I’ll be in Arizona this weekend.

I’ll be at the ASU origins project on Violence this weekend among other things so if you are there maybe I’ll see you.

http://origins.asu.edu/events/great-debate-transcending-our-origins-violence-humanity-and-future

Don’t picket Fred Phelps’ funeral, it’s a dick move.

Since Phelps died this week I’ve seen a number of atheists suggest picketing his funeral as some sort of ironic pay back to his family for picketing the funerals of other people including deceased military veterans. I cannot stress how much I think this is a bad idea. We disliked his family for doing this because it was the behavior of an asshole that involved mentally abusing people who were only trying to bury a loved one in peace.

Those observations were correct, and reality will not change one iota should the roles be reversed. Firstly we should let the Phelps family know that we live up to our own standards and that we are actually better people than those who would engage is such petty acts. Secondly we should remember that not everyone in his family bought into his ideas, Nathan Phelps being the most notable, but hardly the only, example. I’m sure that many of those who have left have a lot of conflicted emotions about his death. If anything we need to let those who have left that they have a home in the atheist movement, and we aren’t going to do that by being just as petty and mean as Fred Phelps was in life. After all, people like Nathan Phelps left to get away from that behavior.

An atheist reads "Illogical atheism" Chapter 5 and 6

New video up in my review series.

Re: Atheism: The New Fundamentalism?

A few days ago an article was posted on the Huffington Post by a liberal pastor who declared declared atheism to be the new fundamentalism. The article involves Pastor Roberts recounting a discussion she had with an atheist while out at lunch after the atheists family had done her a favor. The story starts with the atheist, named “Peter,” announcing to pastor that he is an atheist.

"Well, I'm not in the business of conversion," I said, "but for the record, I probably don't believe in the same God you don't believe in," I was hoping to avert hostility and maybe open a dialogue about our understanding of the divine, since he brought it up. He wasn't having it.

This is a common avoidance tactic by liberal theologians. She assumes that the person she is speaking to is only rejecting some “simplistic and fundamentalist” version of god. This seems rooted in two basic assumptions. First that liberal theology is extremely underappreciated and unknown, and second that their more liberal interpretation of god is so completely reasonable that no one would reject it.

It is clear she thinks this way from the following quote.

"You know," I sighed, "There have been so many developments in theology in the past fifty years, it's unfortunate they haven't reached the informed general public. It's like we're still talking about an outmoded version of God who requires checking your brain at the door, which few intelligent people are willing to do--a God who is like a puppet master pulling strings, controlling life, saying, 'A billion dollars for you, Mr. Romney, but nothing for this guy in Africa. That's nutty. That's not God, at least not the God I worship."

First off the notion that there have been “developments” in theology in the past fifty years is questionable. Yes, there have been new ideas, but the great majority of them have been the same sorts of ad hoc justifications that theologians have been coming up with for thousands of years. With one notable difference, traditional theology confined it’s rationalizations to certain parameters like conformity with some attempt at a reasonable biblical hermeneutic or at least church tradition. Liberal theologians found these limitations stifling and so have just taken to making up any explanation so long as it allows themselves to have their theological cake and eat it too.

To be fair, assuming that this story is told in an unbiased fashion, the atheist involved in this conversation didn’t seem to be very educated and seemed to repeat their claim to believe in science over and over. Though I’m not entirely convinced that pastor Roberts didn’t end up writing a skewed view of the conversation given the clear attempts at psychoanalyzing him. She often speaks about the “Peter’s” attitude and level of knowledge on various subjects though her justifications for these conclusions seemed slim. Take this quote:

"I already told you, I believe in science, not God," he interrupted. In his mind they were mutually exclusive. I stopped. I wanted to ask what he thought about science and spirituality, the new physics, Einstein and Bohm, who operated with a sense of order and wonder at the universe itself as a great mystery of divine proportions. I wanted to, but I didn't because I realized he didn't want to engage with the questions; he already knew the answers. He wasn't interested in a discussion. That's when I got it.

She makes huge sweeping generalizations about her audience and assumes he was not interested in discussion, and her statements about science sound like they belong in a Deepak Chopra book rather than in a legitimate conversation about actual science. She continues:

was talking to a fundamentalist. What I was saying threatened his very identity and construct of life. My lunch companion knew who God was, and he didn't believe in "him." It was a Santa sort of God, the kind that a small child believes in and then is disappointed by when he doesn't get a pony in his stocking. I remembered being told he was abused as a child. Clearly that God had failed him.

And she wonders why “Peter” sounded defensive and didn’t want to engage with questions? She belittles both his intellect and his personal experience, as well as demonstrating her rather bigoted views of unbelievers as unintelligent children angry because god didn’t get them a pony and she is surprised that he wasn’t interested in polite conversation? If I had an inkling that this was what someone thought of me I’d be tempted to be less than friendly too.

When did atheists become the new fundamentalists? I have known many atheists beginning with my wonderful dad, who insisted I not use the word "God" or pray at his funeral. But this new breed is different: closed-minded, entrenched, and bellicose, shouting and proselytizing their disbelief in the God of their fathers as determinedly and humorlessly as their forebears proselytized with such certainty for a definite, iron-clad system of punishments and rewards in a pie-in-the-sky afterlife. Why do these new atheists allow the Christian fundamentalists to define their reality? And why are they so angry?

I personally find many liberal theologians to be just as, if not more, obnoxious as the fundamentalist ones. I’ve had many less than stellar interactions with them. Sure, they tend not to hate homosexuals as much, but when it comes to discussions of things like meaning and ethics they have the same annoying tendency to believe that they are the only ones to have seriously examined these questions. It’s not just atheists who do not meet with their approval, because according to them the majority of religious believers aren’t doing it right either. Of course this all sounds suspiciously like the sort of narrow minded and rigid, fundamentalism Roberts was just criticizing, but that’s just silly right? So I say to pastor Roberts you might consider the possibility that not all atheists are allowing fundamentalists to define their reality. I, for one, know a good deal about your liberal version of god…”It” doesn’t exist either.

Someone is grumpy about something Richard Dawkins said…again.

Ran across this article in the telegraph.

Yes, Richard Dawkins, a Muslim baby is a Muslim baby. Because that's just how it works

Richard Dawkins is just an Angry of Tunbridge Wells with a PhD. Let me define that. He is a prejudiced pedant who goes through newspapers looking for small things that irritate him greatly.

Wow, insults right out of the gate? OK…

A Muslim baby is a Muslim baby for two reasons. First, because that's how Islam works. Dawkins might not believe in Islam but Muslims generally do, and they think that all humans are innately Muslim and that life is a process of submitting to that state of grace.

He kind of answers his own statement here, Dawkins is not a Muslim so obviously when he states that the baby is not Muslim he is speaking from his perspective and not the perspective of a Muslim. What perspective did he expect Dawkins to speak from?

Second, a Muslim baby is a Muslim baby because that's how culture works. When a baby is born it inherits more than genes. For instance, we call it British, which by Dawkins' logic is a silly thing to do. After all, it cannot possibly drink tea, hate the French or laugh at Carry On films. …Does Dawkins imagine that children can somehow be protected from all identities until a certain age of reason: given no nationality or, for that matter, no surname?

This is an incredibly bizarre non-sequitur. Ones nationality is defined by birth, not by choice of beverage or disliking a particular culture. Dawkins point, a reasonable one, is that religion is defined by self identification and not by birth. I’m was American at birth because the law is written so that people born in the U.S. with American parents are automatically Americans, just like with most countries. There is no similar law by which to determine one’s religion either here or in the U.K.

Of course he doesn't – he's not that foolish. But he does get very excited about people being labelled by religion because – if you hadn't already noticed – he has an irrational hatred of religion. As if being raised Anglican will turn you into a monster.

What kind of person attends a Christening, observes the toothy vicar, cake, jelly and drunken aunts and thinks, "This is pure brainwashing!" Richard, if you really are creeped out by infant baptisms then you don't have to go to them. We'll just bore you with hundreds of photos afterwards instead.

OK, you can pretend that this caricature actually resembles anything Dawkins said about religious indoctrination but as far as I can tell it really doesn’t. I’m sometimes wonder if theists really listen to our arguments because I constantly find theists responding to my (and other atheists) arguments by wondering at how I could believe some horrifying/stupid belief that does not even vaguely resemble anything I ever said about anything. I suppose If atheists believed even half the things I’ve had theists accuse me of believing I’d likely agree we were a pretty awful lot too.

Book review of Illogical atheism: Chapter 4

I review chapter 4 of the book Illogical atheism, completing the first of the four books published in this series.

Another Christian opines about Duck Dynasty and religious debates.

So I ran across this article by Jody Burkeen on Charismanews.com and thought I’d share it with you.

Ex-Atheist Pens Open Letter to Christians, Liberals and Unbelievers

The article opens with a request for debate to be more civil.

As humans, we ought to have an innate love for one another, no matter our beliefs or backgrounds. But what I have seen from the controversy of Duck Dynasty and homosexuality is ignorance, hatred and a complete lack of a common-sense debate.

No disagreement so far except to say that the author and I may have different ideas about what qualifies an argument as ignorant. He continues:

First, let me tell you a little about myself. I am the founder of Man Up God’s Way men’s ministry. I am a former atheist and evolutionist and now a sellout for Christ. Because I am “sold out” for Christ, that makes me a Christian. With views that are formed from the Bible, I believe 100 percent of all that it says and try to live according to the rules, love and forgiveness it teaches.

OK, first off I don’t think the author needed to explain that “sold out for Christ” meant they were a Christian, I’m don’t think there was any chance of anyone misunderstanding that. I also checked out the ministry the guy runs and, while most of the content on his website seems to require payment or at least signup, what I could read led me to conclude his site advocates for a kind of soft spoken sexism common to evangelicals that I’ve written about in the past, here for instance. I also find his use of the world “evolutionist” to be troubling. To be fair he does criticize Christians for all of one paragraph before devoting the last half of his article to his criticism of atheists.

If you claim to be a Christian, act like it! Stop arguing, name-calling and getting angry over every little thing. But don’t back down from ungodliness (sin). Know your Bible and stop paraphrasing His Word and use it wisely. Don’t speak, debate or argue it unless you know it! If you don’t know it, read the Bible, study the Bible and memorize the Bible. Stop being a hypocrite! Too many Christians are talking out of both sides of their mouths. Learn to live and talk like Christ..

I don’t have much to disagree with here. There are a lot of Christians name calling and getting angry over every little thing, and I can’t disagree with the recommendation that people actually learn a subject properly before setting out to criticize it. I often find myself criticizing atheists for criticizing religious beliefs poorly because they don’t properly understand the beliefs. Now at this point you might think this article might actually end up being an example of an evangelical offering a well reasoned discussion about religion and politics. He is about to dash those hopes quite succinctly.

This letter is also for the liberals. So many times you try to push a political agenda of certain things, thinking that it will make people “free.” But it does nothing but enslave us. Our country was founded on biblical morals, which made us a free nation. The Bible tells us in John 8:31-32 that if you continue in God’s Word, then you are truly His disciples and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.

The irony here is that he was just telling us about Christians who try to argue the bible but don’t’ actually know it very well. Has he ever thought of extending this rule to other subjects like history or politics? He doesn’t seem to know either very well. The principles on which this country was founded are sourced in a variety of philosophical arguments about the nature of government and individual rights that had been going on for several centuries prior to our countries founding. I’m not going to say that the Christian religion played no part in this discussion, but it certainly wasn’t the only, or even primary, influence.

We are no longer a free nation. Oh, we have rights to do just about anything we want, but that does not make us free. Can’t you see where our nation is going? We have taken the Bible out of schools, colleges and a lot of churches. We have murdered 57 million babies since 1972 because of “rights.” The family is being split apart because we don’t sanctify marriage anymore. Suicide rates are up because of no foreseen hope. Drinking and drugs are being legalized even when we know they are killers of body, soul, and families—all in the name of “freedom.”

Well, we have taken the bible out of schools and colleges as an inerrant document for liturgical use, however it’s still quite useful in historical and cultural contexts so it hasn’t been removed entirely. If any churches have been taking the bible out of their services then take that up with them as I couldn’t care less how churches order their services. Abortion is the topic that will never go away, but yes women should not be forced to be pregnant against their will by the state.

The rest is just fear mongering through creative statistics mining. He offers no evidence that our changing perception of religion has contributed to any of these numbers, and ignores all of the positive numbers like lower rates of violent crime. Sure drinking has broken up families but so has religion and politics. At least when drinking becomes a problem society advocates people stop drinking, when religion breaks up a family a person’s church tells them they just need to do religion differently, or even worse that it’s just the price of being religious and your family isn’t worth your eternal soul.

But I respect your view, even though I don’t agree with it. Like you, I will not back down, but I will be bold in love. I hope you do the same.

“bold in love” is one of those Christian buzz terms that means very little to those not part of the religion, though really I just wish his “respect” of others views including an actual attempt to understand those views. Standing up for what you believe in is laudable, it’s also praiseworthy that he advocates that it be done in a respectful manner. What isn’t so praiseworthy is the bad arguments he attempts to employ for his case.

This letter is also to the atheist, of which I was one. Why are you so angry? There is a void that you have in your soul—I know; I had it. With no hope, despair and anger kick in. You point your anger toward my belief, and your anger is frightening sometimes.

Pop psychology nonsense, he is assuming his personal experience was not only valid but relevant to everyone else’s life. Does he not think there might be other reasons for anger than “we need god?” Perhaps it makes some atheists angry when someone claims to want respectful dialog and then tries to psychoanalyze our motivations based upon few facts and even fewer credentials in the relevant fields. He calls our anger frightening but just a few paragraphs back he was telling Christians to stop getting angry and name-calling, so it seems even he knows that theists are no less likely to react from a place of anger when their beliefs are questioned.

You spout off things you don’t have proof of and have no desire to seek otherwise.

I’d point out the irony of this statement if I thought it were necessary.

The path of evolution leads nowhere (it's still a theory). Your faith in believing in evolution, a godless nature and chance, are greater than most Christian’s faith in a holy God, and for that I commend you.

The author reveals that he does not understand what a scientific theory is, what evolution is, or even how statistics work. Then he proceeds to commend us for having more faith than Christians, on this I’m not sure if this is an honest commendation or a bit of sarcasm on his part.

It takes great faith to be an atheist. My view changed when I saw my children. In order for the body to function like it does, we have to have a Creator. Even if you had 500 billion years, a child just doesn’t happen, much less two that are different sexes and that can procreate. Think about it.

To sum up, his argument here seems to be that since it doesn’t seem possible for child birth to develop via natural processes Jesus Christ must have died for our sins. I could be wrong here but I’m almost certain there are some missing steps in that syllogism. Is this really the entirety of his argument? Perhaps expecting him to include his entire argument for god is a bit unfair, but considering that his establishment of this point is a jumping point for his next paragraph I think he could do a bit better, or at least acknowledge his arguments short comings and point to a source that better lays out his case. As it is this is bad even by the standards of apologetics, which typically has a pretty low bar for what constitutes a good argument.

And if it takes a Creator, wouldn’t He want to have input in your lives? Wouldn’t He want to see us live for Him and not ourselves? Isn’t it sad to think that an average of 70 years of life on this earth is all there is? You die, and then there’s nothing. It was sad when I was an atheist. But I respect your view even though I don’t agree with it. And like you, I will not back down, but I will be bold in love. I hope you do the same.

He makes a lot of assumptions this creator. If we assumed that such a being existed why would we automatically conclude that he wanted us to live for him? Why? What purpose would that serve? Acting as if a conclusion is obvious is not actually an argument. Secondly, the bit about dying is just emotional appeal, whether or not I’m saddened by the possibility of my future non-existence is simply not relevant to the issue of truth.

I hope this letter allows us to talk, debate and search for truth in a loving manner, no matter our beliefs. My belief tells me to share the gospel, and I will. My belief tells me to do it in love, and I will. My belief tells me I will be hated because of it, and I am. I am to love others, but I am to hate sin. No matter if you are a liberal, atheist, pagan or even a fence-straddler, we all should try to be a respecter of persons. But my beliefs will never let me condone sin! I won’t get angry over your stance, and I ask that you don’t get angry over mine.

If the author really lived out his claim of respect then he would have no problem allowing those who disagree with him the same civil rights as everyone else. However, we have seen this author, in this very article, complain that the government no longer compels children in pubic schools to read the bible. For this reason, I have my doubts that the author and I have the same definition of respect. As for anger, I tend not to write angry on this blog because it hampers my ability to write clearly, but I don’t think it is inherently wrong to be angry about moral injustices. Indeed some things ought to make us angry, a person who demands respect for himself but only pays lip service to a claim to respect others, for instance.

Mike Huckabee doesn’t understand ethics.

Huckabee is up in arms about the possibility that a brain dead patient may have their life support removed. According the the doctors the person died several weeks ago and the doctors have recommended removing life support since there is no chance of recovery once brain death has occurred.

He has this to say about it:

There is no such person who is disposable, one whose life has been deemed by others to be less than others and therefore expendable, I can’t share that.

The road that starts that way in deciding that some lives have less value and are unworthy of protection, that leads to a culture that tolerates the undeserved killing of over 55 million unborn children in this country. It leads to China’s birth policy that limits the number of children for a family and enforces forced abortion if they deviate from the state-determined ideal.

Now one could reasonably point out that this statement makes no sense in the context of this situation because the doctors aren’t disposing of a “person” since everything that made this girl a person, in any meaningful sense, disappeared once brain occurred.

However, I actually have another problem with this statement on a level that is more basic to the issue of human ethics. He implies that we cannot, as humans, ever treat one life as worth more than another. On the surface it seems somewhat reasonable, but let me provide a thought experiment. Let’s say that you come across two people and one of them is trying to murder the other, and further, the only way to stop the murder is to kill the one who is attempting to commit the murder. Would you consider it moral to kill in this circumstance? If the answer is yes then you have, in fact, taken the position that it is moral at least in some circumstances to value one life more than another. It’s one thing to argue that a particular instance of this is unwarranted for some reason but it is quite another to simply argue that we are never allowed to judge one life as preferential to another.

In truth, the only way to live consistently within the framework Huckabee proposes would be pacifism.  Which would make Huckabee, who has supported nearly every military engagement the U.S. has engaged in for the last several decades, massively hypocritical. Which brings us back to the original story. I imagine that even though the scientific information is clear on the matter of this persons brain death the family members probably still find making the choice to disconnect life support to be emotionally troubling. For Huckabee to interject his ill formed opinions, and create a public spectacle in the midst of this family's troubles in order to score points for his political agenda is unbelievably selfish and immoral.