Richard Dawkins - Playboy Interview

This is a really good and funny interview with Richard Dawkins here:

PLAYBOY: You often hear evolution described as “just a theory.” Is it?

DAWKINS: The word theory can mean a hypothesis. But the word is also used in a more serious sense as a body of knowledge. It’s better to use the word fact. Evolution is a fact in the same sense that the earth orbits the sun.

---------------------------------------------

PLAYBOY: What will happen when you die?

DAWKINS: Well, I shall either be buried or be cremated.

PLAYBOY: Funny. But without faith in an afterlife, in what do you take comfort in times of despair?

DAWKINS: Human love and companionship. But in more thoughtful, cerebral moments, I take—comfort is not quite the right word, but I draw strength from reflecting on what a privilege it is to be alive and what a privilege it is to have a brain that’s capable in its limited way of understanding why I exist and of reveling in the beauty of the world and the beauty of the products of evolution. The magnificence of the universe and the sense of smallness that gives us in space and in geologically deep time is humbling but in a strangely comforting way. It’s nice to feel you’re part of a hugely bigger picture.

Thanks to @vjack and @AtheistQOTD for the quote.

Hitchens Tribute

I was not lucky enough to have met Christopher Hitchens, but have, on a couple of occasions, met and spoken to the great Lawrence Krauss. Krauss was lucky (as he would admit himself) to be considered a friend of Hitchens. Here is a remarkable tribute to Hitchens that Krauss gave at the 2012 Global Atheist Convention:

Christopher Hitchens: 1949 -2011

A uniquely intelligent and witty man who informed many of my opinions of the last few years. In a time of anti-intellectual pride, he was not afraid to truly think about things.

And as he predicted and hoped, there was no deathbed conversion. He died as he lived, seeking truth.

He will be missed. I will miss him.

I’m not going to quit until I absolutely have to

Showing his usual wit, but also a dignity and grace that I'm sure I wouldn't have if I were in his position, Christopher Hitchens accepted an award from Richard Dawkins at the Atheist Alliance of American Convention in Texas recently. This speech is his direct acceptance of that award (but also check out the other two videos here)



It saddens me to know that we will not have too many more of his speeches to enjoy. But it also heartens me to know that even at the end, he sticks to his convictions and does not give in to fear over logic. Because, and he knows this well, his contributions will outlast him and will give him an immortality that the religious will never have.

"Our belief is not a belief"

I've just started reading the Christopher Hitchens' book, God is Not Great. Hitch is as erudite and acerbic as ever, wonderfully so, but also humorous. I've had the book forever, but there are only so many hours in the day and entirely too many good books to read (a not altogether bad problem to have). I'll do a bigger review later but I couldn't resist putting up this quote from just the first couple of pages:

"And here is the point, about myself and my co-thinkers. Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. We do not hold our convictions dogmatically ... We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe: we have music and art and literature, and find that the serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Eliot than in the mythical morality tales of the holy books. Literature, not scripture, sustains the mind and—since there is no other metaphor—also the soul." -- Christopher Hitchens in God is Not Great

I couldn't not have put it better myself. Actually, I don't think any living writer could have put it better.

Atheism is NOT fundamentalism

atheist
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" ...

"Without a god" ... that's it. That's all that atheism means. But almost all theists, and a remarkable number of skeptics/agnostics get this wrong. They believe that atheism implies certainty that there is no god. Many people that I know that are actually atheists believe that atheism requires the same amount of belief and intractability as fundamentalist Christianity. So they call themselves "agnostic". Hell, I used to call myself an agnostic because I had the same exact misconception. I know these are just words, but words have some importance. People base their opinions on these words. And to me, agnostic, is a much more dangerous word, especially for those that call themselves inquisitive and curious:

agnostic
... a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable ...

I don't hold anything as being "unknowable". Why would we even go on if we didn't believe that we could discover the nature of things eventually? Not knowing something is not scary to me but making the decision that something couldn't ever be known is.

The term skeptic doesn't bother me as much in that it is a more philosophical term. I get the line of thinking that posits that nothing, really, is absolutely "known". But that is in a much more abstract sense of the word.

Anyway, the whole reason why I was reminded of this whole subject was by a tweet by the great blogger, vjack, today that linked to one of his older posts:

Atheism Does Not Require Certainty

Check that post out, and his blog in general. Consistently good stuff.

And to my friends who are scared by me calling myself an atheist ... don't be. I don't believe there is a God because I'm not going to apply one way of thinking to one part of my life and another to the balance. I take nothing on faith in my daily life and why should I when it comes to spirituality? I don't "know" there is no God, but nothing that I have ever experienced or seen would lead me to believe otherwise. Christians "know" there is a God. Now, you tell me which side is fundamentalist?

Atheism is not a religion and as such does not require faith. All that it requires is a good healthy dose of skepticism and curiosity.

The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris

Jeez ... I never blog. Gotta change that.

As I mentioned earlier, I just recently finished Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape.

Of the Four Horseman of "New Atheism", Harris is probably my favorite author. I've previously read his Letter to a Christian Nation, a very good book and I highly recommend it.

That book, as the title implies, is shorter and is a good introduction to Harris. The Moral Landscape is significantly more scholarly and incorporates a lot of research from Harris particular field of expertise, neuroscience, which he has a PhD in. In The Moral Landscape, Harris not only makes the compelling argument that morality can be defined scientifically but also takes on the criticism of atheists as being moral relativists. If anything, a morality that depends on the well-being of others, as his science-based morality does, is anything but. There are right and wrong answers to moral questions, completely independent of religion. For example, murder is not wrong because the Bible says it is. People would know it is wrong if there were no Bible. The Bible merely reflects many of the universal moral truths that we already know. When religion seeks to dictate morality outside of that is where it runs into problems. Now, obviously, his explanation is not as simple as mine, but that is the general gist of it.

One of the most important things I took from the book was that the morality of separate cultures is not necessarily equal and should not be respected as such. This is a valid criticism of many liberals and where the charge of moral relativism often comes from. As he says, "the moment we admit that we know anything about human well-being scientifically, we must admit that certain individuals or cultures can be absolutely wrong about it."

The "moral blindness in the name of 'tolerance'" allows "highly educated, secular, and otherwise well-intentioned people to pause thoughtfully ... before condemning practices like compulsory veling, genital excision, bride burning, forced marriage ..." This learned confusion is the same thing that blamed Salman Rushdie for his fatwa or the Danish cartoonists for the Mohammed controversy.

Other parts of the book delve into the neurological reasons for belief and why those who believe reason in a certain manner. Creationism and general Christian distrust of science can be explained by the fact that "people tend to seek evidence that confirms an hypothesis rather than evidence that refutes it. This strategy is known to produce frequent reasoning errors. Our bias toward belief may also explain the 'illusory-truth effect,' where mere exposure to a proposition, even when it was revealed to be false or attributed to an unreliable source, increases the likelihood that it will later be remembered as being true."

Why people initially pick up their beliefs is due to several factors that are "more emotional and social than strictly cognitive. Wishful thinking, self-serving bias, in-group loyalties, and frank self-deception can lead to monstrous departures from the norms of rationality. Most beliefs are evaluated against a background of other beliefs and often in the context of an ideology that a person shares with others. Consequently, people are rarely as open to revising their views as reason would seem to dictate."

People often have certain beliefs because they want to feel good or as Harris says, "to hew to a positive state of mind - to mitigate feelings of anxiety, embarrassment, or guilt ..." Because their happiness is dependent on those beliefs, any evidence that runs counter is ignored.

The ideas that he espouses here are not necessarily new, and I believe most of us already know them to be instinctively true, but he does a good job of establishing a scientific basis for studying and quantifying morality.

In my next post, I'm going to try and touch on some of the possible evolutionary reasons for belief and will also go further into Harris' criticism of noted science/religion reconciler Francis Collins.

"We have, in fact, two kinds of morality side by side; one which we preach but do not practice, and another which we practice but seldom preach." -- Bertrand Russell

Hitch 22 ... on outrage and irony

Reading the very first words of Christopher Hitchens' autobiography, Hitch 22, I knew I was going to like the book,

"I can claim copyright only in myself, and occasionally in those who are either dead or have written about the same events, or who have a decent expectation of anonymity, or who are such appalling public shits that they have forfeited their right to bitch."

Irreverence and a unique command of the English language have marked all of his writings, and this was no exception.

I can respect Hitchens not because I always agree with him, which I don't, but rather because I know at least he has deeply thought about the positions he takes. As he says, "it matters not what you think, but how you think. This manner in which he thinks is admirable and something I strive for myself,

"It's quite a task to combat the absolutists and the relativists at the same time: to maintain that there is no totalitarian solution while also insisting that, yes, we on our side also have unalterable convictions and are willing to fight for them. After various past allegiances, I have come to believe that Karl Marx was the rightest of all when he recommended continual doubt and self-criticism. Membership in the skeptical faction or tendency is not at all a soft option. The defense of science and reason is the great imperative of our time ... To be an unbeliever is not to be merely “open-minded.” It is, rather, a decisive admission of uncertainty that is dialectically connected to the repudiation of the totalitarian principle, in the mind as well as in politics."

Certainly, his takes on Iraq (for the invasion) and Bill Clinton (would have testified during impeachment against) I find almost indefensible. But he goes to great links to do just that, especially in the case of Iraq ... a whole chapter. Leaving that whole chapter out of this book would have improved it greatly. And there is obviously room to leave it out, as Hitchens left whole areas of his life out of the book, including his first wife and several of his children, and his younger brother, columnist Peter Hitchens.

Some reviewers have rightly called out Hitchens for being a inveterate name-dropper ... and he is. But I don't mind it so much. When you have led such an interesting life and have had such interesting company: Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie, Gore Vidal, etc., you can be forgiven. His stories are funny and he is not afraid to poke fun at himself or to admit dalliances that others might be reluctant to admit, including homosexual encounters in his youth.  His well known propensity for drinking, among other vices, is well represented as well.

Several chapters are spent on his friends, including Amis, James Fenton and Rushdie. Many of his early friendships were strained or outright ended because of Hitchens' gradual turning away from his progressive (and to a certain extent, Marxist) roots. For many, his cheerleading for the Iraq invasion was the final straw. His position, while regrettable in my opinion, shows his willingness to follow his thoughts to their logical end. It may be hard on relationships, but it's probably a necessary choice for a public intellectual.  He's not swayed by religion or parochiality or even family and friends.

His autobiography goes to great lengths to recount his schooling and his parents. When describing the British public schools (the American equivalent of private schools) and his experiences there, Pink Floyd's Another Brick in the Wall (Pt2) came to mind,

"... We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone ..."

With his father, a military man, his words are respectful but detached. With his mother, someone he found to be Jewish after her death, affection is more apparent.

One of the "four horsemen" of modern atheism, along with Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, Hitchens has the virtue of being the only non-academic, though he's obviously well-read. That detachment gives him the leeway to be more biting and distinctly more funny than the other three. That's not to say he is my favorite, at least on that subject. I've always been partial to Sam Harris, and then probably Dawkins.

Hitch 22 touches on his atheist contemporaries a little bit, and in glowing terms, "I feel absurdly honored to be grouped in the public mind with great teachers and scholars such as Richard Dawkins…, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris ..." Largely, the book is not about his atheism at all. The only time he touches on it is in the final chapter. But when he does, it is to great effect and one of the reasons that I admire Hitchens. On the "meaning of life" for non-believers,

"About once or twice every month I engage in public debates with those whose pressing need it is to woo and to win the approval of supernatural beings. Very often, when I give my view that there is no supernatural dimension, and certainly not one that is only or especially available to the faithful, and that the natural world is wonderful enough—and even miraculous enough if you insist—I attract pitying looks and anxious questions. How, in that case, I am asked, do I find meaning and purpose in life? How does a mere and gross materialist, with no expectation of a life to come, decide what, if anything, is worth caring about?

Depending on my mood, I sometimes but not always refrain from pointing out what a breathtakingly insulting and patronizing question this is. (It is on a par with the equally subtle inquiry: Since you don't believe in our god, what stops you from stealing and lying and raping and killing to your heart's content?) Just as the answer to the latter question is: self-respect and the desire for the respect of others—while in the meantime it is precisely those who think they have divine permission who are truly capable of any atrocity—so the answer to the first question falls into two parts. A life that partakes even a little of friendship, love, irony, humor, parenthood, literature, and music, and the chance to take part in battles for the liberation of others cannot be called 'meaningless' except if the person living it is also an existentialist and elects to call it so. It could be that all existence is a pointless joke, but it is not in fact possible to live one's everyday life as if this were so. Whereas if one sought to define meaninglessness and futility, the idea that a human life should be expended in the guilty, fearful, self-obsessed propitiation of supernatural nonentities… but there, there. Enough."

Though Hitch 22 was written prior to his discovery that he had esophageal cancer, his words clearly envision his eventual passing, "The clear awareness of having been born into a losing struggle need not lead one into despair. I do not especially like the idea that one day I shall be tapped on the shoulder and informed, not that the party is over but that it is most assuredly going on—only henceforth in my absence. (It's the second of those thoughts: the edition of the newspaper that will come out on the day after I have gone, that is the more distressing.) Much more horrible, though, would be the announcement that the party was continuing forever, and that I was forbidden to leave. Whether it was a hellishly bad party or a party that was perfectly heavenly in every respect, the moment that it became eternal and compulsory would be the precise moment that it began to pall."

Hitchens has lived on his own terms, and shows a desire to leave this Earth on those same terms. We should all be so lucky.

"Your favorite virtue? An appreciation for irony."

"I hope never to lose the access to outrage that I felt then."

How did I get here?

A recent post at Atheist Revolution got me to thinking about how people fall into their religion ... or their lack thereof. I think a lot of religious people assume that atheists and agnostics have a falling out or "crisis of faith". At least from my personal experience and from having read a lot of your experiences, this is not the case. From Atheist Revolution:

"... To be fair to both my mother and to myself, I suspect that I would be an atheist today regardless of whether she had imposed church upon me. The way my mind works and my love of science from an early age probably would have led me away from superstition regardless of my church experience."

That's not that different from where my atheism came from, though that writer seems to have a little more animosity towards the parents. Here, I'm going to try and analyze the different reasons on why someone would be an atheist and how they apply to me:

Were our parents atheists and we are just following in their steps? In my case, not exactly. I was baptised Methodist. My parents took us to church when we were young (6 or 7 and younger). But I think this was done more to appease a grandfather (my dad's dad) who was very religious. Our attendance only seemed to happen when we lived in the same town as my grandfather.

My parents never talked about God, though we always had a bible in the house. But, conversely, we were never pushed away from religion either. I even remember saying prayers before going to bed every night. We probably did this until I was about 10. It didn't seem weird to me at the time, but it also didn't really seem spiritual. Just another daily ritual like brushing your teeth and giving your parents a kiss before going to bed.

I think that is a big part of my realization at a fairly young age that I didn't believe in God. Religious rituals like going to church, praying, etc. seemed like just that ... rituals. There was no spark. There was no feeling of a divine connection. I was doing the things because society made you feel like that was "normal".

Were our parents screwed-up Christians and that pushed us away from religion? That wasn't the case either. They certainly weren't devout but they also weren't sitting around railing on the church. Simply, my folks just never talked about religion or politics. I know it's wacky, but they thought their job was to provide a home, food, education, boundaries and to encourage their children. Parents are doing a disservice to their kids if they feel they have a mandate to do anything else. When you see kids holding "God Hates Fags" signs or you see a movie like Jesus Camp, how is that kind of parenting not child abuse?

Did I have a "crisis of faith"? That is a popular assumption - that all people are born religious and something pushes them away from it. I think this is a lot rarer than than most people would believe. Just because someone may have been born into a religious family and may have went to church does not mean that they ever believed in God.

They are not "losing" faith but rather gaining a confidence that they can express the fact that they never believed in the first place. In the current climate in the U.S., that is not a trivial occurrence. Society, as you may have noticed, does not embrace atheists.

I cannot personally speak for the opposite - for those people who may have been born without religion or went through atheist phases and then "found" religion. I would suspect that the situation is similar in that they always had faith but it took awhile for them to come around to that realization. But, I'm sure there are those that truly did not believe in God but later changed.

What about those that were born Christian and readily admit that they believed in God but had a change of heart? This would seem to be fairly common and not to just run-of-the-mill types that never go to church. It can even happen to the most devout (bible scholar Bart Ehrman, for example).

Those cases seem to born of education or, at the very least, a removal from limiting environments where they would not know of alternatives. Ex-Mormons would certainly fit into this category, though not all Ex-Mormons give up a faith in God in general.

People may leave the church, but not leave God. Even Christians would have to admit that organized religion can be pretty fucked up -- priests buggering young boys and churches who seem more concerned with raising money that with raising souls. If these particular instances also cause people to leave God altogether, that has more to do with people not understanding how a caring God could allow those situations to happen. And you would have no argument from me on that one. How, indeed?

So, I do not believe in God. I never did. I did not give up God because something bad happened or because someone told me to. God did not make sense to me even before I could intellectually grasp why. When my education caught up with my intuition, it merely confirmed what I already knew.

God was yet another societal construct that was put in place to help me stay in line, like a teacher, or a policeman. Something to ease my fears of death. No more than that. I'm not afraid of death. I am afraid of believing something just because it is convenient and comforting. But, that's just me. This was my path. This is how I got "here".

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -- Epicurus

Isaac Asimov

"If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul." -- Isaac Asimov

Atheist Song of the Day: Dear God by XTC

Dear God, hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
But all the people that you made in your image, see
Them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
Enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you

Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
Loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
And all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
In the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
I can't believe in you

Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
Mankind after we made you? And the devil too!

, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
A lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
Should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
Image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
So do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in

I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
Devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
Letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
Drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
Whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
And if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
My sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in ...

Atheists in Business

I came across an interesting discussion over at Atheist Revolution about the role of religion (in this case, the lack of) in a business environment:

"... First, there is the scenario where we have a small atheist-owned business and must contend with the owner potentially losing customers when his or her atheism becomes known. And second, there is the case of an atheist being employed in a company where most of the prejudice encountered would be expected to come from co-workers and bosses ...

The Atheist Employee

I'll speculate that most atheists employed in the U.S. either have faced some sort of prejudice in their place of employment or remain closeted at work in order to avoid this outcome. I've encountered prejudice of all kinds at the state university where I am employed (e.g., race, age, sexual orientation, gender, and atheism). What stands out to me is that most people seem to know that it is inappropriate and try to conceal it, except when it comes to atheists. In fact, I've heard more than my share of anti-atheist bigotry right out in the open (e.g., atheists are immoral, can't be trusted, evil people, etc.). People do not seem to put it in the same category as other forms of prejudice and have few compunctions about expressing it openly.

I have also heard from friends and family of far more serious examples of prejudice and discrimination against atheists in the workplace. These include repeated, unwanted invitations to attend church with the boss, mandatory attendance at sectarian prayer meetings during work, open hostility from co-workers including threats of hell, and even termination.

Particularly here in the South, being an open atheist can be an excruciatingly difficult experience in many places of employment. At the same time, being an openly evangelical fundamentalist Christian is often encouraged, sometimes explicitly so.

Atheist-Owned Businesses

... I'd guess that it would be virtually impossible to run a small business in a small and rabidly Christian community as an open atheist. I've heard many stories of professionals in such settings losing clients after answering questions honestly about their views on religion.

I would expect the experience of atheist business owners to be highly variable by region. In a large city in a more educated part of the country, I suspect one could do okay even while being reasonable open about one's atheism. Customer word-of-mouth and the involvement of churches might be less important in such settings ..."

Being an atheist, a business owner, and a former employee, I can speak to whether these situations are applicable to my case. The definition of an "open" atheist is difficult as I don't actively advertise that I'm an atheist, but I also don't actively hide it. Part of that is the difference in how one's faith (or lack of) informs their daily life.

With Christians, and I don't think I'm speaking out of turn here, your religion does influence most things you do on a daily basis. It certainly affects how your children are taught, how you handle work situations, and what movies you watch and what music you listen to.

I can honestly say that I go through life and religion doesn't factor into my decisions at all, except when someone else's exercising of their religion intrudes on mine.

I have not personally been descriminated against overtly for my atheism and that is due to several things: 1. My employers and clients don't know I'm an atheist because I don't go around with an atheist patch 2. The computer/software industry is fairly open-minded. When I say "overtly", I mean that no one has personally ridiculed me for being atheist. But, if you define descrimination to include unwanted invitations and professions of faith, I get that on a daily basis.

As a Christian, would you be offended if a Muslim or Jew invited you to their church or expressed a religious belief without being asked? I suspect that many would. I guess most of that doesn't bother me because I don't elevate it to the importance that people of faith would. Someone talking about their preference of religion is no more important to me than if they said they were a Yankee fan. In both cases I may think they were nuts, but c'est la vie. To each his own.

I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make. I guess the gist of it is, I personally think business is not a place for expressing your religious tastes, for or against. You are free to believe what you want, but when it impedes on others doing the same, then you have went too far.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -- H. L. Mencken

Councilman under fire for atheism

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson

Councilman under fire for atheism By David Zucchino - December 20, 2009

When Cecil Bothwell took the oath of office as a city councilman this month, he did not swear to uphold the U.S. and North Carolina constitutions "so help me God." He merely affirmed that he would, without mentioning the Almighty. Nor did the political newcomer place his hand on a Bible. He simply kept it at his side.

Bothwell, you see, is an atheist -- or as he often describes himself, a "post-theist." And that has outraged some in this picturesque mountain resort who say Bothwell violated an obscure clause in the state constitution that disqualifies from elected office "any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

A conservative group has distributed pamphlets warning locals that Bothwell is "Satan's helper" and a "radical extremist" who is "bashing religion." A supporter of Southern heritage has threatened to sue Asheville for allowing Bothwell to take office.

The controversy has lighted up talk-radio phone lines nationwide and prompted hundreds of calls and e-mails to Bothwell, a soft-spoken environmentalist who lived for 21 years in a house -- which he built himself -- that relied on solar power and a gravity-fed water system.

"I didn't anticipate all this attention," Bothwell said last week, after presiding at his first City Council meeting. "I haven't even done anything yet."

Raised a Presbyterian, Bothwell began questioning Christian beliefs as a young man. He's a member of the Unitarian Universalist church, which includes atheists and agnostics as well as believers in God.

... Six other states have provisions outlawing atheists in public office. The North Carolina clause was in the state constitution when it was drafted in 1868. In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that states were prohibited under the U.S. Constitution from requiring a religious test to serve in office. The court ruled in favor of an atheist in Maryland seeking to serve as a notary public.

... As for Bothwell, he says his atheism is irrelevant to his duties as a councilman.

"I don't find any need in my day-to-day life for God to explain things to me," he said. "When religion gets tangled up with government, it always causes problems."

And while his fellow council members are "bemused" by the whole affair, Bothwell said, he's not worried about being forced from office. He said the controversy was manufactured by political opponents "who don't want to see a progressive on the council."

Bothwell ran on a platform of energy conservation, government transparency and campaign finance reform. But what really upset his opponents, he said, was his book "The Prince of War," which is highly critical of the Rev. Billy Graham, who lives outside Asheville.

Another newly elected council member who took the oath this month, Esther Manheimer, did so with her hand on two sacred Jewish texts: the Pentateuch and the haphtara. She replied, "I do," to an oath that included the phrase "so help you God." Bothwell merely promised his "solemn affirmation."

Manheimer, a lawyer, said the clause banning nonbelievers is unconstitutional. "Mr. Bothwell, therefore, is entitled to hold office to the same extent I am," she said in an e-mail.

Last week, the first City Council meeting for new members opened with a prayer. There was no mention of God -- only a plea for "justice and peace" and for the safety of U.S. troops overseas.

The council rotates responsibility for the opening prayer. Bothwell said he doesn't object, although he would prefer a moment of silence.

When his turn comes, he said, he may read from Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" or Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time."

Bothwell predicted that the furor would pass, allowing him to focus on political objectives, which include retrofitting businesses and homes to reduce energy consumption. That's what many voters who elected him want, he said ...

It's kinda odd that we always make a big deal about religious persecution but you'll rarely hear stories like this make national news. And if you do, it's only to criticize the person being persecuted.

Exercising freedom of religion is also the right to be free of religion if you so choose. And if we are not infringing upon the rights of others to do the same, then what's the problem?

The reason is that we speak of liberty and freedom but we don't mean it. Or we have a peculiar nuanced definition for it. We'll allow you to have any beliefs you want as long as they fit into a very small box that we define.

I grant you that this is just some small town in the South and is not necessarily the viewpoint of the rest of the country. But, let's be honest, can you imagine an openly atheist candidate running for a statewide or national office? Not very likely. It's my sincere belief that there are quite a few atheists or agnostics that hold those offices but have hidden their beliefs because of the ridicule they know they would receive.

It's intellectually dishonest to say that an atheist officeholder is any less (or more) virtuous or qualified to govern than a Christian one.

Good w/o God

"It is not what they profess but what they practice that makes them good" -- Greek proverb

I'd be curious if my Chicago blog friends (Laura, Scott, Crystal, etc.) had a chance to see that billboard recently. And what do you think of it? Is it appropriate to have this discussion writ large? I say yes. There isn't a city that I've ever been in that does not make a statement about faith publicly. The mere existence of churches with their adornments of crosses and other religious imagery is a public proclamation. So, should agnostic and atheists be afforded the same chance? Of course they should. No one can honestly say that the message on the billboard (or similar ones in other cities) is offensive.

Obviously, not even my Christian friends could intimate that it is exclusively God that makes one good. Right?

What makes one good? If it is God, then does it have to be conscious? Meaning, if an atheist is, by all accounts, a good person, then is it because God made him so and he just won't admit it? Or, does a person have to make a conscious acknowledgement of God? I say no. Admittedly, I don't believe in God, but if there was, I don't think it is in the acceptance of God that makes one better than anyone else.

And when I see one of my friends that is a Christian, I don't have the belief that it is because they believe in God that they are good. If they lost their faith, I wouldn't believe they lost their "goodness". Conversely, deathbed and prison conversions of wicked people do not absolve them of their past or their wickedness.

I believe the origins of being good are familial and by extension societal. The survival of our species has depended on reliance on our immediate families and our clans. Positive behavior by and towards them presented the best opportunity for survival. Groups that demonstrated those tendencies survived and passed on those tendencies. This only speaks to the aggregate. Any individual, depending on physiological and environmental influences, can be good or bad.

I've heard from some Christians that being atheist means that you don't have to play by any rules, that without some strict taskmaster on high, they will not do right. That is a specious and disappointing argument. I would be afraid to be around the type of person that was just one Sunday church visit away from being a criminal. I would hope that a responsibility to self and society would guide their actions ... an innate moral instinct, if you will. But what do I know? I'm just winging it, flying by the seat of my pants. Every day I go out, I will take advantage of anyone, be cruel and sadistic, because God is not in my life. Somebody please save society from me and my "badness". Or not.

"The ideals which have always shone before me and filled me with the joy of living are goodness, beauty, and truth. To make a goal of comfort or happiness has never appealed to me; a system of ethics built on this basis would be sufficient only for a herd of cattle." -- Albert Einstein

America, One Nation Under No God?

America, One Nation Under No God?
The number of secular Americans is rising faster than any other religious group. But faith will continue to influence politics
by Michelle Goldberg

In recent years, non-religious Americans have won a modicum of public acknowledgment. Not long ago, politicians insulted them with impunity or at best simply overlooked them. But the heightened public religious fervour of the Bush years led the country's infidels to organise as never before, turning atheist authors like Sam Harris into celebrities and opening lobbying offices in Washington, DC, just like religious interest groups do.

Politicians have responded. In his inaugural address, Barack Obama - doubtlessly realising that secularists constitute a big part of his base - described America as a "nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus ... and non-believers." Even Mitt Romney came to express second thoughts about leaving atheists and agnostics out of his high-profile campaign speech on faith. The United States is not Europe - it will likely be a long time before we have a publicly agnostic president - but it is becoming more tolerant of the godless.

It has to be: no religious group in the United States is growing as fast as those who profess no religion at all. The latest American Religious Identification Survey, which Trinity College published last week, shows that the number of non-religious Americans has nearly doubled since 1990, while the number of people who specifically self-identity as atheists or agnostics has more than tripled. An astonishing 30% of married Americans weren't wed in religious ceremonies, and 27% don't expect to have religious funerals. This suggests whole swaths of the culture are becoming secular, since one can assume that non-believers in religious families often acquiesce to traditional marriage rites and expect to be prayed over when they're dead.

The irony, though, is that even as the country becomes more secular, American politics are likely to remain shot through with aggressive piety. What we're seeing is not a northern European-style mellowing, but an increasing polarisation. In his recent book Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment, the sociologist Phil Zuckerman described the secularised countries of Scandinavia as places where religion is regarded with "benign indifference". There's consensus instead of culture war. That's not what's happening in the United States. Instead, the centre is falling out.

According to the American Religious Identification Survey, Christianity is losing ground in the United States, but evangelical Christianity is not. Just over a third of Americans are still born-again. Meanwhile, the mainline churches, beacons of progressive, rationalistic faith - the kind that could potentially act as a bridge between religious and non-religious Americans - are shrinking. "These trends ... suggest a movement towards more conservative beliefs and particularly to a more 'evangelical' outlook among Christians," write the report's authors.

In some ways, there's a symbiotic relationship between evangelicals and secularists. The religious right emerged in response to a widespread sense of cultural grievance stemming from the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s. Today's newly organised atheists and agnostics were mobilised by the theocratic bombast of Bush-era Republicans. More than ever, one's religion is tied up with one's political choices rather than family history.

That means faith won't fade into the background. If European secularism is defined by disinterest in organised religion, American secularism is largely defined by opposition to it. Thus non-believers in the United States are increasingly becoming an organised interest group, demanding their share of civic respect. The more they want to escape organised religion, the less they can ignore it.

"Benign indifference" -- that'd be nice. It really does seem like religion has gotten so tied up with politics in America. You go to any congregation and they are 80% Republicans or Democrats.

If it was more like Europe over here, atheists and agnostics wouldn't feel so compelled to vocalize their angst. You are beat over the head with religion everywhere here -- parents of your child's classmates, at the polls, by your political leaders. If they did that in the UK, I'm guessing it would be viewed rather amusingly.

And, as the article states, it makes rock stars out of people like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm among that group.

I guess I should be glad that it's not as much of a Scarlet Letter to be an atheist any more. It's nice to have a voice in the discussion. But, personally, I'm hoping for those days where a person's faith, or lack of it, shouldn't matter at all.

"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code." -- Mark Twain

Doubt is not necessarily a bad thing

"Doubt is the beginning not the end of wisdom" -- proverb

I just read one of the best essays on faith and atheism that I've read in awhile from a writer at The Times of South Africa:

... as an atheist, faith is one of the big issues I have with religion. Faith is not simply a religious concept - it is a concept of knowing, of being absolutely sure of your ideas, your leaders, your concept of right and wrong, to the point where any evidence to the contrary just annoys you, it doesn’t have the power to convince you.

This concept has caused immeasurable harm to the world - it is what made Stalin so sure that his five-year plans weren’t starving Russia, it is what made Hitler think that the Jews were the root of all the world’s problems ...

The criminals who rape, murder and pillage our country do not do so out of a lack of faith, out of a sense of doubt in the rightness of their actions, they do it rationalising that their victims deserve it. These criminals think that they are still good people.

It is as William Butler Yeats said in his oft-quoted poem: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

This is not because the best are weak. This is because in terms of the people you want to know, the people who don’t go around flying planes into buildings, it isn’t faith that fuels their good, it is doubt. Doubt that they are right, doubt that they are always good, doubt that makes them stop and consider things from another point of view.

The dubious, the doubtful, the people who do not know what they know but, rather, think there is a good likelihood for something, these are the people who take us forward.

Atheism is not about what we know, it is what we don’t know. It is “I don’t believe in God” rather than “I believe there is no God”. Though there are atheists who subscribe to the latter, the former is all it takes to qualify as atheism. It is a philosophical concept, not even a fully formed idea, based on doubt, and in terms of crime, atheists are a disproportionately small portion of America’s prison system.

This is also reflected in crime stats on an international basis - highly atheist countries like Japan and the Scandinavian ones have crime under control. This is not atheism in and of itself, this is the virtue of doubt.

And it isn’t just in morality that doubt is good, that not taking things on faith is good.

We have seen over the past year the effect faith has had on business, with the faith-filled idea that the US’s housing market would always grow, that house prices were never coming down and that those sub-prime loans were structured to never fail. They failed.

The Titanic was a ship that the designers thought would never sink, and thus they didn’t have enough lifeboats or a plan to save the lower decks if it actually did begin to sink. It sank.

George W Bush had absolute faith that he was right, the US had faith that if they re-elected him to “stay the course” things would improve. He is probably going to go down as one of the worst presidents in the US’s history, if not the worst ...

... Faith is not a virtue to teach your children. The virtue is in faith’s opposite. It is in doubt we find caution, in doubt we find tolerance, in doubt that we find humility, in doubt we find ourselves and the best of our humanity.

In his poem, Yeats seems to have thought that in the best lacking all conviction there was a flaw, when it is the strength of lacking conviction that makes the best. It is the weakness of passionate intensity, of knowing beyond all evidence’s power to prove otherwise, that makes the worst.

"Doubt is uncomfortable, certainty is ridiculous." -- Voltaire

"Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum.
(I doubt, therefore I think; I think therefore I am)" -- Rene Descartes

Pray for daughter who doesn't believe

I saw this article on the little atheist news ticker I have on the side of my blog. Evidently, it's Christianity's answer to Dear Abby:

Pray for daughter who doesn't believe
By DR. BILLY GRAHAM
DEAR DR. GRAHAM: Our 17-year-old daughter says she doesn't believe in God anymore, and now she even refuses to go to church with us. When we try to talk with her about it we just end up in an argument. What can we do? -- Mrs. S.McD.

DEAR MRS. S.McD.: The most important thing you can do is to pray for her -- because only God can overcome her spiritual resistance and draw her back to Himself. Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44).

But you also can let her know you that love her, despite your differences -- and by doing so, you'll be showing her that God loves her also. Don't let your discussions degenerate into arguments; this will only make her more determined to keep her position. In other words, don't let this become a test of wills between you -- your will battling against her will -- because almost the last thing she wants to do right now is admit she is wrong. The Bible says, "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger" (Proverbs 15:1).

Let me encourage you also to ask her why she has come to this conclusion. Has someone influenced her? Has she been reading one of the recent books on atheism? Atheism has become something of a fad in recent years, and this may have influenced her.

But the real reason, I suspect, is that she wants to run her own life -- and that's far easier to do if you push God out of your life. Help her realize what she's doing, and then warn her of the dangers. Above all, urge her to look at Christ, for He alone came "to bring you to God" (1 Peter 3:18).

Contact the Rev. Billy Graham c/o Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, 1 Billy Graham Parkway, Charlotte, NC 28201, phone 877-247-2426, or see the Web site billygraham.org.

It's priceless in its raw condescension. See, all of us atheists are really only trying to exert our independence. We really believe in God, but he complicates our thinking, so we push him away. Those evil "atheist" books by Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens are the latest cool fad, so we're hip to that. Oh, brother.