Interviewing Jeff Schweitzer soon!

I feel sort of bad, because it took me about 4 months to read Jeff Schweitzer's awesome book, Beyond Cosmic Dice: Moral Life in a Random World. During that time, he actually took time out of his busy life to email me and ask if I had finished it – and I had to tell him that my internship was taking up all of my free reading time.

However, I have officially, finally, finished Mr. Schweitzer's book, and so you will find, in the coming weeks, an e-terview between he and I.

Beyond Cosmic Dice is perhaps not the book you would expect from the title. To me, the title suggests that the book is primarily about morality and ethics in a world in which there is no ultimate purpose or absolute morality. In a very real way, this is what this book is about, but not in the way you'd think.

Chapter 1 is an extremely compelling description of the difficulties in defining life. Schweitzer explains quite convincingly that life is not an either-or proposition. Rather, the difference between life and non-life is a gradation. Instead of life being white and nonlife being black, life is closer to blue and nonlife is closer to green, with gradual shades in between. One can look at a dog and say, "this dog is definitely alive" and one can look at a rock and say, "this is definitely not alive", but not all things are so easily classified. As he puts it, "Nobody would deny the existence of green or blue, yet nobody can define when one color becomes the other. That inability to draw a clear line between them does not diminish the reality of the two colors" (pp 46). This is important to understand because when people ask, "how did life arise out of nonlife" they imagine life and nonlife as binary constructs, when in fact they are constructs on a spectrum. "Life" is nothing more than "an arbitrary label we apply to distinguish extremes of complexity along a continuum" (pp 47).

After explaining that life is an arbitrary label, Schweitzer goes on to briefly explain evolution. What I find most spectacular about this chapter is that while I am a seasoned reader of explanations and treatises on evolution, he offered a very unique perspective. He explains that evolution has no direction, purpose or drive toward complexity. Humans, in all of their complexity, are not abnormal in the grand scheme of evolution. In the grand scheme of evolution, simple, single-celled organisms are much more favored by natural selection than complex beings such as us. As Schweitzer puts it, "bacteria can easily live without us, but we would die quickly without them" (pp 65). Bacteria and other simple organisms outnumber us by both sheer numbers and mass – we are the latecomers, a "biological aberration", and when humanity is gone, the bacteria will go on living, having for all intents and purposes not noticed our coming and going at all. If there is a god and he designed the earth for any type of organism, it is not for complex humans but for the single-celled. The earth is far more suited to their kind, and they can survive where we absolutely cannot.

Chapter 3 deals specifically with humans, and the fact that most of the cells in our bodies are not ours (they are the cells of microorganisms using our body as a convenient apartment complex) and most of our DNA is not human either. We are they, and they are us. The other characteristics that we believe make us unique and special (intelligence, tool use, self-consciousness, self-awareness, etc) are not uniquely human. They are present in other species as well, to different degrees. A cheetah could just as easily point out that they are the pinnacle of evolution because they are the fastest land animal, making our claims to superiority quite arbitrary. The only thing that really separates us from everything else is our capacity to choose to be moral.

I found the first three chapters to be the most enlightening aspects of the book. These chapters make up part I. Part II of the book (the next 3 chapters) deals briefly with how religion arose and the shortcomings of religious morality. Part III deals with cultivating a natural ethic based on part I. Schweitzer defines a natural ethic as, "based on the principal that with the ability to choose to be good comes the obligation to make that choice; Choosing to be moral is what makes us special. The act of choosing to live a good life is the foundation for all pleasure, peace and happiness" (pp 176).

All organisms exploit their environment to the maximum extent possible, and humans are the only organism capable of recognizing this and then rising above this exploitative relationship. We should do so because we can.

Schweitzer then lays out moral foundation that he feels arise out of this natural ethic, but he stresses that these are personal guidelines and not universal ones. While I absolutely understand this tack, I feel as though the loose link between the strong and insightful first half of the book and the guidelines for ethical behavior in the second half of the book leave something to be desired. I wanted the book to end as strongly as it started. It didn't, but in a way I think that reflects the reality of morality. I have yet to find a system of morality that operates prescriptively that is also based on solid foundations, and instead I am left with shades of gray and bell curves of behavior. Perhaps that means it is time for me to abandon my childish notion that moral questions can be examined in the same way that we examine other empirical facts about the universe.

Beyond Cosmic Dice is written in an accessible, almost conversational style and is an excellent read for non-theists and theists alike. It may even be a good starting point for a theist with a desire to better understand the naturalistic worldview.

Offensive!

This morning, I leave you with this, out of laziness.

P.S. I know the video cuts into my sidebar a little. Whatcha gonna do...

Interview with Ray Comfort: Discussion

After several days off for the holidays, we're back to discuss some of Ray Comfort's ideas that we saw in his e-interview that he was kind enough to provide for us.

The first question observed that many Christians don't recognize Ray Comfort's name, and asked if he was possibly more famous among atheists.  His reply:

Not every Christian watches TV or reads books. However, it seems that most atheists (thanks the Richard Dawkins and others) are pretty familiar with the brainless idiot known as "banana-man."

It's not just Comfort, though; if you name Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, etc., I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a higher proportion of atheists recognizing these names than Christians.  I can't cite hard data here, so this is just speculation rather than observation, but bear with me.

Two possible perspectives on this possibility.  From my perspective as an atheist, it seems to be the case that self-described "atheists" as a group are self-selecting for people who seek out other perspectives and willingly challenge even widely-held opinions.  In a culture like America, so saturated with religious and spiritual belief, people who reject religious and spiritual claims are clearly far less likely to simply "go with the flow" and accept the perspective of their culture.  This is not to say that all atheists are shining beacons of rationality, incapable of error - far from it (there are certain conspiracy theorist nutjobs I could mention, and there's always Ayn Rand . . .).  Even these individuals, though, are still more likely, as a rule, to actively familiarize themselves with differing perspectives.

Of course, the common theist has a simple response; we atheists (or any other culturally non-conformist label) are clearly quite convinced that we're wrong on some level, and we are "seeking answers" not because we want to be certain that we're not mistaken, but because we actually believe that we are mistaken.  When Ziztur and I visit different churches, on occasion we will politely inform church-goers who ask about us that we're atheists.  Far and away, the most common response we hear is that we've found ourselves in the pew because we are being "called" or "led" to search for God.  To this, all I can say is that in my own limited experience, such church services or apologetic books are no more convincing to we atheists than the "new atheist" books are to your average theist.  After many churches and many books, our atheism is, if anything, is less dispute than it ever was.

The next question was, seemingly, an extremely simple theological question; it asked Comfort to define "the Gospel."

In a nutshell--that Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day. The word "gospel" means good news, and the gospel doesn't make sense until we see why we need it, in the same way the good news of a cure makes no sense until we understand that we have a disease. The terminal disease is sin. If it's allowed to take its course, it will not only kill us, it will justly take us to a terrible place of punishment called "Hell"--because each of us has violated God's Law (the Ten Commandments). He sees lust as adultery and hatred as murder. He is morally perfect, and that leaves us all in big trouble. The good news is that God is rich in mercy, became a human being, and took our punishment upon Himself. That means, because Jesus paid our fine and rose again from the dead, God can legally let us walk out of the courtroom. He can forgive us and let us live. Our case can be dismissed upon repentance and trust in the Savior. The good news is that any of us can have everlasting life. Read the Gospel of John for details.

Interestingly, this "Gospel story" is possibly the single largest barrier to my ever becoming a Christian (and that's saying something, considering all the other reasons I could name).  To put it simply, if I tell you that this season's particular strain of the flu could be very nasty, and that you should get vaccinated ASAP, I can explain why.  If you ask, in all innocence, "So this flu thing . . . is that bad?  Why?"  I can explain that the flu could give you headaches, muscle aches, a cough, and just generally make you feel like crap, and that a few people who are particularly susceptible can even die from it if they catch it from you.  Now, here's the important part - if you ask, "Why does the flu do that?" I could answer that it's simply a result of how the flu virus reproduces with the living cells in your body.  I could say that the flu doesn't have a mind, and that if it did, it would be wrong for the flu virus to hurt and kill people like it does.  Thus, it's easy to understand why you should get vaccinated (in theory, anyway . . .).

I should mention, first of all, that not all Christians believe in a literal hell, to their immense credit.  With or without this traditionalist theology, though, the Gospel story raises more questions than it answers.  Why does God feel the need to punish us with eternal torture simply for disbelieving in him?  Why is there such a harsh penalty for having lustful thoughts, especially when every single human being has lustful thoughts, without exception?  Even without a literal hell, are "anger" and "lustful thoughts" still sins?  Who should rationally be held responsible for lustful thoughts or anger being universal amongst human beings, us or the being(s) who created us?

Additionally, how does the death of Jesus Christ absolve us of our crimes?  I've noticed that whenever Comfort discusses our "criminal actions" as sinners, he almost always uses the analogy of a legal fine being paid for us so that our case can be thrown out of court.  I would have thought that it's obvious why this analogy isn't convincing to non-believers:  If a crime of any significant severity is committed, the court doesn't just administer a simple fine - the offender goes to prison.  If hell is an appropriate punishment for sin, then the analogy of a legal fine is grossly inaccurate (in fact, there really is no good comparison at all, because in America we don't even punish our very worst criminals by torturing them to death, which is still far more humane than the traditional concept of hell).  Perhaps the closest we can come is the death sentence, or in societies that don't even permit the death sentence on ethical grounds, perhaps life imprisonment without any possibility of parole.  Why doesn't Comfort use these punishments as an illustration of the punishment we deserve for our sin?  Why does he use the very lightest punishment that our system has for any crime, a mere fine?  It's possible for a person to pay a fine for someone else, simply because there's no good way to make sure that the guilty person pays it themselves.  A prison sentence, to say nothing of a death sentence, on the other hand, obviously must always be paid by the person who committed the crime. 

So, there's one of the single, largest questions I have about Christianity.  It seems to me that the very first principle of anything resembling justice is that you punish the person who actually committed the immoral act, and do not punish someone else in their place.  Imagine a society built around the principle that a person who commits a wrongful act cannot atone for their own wrongdoing, and the only way for justice to be served is for an innocent person to be punished ( and that the more innocent the punished person is, the more righteous and just the punishment will be).  If this society does every single other thing with their courts, prison system, and police force correctly, they are still doing nothing correctly.  They could get justice right in every single other way, and would still basically have a completely unjust society.  This Christian, Gospel idea of wrongdoers being incapable of atoning for their immoral actions and instead being redeemed by the punishment of a completely innocent person is not simply incorrect justice, it is not merely mistaken justice, it is the polar goddamned opposite of justice.

More about Ray Comfort coming soon.  Obviously, I would love for Ray to hang out here and reply to our perspective, but I totally understand that he's very, very busy, so I won't see his absence as proof that he can't answer our questions.  Of course, our standard modus operandi is to welcome any dissenting opinion, so I look forward to anyone who can shed some light on this seeming contradiction.  That last question, in particular, about Gospel justice has vexed me all my life.

Last War on Xmas post

I am literally laughing out loud at this blog post by Bryan Fischer, AFA Director of Issues Analysis titled, "Nazis Started War Against Christmas" in which Gap (the company who *gasp* compared Christmas to the solstice, how dare they!) and anyone who does not specifically acknowledge Christmas during the month of December is compared to anti-semites and Nazis.

You're just going to have to read it:

While the left tries to perpetuate the myth that the Nazis were right wing Christians, nothing could be further from the truth. Hitler was steeped in the occult, and even introduced a calendar late in the war that replaced every single Christian holiday with a pagan alternative.

Really, nothing could be further from the truth?

The Nazi's were clearly Christians, who hated Jews because they believed the Jews murdered Jesus. They hated Jews because the Jews rejected Jesus. They believed Jesus was Aryan. This is unambiguously clear. Hitler's hatred of Jews was not new. He learned to hate Jews due to Catholic and Protestant preaching at the pulpit. I know it's fun to try to rewrite history to make your religion look as wonderful as possible, but denying that the holocaust was perpetuated by Christians is nearly as bad as denying the holocaust occurred at all.

In 200 years, when homosexuals have the same civil rights as everyone else, the AFA will probably be insisting that "the left tries to perpetuate the myth that right wing Christians opposed gay rights".

Mr. Fischer. You are claiming historical "facts". Where are your citations? Why do you provide no evidence? I can provide evidence that Hitler was a Christian. It's not hard.  Here's more.   Here's some more.

Especially important in the Hitler/Christian controversy is the unreliability of Hitler's Table Talk, a source referenced by Christians to prove that Hitler was against Christianity, but the source is unreliable.

So what's up with this calendar?

Rosenberg, the guy who created the calendar, rejected parts of Christianity, and helped develop positive Christianity, the model of Christianity adopted by Nazi's. Positive Christianity rejected the Old Testament, insisted that Jesus was Aryan and non-Jewish, and had a goal of uniting Catholicism and Protestantism into one united Christian church.

It seems pretty clear to me that all of the sources of this calendar paint it in such a light as to ignore the positive Christianity aspects and play up the nationalistic, propagandic aspects.

When it came to Christmas, the Nazis urged Germans to celebrate the holy day (excuse me, "holiday") by using ornaments on their trees in the shape of swastikas and the Iron Cross, baking cookies using swastika-shaped cookie cutters, replacing St. Nicholas with an image of the Norse god Odin, and burning candles set on swastika-shaped holders.

You realize, Mr Fischer, that "holiday" is a contraction of Holy Day, right?

You didn't provide a source again for your cookie and ornament comment, but I can. Yes, they did have Swastika ornaments. They also seem to have a baby-Jesus shaped cookie:

The source I cited also refers to the Nazis as "atheist". So I have to wonder about the accuracy of the way the historical documents in this museum are presented. One of the women who set up the museum of See-How-Anti-Christian-Nazis-Were had this to say:

'Christmas was a provocation for the Nazis - after all, the baby Jesus was a Jewish child,' Judith Breuer told the German newspaper Spiegel. 'The most important celebration in the year didn't fit with their racist beliefs so they had to react, by trying to make it less Christian.'

Yes, but documents are extremely clear – the Nazis were Christian and believed Jesus was an Aryan, not a "Jewish child". This quote makes me think that this whole museum may be about as historically accurate as the Creation Museum.

Nazis also specifically perpetuated violent acts during Jewish holidays.

Believe it or not, Germans produced ornaments in the shape of bombs and hand grenades. And no, I am not making that up. Not much "Peace on Earth" in that, is there?

They, like many Christians, probably believed that one had to war for peace. They just had a funky way of expressing it. 

In something emblematic of the German church's craven capitulation to the Nazi regime, German churches put up little opposition to the Nazification of Christmas. Why? Says a student of the time, "[T]hey largely kept quiet, out of fear."

Or out of agreement. 

The Daily Mail story refers to "the atheist Nazis, who tried to turn (Christmas) into a pagan winter solstice celebration."

Can you say "Hello, Gap?" The Gap responded to pressure from the American Family Association about the absence of "Christmas" in their advertising by producing a commercial that does mention Christmas, but then adds "Go Solstice" in the next breath.

Really. The Gap is compared to atheist Nazis who tried to turn Christmas into a pagan solstice celebration. I don't even think I need to present a counter-argument, this can just stand on its own.

The Nazis hated Christmas for one simple reason: it celebrates the birth of a Jew.

The Nazis hated Jews because they killed Jesus. There really isn't evidence that they "hated Christmas", just evidence that they wanted to blend Christmas with nationalism. If anything, Christians should be angry that businesses are exploiting their holiday to make money.

By the way, this suggests a new tack in our discussion about Christmas. The left hates Christmas because it celebrates the birthday of the first Christian. But isn't there something faintly anti-Semitic about that?

No. First of all, the left does not hate Christmas. How many people on the left consider themselves Christian, anyway? There really aren't any good studies on religion vs left-wing and right-wing politics, so I cannot say.

Personally, I just feel as though you should not force people to acknowledge your holiday. If they do – okay. If they don't –okay. It should be our choice, right? But AFA insists that people do not have a choice. Wanting the choice is not "hating Christmas" and certainly is not anti-Semitic. If that were the case, then lobbying to force business to specifically acknowledge Christmas while simultaneously not forcing businesses to specifically acknowledge Hanukkah is anti-Semitic.

After all, Christians can hardly be accused of systemic racism when we believe the Savior of the world lived his life on earth as a Jew.

So? So maybe you're not racist with regard to Jesus. Maybe you still hate other Jews for killing Jesus. Maybe you hate black people, or Muslims. Believing that Jesus was a Jew is not an argument against Christians being racist. It is a red herring.

Even the left tries to protect the celebration of the Jewish holiday Hanukkah, which conveniently for Jewish children aced out of the whole Christmas gift thing falls near Christmas most every year. In fact, some schools with left-leaning principals will allow the display of menorahs in school buildings while forbidding nativity scenes.

Citation needed, dude. Here, I did it for you. This has nothing to do with principals as far as I can tell – the whole menorah but not nativity scene is a New York City Public Education policy, which allows religious symbols during holidays so long as they do not depict a specific deity. So go put up a cross.

But wait a minute. All the key players in the nativity scene - father, mother, child, shepherds - were Jewish. That means we can celebrate two Jewish holidays this time of year instead of just one!

This is just underhanded. Mr. Fischer knows that Jewish people do not celebrate the birth of Christ as a Jewish holiday.

I say we start reminding folks that December 25 marks the birth of the greatest Jew who ever lived, and that America is too great a country to allow anti-Semitism to rob us of the recognition of this world-shaping figure given to the world by the Jewish people.

People who wish that the holidays be more inclusive to other religions are not anti-Semitic. Ad hominem much?

What other Jew has had the impact on the world that this figure has had? His influence is pervasive even 2,000 years after his death. One third of the world's population calls itself by his name. If there ever was a Jewish man who deserved his own holiday, Jesus is the one.

So from now on, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. When people question whether we ought to celebrate Christmas, my response will be to express wonder that they nurse such anti-Semitic feelings in their hearts. Why, I will add, with our first post-racial president and all, I thought we were supposed to be way beyond all that racist bigotry.

And I will conclude, "I celebrate Christmas because I'm no anti-Semitic racist bigot. How about you?"

Good for you! Go on celebrating Christmas. But don't force everyone else to do so as well and don't call people anti-Semitic racist bigots for not celebrating Christmas. That's really insulting to Jewish people. I guess people who celebrate Kwanzaa should say that they do so because they're no anti-black racist bigot. I guess people should say they celebrate Hannukah because they're no anti-Semitic racist bigot. I guess people should celebrate nothing at all because they aren't bigoted toward people who aren't religious. I guess people should celebrate Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha because they are no anti-Muslim racist bigot.

Okay, I'm done now.

Interview with Ray Comfort!

The other day I got the opportunity to send Ray Comfort (who blogs here and writes just about everywhere) some questions. Here they are!

Dear Mr. Comfort,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to e-interview you on my blog. I know you do lots of interviews, so I tried to ask you some questions in this interview that are a little bit out-of-the-box. Of course, you're not obligated to answer any of them. Some of them are questions that were suggested by my commenters.

A very odd thing happens when I try to talk to Christians about this famous Christian named Ray Comfort – none of them seem to know who you are! Do you think you're more well-known to atheists or to Christians, and why?

Not every Christian watches TV or reads books. However, it seems that most atheists (thanks the Richard Dawkins and others) are pretty familiar with the brainless idiot known as "banana-man."

(Asked by my friend Pastor Keith): What is the gospel?

In a nutshell--that Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day. The word "gospel" means good news, and the gospel doesn't make sense until we see why we need it, in the same way the good news of a cure makes no sense until we understand that we have a disease. The terminal disease is sin. If it's allowed to take its course, it will not only kill us, it will justly take us to a terrible place of punishment called "Hell"--because each of us has violated God's Law (the Ten Commandments). He sees lust as adultery and hatred as murder. He is morally perfect, and that leaves us all in big trouble. The good news is that God is rich in mercy, became a human being, and took our punishment upon Himself. That means, because Jesus paid our fine and rose again from the dead, God can legally let us walk out of the courtroom. He can forgive us and let us live. Our case can be dismissed upon repentance and trust in the Savior. The good news is that any of us can have everlasting life. Read the Gospel of John for details.

(Asked by reader Gord) Can you define "kind"? What is the closest equivalent to "kind" in taxonomy? Species? Genus? Something else?

The word "kind" is the biblical word for "species." God created dogs to reproduced dogs, cats to reproduce cats. Every animal was created to bring forth after its own kind. The Book of Genesis repeats this many times in the first chapter to make it clear, for those of us who are a little slow. We see evidence of this, both in the fossil record, and in living creation. The meaning of the word "species" has changed over the years. At one point it was synonymous with "kinds." However, nowadays it is used differently in different circles.

(Also asked by Gord, long question): Have you met, chat[tted] with or otherwise communicated with an Old Earth Creationist named Adnan Oktar (pen name of Harun Yahya)? His argument for creation is that despite Millions of years of existence, the fossil record shows that all kind[s] of creatures does not display any form of change at all. A fossil of a fish seems to be the same as a modern fish, a fossil of a bird seems to be the same as a modern bird, etc. He says that this clearly shows that creative genius of his Creator, Allah. What fossil evidence can you point out to him that he is clearly mistaken, that micro-evolution does happen and that an ancient fish is very dissimilar to a modern fish. An ancient bird is very dissimilar to a modern bird, etc.? What physical evidence can you show him to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is the creative force behind all of these micro-evolution? Evidence that is so compelling that nothing in the Koran can dispute to it's truth?

I have never heard of Mr. Oktar and I am therefore not familiar with his arguments, other than what you have related. Those who believe that a fish fossil is "ancient" reveal their unquestioning faith in dating methods. The fact that a fossil of a bird is different from a modern bird simply means that the Creator made them different. There was no transition from one species to another, so micro-evolution has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. We can see micro-evolution throughout the entire creation of God--both in the fossil record and living things--from the small finch to the large albatross, from the massive Great Dane to the tiny chihuahua. These are variations within species.

As for the God of the Bible being the Creator. That's simple. The moral Law , which Moslems embrace (the Law of Moses), leaves all of humanity condemned to death and on the path to Hell. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only God-given means of escape. Islam has no answer to that, our biggest dilemma (see John 8:31-32).

(Asked by EdW) You have talked to a huge number of people about their beliefs over the years, atheists and Christians alike. According to your understanding of Christianity, broadly speaking how many would go to Heaven if the world ended tomorrow?

God only knows. The only way anyone can have assurance of everlasting life is to repent, trust Jesus alone for their salvation (without good works--see Ephesians 2:8-9) and show the genuine nature of your repentance by living a life free from hypocrisy (something the Bible calls "holiness"). You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that there aren't too many who do that. The modern church is full of pretenders, and they will be sorted out from the genuine, on the Day of Judgment.

Can you comment on the claim that part of your introduction to the 150th anniversary edition of Origin of Species was plagiarized?

No.

You're voting in a local election, and you have a choice of voting for two candidates: one candidate advocates all of the policies you advocate for, and seems rather intelligent, qualified and is an atheist. The other candidate stands against all of the policies you stand for, does not seem qualified, seems a little dim and is a Christian. Who do you vote for and why? (For me, if the situation were reversed and I had the choice of voting for an unqualified atheist or a qualified Christian, I would not hesitate to vote for the Christian)

I would never vote for anyone who advocated the murder of children in the womb. If an atheist was pro-life, of course I would vote for him. However, I will qualify that answer. A person who is surrounded by creation and yet denies the axiom that there is a Creator, isn't smart in the truest sense of the word. So an atheist disqualifies himself from the race, by the very nature of his life-philosophy. Any person who is a Christian, however dumb he may be in your eyes, is very wise because he has obeyed the gospel and has everlasting life. The day will come when you will see that to be true.

Have you ever been really stumped by a question someone asked you on the blog or on the street? If so, what question stumped you?

There are many questions I can't answer. One is why God allows suffering (it's not that suffering exists--the Bible explains it in that we live in a "fallen" creation). But why does God allow it? This is a mystery but it is not a dilemma to me. The day will come when we (those that love God) will have complete understanding. In the meanwhile, I trust Him with all of my heart, mind, soul and strength (almost every other question has a rational answer. I published something called The Evidence Bible that contains 100 of the most commonly asked question of the Christian faith).

What do you think of all of the atheist billboards that are going up across the USA?

I love them. They make people think about God.

Do you think that atheists and theists should try to coexist? Why or why not? How?

Yes, I think we should co-exist. There is a problem though. I regularly pray for atheists, buy them meals, send them money/vouches to restaurants, give them gifts, and yet they return hatred for my love. If you think I am exaggerating, Google my name and get ready for your ears to tingle. So the problem isn't with Christians--we love atheists. It's with the angry, militant, God-hating, God-blaspheming, God-denying atheist, who sees it as his mission in life to rid our country of any semblance of God. These folk meet regularly to talk about God and how He doesn't exist. They write books about Him. They hang around Christian blogs like bugs around a campfire. They put up billboards about God, and they see us as the enemy. So if a sword exists, it comes from your side, not ours.

Obviously, I have read your entire book (You Can Lead an Atheist To Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think), given that on my blog I responded to something on almost every page. What books by modern biologists or atheists have you read? Have you read any to the same depth?

Evolution For Dummies (I'm sure some would say that that is an appropriate book for me). The Wild World of the Future talks about future evolution speculation, as opposed to the usual evolution speculation of past. The last book I read was the modern biologist's bible--On the Origin of Species. I read it from cover to cover and found it a difficult read because most of it is pretty boring. I have heard atheists say the same thing. However, thanks to our generous giveaway of a total of 205,000 copies, others can read for themselves what Darwin actually believed, and make up their own minds. Thanks for letting me give my side of the argument. Best wishes.

Flimsy and I...

Flimsy and I are engaged.

He's taking my last name :)

So engagements mean weddings. As a couple of heathens, what do we do?

We considered:

1. going to the courthouse and just getting some lame papers.
2. Getting married under the osage orange tree in the middle of this park we go to at night all the time.
3. Having a big hugeass party and inviting everyone.

Too bad we're not famous enough to have Dan Barker officiate.

Oh and... he's taking my last name. 

3H1P: Death Penalty

3H1P is a blogging project wherein three heathens (Ziztur, Flimsy and Petter) and one pastor (Keith) answer questions posed by readers of the blog and discuss various issues related to religion, philosophy, science, etc. If you have a question that you'd like to see answered by 3H1P, ask it in the comment box. We promise we'll probably get to it. The following comment is asked by David B. Ellis, a long time reader/commenter of this blog, who apparently has 3 blogs of his own. It is answered (sort of) by Ziztur.

1. Do you advocate the death penalty? Why or why not?

    -David B. Ellis

First, let's talk about what exactly the death penalty is, in the context of United States law:

In the US, federal policy reserves capital punishment for murder, treason or espionage. Of the 38 states that allow capital punishment, it is done primarily for murder of varying severities. I don't think people should die because they've committed an act of treason or espionage, and the reasons behind why someone might commit treason or espionage may or may not be moral (think of committing treason against the Nazi party…), so I'll focus on capital punishment for murder, and ignore the other reasons for capital punishment for now.

Here are some of the common justifications for advocating the death penalty for murder:

1. The death penalty serves as a deterrent to crime.
   

Bullshit. States without the death penalty have constantly lower murder rates. Clearly people are not being deterred.

1. It improves the community by making sure that convicted criminals do not offend again.
   

Bullshit. There are other ways of doing that which do not involve killing people.

1. It provides closure to surviving victims or loved ones.
   

Bullshit. "Closure" is not a commodity that should be purchased with death. Really. If someone murdered Flimsy in his sleep, I would surely want them to die. But this is an emotional reaction and not a rational reaction.

1. And eye for an eye is just.
   

Maybe. I don't find this argument very compelling either. Without even arguing for whether or not "eye for eye" is just or not, one can point out that coupling the permanence of death the with capacity for humans to make mistakes, there is a very real possibility that we may, in the course of convicting someone and sentencing them to death, wrongly kill someone. If we take the life of someone, we've taken all that they have away from them, forever. Personally, I think that a life in prison is a worse fate than death.

1. It's expensive to keep people in prison forever. It therefore costs less to eliminate murderers from society.
   

One could argue that it's not.

So basically, I do not find the arguments for the death penalty compelling, and so I do not advocate the death penalty.

Pinning down this MLK guy.

So, Martin Luther King Jr.  The name alone conjures up images of grand ideas, pivotal history, and notions of all that is best in the United States of America.  When Christians want an example of a fellow follower of Jesus that fought bravely for noble causes, it's just a matter of time until you hear MLK's name.  In this respect, he's squarely in the category of the legendary "founding fathers" of the U.S.A. as a valuable name to claim for "our side."  It seems like everyone wants those rare, awe-inspiring names that other people respect to share their own opinions on big, important questions, as if their worldview is somehow vindicated by the agreement of a long-dead historical figure.

Can we atheists claim MLK as one of our own?  We can't claim Thomas Paine; he was a deist.  Similarly, can't claim Thomas Jefferson.  Susan B. Anthony is debatable.  We could make a case for Charles Darwin or Albert Einstein, but, c'mon, they're scientists; of course they're awesome.

The answer, obviously, is no, no we can't.  MLK was clearly a theist; he was a reverend, for Pete's sake.  He claimed Christianity.  That's not necessarily the end of the question, though.

In 1949, MLK wrote a paper titled, "What Experiences of Christians Living is the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection."  Quite the explanatory title, eh?  Many believers would be shocked at the statements in it:

Although we may be able to argue with all degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and philolophically untenable*, yet we can never undermind the foundation on which they are based.

The first doctrine of our discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great process of developement . . . How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into being? . . . We may find a partial clue to the actual rise of this doctrine in the spreading of Christianity into the Greco-Roman world. . . . Through philosophical thinking the Greeks came to the point of subordinating, distrusting, and even minimizing anything physical. Anything that possessed flesh was always underminded in Greek thought. And so in order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him.

(Regarding the virgin birth) First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to shallow to convince any objective thinker. To begin with, the earliest written documents in the New Testament make no mention of the virgin birth. Moreover, the Gospel of Mark, the most primitive and authentic of the four, gives not the slightest suggestion of the virgin birth. The effort to justify this doctrine on the grounds that it was predicted by the prophet Isaiah is immediately eliminated, for all New Testament scholars agree that the word virgin is not found in the Hebrew original, but only in the Greek text which is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for "young woman." How then did this doctrine arise? A clue to this inquiry may be found in a sentence from St. Justin's First Apology. Here Justin states that the birth of Jesus is quite similar to the birth of the sons of Zeus. It was believed in Greek thought that an extraordinary person could only be explained by saying that he had a father who was more than human. It is probable that this Greek idea influenced Christian thought.

The last doctrine in our discussion deals with the resurrection story. This doctrine, upon which the Easter Faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting."

In each case, MLK ultimately concludes that there is a significant underlying spiritual reality behind each of these seemingly irrational doctrines, so we certainly have no basis for insisting that he was not a Christian . . .

Unless, of course, we were fundamentalist Christians.  I'd wager that a good number of Christians of a more traditional, literalistic bent would not hesitate to declare that if you don't believe in Jesus' literal virgin birth, divinity, and resurrection, you cannot be a Christian.  I strongly disagree; I think we could even potentially make an argument for the existence of an atheist Christian who does not believe in a literal god but who advocates and upholds the teachings of Jesus in every other way, to the exclusion of all others.  It's strange, I think that it's pretty irrational, I'd argue about one of those conclusions for a good long time, but I don't think that the concepts of 'atheist; and 'Christian' must necessarily be mutually exclusive in the way that 'atheist' and, for example, 'theist' are.

Again, if we are going to include the acceptance of specific supernatural assertions as being necessary to consider oneself a Christian, we wouldn't have to go far to exclude MLK.

Another paper, again from 1949, describes what MLK considers to be "fundamentalism," of which he does not speak highly, to say the least.  Particular attention should be paid to the last paragraph:

When the fundamentalist comes to the nature of man he finds all of his answers in the Bible. The story of man in the garden of Eden gives a conclusive answer. Man was created by a direct act of God. Moreover, he was created in the image of God, but through the workings of the devil man {was} lead into disobedience. Then began all human ills: hardship and labor, the agony of childbirth, hatred, sorrow, suffering, and death. The fundamentalist is quite aware of the fact that scholars regard the garden of Eden and the serpent Satan and the hell of fire as myths analogous to those found in other oriental religions. He knows also that his beliefs are the center of redicule by many. But this does not shake his faith--rather it convinces him more of the existence of the devil. The critics, says the fundamentalist, would never indulge in such skeptical thinking if the devil hadn't influenced them. The fundamentalist is convinced that this skepticism of scholars and cheap humor of the laity can by no means prevent the revelation of God.

Others doctrines such as a supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are all quite prominant in fundamentalist thinking. Such are the views of the fundamentalist and they reveal that he is oppose to theological adaptation to social and cultural change. He sees a progressive scientific age as a retrogressive spiritual age. Amid change all around he was {is} willing to preserve certain ancient ideas even though they are contrary to science.

Again, as far as I'm concerned, MLK claimed Christianity, so he's a Christian.  Still, how many Christians would read that last paragraph and conclude that the author could not possibly be a "believer"?

Moreover, MLK obviously had a thing for ethics and social justice, for which he is rightly known.  In all his writings, he basically never appeals to the Bible or the direct will of God for his moral position.  In "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," he explains his opinion of the morality of the "Natural Law," but then he immediately defines the Natural Law in explicitly humanistic terms:

An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

He goes on to give and explain examples of specific injustices wrought by segregation.  True, the "Natural Law" is traditionally understood as a theistic morality, but MLK defines it completely differently.

So MLK was indeed a Christian.  He claimed Christianity.  We can't claim him for the atheist camp.  We can, however, claim him as a liberal.  We can certainly claim him, perhaps most importantly, as a skeptic and a humanist.

Trust me, I’m a doctor.

Tomorrow is the last day if my internship. Today, my fieldwork instructor handed me a passing grade for my fieldwork.

As I was walking up to the second floor to make copies of my paperwork, I realized something.

Right then, at that moment, I became a holder of a doctoral degree in occupational therapy. I became a doctor.

Dr. Ziztur.

Okay, so Ziztur is not my real name, but you get the idea.

I could be like all of those silly creationists out there and flaunt my credentials. I think it is especially entertaining when they show off their doctoral degrees twice, or include their bachelor's degree, like this:

Dr. Ziztur, B.A., OTD.

Tomorrow, my grade will be recorded and it will be officially official. The funny thing is that this is not exactly like I imagined it. It did not happen all at once. I had a graduation ceremony in May, when all of my coursework was completed. It was all fanfare and grandiose but a symbol of something not yet conferred – that would not be conferred for another seven months.

I unofficially became a doctor when my fieldwork instructor signed off that I had passed my internship. I have completed all of my work, and all of my study required of me to attach that title to my name. I will never, ever stop learning, but I will officially be a doctor when the grade is recorded tomorrow. It happened in small steps, that's the way life works. It's not like when you finally get handed the keys to your new car, or you finally get married, or when you finally graduate high school.

Becoming a doctor was walking down the halls at the medical center to make a copy of your paperwork. Only, I think I walked a little taller.

Strawman for climategate?

I've got one (1) week of my internship left and then I graduate! This means that I will have more time to blog. It also means I will be looking for some type of gainful employment. That aside…

The other day I was listening to the local Christian radio station. Someone on air was talking about "Climategate", the incident in which climate scientists' emails were hacks and posted on the internet, revealing that scientists use words like "trick" and "hide" and that those words can be usurped as the smoking gun that global warming is a myth.

On this program, the radio personality (unfortunately, I forget who) actually made the argument that there was no way humans could fuck up the earth because god made the earth for us to use, and we can't expect to be such a powerful force as to muck up god's great planet. Therefore, global warming is a myth invented by power-hungry scientists who are trying to elevate themselves to godly levels because they crave power and the ability to control others.

…

Yes, they actually made that argument. Here I was thinking that said argument was nothing more than an absurd strawman invented by critical thinkers to mock believers. Apparently I was giving some people too much credit.

The Manhattan Declaration; Part 6

Wrapping up the Manhattan Declaration, with their arguments (a term I use very loosely indeed, here) and examples of the religious freedom of Christians being infringed upon:

"We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses . . ."


Easy answer - if you don't want to do work of a given type (because of moral or religious objection or any other reason) then don't take the job.  I'm always entertained by how they only ever think of Christian doctors whose job involves women who might get abortions or need contraception, or Christian organizations who might not get to discriminate against homosexual couples, or some such bit of Christian fundamentalist dogma.  There are a million examples of other beliefs that are just grossly violated if somebody, for some idiotic reason, takes a job that involves things that they believe to be immoral.  What about a vegan who takes a job at a meat-packing plant?  What about a pacifist who joins the military?  There are even some kookier fringe believers who believe that blood transfusions are a sin; should hospitals and other health care businesses and organizations be forced to hire these folks and permit them to refuse to administer such procedures?


"We see it in the use of antidiscrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business."

This is an old question - how much discrimination should the government forcibly forbid?  Well, I would just ask the supporters and signers of the MD:  Would you be okay with businesses or organizations  refusing to serve Christians?  Do such establishments have a right to be discriminatory against Christians, in the same way that you're claiming a right to discriminate against others?


"After the judicial imposition of "same-sex marriage" in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching."

Yes, the Catholic Church ceased it charitable activities because they were told that they couldn't discriminate against gay couples anymore.  The Church made their priorities crystal clear - with a choice between continuing to do material good in the world and maintaining their discriminatory doctrine while ceasing to do that good, they chose the latter.  Again, to the supporters of the MD, what would you think of an organization that believed that Christian homes are so intrinsically hostile to children that they universally refuse to place orphaned children with Christian couples?  What would you think of them if the government told them that they had to stop their discriminatory policy, or they would be risking their tax-exempt status, and they responded by stopping their charity work altogether?

"In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital "civil unions" scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions."

This bit doesn't actually reference the incident that it's referring to (no surprise there - you may have notices that the MD doesn't reference any of it's claims).  If it's referring to this semi-famous incident, though, they're being dishonest again.  This was not a Methodist organization being forced to carry out a wedding ceremony, it was a tiny pavilion on a beach that had been open to the public but that they now decided was off-limits to gay couples blessing civil unions.  In the words of a lawyer representing a lesbian couple who was denied by the group, the pavilion is open to everyone — and therefore the group could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man.  The Methodist group was also not "stripped of its tax exempt status," it was stripped of it's tax exemption only for the small pavilion area that they barred gay couples from.

"In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality."

Citation needed.  I've heard of a few religious people being basically scolded for disruptive behavior, nothing more.  If there is more, I want to look into it.  You'll be disturbed to know where they're going with this, though:

"New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here."

Um, hate-crime legislation only addresses motivations of violent crime.  I am alarmed and appalled that the MD is concerned over a law's effect on their ability to "preach" their religious beliefs when that law only addresses violent attack.

They go on to use really, really scary language about how the destruction of religious freedom will allow society to devolve into complete tyranny.  Again, entertaining, seeing as how this entire document's central idea is that the government should enforce their specific religion.

"In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.""

They don't stop hammering this.  They would have a point; I strongly disagree with any restriction on the religious speech of anybody.  Except for one thing:  Nobody is telling anybody to stop preaching!  It's a lie (repeated over and over again in the MD) that any Christians are being prevented from preaching in America.

"There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail."

The hilarious part is this:  By King's argument, we should be discussing whether gay men and women, along with their progressive, ethical friends, family, and fellow citizens, should be contemplating civil disobedience in favor of gay rights.  The MD, of course, seems to have concluded that it is Christians who should be contemplating civil disobedience because they might not be permitted to uphold their doctrine (even though their fundamentalist doctrine is unambiguously discriminatory).

In any event, I agree wholeheartedly that Letter from a Birmingham Jail is an extraordinarily eloquent reasoning for principled defiance of unjust authority, except for one thing - King clearly does not base his ethical reasoning on Biblical theology - his reasoning is entirely humanistic.  Similarly, he does indeed quote several thinkers from the Christian church, yet all such statements are secular and humanistic in nature, such as, "I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."  He mentions St. Thomas Aquinas and the 'natural law,' but he immediately goes on to define what he considers the 'natural law' to be in completely secular, humanistic terms.

I have more to say about Martin Luther King Jr., but I think he deserves his own blog post.  The capstone to the Manhattan Declaration:

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

We don't want to make you participate in abortions, "embryo-destructive" research, or assisted suicide.  However, we also won't let you force these religious beliefs of yours on others.  You are similarly welcome to refuse to bless sexual partnerships that you consider to be immoral, but you may not enshrine your bigotry against such partnerships into law, and we will also exercise our right to point out how primitive and downright childish are your doctrines of sexual morality.  We fully render your rights and freedoms to believe these things to you, but under no circumstances will we surrender the rights and freedoms of others that you would take away.

The Manhattan Declaration; Part 5

The last little bit about the Manhattan Declaration; their last point is about religious liberty.  This might seem strange to some.  To their credit, many religious groups and secular groups alike have roundly criticized the UN's anti-blasphemy regulations.  Frankly, from the M. Document so far, I would have bet any amount of money that such an example of an actual violation of freedom of religion is not what the MD has in mind.  So what on earth is the MD complaining about when it insists that Christians will defend their rights of religious freedom?

"Religious liberty is not a novel idea or recent development, but is grounded in the character of God Himself . . ."

The character of . . . which God, again?  Because, of course, the Bible is just oozing with religious freedom.  Yeah, I'm a little sarcastic, but . . . DAMN.  Do we really need to go over all the times in the Bible that God killed or commanded the deaths of people for not worshiping him?

The MD goes on to declare that "No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will . . ."  I agree, of course, but, again, I think that it's clear that they betray the noble, ethical principles that they claim to uphold just a few sentences later:

"It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law-such persons claiming these "rights" are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife."

How many ways can a document be horrifyingly dishonest and unethical in just a single big-ass sentence?

First off; biased language.  I think it's . . . disingenuous, at least, to say that the pro-choice position can be honestly summed up as advocating for the right to "kill the unborn."  I don't say that pro-choice people are those who 'assert a right to control women's bodies,' do I?  That would be a strawman of their position.  More balanced and objective if the description was, "Pro-choice people assert that a fetus should not reasonably be considered a "person, . . ."  In the same way, to those pro-life folks out there, which of these two statements about your opinion on the matter is more honest:  Pro-life people assert a right to control women's reproductive decisions, or, pro-life people assert that a fetus (or unborn child, if you prefer) has a "personhood."?

Secondly, nobody is asserting a "right to kill the . . . aged and disabled."  This bit is so dishonest, it amounts to an outright lie.  The "pro-choice" position here is that, for example, a person with a chronic, incurable illness that leaves them in a great deal of pain should have the right to decide how to end their own life.  Our position is NOT that we should be able to kill them if we want.  This is effectively the exact opposite of our position.  It is the MD and those who endorse it who advocate forcing something on such persons against their will (sometimes, in the case of some conditions, basically amounting to torture).

Thirdly, we're also wrong to believe that we have "a right to engage in immoral sexual practices"?  What's the solution - government "sexual security" cameras in our bedrooms?  Police raids on people's homes if a neighbor tips them off that they think a gay couple is living next door?  Should Ziztur and I set a court date and hire a lawyer because I put parts of me into parts of her without a wedding ring on?  If you think that these are absurd mischaracterizations of their position, then honestly, if we really shouldn't have the freedom to have sex that the MD declares is 'immoral,' then what the fuck are they suggesting that we do about it?

Fourthly, "even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law . . ."  I've been over this, so I'll just briefly reiterate.  Yes, it's true; we think that it's wrong to outlaw certain couples from getting married just because your religion says that they shouldn't be able to.  I personally think that this follows naturally from your religion being obviously false, but many other Christians recognize that it's immoral to force other people to follow your religious doctrines through the law.  Which brings me to . . .

The fifth major, painfully obvious failure of this single sentence (by my count, at least; I would not be surprised to learn that someone else could identify others).  They actually said it themselves in the previous paragraph:  "No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will . . ."  I am fucking flabbergasted that someone could type that sentence while simultaneously claiming that:

-Women must carry their pregnancies to term against their will because God says so.
-People in chronic pain have no right to decide how to end their own life because God says so.
-The government must exclude gay men and women from a number of socially and financially advantageous rights because God says so.
 -They even imply that people have no right to make private sexual decisions at all if they are "immoral," presumably because God says so.

It's not complicated - The MD acknowledges the ethical statement "No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will . . ."  In this very same document, they discuss over and over how people should be compelled by law to obey their specific religious doctrines.  They are doing it fucking wrong.

Sixth and finally, we have the bright red cherry topping this horseshit sundae, "those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments. . ."  Again, this is so dishonest it amounts to an outright lie.  Regardless of whatever other issues there are in a debate about religious freedom of expression, nobody is advocating for restricting their freedom of speech.  I'll make fun of such a seemingly idiotic document like the MD all day long, but I'll never say that they can't express their religious beliefs.  Saying that we're trying to actively infringe upon the freedom of Christians to even simply express their religion is the sort of bizarre claim that really needs to be backed up with specific examples and references.

Tomorrow, we'll get into the specifics of the examples that they offer, and wrap up this ridiculous document.

I’m interviewing Ray Comfort

Ray Comfort, the person who wrote You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But you Can't Make Him Think and who recently published a 150^th anniversary edition of Origin of Species with a special 50 page introduction, has agreed to do an email interview with me on this blog.

You might remember that we analyzed all (and I mean all) of Ray Comfort's You Can Lead… and so getting to correspond with Comfort after all of that blog fodder is an interesting prospect. Obviously, Comfort and I disagree on a great many things, but we can certainly still have a civil conversation with each other.

Comfort actually answers a lot of questions in interviews that are challenging to his viewpoint, but I'd like to ask some out of the box questions – something he might not hear everyday. Here are some I am thinking of asking:

A very odd thing happens when I try to talk to Christians about this apologist named Ray Comfort – none of them seem to know who you are! Do you think you're more well-known to atheists or to Christians, and why?

If you take a gander at statistics, you'll see that the rate of crime has fallen since 1990. There are lots of different theories floating around as to why this is. What's your take?

You're voting in a local election, and you have a choice of voting for two candidates: one candidate advocates all of the policies you advocate for, and seems rather intelligent, qualified and is an atheist. The other candidate stands against all of the policies you stand for, does not seem qualified, seems a little dim and is a Christian. Who do you vote for and why?

Have you ever been really stumped by a question someone asked you on the blog or on the street? If so, what question stumped you?

What do you think of all of the atheist billboards that are going up across the USA?

Do you think that atheists and theists should try to coexist? Why or why not? How?

Obviously, I have read your entire book (You Can Lead an Atheist To Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think), given that on my blog I responded to something on almost every page. What books by modern biologists or atheists have you read? Have you read any to the same depth?

Do you guys have anything you're just dying to ask him?

3H1P: We need more questions!

3H1P is a blogging project wherein three heathens (Ziztur, Flimsy and Petter) and one pastor (Keith) answer questions posed by readers of the blog and discuss various issues related to religion, philosophy, science, etc.

Seriously, you guys gave us some great questions for 3H1P (3 heathens, 1 pastor) to answer, but our supply of interesting questions has dwindled down to a few that can really only be effectively answered by Pastor Keith. Questions like the one The Beautiful Kind posed:

In Genesis, the bible says that god created light on the
first day and the sun on the fourth day of creation. What was the
original light source?

Are awesome, but the 3 heathens look at this question and think, "My, isn't the literal interpretation of Genesis silly?" and that's about all we can muster.

If you'd like a question about religion, politics, science, philosophy, morality, or anything else interesting that catches your fancy pondered by 3 heathens and 1 pastor, ask it in the comments section! Leave your name too so we know who you are, and then sit back and wait for our brains to turn.

Harriet Hall teams up with Oprah, whaa!?!

Last night, Michael Shermer tweeted this message via his @michaelshermer account:

"Just got fantastic news! Dr. Harriet Hall, our very own SkepDoc columnist for Skeptic, just got hired by O (Oprah) magazine as a columnist!"

Harriet Hall is one of my heroes. She blogs at Science Based medicine and has a column in Skeptic magazine. She typical blogs skeptically about topics such as hoodia, colds, food, medicine, acupuncture, homeopathy etc. Oprah is a peddler of the wooest of woo, hosting a television show credulously about the same topics (among others) and giving a voice to people such as Jenny McCarthy, Mrs. Anti-vax Queen.

I'm skeptical. I respect Mr. Shermer, but I dare not fall into the trap of trusting people merely because I respect them. I want verification that this impossible alliance has occurred. Then, I'll know that hell has actually frozen over. Is this a prank - A rumor - A twisted, sick joke - A skeptical gift? Someone please tell me! I need evidence!

Allow me to express my disbelief: whaaa?? errrr? huh? speofggtuu? Brain go eh?

Thanks.

D.J. Grothe becomes president of the JREF!

The James Randi Educational Foundation has announced that my good friend D.J. Grothe has become the new president of the foundation!

In a press release, the JREF announced today that current president Phil Plait will be leaving to pursue an opportunity in television, and so the JREF has elected D.J. based on his fantastic career promoting skepticism and scientific understanding. I am confident that D.J. will build upon the greatness of the JREF to make it ever more amazing.

Don't worry St. Louis skeptics - D.J. is not leaving us behind. You can have him Mr. Randi, but you're going to have to share.

3H1P: Keith on morality of witnesses

3H1P is a blogging project wherein three heathens (Ziztur, Flimsy and Petter) and one pastor (Keith) answer questions posed by readers of the blog and discuss various issues related to religion, philosophy, science, etc. If you have a question that you'd like to see answered by 3H1P, ask it in the comment box. We promise we'll probably get to it. The following comment is asked by Lord Runolfr, a long time reader/commenter of this blog (he even wrote a guest post here, just because he felt like it). It is answered (sort of) by Keith.

I guess this is as much for Pastor Keith as anyone.

There was a very serious crime a few weeks ago, right around Halloween: a high school girl was assaulted by a gang outside of a dance. I remember hearing it discussed on a talk radio show while I was driving through Birmingham.

Leaving aside the crime itself and how the criminals should be treated, the host expressed his outrage at the fact that there were a dozen or more witnesses to the crime who did nothing about it. Their inaction left him completely flabbergasted.

If it's morally wrong for people who are witnesses to a crime to do nothing whatsoever to stop it, what about God?

If...

1) You believe God exists, and

2) You believe God has the power to intervene in human affairs, and

3) God is aware of essentially everything happening on Earth, and

4) You believe that taking some kind of action to stop a horrible crime in progress is the morally correct thing to do,...

... then why consider God any sort of moral authority when He routinely allows horrible crimes to occur without taking any action?

-Lord Runolfr

Lord Runolfr,

Thanks for the good question. The short answer is this: I believe that this universe was created to provide objective witness to the power of love. If I, as a part of this world, interfere at my own risk to save another … I have helped further the purpose of this world's existence. If God, as not part of this world, interferes to stop an evil … He would actually invalidate the world's objectivity. This is why it is immoral for me to fail to stop the injustices I witness, and not immoral for God to witness injustices and not immediately intervene.

Since I'm offering a version of the argument from free will, let me dive deeper into this question by responding to one of Flimsyman's comments in the Ziztur's initial post on the morality of witness. I will respond to Flimsy from this point out, but hopefully eavesdropping will help answer your question in more detail. Thanks!

Flimsyman said:

"The most annoying thing, to me, about the problem of evil is the inevitable theist response - "free will." Seriously, I've never heard a theist respond to the problem of evil with anything other than "free will." The claim is that God must allow human beings to commit such immoral acts because if he infringed upon our free will by stopping us, moral right and wrong would lose all meaning, since we could never choose to perform an immoral act.

Two obvious responses to this theology: Firstly, it doesn't address all the voluminous "natural" evil, not caused by human action, that occurs - everything from rarities like earthquakes and erupting volcanoes to relatively common diseases and birth defects. Secondly, none of these theists believe that the government or police are removing all meaning from moral right and wrong by preventing criminals from committing crime. What . . . do people actually trust the government to intervene in such a way that our free will is preserved, yet believe that God is incapable of finding a solution himself?"

Flimsy,

I respectfully disagree with your counter to the argument that free will. First, I don't consider the danger of removing free will being that it robs morality of its meaning ... rather I consider the problem with removing free will is that this world would no longer be objective. Certainly, the interference of a deity to prevent evil would violate the objectivity of this world.

Second, your first point suggested that it does not account for "all the voluminous "natural" evil, not caused by human action, that occurs." I do not think it is possible to prove that human action could not have spawned "natural" evil over the past years and years and years of human decision (for example, global warming is considered by many to be a man-caused action ... yet could be considered a "natural" evil in a couple hundred years or sooner).

Third, law enforcement can subjectively put a stop to evil because they are participants within this universe. In no way would this disqualify the objectivity of this world.

Finally, I have never heard a Christian say that God will never deal with evil. In fact, nearly all (if not all) forms of Christianity point to a time where God will put an end to evil and usher in a new world - one that is subjectively moral in the way you suggest this world should be. In that world, there will be no death, disaster, etc. If this proves true, God's morality is intact … for surely it is not immoral to be unable to stop an injustice, and also not immoral to stop that injustice the moment one is able.

I cannot speak for other Christians, and I am also confident that the argument from free will has been thrown at you before as an excuse to not wrestle more deeply with the problem of evil in this world. However, we know each other well enough for you to know that I am legitimately persuaded that the reason that God does not interfere with specific occurrences of evil is that this world was created to provide an objective testimony to the power of love … and that I neither turn a blind eye to or remain unaware of the evils that I run into in this world. One of the reasons that I give myself to the causes I do is that I believe that we have also been given the free will to do good. Bridging gaps between theists & atheists is one of the many ways we both try to use the life we have on this earth to make the world better. Thanks for letting me partner with you guys in doing that. One thing we all agree on is that human inaction in the face of injustice, misunderstanding, or hatred is not the path for us … whether theist or atheist. And to me, that's moral. Thanks!

The Manhattan Declaration; Part 4

More from the Manhattan Declaration.  Yep, still ranting about gay marriage.  Remember, I had warned you that the closest thing to an argument in their whole section on gay marriage just repeatedly hammers the old, standard "marriage is about making babies" line?  This bit has me scratching my head:


". . . loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation.  That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation."

Um . . . what?  Read that again.  They specifically mention "procreation" as the basis of the marriage, yet they immediately point out that it's just downright stupid to disolve a marriage on the grounds that the couple cannot procreate!  How can they not see the blatant inconsistency here?


The only thing I can think of is that they could be claiming that, specifically, a penis being inserted into a vagina is the basis of marriage.  That it is . . . some kind of procreation "ritual," not the actual reproduction, that matters.  What material difference there is, specifically and in terms of procreation, between the sex of an infertile couple and the sex of homosexual partners, well, they don't elaborate.   Either reproduction is the basis, or it is not.  The whole premise of this inane argument is ridiculous - would they lobby for a couple, one male, one female, who are asexual, with no sexual desire at all, but who wish to adopt, to be forbidden to marry?  Why, then . . . horror of horrors, not a single penis or vagina in use at all!


". . . it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships.  Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships?"


Honestly?  Easy answer.  Yes, they should be, and no, they wouldn't.


"The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential."

Um, isn't that exactly what you, the Christian, heterosexual majority, are doing?  This is exactly what has been done throughout all of marriage's history.  It has been redefined to mean a union of choice and mutual love, instead of one arranged or forced.  It has been redefined to include interracial couples.  It has been redefined, starting with polygyny, to mean a union of one man and only one woman, then again to mean a union of one man and many, many women,and back again.   If redefining it again will make the institution worse off, then make that case.  The Manhattan Declaration, though, has NOT done this; it has simply tried to scare people with emotionally-charged, prejudice-exploiting language.


". . . it is the duty of the law to recognize and support [marriage] for the sake of justice and the common good.  If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow.  First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized."


Oh, I see.  The government must recognize and uphold your religious opinion, even if it's discriminatory to others and clearly excludes other people's religious opinions, or you will consider your own religious freedoms to be violated.  It should be obvious that there are religious persons who disagree with your traditional view of marriage; what of their religious freedom?  By this tortured logic, isn't their religious freedom being violated when the government specifically enforces your view of marriage?


"Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as "marriages" sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral."


Yes, there is a role in public education in promoting a healthy, humanistic societal ethic, or, at the very least, mildly discouraging blatant, outright prejudice.  If there is a rational reason for declaring gay men and women to be immoral people, then make that case.  Sorry, but until then, you are, by definition, a bigot, and you cannot use the public schools to disseminate your bigotry.


"Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends."


Not to get too intellectually elitist, but blah, blah, blah.  There's been no attempt, at all, to make this case so far.  No case that marriage should be intrinsically between one man and one woman, and no specifics of the "damage" of the terrible, terrible gay marriage.  Only repeated, vague statements about how society will somehow be irreparably harmed if certain people are allowed to get married.


"And so it is out of love (not "animus") and prudent concern for the common good (not "prejudice"), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture."


Your position would have more credibility if you went after divorce instead of gay marriage, given how much more often divorces occur than gay marriages would occur.  Also, given that Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality, but he did specifically state that Christians should not allow divorce, it seems to be the big J's higher priority, too.


"The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God's creation covenant."


Firstly, no, it doesn't, as I mentioned in the last installment of this review, the Bible gives highest honors to men like Jesus and Paul, who never touch a woman at all, and both of them explicitly stated that all Christians should refrain from marriage if they possibly can.  Secondly, the Bible also teaches that marriage, that central part of God's creation covenant, is between one man and as many women as he can afford.


"Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church."


Yes, the Bible often compares "husband and wife" to "Christ and his church."  Um . . . isn't the church expressly subservient to Jesus Christ in all things?  So . . . Christian marriage is unambiguously sexist.  Nice.  Topping it off with a great note, there.

Next time; their final point:  Religious freedom.  Yes, after all this, they actually end the Declaration with a supposed oath to defend religious freedom.  We'll see how that turns out.

The Manhattan Declaration; Part 3

The second main point of the Manhattan Declaration, predictably, refers to gay marriage, and it's quite long.  There's so much madness here, I'll need to split this one point of theirs into two blog posts on it's own.

"In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself."

So, obviously, filthy atheists like Ziztur and I should not be permitted to marry.  Being incapable of "the transmission of life," neither should anybody be issued a marriage permit if they are infertile or elderly.  Yes, I know, these are the same objections to this stupid reproductive argument that we've all heard before, but I intend to keep repeating them until I hear a decent answer to them.  This spectacularly bad argument makes up the vast majority of their text on "marriage," and this point about gay marriage has more text than either of the points about abortion or freedom of religion.  They just hammer this "natural reproductive nature" of "true" marriage over and over again.

"In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem."

Jesus Christ of Nazareth, claimed to be perfect in every single way, never married.  Paul never married.  Actually, highest biblical honors are given to men who don't ever touch women, and the Bible states as much.  Matthew 19, 10-12: 

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."  Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.  For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Paul likewise says, "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. . . .  I wish that all men were as I am. . . .  Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. . . .  I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. . . ."

Etc., etc., etc.  Anti-gay marriage folks always go on and on, in very emotionally-charged language, how important marriage is.  Not only should this rhetoric illustrate how important it is to give marriage rights to everyone, including gay men and women, but it is also directly contrary to the Bible.

"Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society."

Um, no.  A cultural respect for individual freedom and human rights is far more important, for one thing.  Nazi Germany had marriage.  Imperialist Japan had marriage.  Islamic fundamentalism has marriage.  Etc., etc., etc.  Even if this weren't obviously false, again, arguing for the extraordinary value of marriage only illustrates the importance of protecting the marriage rights of everyone.

"Perhaps the most telling - and alarming - indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate.  Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent.  Today it is over 40 percent.  Our society - and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average - is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair."

Except that rising rates of out-of-wedlock birth over the last fifty years would primarily affect crime rates in the last 15-20 years, as those "illegitimate" children reached adolescence and adulthood.  So have crime rates went up or down in the last 15-20 years?  Down.  Sharply.  So, the document is dead wrong.

"We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage.  Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same."

This is what really gets my blood up over the earlier claims about Christians and Christian churches being the ones responsible for abolition, women's suffrage, and civil rights.  They can't examine Christian history with open-minded ethical humility when it comes to those social evils that the Bible explicitly condones, but they are aware of, ashamed of, and need to repent of the fact that some Christians occasionally get divorced?  WTF.

"We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it.  Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners."

This would be a nice sentiment and all, except for two things:  One, they are still describing a person's private sexual choices as immoral without any justification.  If we said this about anyone else's private decisions that don't infringe upon the rights of others in any way, we would transparently expose ourselves as bigots.  Two, this statement, and the larger context in which it appears, illustrates a profound prejudice.  They are trying to claim humility with this seeming recognition that there are other forms of sexual immorality besides homosexuality.  My question is simple:  If homosexual relationships are no worse than premarital or extra-marital sex, pornography, and/or divorce, they why aren't they lobbying for any of these acts to be restricted by law?  Any one of these other forms of "sexual immorality" are far, FAR more widespread than homosexuality, so why are they ignoring them to focus so exclusively on the terrible gays folks?

More about gay marriage next time; like I said, they have a lot to say about how dangerous the monstrous gay folks are.

3H1P: morality of witnesses

3H1P is a blogging project wherein three heathens (Ziztur, Flimsy and Petter) and one pastor (Keith) answer questions posed by readers of the blog and discuss various issues related to religion, philosophy, science, etc. If you have a question that you'd like to see answered by 3H1P, ask it in the comment box. We promise we'll probably get to it. The following comment is asked by Lord Runolfr, a long time reader/commenter of this blog (he even wrote a guest post here, just because he felt like it). It is answered (sort of) by Ziztur. I say sort of because I didn't really answer it. Instead, I pondered…


There was a very serious crime a few weeks ago, right around Hallowen:
a high school girl was assaulted by a gang outside of a dance. I
remember hearing it discussed on a talk radio show while I was driving
through Birmingham.

Leaving aside the crime itself and how the criminals should be
treated, the host expressed his outrage at the fact that there were a
dozen or more witnesses to the crime who did nothing about it. Their
inaction left him completely flabbergasted.

If it's morally wrong for people who are witnesses to a crime to do
nothing whatsoever to stop it, what about God?

If...
1) You believe God exists, and
2) You believe God has the power to intervene in human affairs, and
3) God is aware of essentially everything happening on Earth, and
4) You believe that taking some kind of action to stop a horrible
crime in progress is the morally correct thing to do,...

... then why consider God any sort of moral authority when He
routinely allows horrible crimes to occur without taking any action?

-Lord Runolfr

Admittedly, this question is not one I can really answer. The idea of some god as a moral authority does not make sense to me (and before someone says: "saying that something does not make sense is not a good argument", know that I am not using "this doesn't make sense" as an argument. I've written about god being a source of morality many times on this blog) Morality should be decided by the application of reason to reality. My personal leanings regarding morality are fairly close to the natural ethic explained by Jeff Schweitzer in Beyond Cosmic Dice: Moral Life in a Random World. I find the whole idea of there being a personal god who allows horrific suffering on earth and who does nothing about it to be morally bankrupt. Why wouldn't he stop a 3 year old boy from being tortured, raped and murdered? Why would he let an infant with eczema suffer in horrific pain until death while her parents fed her homeopathic remedies? Saying that we're judging the actions of said god with our fallible human morality is a cop-out, placing god squarely in the realm of you-can't-question-land.

I think that this question of god's morality is interesting, but I think an equally intriguing question is this: what caused people to react in this way – to see a crime and do nothing about it?

For a little bit of background, here is a link to the story. Basically, during a homecoming dance, a girl was gang-raped and assaulted by high-schoolers. She was not only raped, but other students stood by and did nothing, laughed, and recorded the incident on their cell phones. My guess is that the teenagers who were involved in this indecent acted in the way they did due to several factors. Reports said that the victim struggled to fit in at school, which very likely meant that she was dehumanized, mocked, or bullied before this incident. In-group bullying is a high problem in high schools – remember high school? If a teen involved considered calling for help, they would have risked being similarly treated. When I was in high school, a group of teenage boys tied up a friend of mine with jump ropes during gym class, so I can see how that type of behavior could be magnified in more hostile situations. There is also the bystander effect, which is a phenomenon in which individuals do not help in an emergency situation because there are other people present. Teenage brains are a work in progress.

I would agree that taking action to stop a horrible crime in progress is the moral, ethical thing to do, and I also think that it is possibly morally wrong to fail to intervene when witnessing a horrible crime. The wrongness of non-intervention depends in the specifics of the crime, and we could debate for eons about whether or not crime X in situation Y warranted intervention, and of what kind. Obviously, there are some actions that are currently criminal that are in a moral gray area where some people believe they are morally wrong and others do not. I, for example, would not intervene or report the crime of someone smoking marijuana, because I do not feel that it is immoral to smoke marijuana, even though I recognize that such activity is a crime. I would absolutely intervene if I were witness to someone throwing a newborn baby in a dumpster. Obviously, there is also the trouble of putting oneself at risk of being injured if one intervenes or reports a crime. Would I intervene on behalf of someone being mugged at gunpoint? Perhaps not directly for want of my own safety, but I would certainly report such a crime.

Of course, if god existed and god had the power to intervene in human affairs, that god would be under no threat of negative repercussions or injury, so that god would be without excuse. Sure, we could blather on about free will and such, but is free will so important that a god would rather a man rape and murder a young girl than temporarily suspend the free will of the murderer to prevent the girl from suffering?

The Manhattan Declaration; Part 2

So the first part of this document declares boldly and without reservation that it was Christianity and Christianity alone that was responsible for abolition, civil rights, and most laughably of all, women's suffrage.  Ziztur and I discussed this last night, and she pointed out that such a statement could be technically true in one sense, that Christians have always constituted an overwhelming majority in America.  Thus, it wouldn't actually be possible for any of these events to occur unless they received at least some significant support from the Christian majority.

Of course, this doesn't say anything about whether Christianity was the force that originally championed these societal changes.  To my mind, it's clear that if abolition, civil rights, women's suffrage, gay rights, etc. are gates of progress that America passes through, then Christianity (as an overwhelming majority of the population) holds the key to each gate.  Yes, Christianity eventually unlocked each of these gates one by one, but the had to be dragged kicking and screaming to each one, complaining the whole time.

Obviously, Christians will strongly disagree with the conclusion that their religion seems to be intrinsically resistant to ethical, societal progress.  Here's my honest question:  If Christianity was such a champion of these specific ethical causes, then why did they continue to exist for almost two millennium after Jesus Christ?  In contrast, The United States of America, clearly founded as a Secular Humanist nation, began seriously considering these important issues right off the bat, and beginning to accomplish these goals in less than a century.

(/rant)

In any event, the main point of the Manhattan Declaration is three issues.  The first is abortion.  I won't ramble on about it for too long, for the simple reason that the Declaration doesn't even attempt to defend it's view.  I have nothing to argue against.

"A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable."

Basically, the Declaration simply states, over and over again, that they "affirm" that killing people is wrong, and so abortion is too.  This is often the form that arguments against abortion take.  As an aside, I freely admit that pro-choice arguments often take a similar form - people will simply assert that abortion is a woman's reproductive right, and how dare people take that right away.  I'm not saying that such declarations, on either side of the issue, are wrong, because not everybody always speaks specifically to persuade those who disagree.  If you're pro-choice and giving a talk to a pro-choice crowd, of course you won't get into the details of why abortion isn't morally evil.  In the same way, the Manhattan Declaration doesn't exactly seem to be intended for an audience of Secular Humanists, so it's nothing wrong with it, per se . . .

Just be aware, if you're pro-life, and you are trying to persuade others of your opinion, it might seem obvious to you that abortion is murdering an innocent person, but you will never convince a pro-choice person of this simply by stating it.  I know it's hard to believe, but no, really, we pro-choice folks don't sit around talking about how it's stupid that homicide is against the law, about how murdering innocent people should be everybody's right.  We agree with you that killing innocent people is grossly immoral.  We don't agree that a fetus should rationally be considered a "person" (or some variation of this argument).

There's some other interesting bits in this first point about abortion:

"The President says that he wants to reduce the "need" for abortion - a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available . . ."

I agree, yet it is exactly conservative Christians in America who are directly combating this goal by opposing contraception and science-based sex education.  Entertainingly, the Manhattan Declaration itself does exactly that, later on, in a different point.  I'll get to that in a future post.

"As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized."

This is the beginning of long rant about several different topics, starting with embryonic stem cells.  I'll just comment briefly on each one.  Regarding stem cells, if you say that a late-term fetus should rationally be considered a "person," I'll respectfully disagree.  If you say that a just-fertilized human egg should be considered a person, . . . honestly?  I'll probably question your sanity and basic powers of reason.  To claim that a clump of cells too small to see with the naked eye is so definitively a "person" that we should not use said clumps to save or improve countless innocent lives is bordering on certifiable.

"At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and "voluntary" euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons."

Only if, in your view, people should not have the freedom to end their life on their own terms, even if they are in extreme pain and/or have a chronic, incurable condition.  As usual, no rational explanation for this stance is provided, nor have I ever heard one.

I'll quote the entire last paragraph, beginning with universal, humanistic morality that we can all agree with, and then degenerating into a simple restatement of previous claims:

"Our concern is not confined to our own nation.  Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and "ethnic cleansing," the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS.  We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research.  And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances."

I would only point out that, again, conservative Christianity has been opposed to contraceptive and evidence-based sex education, which is the single greatest weapon against "preventable diseases like AIDS."  As well, no argument is given for embryonic stem-cell research and pro-choice stances on abortion and assisted suicide being equitable to sex trafficking and racial genocide.  If there's a connection there to make, by all means, make it.  Whatever you do, don't simply declare it and expect it to convince people who have already considered your perspective and rejected it.

Next time, the second main point of the Declaration, out of three:  Gay Marriage is evil!  Interestingly, this point receives more text than either of the others.

The Manhattan Declaration; Part 1

So, here we have, conveniently codified, the antithesis of all that Secular Humanism represents.  This link was given to us by a Christian reader and commenter.  Let's take a look.

"Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God's word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering."

There's a lot of revisionism in this thing.  It starts with slavery:

"It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery . . ."

This is always hilarious.  There were some Christians who fought against slavery, of course, but it was certainly not an exclusively Christian principle.  Likewise, there were many, many Christian organizations and churches that explicitly fought to preserve slavery.  These things are simple, unambiguous matters of history.  From Wikipedia:

[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts - Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage - Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor
... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example - Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention

Of course, these prominent Christian leaders are entirely correct; one could be absolutely buried in Biblical scripture explicitly condoning slavery.  The document continues:

"The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class."


Funny . . .  Why then did Martin Luther King Jr. so vehemently criticize the white churches of his day for their opposition to civil rights?

"And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement."

 This is laugh-out-loud wrong.  As with the above issues of slavery and opposition to civil rights, virtually all opposition to women's suffrage came from conservative Christians.  The Bible is even more transparently sexist than in it's condoning of slavery, and that's saying something.  Is it any coincidence that conservative Christian groups today still rail against "Feminism" as a force of evil?

Ziztur has pointed out many times before - in twenty years, fifty years, a hundred years, or more, however many generations it takes, eventually people will overwhelmingly look back on opposition to gay rights and gay marriage as barbaric and morally primitive, exactly as we look at issues like slavery today.  When that happens, there's no doubt that Christians will claim that it was Christianity that championed gay rights.

I can't help but notice, this document specifically mentions that "Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement."  In the same way, Christians often point to Dr. King as a Christian minister and the icon of civil rights.  Um, does it really need to be said?  Of course women supported suffrage, even some Christian women, and of course African-Americans, even Christians and ministers, opposed segregation!  Isn't it obvious that when we ask whether Christianity and/or Christian churches generally supported or opposed women's suffrage/abolition/civil rights/etc., we should look not at the few Christians who were part of the oppressed demographic, that we should look instead at the Christians who were part of the oppressing majority?  The question is not whether black Christians opposed abolition or civil rights, but whether white churches opposed them.  Similarly, we should ask not whether there were a few Christian women who supported women's suffrage, but whether a majority of male Christian leaders did so.  Hint:  They didn't, in either case.

Today, there are a very few, scattered, infrequent Christian leaders actively supporting gay marriage, and of course there are gay Christians who support gay marriage, but they are far overshadowed by religious leaders and laypersons who oppose it.  This is especially true among evangelicals, and, likewise, especially true among those who attend church at least weekly.  From 2009 Pew Research data:

The consensus is clear - Christianity does not support same sex marriage.  Let's all keep this in mind a century or so down the road.  More from the Manhattan Declaration later.

Recognize us! Now!

The process of science and the scientific method is, almost by definition, atheistic. There is a lack of god in scientific methodology and hypothesis. Hypothesis are written as: "X will have Y effect" and not, "X will have Y effect, unless god does it". Medical hypothesis are written, "Following arthroscopic knee surgery, subjects will have a measurable improvement in 6 outcome measures compared to subjects following typical knee surgery and subjects undergoing no surgery." and not, ""Following arthroscopic knee surgery, subjects will have a measurable improvement in 6 outcome measures compared to subjects following typical knee surgery and subjects undergoing no surgery – unless god decides to be a source of healing power in one of the groups.

I bring this up for a reason. Scientists do not proudly proclaim that their atheistic hypothesis was supported. When a hypothesis is refuted (and the scientist was hoping to support, rather than refute it) the scientist cannot say, "The skeptics skewed the results with their energy" or, "god just did not want my hypothesis to be supported. It's a mystery, but he will work things out in the end." We don't say, "but that's okay, people have been doing this for years and even if the statistics don't show it, I know it works. People aren't statistics". We don't have these unfalsifiable cop-outs to fall back on when we fail to support what we set out to support. We understand that science is messy, gray, nonbinary, and nuanced. Science, unless attempting to ask a specific question about god, leaves god out of the equation, out of the hypothesis, out of the methods, and out of the results.

This is a sarcastic question. It is meant to be rhetorical. Why aren't nontheists and atheists demanding that scientists give credit where credit is due? "Scientists, using atheist principals, discover new planet". "A group of scientists using atheist methodology create a new kind of superglue". "Doctors need not rely on god when practicing medicine". "Computers work because scientists did not factor god into binary language". The scientific method is one in which god does not factor in to hypothesis, methodology, and evidence – unless of course one is hypothesizing about god. One does not conduct science as if god might step in at any moment and skew the data – when the data are skewed, we assume that the skewing is not god screwing with us. Usually.

Isn't it a War on Atheism when headlines read, "Scientists explain puzzling lake asymmetry on Saturn's moon Titan" instead of, "atheistic scientists explain puzzling lake asymmetry on Saturn's moon Titan"? Even if the scientists in their personal lives aren't atheists, they didn't include the god variable in their methodology – they do research atheistically.

You're probably thinking one of three things. Either: yeah! It would be cool if scientists did that! Or: What? Ziztur, you've gone off the deep end, or: okay… Where are you going with this?

The War on Christmas (2009 or otherwise), wherein Christian groups demand that retailers specifically include the word "Christmas" at end of year holiday advertising under threat of boycott, is sort of analogous to atheists demanding that science without a god factor be recognized as atheistic. The same arguments work for either scenario. After all, science has a rich history of not including god in the scientific method. Those scientists are profiting and gaining notoriety with their work, while failing to mention that they don't add a god-factor into their equations! Why would they censor this? How dare they not include the fact that their entire methodology contains no mention of acts of god!

Needless to say, I find the whole "War on the War on Christmas" to be not only intolerant, ironic and hypocritical, but exclusionary (It's not Happy Holidays! It's Merry Christmas!), materialistic (specifically recognize our holiday by the language we choose or we will hurt your business), bigoted (how dare they mention Christmas on equal grounds with the Solstice, a holiday celebrated by witches!) and overly politically correct (minimize the offense of Christians, who are the majority, by mentioning their religious holiday by name or else).