheist).
So, what do you think? Do you also feel conflicted on this issue; probably in daily interactions too? Is this a moral question or just a personal choice?
Apr 22, 2009
Dr. Robert Price @ International Christian Evidence Conference (Houston)
WHAT: Dr. Robert M. Price versus Dr. Douglas Jacoby
WHEN: Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 7 p.m.
WHERE: Houston Baptist University, Durham Theater, 7502 Fondren Road, Houston, TX 77074.
INFO: The Apologetics Research Society is hosting an International Christian Evidence Conference in Houston from June 12-14. The highlight of the conference will be a debate between Dr. Robert M. Price and Dr. Douglas Jacoby on the historicity of Jesus. The debate will be held on Saturday, June 13 2009 at 7 p.m. at the Houston Baptist University (Durham Theater). The debate will be entitled, "Jesus: Man, Myth, or Messiah?" Tickets are $12/person.
If you are in the Houston area or within driving distance, please go and support Dr. Robert M. Price.
ON THE NET:
Dr. Robert Price: http://robertmprice.mindve
Apologetics Research Society: http://evidenceforchristia
Dr. Douglas Jacoby: http://douglasjacoby.com
Apr 20, 2009
Poem: Confused Beliefs
I wrote this poem in high school and while it does not reflect my current views I think it does express how a person feels when questioning their beliefs.
Confused Beliefs
The world's many voices,
Crying out conflicting views
--Few are right, many wrong.
Where is the truth?
The light I seek is hidden
Among multiple beliefs:
Only one is right.
What holds the truth?
Finding God in prayer
--Seemingly an empty palace
Away from mortal view.
Is there truth?
Righteous people
--Those who sin
A difference of opinions.
Which is the truth?
Looking for God
In all the wrong places.
Forget the soul
Does my heart hold the truth?
Ever persecuted
--Believing differently.
With critical thought.
Do I have the truth?
Others conform;
I question.
Creating greater confusion.
Who knows the truth?
Mar 9, 2009
Atheist Intervention: Intellectual Vanity
We all start out innocent enough. We're on an adventure in honesty, attempting to carve out a truly objective and reasonable view of existence. It's not surprising that many find their way to a comfortable seat in the club that is agnostic atheism: the disbelief in a supernatural creator. It can take quite a bit of struggling to get into this particular group, especially considering where many of us come from. You may have grown up in a religious household where atheism would have been tantamount to rape, but you lingered on, allowing your curiosity and intellect guide you. Regardless of your path, you made it.
But becoming an atheist isn't going to solve all of your problems. If you had low self-esteem before, you may very well still have low self-esteem even now, as a free thinker. Unlike god, atheism doesn't make unrealistic promises about what might happen upon conversion/deconversion; that's not how we roll. It's damned common in this world to allow self pity to inspire feelings of inferiority, which lead to overcompensation. That's why we're all here. Let's begin:
Boyfriend/girlfriend: You know I love you, baby, but every time anyone talks about religion you instantly deem yourself an indisputable fountain of perfect knowledge. It's getting on my nerves.
Atheists are very rarely religious in their atheism; very rare are "strong atheists", people who flatly deny the existence of god regardless of the evidence. Most of us are agnostic, choosing to pragmatically view all available data and make an informed decision based on a rational interpretation of that data. Since there is no verifiable evidence supporting the existence of god or supporting the nonexistence of god, we remain at null theory, or a place of being unconvinced of god's existence. Basically, the answer is "probably not". The problem, though, is so many atheists preach their beliefs with just as much unhealthy certainty as theists, forcing themselves from a reasonable agnostic stance to an unsupportable stance of certainty. Don't let yourself fall victim to strong atheism.
Father: Son, I know you don't approve of our going to church, but could you stop pretending I'm a fundamentalist? I believe in evolution and I don't even know what an ontological argument looks like.
We all know the arguments backward and forward. We can all recite Epicurus for memory and we can explain exactly where that idiot from Growing Pains weren't wrong in describing the evolution of the eye. Why do we know these arguments? Many atheists have been required to defend themselves to unprovoked and angry questioning by theists, and have helped to construct brilliant answers to the odd questions that we're asked. That hardly means that every theist is going to come at you with intelligent design arguments, though. I know it seems like theists are on a united front against reason and science, but they're not. If you decide to go off on every theist you see with a barrage of "god of the gaps" or "confusing cause and effect" arguments, you're not defending yourself. All you'll do is alienate people.
When I was a boy, my grandfather told me never to discuss politics or religion in mixed company. He was a very smart man. If some nutter corners you with a stupid argument, please, go right ahead and calmly apply a thick coating of reality. Don't attack people without provocation, though.
Best Friend: Sometimes you're going to be wrong, and it's not the end of the world. I get that you like to argue, but being right isn't about competition, it's about the facts.
Now we cut to the heart of the situation. You've done a damned good job finding your way to atheism. You should be proud that your objectivity has led you to a more logical position. Still, you're not always going to be right about everything. Atheism isn't a magic ticket to omniscience, in fact it's basically admitting to yourself that you don't know shit. Atheism is a statement of humility in the face of the true amount of knowledge there really is in the universe. It's a beautiful thing. Don't cheapen it with know-it-all-ism. You don't even know the beginning of anything and neither do I, so let's hit the books, look through the microscopes and telescopes and utilize the scientific method and Occam's Razor.
There was a post on Reddit a month or two back on something called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Essentially, the hypothesis was that "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it". The experiment essentially demonstrated that people who aren't agnostic are likely more incompetent than their agnostic counterparts. Think about that for a minute.
If you want to change, the first step is very simple: admit that not only are you not the smartest person on earth, but even the smartest person on earth really isn't all that smart. Your worth doesn't have to be tied up in always being right regardless of the facts, you can be right by dealing in facts, and you can be humble in the face of being wrong and expand your understanding with new facts.
Now, about your drinking...
Feb 12, 2009
Religion vs. Secular Ethics: What is the Basis of Morality?
I wrote the following a few years ago while taking Philosophy of Religion in college. After finding the essay recently, I thought some people might enjoy reading it and decided to post it in the blog. There are plenty of opportunities for improvement of this essay but I have chosen to leave it as originally worded. Enjoy:
Moral standards must have a strong basis upon which it encourages individuals to act ethically. Mavrodes comes to the conclusion that religion is the only means of providing deep meaning to morality and that morals wouldn’t necessarily exist if religions never developed. The second part of his conclusion brings up an additional question, if morality is based solely on religion, what are the motives involved in being moral? His main argument against secular views of morality is that they are superficial. However, the reasons to be moral which develop through religion create a basis for morality that is arguably driven by fearful obligation which is in itself shallow. This paper will look specifically at religion based morality, in comparison to secular views, and its status in answering the question of why we should want to act morally.
In discussing this topic, it is necessary to review Mavrodes’ argument for a religion based explanation of morality. Mavrodes wrote the article in response to Bertrand Russell’s secular view of ethics, describing them as queer and inadequate in answering the question; “Why should I be moral?[1]” Mavrodes opens briefly with the point that morality is dependent on religion to the extent that morality would cease to exist if religion failed. His intent is to use morality to show that religion is a better explanation than secular views. He develops his argument by taking a look at the Russellian world and how morality would function and gain meaning in such an environment. The Russellian worldview is:
That man is the product of causes which had no perversion of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievements must inevitably be burned beneath the debris of a universe in ruins – all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.[2]
Mavrodes compares the Russellian world to what he perceives as the actual world, one where religion is the truth. Mavrodes describes final moral obligation as “obligations that a particular person has in some concrete circumstance at a particular place and time, when all the aspects of the situation have been taken into account.[3]” Mavrodes then makes the point that there are many cases in a Russellian world in which moral obligations would require a person to act in a manner which results in personal loss. He makes a distinction between moral feelings and moral obligations and describes obligations which lead to loss as strange because they do not give the individual a reason to want to act morally. He refers to Kant to make the statement “there cannot be, in any ‘reasonable’ way, a moral demand upon me, unless reality itself is committed to morality in some deep way.[4]” Mavrodes states that moral obligation within the Russellian world are superficial. He then ends his argument and essentially concludes that these moral obligations and things like mind and purpose are much deeper in the real world than they would be in a Russellian world so religion must be the answer to why one should be moral.
Mavrodes describes moral obligation as “morality ascribes to particular people an obligation to do certain things on a certain occasion.[5]” This description is a good starting basis for explaining morality. However, it is not possible to create a thorough set of rules which define proper action in every scenario a person may need to make a moral decision. This fact is demonstrated in the many debates occurring within religious groups over issues, such as how to handle abortion rights and civil unions, which are not clearly defined by religious moral laws. To further define morality it must be understood as an obligation, based on the good of humanity, placed on rational beings to discern the appropriate ethical action. Through this definition the needs of the greater good and a sense of duty are included in the decision process. In writing the extended definition, morality is that which creates an obligation for an individual to do certain things on certain occasions by making rational moral decisions which are based on a concern for the greater good. This approach relieves ambiguity created by a limited set of rules. Additionally, it is important to determine morals on a secular basis because new moral issues are repeatedly brought about by medical and technological breakthroughs. A prime example of these breakthroughs is cloning. The ability to clone or alter the genetic code of organisms was not remotely possible during the time religious laws were written. To determine the morally correct action in these cases requires the same approach described as being used by secular ethics.
Kant “held that a truly moral action is undertaken purely out of respect for the moral law and with no concern at all for reward.[6]” Mavrodes uses Kant’s view to support the need for morality to be a commitment with profound origin. The deep meaning which creates moral obligation in a secular world is a concern for the sake of society as a whole. A person is dependent on society and develops concern for its well-being in relation to his own, thus, creating a strong reason to act morally. When asking why someone chooses to act morally within a religious context, the reason does not necessarily seem to be as deep as Mavrodes indicates. With some exceptions, many religious texts advocate morality as being an obligation to avoid punishment and place little emphasis on acting morally for its own sake. This does not necessarily mean that there is no deep theological reason to act morally. However, the emphasis of obligation to act morally because it is the will of a higher power or good is often lacking in religious teachings. This is an aspect of religion that has the potential to be remedied, however at this point the tendencies of religions to teach morality on a basis of fear instead of duty to a higher power discredits the concept that religion universally creates an understanding of a deep moral obligation.
Mavrodes might accept that secular morality gains meaning through society but maintain his claim that religion provides a more solid and deep reason for people to want to act morally. It is true that religion has a history of being able to get people to act in a certain way. However, unless all religious sects are able to agree on what is ethical then individuals will be in conflict with the moral beliefs of other religions. A strong example of this variance is between religions based on anthropocentricism and those which place moral value on being an equal part of the ecosystem. This sort of conflict is not an adequate means of creating a moral basis. Furthermore, this conflict of moral views can lead to unnecessary disdain between religious communities. For morality to have universal application the means through which it is derived cannot be subjective.
Additionally, Mavrodes briefly indicates that a reason to act morally would not exist without religion[7]. This assumption was formed on the idea that individuals will not act morally without the deep meaning that religion provides. In a comparison of secular and religious based cultures, those countries which are less religious are more likely to have stronger morality.
‘In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.’ . . . The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional.[8]
This study, originally published in the Journal of Religion and Society, contradicts Mavrodes notion that morality would not exist without religion. The study, accompanied by the previous explanation of how secular worldview can maintain a deep sense of obligation, demonstrates that there is no reason to think that morality would not exist without religion. Through this correlation I am not intending to argue that religion necessarily has a negative effect on morality. The purpose is to show that religion cannot be concretely deemed the primary basis through which morality is derived.
Mavrodes holds the idea that secular morality requires a being to sometimes act against its own good. If this were the case, secular morality would certainly be odd. Indeed, if many moral actions repeatedly resulted in personal loss, the obligation to act morally would be greatly overcome by an individual’s sense of concern for himself alone. Examples of actions which he perceives to accommodate personal loss in the Russellian world are “repaying a debt, keeping a promise, refraining from stealing . . . risk of death or serious injury.[9]” It is true that some of these actions can cause a certain amount of personal loss. However, these actions do not regularly carry a net loss when considered in the community framework. Although reward is not the foundation that creates an obligation to act morally, many ethical actions do present the moral agent with a positive result. Moral obligation placed on individuals in a secular worldview do not require a person to act in a way with is negative to their well-being. A person operating within a secular moral framework keeps promises out of obligation to society, but in doing so also creates additional social connections and opportunities. Any loss created by keeping a promise is far outweighed by the social benefits. Much in the same way, a person chooses not to steal by abiding by society’s standards of moral obligation and is rewarded by being viewed as a favorable member of society.
In moral situations which may require risking death or injury it is easily stated that the person is acting for the sake of humanity because these are altruistic actions. A person performing these actions within a secular context runs the risk of personal loss. However, if the person were to refrain from performing this obligation, feelings of remorse would create a far greater loss than that of death or injury. Furthermore, in a secular world, an individual does not experience a loss through his own fatality because death is viewed as an end where the individual no longer exists to have experiences. In a similar way, religious moral obligations call for individuals to act against what may be their immediate best interests while associating a reward with acting morally. Although the religious reward in acting morally is perceived to be granted in the afterlife, the extents to which moral obligations create personal loss appear to be more or less equal between secular and religious views.
Within our ever changing social environment, the ethical issues which result call upon a need for a moral basis which can rationally adapt moral understanding to accommodate progress. Religious morality does not have the flexibility to respond to issues which are new to modern times. This combined with the nonconformity of religious morals across various belief systems, renders religion inadequate as a prime basis for telling individuals why they should be moral. I leave open the question of if secular morals based on a deep commitment to society are indeed the best explanation of moral basis. This is in recognition that there are numerous foundations upon which secular morals have been declared to receive substantial meaning. I do however claim that a secular moral basis better answers the question of why one should be moral because it allows ethical codes to apply universally.
[1] Mavrodes, George. “Religion and the Queerness of Morality.” Philosophy of Religion: An Anthropology. Canada, Wadsworth, 2003. p. 566.
[2] Russell, Bertrand.. “A Free Man’s Worship.” Philosophy of Religion: An Anthropology. Canada, Wadsworth, 2003. p. 570.
[3] Mavrodes, George. “Religion and the Queerness of Morality.” Philosophy of Religion: An Anthropology. Canada, Wadsworth, 2003. p. 563.
[4] Ibid. p. 565.
[5] Ibid. p. 563.
[6] Mavrodes, George. “Religion and the Queerness of Morality.” Philosophy of Religion: An Anthropology. Canada, Wadsworth, 2003. p. 565.
[7] Mavrodes, George. “Religion and the Queerness of Morality.” Philosophy of Religion: An Anthropology. Canada, Wadsworth, 2003. p. 561.
[8] Gledhill, Ruth. “Societies worse off ‘when they have God on their side.’” Britain, TimesOnline, September 27, 2005. http://web.archive.org/web/20060619050338/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html
[9] Mavrodes, George. “Religion and the Queerness of Morality.” Philosophy of Religion: An Anthropology. Canada, Wadsworth, 2003. p. 563