I am just flabbergasted by this. This article in Utah's Daily Herald demonstrates how religion (in this case, Christianity and American nationalism) can so warp a person's world view that it can totally exclude any trace of rationality.

In a speech at the [Utah Republican Party] convention, Larsen told those gathered that illegal immigrants "hate American people" and "are determined to destroy this country, and there is nothing they won't do."

Illegal aliens are in control of the media, and working in tandem with Democrats, are trying to "destroy Christian America" and replace it with "a godless new world order -- and that is not extremism, that is fact," Larsen said.

At the end of his speech, Larsen began to cry, saying illegal immigrants were trying to bring about the destruction of the U.S. "by self invasion."

This is a man who has lost his mind and should be encouraged by his friends, family and colleagues to seek mental help. He's probably unfit to govern himself, let alone play an important role in governing the nation.

He put forward a resolution advocating a stricter immigration policy. Here is the first part of the text of the resolution, as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune:

Resolution opposing Satan's plan to destroy the U.S. by stealth invasion

Whereas, "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." (Revelation 12:9)

Whereas, in order for Satan to establish his "New World Order" and destroy the freedom of all people as predicted in the Scriptures, he must first destroy the U.S. There are ways to destroy a nation other than with bombs or bullets. The mostly quiet and unspectacular invasion of illegal immigrants does not focus the attention of the nation the way open warfare does, but is all the more insidious for its stealth and innocuousness.

Many of those present at the convention took umbrage with the Congressman's remarks and resolution, but stopped of calling Representative Larsen's lunacy for what it was ...

Senator Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, spoke against the resolution, saying Larsen, whom he called a "true patriot and a close friend," was embarrassing the Republican Party.

Right, the real problem here is that he's embarrassing the Republican party, not the fact that clearly the man has a dangerously distorted view of reality and is, quite literally, demonizing his political opposition and illegal immigrants in a nasty piece of xenophobic, religiously inspired bigotry.

I don't know what else to say.

In response to The anti-religious counter-crusade by greensleeves:

When I evangelize atheism, it's more a matter of evangelizing rationality, as I feel that it is a genuinely better way of looking at the world, enjoying life, and dealing with problems.

I agree completely that spirituality need not be divorced from science and logic, and feel personally that science tells a much more spiritually uplifting and fulfilling story than Bible fables, New Age mysticism or similar mumbo-jumbo. However, asserting the truth of specific, unprovable supernatural claims is the polar opposite of the scientific process and in that sense, science and religion can be very much at odds. Science has "forced" revision and outright abandonment of religious claims in the past, and it will continue to do so. Science and scientific thinking is corrosive to religion, but that, of course, shouldn't be treated as a criticism of science.

It is a common misconception that deliberate efforts to change people's minds are doomed to failure, though you are correct that a change in one's beliefs about must come from within. However, the right words spoken at the right moment can plant a seed of doubt and act as a catalyst for change. Nobody spontaneously becomes a Christian -- someone has to preach them the word of Christ, give them strong exposure to the idea. We all start out as atheists. So while it is true that a person doesn't have to be "preached" atheism to relinquish their faith, challenging someone to critically think about their religion can and does sometimes end up with the person doing just that. A fatalistic attitude isn't exactly a hallmark of successful teachers and advocates throughout history ... some atheists are fortunately smart enough to overcome their cynicism and recognize that. They state their beliefs (and disbeliefs) and why they hold with them and sometimes (like any "evangelical") they do manage conversions. I believe that I am partially responsible for at least one.

So why do I encourage the religious moderates who do not feel the need to impose on others the doctrines of their faith to question their religion, and ultimately give it up? There a few reasons.

To a certain degree it is tactics. The more dogmatic and unyielding a person is about their faith, then the less chance you generally are going to have of changing their mind -- the zealots are nearly immune to reason when it comes to anything that concerns their religion, so you can count them as something like a lost cause (though of course, there is always some hope). On the other hand, the moderates who do not let religion run every aspect of their lives are going to be the ones more amenable to opening their minds to new ways of thinking. Razzing fundamentalists is all well and good, and if done publicly may help underscore the ridiculous and damaging nature of religion in general, but that alone probably isn't going to win anyone over to a more secular, rational world-view. The way to undermine religion is to wear away at the edges and the edges in this case are religious liberals and moderates.

So that explains the tactics of targeting all religious people, including (or especially) the moderates ... but what is the reason for bothering at all?

One would be that religious moderates give cover (and sometimes support) to the zealots. In the United States we would not be having a serious debate about whether or not it is acceptable to teach evolution in public school if the majority of the population did not hold with Judeo-Christian beliefs that carry with them a certain amount of attendant sympathy and tolerance for nonsensical creationist dogma ... just to cite one example.

If you want another reason, how about money? Religion is big business. That piece of kitsch that a religious moderate might buy from the CBN or other such organization is ultimately funding the dissemination of all manner of disgusting, bigoted views, as well as a very successful lobbying effort to buy influence at the highest levels of the our nation's government.

I care about religion because George Bush, my nation's leader, is ostensibly a man of deep faith. He has benefited enormously from the support of people who like him -- or at very least, tolerate him -- in large part because he has cultivated this image of himself as a man who is trying to do right by God, which many religious people, even those who don't agree with many of Bush's policies, think this is laudable on some level. I don't -- I think it's dangerously backwards and ignorant. Though personally, I have my doubts that Bush is truly as faithful and religious as he makes himself out to be (though he is certainly irrational enough to be a devout believer) but what can't be doubted is that he likes to set policy that is blatantly influenced by religious values. There is no way this would be tolerated if America were not "a Christian nation."

Another reason would be that all organized, theistic religions on some level teach the abandonment of reason. A holy text is taught as truth, but evidence commensurate with the claims made by the religion is never proffered. Further, I'm not aware of any religion that doesn't make some positive claim about the nature of reality and what constitutes proper moral values. At their core, they are saying, "we can't offer you any evidence to believe this -- but take our word for it, this is how the world is and this how you should behave."

In other words, it not only teaches, it requires a suspension of basic critical faculties. Even if not everyone in the religious flock takes the message of every sermon to heart, I'd argue that just by virtue of being religiously inclined, one's way of thinking has been shifted towards irrationality, to their detriment and potentially to society's as well.

You see, I would prefer that people not have the religious crutch to lean on when they wonder what is right and wrong, or what is true or false. I would like for people to get in the habit of sating their curiosity about the world in such a way that doesn't ever have to start or stop at "God made it that way." I want people to have to calibrate their moral compass without the benefit of scripture, so they have to think about morality head-on, to work out rationally what it means to behave "good" or "evilly." I want them to have to realize better and deeper reasons for treating their fellow living beings with respect rather than believing it is just what God wants or that they will be conferred some reward from the supernatural for their good deeds.

I think that if we see an erosion of the moderately religious towards non-theism, (and have no doubt, we critics of religion have been enabling many conversions to non-theism) we'll eventually see the foundation for organized religions begin to crumble and their influence marginalized. In my analysis that ultimately cannot be anything but a terrific thing for our society and humanity at large.

So to put it simply, I care what others believe because ultimately I have to live with the consequences of what they believe and how they think, even when they don't go to the extremes of throwing Bibles at my head or hijacking the flight I'm a passenger on. The damage and trouble can and does come in forms less direct and more subtle than that.

In response to What makes a Christian a Christian? by mikehild:

First off, what REALLY makes a Christian?

...

Yet some religions say that only members of that particular doctrine are true Christians? Are they right?

I define a person as a Christian if they believe that Jesus Chris is Lord and died for humanity's sins. I think it's pretty rude for anyone to say, "No, you're not a Christian" if they meet that basic requirement and wants to self-identify as a Christian (not that I'd want to). If people who follow particular religious doctrines want a more exclusive term, it shouldn't be too hard to invent one.

Secondly, are Christians only Christians because they were TOLD to be? I know a great many people whom are only Christians because they grew up on it, and never stopped to think about it, they take it for granted, but didn't really FEEL it. I respect Christians that chose their path, I respect agnostics whom have looked it over and decided the other road. What I don't respect is EITHER of which that is just what their parents or friends made them, without really BELIEVING it. Believe WHAT you believe, BECAUSE you BELIEVE it, not because someone else TOLD you to believe it. Make your beliefs your own, instead of just an extension of someone elses.

I find this difficult to fathom as well. How can you "believe in" a religion and yet be generally disinterested in it? Your religion (if you are a Christian) professes to have answers about the deepest, most profound questions in the universe. It has something to say about the nature and fate of your immortal soul, that is, the part of you that supposedly isn't going to expire after a few dozen years. It has something to say about how to be a good person, and what you can do to please your creator. How can you not be interested in that?

And if you're interested in something, you should question it. Investigate it. Criticize it. Be skeptical. Think it through. Most people don't seem to really do this where religion is concerned, regardless of whether they are devoutly religious or only casually religious. This is because it's not actually something that organized religions encourage. More on this later.

I Believe in God, honestly I think those that dont are arrogant as to believe they're the greatest thing in the universe.

How do you figure this? [ed: I've added to this portion of the journal entry since posting it.] You're not specific about what you mean when we think we're the "greatest" thing in the universe.

I think that life is fantastic, and that human beings are an interesting species, and are possibly one of the most intriguing things the universe has thus far produced ... and I think that it's great that among human beings, there are some who have figured out that there is no apparent need to invoke the supernatural to explain the world or to try to find meaning in it.

I don't know if that makes us the "greatest thing in the universe" though, as human beings (including atheists) have some very ugly qualities. A statue or a rose can't be evil the way humans/atheists arguably can, so maybe that makes certain inanimate objects "greater" or at least "better" than humans/atheists in a sense.

In terms of mass and sheer grandeur, we certainly aren't the greatest things in the universe. I don't engage in sun worship, but wow, that thing is awesome in the sense that it is truly awe inspiring. On a cosmic scale, human beings are downright insignificant.

[End edit.]

I believe God made some serious mistakes. Everyone says God can do everything, but I think they're wrong--God Can't break a promise. He promised us Free Will, and because of that he limited everything else that he can do.

Some would say it's arrogant to presume to judge God. However I commend you for doing so, because what you've actually done is made the logical connection that God cannot be a simultaneously limitless, perfect, infallible and benevolent being -- because if he was, the universe would be perfect. There would be no suffering.

If God exists, he went wrong somewhere. However, many churches might indeed be say you aren't a "Christian" for believing as you do, they would say your (our) words are hubris and blasphemy, and sin ... and it's not difficult to understand why they'd have this reaction. A flawed, limited God, to most people, would not be as compelling a concept as a perfect one. A perfect God is utterly illogical, but religions don't thrive on logic, they thrive on faith. They thrive on belief in the absence of evidence. They thrive on a lack of rationality ... rationality is dangerous to religion.

If you use logic to surmise that God is a flawed, limited being, you can begin to wonder what other mistakes he might have made. Not only did us give us free will, he gave us a world that is, in ways, only marginally hospitable, a world where suffering and misery arises not as only as a direct result of bad decisions made by human beings (save perhaps a tenuous connection back to "Original Sin") but as a result of the capriciousness of the weather as well. A drought, a hurricane, a tornado occurs, and we suffer. A volcano erupts and we suffer. An imperceptible pathogen invades our bodies and we suffer. We catch a stray gamma ray, some genes mutate and we suffer.

So if you say he didn't anticipate that free will would cause us to be at each other's throats and make each other miserable, fair enough, but what about everything else? And then there's the Bible ... if you believe in the God character of the Old Testament especially, it's hard to escape the conclusion that he really doesn't seem like a nice deity. And what's this about requiring people to believe in him [absent evidence] to receive true salvation? That seems to be a pretty jealous, irrational attitude.

So then when you come down to it, you've got a limited, somewhat short-sighted God who didn't fully understand everything about his own creation before and after he set it in motion, and now seems to be rather bitter about it. He's really not all that different from gods of the old Greek and Roman pantheons in the final analysis. And so the religion doesn't look quite the same anymore ... to someone who is willing to be skeptical and critical of God, the stories and fables of his book read almost like a fantastical soap opera, rather than The beautiful, profound and ultimate Truth of Existence.

And then you're left wondering, might there be something deeper and more satisfying out there? Something more self-consistent, that perhaps offers some truer truths? Something that has more to offer than pat, unverifiable fables and homilies?

And lo, there is!

In response to My Views... by bleedingkisses:
I spontaneously decided to respond to bleedingkisses's journal where she gave a brief summary of her views on some hot-button issues. The response grew rather lengthy so I figured that rather that a blog entry of my own would probably be the best course of action, especially since I've commented at length on these issues in other people's blogs before. Instead of repeating my core opinions, I figure in the future I'll just address a person's specific points, and refer them back to this post for my general stance.

Gay Marriage: I believe that it should be legal, everyone is always talking about equality, so why does all that talk when it comes to homosexuals? We love just like everyone else does.

There are two components to marriage: the legal component and the social/cultural component. I agree that same-sex couples should be allowed to enjoy both the legal and social advantages of marriage, but I'd address each component separately.

I think we should get rid of marriages as a legal institution altogether and make civil unions available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Legally it would be functionally almost identical to marriage as it exists presently, with a few revisions. Registering for a civil union should be a relatively simple process, not requiring the hiring of a lawyer, involving only a minor fee paid to the state.

As for marriages, the state should basically ignore it. Any religious or cultural institution that wishes it to conduct marriage ceremonies could do so. In the eyes of the law, a cathedral wedding between a man and woman presided over by an arch-bishop would carry the same weight as a Pagan ritual in Rick and John's backyard that joins them as husband and husband -- absolutely none.

Socially and culturally, more conservative individuals and groups probably wouldn't respect same-sex marriages as "real marriages" -- there is not much that can be done about that in the short run, and nothing that can be done about it in terms of the law that would not be a gross violation of our civil rights. Through consciousness raising efforts (gay pride events, confrontation and rejection of bigotry in all its ugly forms) eventually we can hope to create a new tradition absent of homophobia and other useless, counterproductive parochial nonsense.

Abortion: I believe that it is wrong, I don`t care if you`re underage or your parents don`t want you to have the baby, it`s murder.. how could someone kill their own child?

Just as you question the humanity of a person who could have an abortion performed on them, I question the humanity of the organism being destroyed.

Are you against in vitro fertilization? That procedure results in the destruction of fertilized embryos, so it is functionally similar to a very early stage abortion (or miscarriage). If you are against in vitro fertilization, I would ask you to justify your position -- what logic are you using that dictates that we should entitle that simple clump of cells the same moral or legal considerations as a fully formed human being?

Or if you think that in vitro fertilization should be permitted, at what stage of an embryo's growth and development does the willful destruction of the fetus become "murder?"

What could compel a woman to abort a pregnancy? There are many possible reasons and if you have to ask this question, I doubt you've spent much time thinking about it. Here are a few considerations that might be going through a potential mother's mind (and being told to her by her doctors).

Although it is relatively safe these days, carrying a pregnancy to term always carries some risk to the health of the mother -- though some pregnancies are riskier than others because of unusual conditions suffered either by the mother or the potential child. At what point, if any, do the risks to the health of the mother make abortion an ethically justifiable option? Should women be forced to give birth to children with extreme physical deformities that make life outside the womb impossible? Should women be forced to give birth to children conceived by rape? What about the products of incest?

If you hold the position of anything but a flat denial of all abortions, then who are you investing with the power to deny (or allow) a woman to exercise choice about what happens to her own body?

And if you would flatly refuse a woman the right to choose in any situation, I would ask you to account for your apparent lack of compassion given the reality of all of the scenarios that I have outlined above. You're staking a lot on your personal conviction of what constitutes a human life -- demanding that she undergo a genuine trauma, both physical and mental and again I'd ask you to spell out explicitly what it is about a fetus that demands such weighty ethical consideration, that it supersedes concerns over the health of the mother and her own personal desires.

A couple somewhat tangential points for good measure (and these do not address anything bleedingkisses has said):

The world is over-populated already. Every child that is born is another mouth to feed, every person added to the population is a small blow to the sustainability of human civilization on this planet. We're not yet on the eve of a Malthusian crisis, but there may come a day where euthanasia and mandatory sterilization receive serious consideration as partial solutions to a serious problem. In parts of the world this has already been the case. It may sound odd, but by voluntarily not breeding (or even aborting a pregnancy), can be seen in a certain light as a noble act of conservation and humanitarianism. It sounds absurd today, but I could imagine a world where a woman aborts her pregnancy and then adopts a child shortly thereafter. I'm not endorsing abortion as a favored form of birth control (medically, if not ethically that is ridiculous), just making the point that there is something to said for having fewer births overall.

Also, I would argue that a person who doesn't want to be a parent is unsuitable to be a parent. Ideally the only people who should parent children are people who are ready to be parents and are willing to commit themselves whole-heartedly to the endeavor. To address and head off one (in my opinion, disgusting) point that is often raised in abortion debates -- having a child should never be considered a mandatory consequence of having sex.

You do not "punish" a girl for sleeping around forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term ... this notion reeks of the repugnant stench of misogyny. This argument is often paired with complaints that people have "no sense of personal responsibility" or "refuse to accept the consequences" and tellingly often includes explicit complaints about promiscuity and "slutty" behavior. I feel this is an argument that has different roots and follows a different line of logic than the "abortion is murder because the fetus is a human life" argument addressed above.

This argument arises from the perceived violation of the virtue of chastity. The idea is that when a woman has sex, she's taking a chance ... she might get pregnant, whether she wants to or not. Because people who believe strongly in the virtue of chasisty don't like the idea of girls engaging in hedonistic, wanton sexual acts (nevermind the fact that it can take as little as a minute of sexual intercourse for a woman to conceive) they think that if chance, fate or God decides that she gets pregnant, well, that's just something she should live with, even if she is unfit or unwilling to be a parent -- she should try anyway, or endure nine months of pregnancy and the pain, labor and risk of childbirth and then give the child to someone else to parent. Try for a moment to just think about what either scenario would be like if you were placed in such a situation.

The same arguments I made above apply. You're dictating some very harsh terms on the basis of a personal opinion on chasisty. The consequences of pregnancy and child birth are wildly incommensurate with a supposed moral lapse or an error in judgment in the decision to have sex. Women should be allowed to take any measures available with them to deal with the consequences of her sexual activity, short of something that crosses a clear moral line, such as true infanticide. If the woman makes the moral choice to have the child because she feels that the embryo is imbued with a human soul, or because she feels the only way to be relieved of the shame of inappropriate sexual conduct is to bear the child and raise it by herself if necessary -- then that should be her choice, not one that is made for her.

Drugs: I believe drugs are stupid and immature. If you need them to have fun the you don`t have a life. I`m not afraid to admit that i`ve tried them before but that was stupid on my part.

I am assuming you're talking about recreational drugs here, but aren't including alcohol or tobacco, since your profile indicates you sometimes drink and smoke. I'll agree that if what you're saying is that you need to get high to have fun, then there's a problem, but let's not ignore the fact that most recreational drugs can be used responsibly (more difficult to do with some than others). As I've outlined elsewhere in this blog, on the political side of things I endorse the legalization and decriminilization of most drugs, treatment of drug abuse as a medical problem rather than a criminal one, and support an expansion and improvement of drug education programs (with a greater emphasis on honesty than many present day PSAs.)

Personally, I am about as straight edged a person as you will meet, though I would be willing to experiment with certain drugs. I've tried alcohol and it doesn't really appeal to me. I am almost completely uninterested in cigarettes, and apart from peer or cultural pressure I have a hard time understanding why ever start smoking. Marijuana and LSD intrigue me, though I've never been in a situation to try them personally. I would have to feel fairly comfortable and sure about who I was purchasing them from -- and speaking of purchasing, I generally go for cheap/inexpensive forms of entertainment. Most drugs, of both legal and illegal varities, do not seem to be a very good value for the money.

Animal Cruelty: I believe that animals have feelings too, so you should treat them like humans. Their just like us.. they eat, they drink, they have babies, they go through pain and suffering.. why not leave them alone?

Are you a vegetarian? I don't think we should treat animals as we do humans, but we should be mindful of the fact that they can and do suffer and make reasonable efforts to treat them humanely. Animals do not have the same capacity for suffering as humans and human beings are a special kind of animal. This post has already run on long enough, so I'll refer anybody still interested in my rantings to my previous blog entry on the subject of vegetarians.

It's sad. Thirty-two students were violently murdered. By any moral or ethical standard, this was an act of wrongdoing, of evil, and something we can all lament, whether or not we feel the loss so keenly that we shed tears or lay down a bouquet of flowers.

Well, that is almost true. From the Westboro Baptist Church*, the folks who brought you the protest of an American serviceman killed in Iraq, comes this gem of moral and spiritual insight:

God sent a crazed madman to shoot at your children, and he didn't miss. Get this straight -- God sent this South Korean madman to kill 31 of your children at Virginia Tech. Was God asleep while this took place? Was He on vacation? Of course not. He willed this to happen to punish you for assailing His servants.

* Note that while they identify themselves as Baptists, they have no affiliation with any Baptist conventions or associations.

And yet some, such as Dinesh D'Souza see fit to ask, "Where is atheism when bad things happen?"

Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found. Every time there is a public gathering there is talk of God and divine mercy and spiritual healing. Even secular people like the poet Nikki Giovanni use language that is heavily drenched with religious symbolism and meaning.

Emphasis his. Because I am sure Mr. D'Souza is present whenever someone does or says something to grieve and mourn a tragedy, with his atheist detection kit handy. More from him:

The atheist writer Richard Dawkins has observed that according to the findings of modern science, the universe has all the properties of a system that is utterly devoid of meaning. The main characteristic of the universe is pitiless indifference. Dawkins further argues that we human beings are simply agglomerations of molecules, assembled into functional units over millennia of natural selection, and as for the soul--well, that's an illusion!

To no one's surprise, Dawkins has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. What this tells me is that if it's difficult to know where God is when bad things happen, it is even more difficult for atheism to deal with the problem of evil. The reason is that in a purely materialist universe, immaterial things like good and evil and souls simply do not exist. For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho's shooting of all those people can be understood in this way--molecules acting upon molecules.

If this is the best that modern science has to offer us, I think we need something more than modern science.

Dawkins believes and has argued very logically and convincingly in his writing and speaking that there is no ultimate arbiter of meaning in the universe called "god." The "universe" itself, acting as a whole, does not possess any intelligence that we can discern.

While the universe itself may be possessed of "pitiless indifference," at no point, any where does Dawkins or any other atheist of note claim that this means that we as humans must be, or should be, the same way. In fact, Dawkins, with his understanding of our evolutionary history, would tell you that we have evolved in such a way that it is impossible for a conscious human being to be completely indifferent and moreover, indifference is not something we should be striving towards.

The atheist, believing there is no god to give our lives meaning, simply thinks we must create the meaning for ourselves. Is it not enough to know that human beings naturally experience joy and misery for one's life to have meaning? Is it not enough to know and believe that death, for all intents and purposes, is "the end" to lament and mourn victims of murder, whose life -- whose capacity for joy and capacity to experience wonders of existence -- has been tragically cut short?

D'Souza is right about one thing, it is no surprise that Dawkins was not invited to speak at any memorial services for the victims. Richard Dawkins did not know any of the victims personally. He is not a member of the Virginia Tech staff or faculty. His profession -- a professor of evolutionary biology and author, has nothing directly to do with a madman shooting up a college campus.

If Dawkins had personally known, or been related to one of the victims, of course he would have involved himself in some of the mourning rituals. Atheists mourn the dead in a manner similar to Christians, we just do not tend to couch our eulogies in religious terms.

In fact, not long ago there was a blog-o-than on the anniversary of Carl Sagan's death, celebrating and lamenting his passing. Sagan was an atheist, as were many of the bloggers who had kind and touching words to say about his life and his death, and posted links to his videos, excerpts of his writings, remembering what he contributed and passing it along so a new generation could benefit from his life's work.

Perhaps we did not pray to him, perhaps we did not take joy or comfort in a fantasy that he is in a paradise realm singing with angels -- but we did take joy and comfort in remembering and re-experiencing his life in our memories. It wasn't "science" or "atheism" that gave us that comfort, but our humanity -- which we all have, independent of religion, and I would argue, is all we really need.

I was recently editing my profile, trying to clarify what it means when I declare myself an "atheist (and very serious about it)" where OkCupid solicits our religious belief. I realized that this clarification was getting to be rather lengthy. My profile is already rather long, so I figured it would make more sense to give a brief clarification in my profile and link to a more lengthy journal entry (the one you're reading now) for those interested.

The first thing I want to explain about atheism is that it is not a religion. As I recently heard someone put it; "Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby." I can excuse OkCupid for listing atheism and agnosticism under the "religions" details category because there is really no other category that is appropriate, unless they were to perhaps rename it "Religion/Philosophy/Personal World View" or something similarly unwieldy, or give atheism and agnosticism their own categories. I could select "N/A" as my religion, as that would be most appropriate, but it doesn't convey as much information to the casual profile browser. I'll come back to why I describe myself as "very serious about it [atheism]" later.

So then, to get down to it, what is atheism? As I just suggested, it's a world view.. To find out what atheism actually means, indulge me as I break the word down into its constituent components. Here is the word: atheism. The a part is means without. So atheism means "without theism." Theism (from theos) means "a belief in God or gods." Thus, to be atheist is to be "without belief in God or gods."

Note that being without belief in something is different from not believing that thing is possible. I do not believe that space aliens have visited Earth in the past. I do believe it is possible that they have done so. By default, we all tend to "not believe" anything unless we are convinced otherwise (we are presented with compelling evidence or arguments), or unless it seems probable/intuitively true. Atheists believe there is no compelling evidence for God and do not think his existence is probable. Atheists can, however, believe that it is possible that God exists.

Atheists are more or less divided up into two camps. There are what some people call agnostic atheists or weak atheists, who do not believe that God (or gods) exist -- but think it is possible that they do exist, and do not claim absolute knowledge that they do not exist. Then there are what some call gnostic atheists, or strong atheists who do not believe that God exists and, moreover, believe they know that God doesn't exist, or that his existence is not improbable, but impossible. Most atheists (including myself) fall into the former camp, agnostic/weak atheism.

Some might ask, "Isn't weak atheism the same as agnosticism?" Not quite. Atheism and agnosticism are actually the answers (or approaches) to two subtly different questions. Atheism or theism concerns the question of belief in God. Agnosticism or gnosticism address the question of whether or not God is known or knowable.

If someone were to ask me the question, "Do you believe God exists?" I would say, "No, I am atheist."

If someone were to ask me the question, "Can we know that God exists?" I would say, "No, I am agnostic."

Now, why is this debate on semantics and philosophic particulars important? There is a common misunderstanding of what it means to be atheist that leads believers and even non-believers (who usually call themselves "agnostics") that atheists hold a position that is fundamentally untenable or hypocritical. What these critics say is, "Atheists claim theists are irrational for believing in something without proof, but atheists claim to know that God doesn't exist -- also without proof!" This might make an excellent argument against atheism, except as I've described above, it intreprets the meaning of the word atheism incorrectly.

Most of the people who label themselves "agnostics," are in fact, atheists as well. Agnosticism is a common attribute of atheists, just as gnosticism is a common attribute of theists. There are some who cross the two philosophic outlooks/beliefs and are "gnostic atheists" or "agnostic theists," but they are both pretty uncommon.

Unfortunately, because of what I've just described, it means that atheists who honestly and accurately identify themselves as such sometimes suffer a certain stigma from others' lack of understanding -- a lack of understanding often perpetuated even by fellow atheists! Atheists (and the atheist community, such as it exists) tries to deal with this in various ways.

Sometimes we just call ourselves "agnostics" (even if we have to use it in a context where it is a less precise and relevant term) to save ourselves the hassle of explaining it all, particularly in situations where we wish to avoid the unfair judgment that may go along with identifying oneself as an atheist. The word agnostic is perceived in a softer, more forgiving light, so some atheists use it out of conciliation. Personally, I am uncompromising in my belief that my atheism is nothing to be ashamed of, so I tend to self-identify most often as an atheist. Another accurate and somewhat less contraversial term than atheist that sees some use is "non-theist."

Some atheists have taken to calling themselves something altogether different: brights. The word bright is one that some atheists are attempting to commandeer in the same way the homosexual community has appropriated the word gay to refer to themselves. All atheists are brights (according to those who have coined the term) just as all homosexuals are gay. Some atheists don't like the term (just as some homosexuals don't like the word gay) and feel that this approach to atheist advocacy is misguided. To an extent this may be true (as I indicated earlier, I prefer to just call myself an atheist), but I will happily and readily identify myself as a bright and also as a Bright (note the capital "b") -- someone who has joined the Brights "Internet constituency" to encourage free thought and acceptance/promotion of a naturalistic world view ... and since I'm so busy applying labels to myself right now, I am also a secular humanist.

Why does my profile indicate I am "very serious" about atheism? I think that all religion is irrational. Religions, at least theistic ones, are based on faith*, which is belief without evidence. Religion often tends to be actively hostile towards logic, rationality and science -- this is because logic, rationality and science have a tendency to erode faith, particularly when applied directly to religious claims.

Religion cannot credibly promise solutions to the problems humanity faces, and is likely to face going into the future. Reason and science just might. The world must suffer the ignorance of its influential elite and its masses. An educated populace is our best hope for the future. You can't have that in a world where reason and critical thought are held in contempt by prevailing religious ideologies.

Because I think religion is unnecessary and sometimes hostile to progress that could be made in the humanitarian endeavor, I suppose you can say I am an evangelical atheist. I've never met an evangelical person who isn't serious about their belief, so that's why my profile says I'm very serious about my atheism.

* A word on faith. Some people might tell me that I have faith in science, or faith in my family, which is no different from having faith in God. This is an example of equivocation. It is a logical fallacy. Faith, when used in the context of religious belief means "belief in absence of evidence" -- this I will maintain until someone provides me with direct proof that their religion represents some objective truth. If I were to speak of my faith in science, or faith in my family, it would mean something very different and might instead be characterized as trust, or even better, confidence. I have confidence in science and my family based on good reasons, strong evidence and past experience. This definition does not and can not apply to a person's belief in religious theism.

A more sophisticated argument might be that all approaches to understanding the world (such as the scientific method) ultimately rely on some measure of faith, and so I am no less reliant on faith than the most devout fundamentalist. The first part is true, because it is impossible to logically disprove the validity of the stance taken by the solipsist. Solipsism is the most extreme form of skepticism that is logically tenable, but it has some unsatisfying implications. It may be true, but I choose to make that most minimal of leaps of faith -- to assume and act as if that the external world really exists and is open to rational inquiry. After making that leap, it seems evident that the scientific method seems is the best way of sussing out the truth, but that is judging by the standards set by science itself (attributing value to evidence and successful, predictive hypotheses, etc). In this, it is as self-referential as religious faith. Nonetheless, I favor the scientific/skeptical world-view, because it seems the most parsimonious, self-consistent (yet non-arbitrary) and functional approach to take.

Cross-posted from my other blog.

Ten years ago, we lost one of our greatest champions of science. Carl Sagan helped the rest of us understand our place in the world, helped show us the exquisite beauty of the universe in all of its grand splendor. He captivated our imagination and sparked our curiosity, while ever reminding us to exercise a healthy skepticism and respect for the truth.



Above is an image of the place where Carl spent all 62 years of his life, a pale blue dot called Earth, as viewed from the Voyager 1 probe near the edge of our solar system, 6 billion miles away.

To read what others have to say about the man, check out (or, better, participate) the Carl Sagan Memorial Blog-a-thon.

This is being cross-posted from my other blog.

A few days ago I read news of the Union of Concerned Scientists' protest against political interference in science and today I learn of yet another instance of this rearing its ugly head. Recently the Bush Administration has tightened the publishing rules that scientists working at the U.S. Geological Survey are subject to.

"The new requirements state that the USGS's communications office must be "alerted about information products containing high-visibility topics or topics of a policy-sensitive nature."

...

The changes amount to an overhaul of commonly accepted procedures for all scientists, not just those in government, based on anonymous peer reviews. In that process, scientists critique each other's findings to determine whether they deserve to be published.

From now on, USGS supervisors will demand to see the comments of outside peer reviewers' as well any exchanges between the scientists who are seeking to publish their findings and the reviewers. "

When people like myself say that this administration is hostile to science, this is exactly the sort of thing that we're talking about. This is important because we have scientists working in government for a good reason. On matters concerning the environment and public health, as well as other issues, understanding the facts of situation is crucial to setting good, effective policy.

By intentionally limiting one important manner in which scientific progress and understanding is achieved for the sake of "harmonizing" the product of government research with various political positions (something that certain officials deny, but which is clearly the case if you read between the lines of their doublespeak) then as a rational person, you're forced to conclude that the only thing that can result is public policy that ignores the scientific evidence or is based on scientific evidence that has been doctored to reach certain predetermined conclusions.

Pretty clearly, this is going to result in bad policy, or at very least will stifle and delay the implementation of good policy.

This, as much as anything demonstrates the chilling cleverness that forces within and without the U.S. government are displaying in their ability to subvert the American people to get them to blindly support bad decision-making. The scientific process is corrupted, ironically, in the name of supposedly improving the accountability of their scientists. The quality of education received by students is compromised in the name of teaching children "both sides" of the evolution "debate". We let them get away with it because they're pretty good at coming up with arguments that sound OK on the face of it to your average person who lacks a fundamental understanding of science and the scientific process.

I haven't mentioned a lot of specific examples illustrating exactly how such interference is such a bad thing, because for one thing, I think it should be obvious, but for another, because there are so many different examples, that it's difficult to choose.

But to just pick one that relates a little to what I was talking about in my last journal entry about American agriculture, there is this instance of a scientist working for the USDA who complains that he was prohibited from publicizing the results of his research, which concerned the dangers of airborne bacteria resulting from farm waste. There is no good reason to suppress research on such a subject unless the administration fears what the information might do to people's perception of current agricultural policy. This is not the action of a government that is acting on behalf of the people, it is the action of a government acting on behalf of powerful special interests.

And that is what we call "corruption".

In response to vegetarians
by theggreen1:

Old Indian word for bad hunter,vegetarianism for any reason except relegion is a cop out! Don't you have incisors for a reason? Man has not evolved to a vegetarian species so those of you that have that "holier than thou" vegetarian attitude towards us meat eaters just have to frail of a mind to accept the fact that everything dies and some life dies for a purpose including the sustanance of other life.( that ought to incite some hate mail).

For many vegetarians it is not necessarily so much a matter of trying to reduce the net amount of death in the world as it is trying to reduce the amount of animal suffering that results from their eating habits, or because they want to dampen their negative impact on the environment.

The majority of animals raised for eating in the U.S. live out most of their lives in an industrial CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operations), which is about as miserable a "habitats" that you can imagine for these animals, and don't even remotely reflect the animal's natural environment. It's standard procedure, for example, for animals to have their beaks or tails clipped to prevent them from maiming their neighbor animals when they go stir-crazy.

In some cases (particularly in the case of cows), their diet consists of food that they would never touch in nature. Ruminants like cows normally subsist entirely on grass ... in CAFOs, they are fed copious amounts of corn mixed in with their grass, supplemented by various animal fats and heaping quantities of antibiotics (a great way to breed super-germs), because without them and other medical care, their stomachs would explode (well, maybe not quite that dramatic, but with more or less the same consequences).

The other possible motive for adopting a vegetarian lifestyle that I mentioned has to do with sustainability. Growing a monoculture of corn on an industrial farm/plantation just to feed it to animals is hugely inefficient in terms of calories netted vs. calories spent. It's not even a particularly efficient way to produce protein. Add to that these farms and CAFOs tend to pollute the air, consume and pollute the local water supply and rely heavily on the burning of fossil fuel and it is pretty clear that this is ecologically not a very sound way of doing things and will ultimate spell problems. Eating "lower on the food chain" as vegetarians do alleviates some of these issues.

I'm not a vegetarian myself, so I'm not trying to convert you or anything. I'm just explaining why vegetarians eat the way they do even though nature obvious has intended us to function as omnivores. We are well adapted to eating a variety of food and doing so benefits us nutritionally, under normal, or perhaps "natural" circumstances. The additive-laden fast food diet of your average American is no more "natural" than vegetarianism and is almost certainly no more healthy.

If you're wondering where I'm getting all of this, most it comes from the fact that I've recently read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. It is a most illuminating read if you're interested in understanding how the food you have come to ingest got to your dinner plate, though most people may feel better off not reading it unless they're willing to go to some lengths to make changes to their diet.

This journal entry will be cross-posted to my other blog.

This is being cross-posted from my blogspot.

Normally movie reviews aren't really my bag, but that's OK because this isn't so much a film critique as much as it is the issuance of a Code Orange "High" Terrible Movie Alert.

Horrible acting, horrible pacing, horrible direction, horrible effects and production values, and a script that absolute butchers what is one of the best fantasy novels of the past decade or more. On Metacritic it's got a rating of 40/100, which is far too kind.

Do not see the movie if you've read the book, because you will be sorely disappointed. Do not watch the movie if you think you may read the books, because it would only taint the experience.

Just a heads up.