Social This Saturday?

*UPDATED 9:20 AM*

I say the G'ville summer crew meets up this *NEXT* Saturday for dinner and drinks.

I was wondering if anyone knows of some place that facilitates groups? Party rooms? Give me some suggestions.

Paul Kurtz, "Why I Am A Skeptic About Religious Claims"

Paul Kurtz, editor in chief of Free Inquiry, professor emeritus of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, and the chair of the Center for Inquiry, has a featured article in this month's issue, "Why I Am A Skeptic About Religious Claims". One of Paul's aims is to examine the reasons for skepticism, but another is to provide us with a new working label to use to avoid the stigma of "atheist" without falling into the overly-general "skeptic".

I would like to introduce another term into the equation, a description of the religious "unbeliever" that is more appropriate. One may simply say, "I am a skeptic." This is a classical philosophical position, yet I submit that it is still relevant today, for many people are deeply skeptical about religious claims.

Skepticism is widely employed in the sciences. Skeptics doubt theories or hypotheses unless they are able to verify them on adequate evidential grounds. The same is true among skeptical inquirers into religion. The skeptic in religion is not dogmatic, nor does he or she reject religious claims a priori; here or she is simply unable to accept the case for God unless it is supported by adequate evidence...
Skeptics are in that sense genuinely agnostic, in that they view the question as still open, though they remain unbelievers in proposals for which they think theists offer insufficient evidence and invalid arguments. Hence, they regard the existence of any god as highly improbable. In this sense, a skeptic is a nontheist or an atheist. The better way to describe this stance, I submit, is to say that such a person is a skeptic about religious claims.

Paul points out that the new descriptor is positive and refreshingly honest -- too often atheism is connoted as a "faith statement", much like Christian or Muslim belief, which even in the face of contrary evidence may still be adhered to. If we are honest, and want to pursue the truth about religious claims, then we ought to carefully examine them and weigh their merits. Adopting a theists' presuppositions in order to determine the logic of their conclusions is thus almost a requisite for a skeptic, for unexamined claims cannot be begged off. Similarly, we would expect Christians and Muslims to adopt the presuppositions of, say, a naturalist, humanist, or physicalist, and carefully probe their conclusions, at all times considering reason and evidence, before making "statements of faith".

Some Christians have the intellectual honesty to have done this. Some claim that they "used to be an atheist". In some cases, we find that this aspect of their worldview was not arrived at through the same process of skeptical inquiry that Paul beseeches us to use. In some cases it was. In nearly all cases of conversion, however, we find that the conversion rate of Christian to "no religion" is double that of "no religion" to Christian.

Succinctly, I maintain that the skeptical inquirer is dubious of the claims

1. that God exists;
2. that he is a person;
3. that our ultimate moral principles are derived from God;
4. that faith in God will provide eternal salvation; and
5. that one cannot be good without belief in God.

Paul goes on to substantiate skepticism concerning each claim, but I especially want to focus on (3):

From the fatherhood of God, contradictory moral commandments have been derived; theists have often lined up on opposite sides of moral issues. Believers have stood for and against war; for and against slavery; for and against capital punishment, some embracing retribution, others mercy and rehabilitation; for and against the divine right of kings, slavery, and patriarchy; for and against the emancipation of women; for and against the absolute prohibition of contraception, euthanasia, and abortion; for and against sexual and gender equality; for and against freedom of scientific research; for and against the libertarian ideals of a free society.

True believers have in the past often found little room for human autonomy, individual freedom, or self-reliance. They have emphasized submission to the word of God instead of self-determination, faith over reason, credulity over doubt. All too often they have had little confidence in the ability of humans to solve problems and create a better future by drawing on their own resources. In the face of tragedy, they supplicate to God through prayer instead of summoning the courage to overcome adversity and build a better future. The skeptic concludes, "No deity will save us; if we are to be saved it must be by our own efforts."

It appears clear that we cannot rely upon "special revelation" to glean our moral codes from. Whose special revelation? Which interpretation? We can rely upon the innate and intrinsic function of human empathy. It is not "special" in the sense that differing socio-historical cultures have contradictory empathy functions. All human cultures, throughout time, comfort one another in times of loss. All take care of their sick. The methods, rituals, and religious influences may change throughout, but the empathy itself never has.
Why do believers line up on all sides of moral issues? I think the answer was best given in the May 20th op-ed by August Berkshire that I linked to in yesterday's post:

The Bible is like a Rorschach inkblot test: you can see just about anything you want in it.

Indeed, this book has been used (and the Qu'ran) to justify genocide, infanticide, racism, murder, male chauvinism, slavery, etc., countless times by countless groups. Others decry, "Well, they aren't interpreting it correctly!" In so doing, though, they admit that the book's interpretation is quite relative. Taking the OT at face value, in its commands to stone bastard children, adulterers, homosexuals, rebellious children, women who are betrothed and are raped and don't cry out loud enough to be heard...is a tough pill to swallow for modern Christians with modern sensibilities--those influenced by democracy and humanism, products of the Enlightenment, antithetical to the very Scriptures we discuss.

Taking the OT at face value is not necessary to derive contradictory morality to those who say, "well, God's standards have changed" (and thus admit to moral relativism). One need only look to the Apostle Paul, in his writings, to find justification for slavery, sexist discrimination, the death penalty for homosexuals (Rom 1:31-2), punishing those who dabble in "sorcery" (Acts 13:9-10), and generally relating the wrath and vengence of God to come to anyone who doesn't believe it. Of course, all of these lend themselves as "enablers" to modern-day theonomists.

Indeed, we need a few more "skeptics about religious claims". Being such will surely induce many believers to at least substantiate their own faith (as they are already supposed to, according to 1 Pet 3:15), and in so doing, at least engage in rational discourse with those of us who are nontheists. Telling others we are "just" atheists/agnostics is too often a conversation-ender, rather than a conversation-starter. Admitting to our skepticism, though, reveals a certain curiosity and desire to hear an apologia in order to determine its truth value.

And it is in asking that we know we will receive, and in their giving, we may find more in common with many theists than they beforehand thought ;)

Though ethical values and principles are relative to human interests and needs, that does not suggest that they are necessarily subjective. Instead, they are amenable to objective, critical evaluation and modification in the light of reason. A new paradigm has emerged that integrates skepticism with secular humanism, a paradigm based on scientific wisdom, eupraxsophy, and a naturalistic conception of nature. Thus, the skeptic in religion, who is also a humanist in ethics, can be affirmative and positive about the potentialities for achieving the good life. Such a person can not only live fully but can also be morally concerned about the needs of others.

Also check out Michelle Goldberg's article on May 16th, "Saving Secular Society". She also wrote a book on the subject, "Kingdom Coming: On the Rise of Christian Nationalism", which has an excerpt on Salon for free reading.

The Rise of Christian Nationalism

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

A large (and apparently growing) percentage of the American population are not only in favor of making a "Christian nation" of the USA, but of going further: instituting Biblical Law.

Recently, Michelle Goldberg wrote an article on Salon (you can read it for free after viewing a short ad, just make sure to allow cookies) entitled, "Kingdom Coming: On the Rise of Christian Nationalism".

Last year, Steve Weissman posted a five-part series on the same subject at truthout.org.

Recently, Sunsara Taylor wrote an article on BattleCry, a ministry which uses military allegories and targets youth in rallies, entitled "Fear and Loathing at Philadelphia's BattleCry."

August Berkshire got a really nice op-ed in a MN paper on religion and law.

I strongly suggest that you read through all of these to get an idea of what is going on, but for a sampler, here are some clips and excerpts from the articles:

Faith + Values Forum: Keep religious texts out of laws, civil marriage
August Berkshire

Twenty years from now, when same-sex marriage is accepted the way other civil rights are accepted today, we can expect religions to claim they were at the forefront of obtaining this right. We know better. Almost every social advance that freed people and gave them more rights was opposed by religion. Examples include abolition of slavery, a woman's right to vote, contraception, abortion rights, civil rights and interracial marriage. Religionists remain a roadblock to the Equal Rights Amendment, same-sex marriage and (in the current administration) universal health care.

The Bible is like a Rorschach inkblot test: you can see just about anything you want in it. That is why Christians themselves cannot agree on such things as masturbation, premarital sex, contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, stem cell research, euthanasia and the death penalty. The Bible or religion as a moral guide? With all this disagreement, how is that possible?

Fear and Loathing at Philadelphia's BattleCry
Sunsara Taylor

Immediately afterward, a preacher took the microphone and led the crowd in prayer. Among other things, he asked the attendees to “Thank God for giving us George Bush.”

On his cue, about 17,000 youths from upward of 2,000 churches across America and Canada directed their thanks heavenward in unison.

Throughout the three and a half hours of BattleCry’s first session, I thought of only one analogy that fit the experience: This must have been what it felt like to watch the Hitler Youth, filled with self-righteous pride, proclaim the supremacy of their beliefs and their willingness to shed blood for them.

And lest you think this is idle paranoia, BattleCry founder Ron Luce told the crowds the next morning (May 13) that he plans to launch a “blitzkrieg” in the communities, schools, malls, etc. against those who don’t share his theocratic vision of society.

Blitzkrieg.

Nothing like a little Nazi imagery to whip up the masses...

...Luce put great emphasis on following every word in the Bible, treating it as an “instruction book,” even when a person doesn’t understand or agree. This is, of course, the logic that leads to the stoning of gays, non-virgin brides, disobedient children and much more—because the Bible says so.

Chillingly, when I confronted Ron explicitly about these passages, he refused to disavow them. During the afternoon preceding the May 12 rally, Luce and about 300 BattleCry acolytes (almost entirely youths) rallied in front of Philadelphia’s Constitution Hall—the location having been chosen because Luce wants to “restore” the Founding Fathers’ vision of a religious society (never mind that the Founders enshrined in the Constitution an explicitly secular framework of government).

I and about 20 people representing various anti-Bush, atheistic and anti-Iraq-war factions made our way into the rally and began interacting with the youths assembled. Some said openly that it was OK that George Bush’s lies have cost the lives of thousands of Americans and Iraqis. Why was it OK? Because “God put him [Bush] there.”

For more on this story, see two "hot off the presses" articles on DailyKos:
1) DailyKos 1
2) DailyKos 2

"Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism"
Michelle Goldberg

Speaking to outsiders, most Christian nationalists say they're simply responding to anti-Christian persecution. They say that secularism is itself a religion, one unfairly imposed on them. They say they're the victims in the culture wars. But Christian nationalist ideologues don't want equality, they want dominance. In his book "The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action," George Grant, former executive director of D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries, wrote:

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less...
Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ."

America's Religious Right - Saints or Subversives? -- Part V: "The Ayatollah of Holy Rollers"
Steve Weissman
As early as 1963, Rushdoony wrote a "Christian revisionist" historical account called The Nature of the American System, in which he rejected the separation of church and state. The authors of the Constitution, he wrote, intended "to perpetuate a Christian order."

He similarly opposed the secular bent of American public schools, becoming an early proponent of Christian home-schooling, which he defended as a First Amendment right of their parents.

"We must use the doctrine of religious liberty ... until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government," explained his son-in-law Gary North. "Then they will get busy constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

Rushdoony opposed labor unions, women's equality, and civil rights laws. He favored racial segregation and slavery, which he felt had benefited black people because it introduced them to Christianity. He largely denied the Holocaust. And he made it kosher for Christian leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell openly to despise democracy.

"Supernatural Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies," wrote Rushdoony, "Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life."

For more on Rushdoony, see his Wikipedia entry

America's Religious Right - Saints or Subversives? -- Part I: The Lure of Christian Nationalism
Steve Weissman

With all their many sects and denominations, American evangelicals differ on all sorts of questions, from when Jesus Christ will return to the proper way to run a church. But most Southern Baptists and Pentecostals share the belief, more political than religious, that America once was and should again become a Christian nation.

This is Christian nationalism, and no one has done more to popularize it than an energetic young man named David Barton. A self-taught historian, he has dredged up hundreds of fascinating historical quotes and anecdotes in an effort to prove that the founding fathers were primarily "orthodox, evangelical Christians" who intended to create a God-fearing Christian government.

For more on Barton's fraudulence, see a refutation of his claims and expose of his lies by fellow Christians here:
A Critique of David Barton's Views on Church and State (by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty)

America's Religious Right - Saints or Subversives? -- Part II: Hang Ten and Fight!
Steve Weissman

According to the polls, most Americans see the Ten Commandments more as a cherished symbol of universal morality than as a statement of religious belief. Yet, in repeated tests, few seem to know very much about them - or about the religious and political conflicts they inevitably invite.

To begin with, they resonate mostly with Jews and Christians, and - to a limited degree - with Muslims. They largely exclude Americans who follow other religious traditions, such as Buddhists and Hindus. They also exclude a growing number of pagans, polytheists, and non-believers, such as myself.

Does God Give Us Morality?

In an earlier post, I asked for a response to a quote about the negative aspect of belief in God, [I'm not claiming all theistic belief is negative] that which inspires actions like the Crusades, suicide bombings, etc. In the quote, the implication was clear that since atheists don't have a god, they can't feel "divinely inspired" to murder, or justify fascism using divine fiat or appointment. I received, just this morning, a thoughtful response from an anonymous reader. The reader made two major points: 1) Science was birthed from the Reformation, 2) Morality depends upon God. I will copy the comment, and my response to part (2), below.

Anonymous wrote:

The Crusaders were Catholics (deemed by many as Papists commanding false doctrines not in the Bible as finally protested in the OPEN against by Europeans during the Reformation) who were going to remove Muslim invaders who they deemed as following a false prophet/Caravan trader that wrote the Koran that was basically plagarized from what he had learned from Jews and Christians, molded into his own dogma which he said came from an angel). Some of the same Catholic leadership and Papists were dogmatic against certain scientists, but scientists and tradesmen within the Protestant movement were the ones that brought almost all of the science and engineering paradigm from which we have piggybacked off of today. Not Catholics. The Puritan group that killed the witches in Salem etc. were a shortlived group following some goofy legalists. Muslims have the potential to annilate infidels, but only a few million of them have the stomach to use mentally disabled suicide bombers(someone gullible enough to believe they will be with beautiful virgins after killing a lot of people, even young babies)to take over the earth. Atheists can do whatever they want as long as they can get away with it, because once they get past man, they have no god to punish them. They can be good or bad depending on what they want. I say "entrust yourself to no man for I know what is within man". Guess who taught that?

First, I can't find the exact quote, after doing some Google searches. Perhaps you paraphrased?

In reference to your quote about not trusting men because of their evil natures, a google search turned up a few interesting results:
George Peele wrote, Those have all proved fruitless, these times demand novel wiles, uncommon deceptions. And so, if we are to exercise any prudence, you must take this path and store these things in your heart: entrust yourself to no man, invite nobody to share your glory. Let your mind be your only forum and council chamber.

Like your own implication regarding "entrusting men", the problem here is -- how do we get outside of ourselves? If we cannot trust the minds or hearts of others, how can we trust our own? If we cannot trust theirs, or ours, how can we trust anything?

Furthermore, how are we to know who God is, or what God wants, without trusting in other men? That's the problem with a REVEALED religion, now isn't it? Someone says they "got the goods" on God...They are the ones who tell us what [they say] God said. They are the ones who tell us what [they say] God wants, and does, and why.

Many people, throughout time, have claimed to have spoken for God. Some of them have said true things. Some of them have said false things. If we cannot trust in our own ability to filter the false from the true, out of the mishmash of "revelations", what hope do we have of knowing your God?

Unfortunately, man is still the measure we must use, because man is the measure we know and are. If you only do good to gain favor in the eyes of your god, or to glean paradise; if you only shun evil for fear of punishment from your god, or to escape Hades, then you have no virtue. You are only a coward and a servile creature. No God worth worshipping or knowing would want creatures which obeyed it out of sycophantic servility. Furthermore, I can guarantee you, friend, that if you took a long hard look at some of the things your God has commanded [c.f. 1 Sam 15:3, Num 31:17-18, lots of others], you would be hard-pressed to find yourself rationalizing and defending the morality of your God to an atheist like me. In so doing, you would be admitting that your own basis of morality is in serious need of repair--divine command theory was pointed out as a fallacious mode of behavior thousands of years ago, by Plato, in his Euthyprho Dialogue.

The empathy that evolution produce in all social animals (including humans) gives us the ability to place ourselves in the shoes of those we may hurt, steal from, murder, lie to, etc. It is this phenomenon (along with social conditioning, of course) that forms the basis of human morality within societal frameworks. One funny thing to note is that statistical surveys have proven that atheists are no less moral than Christians in terms of divorce rate (21% versus 24% for Xians), imprisonment, (a mere 0.209% versus 75+% Xians) etc. I won't claim (though others have) that there is any correlation between religiosity and intelligence. A recently-published study of Western democracies undermines your claim about belief in God somehow sustaining morality, though, as the most atheistic countries surveyed were those with the lowest homicide rates, teen pregnancies, STDs, abortions, longer life expectancies...etc. Of course, in your eyes, they are still "immoral", since they practice safe sex ["fornicating"].

If you are serious about understanding atheist morality, read this short article, or even this book by Martin, for more depth.

Maybe you should come back with some facts to substantiate your claim about atheism and morality.

One other thing to keep in mind is that, unlike Christianity, atheism carries no defined set of commands for living. Atheists thus comprise all points of cultural and moral spectra. It is silly to compare a set of people whose sole correlating factor is their lack of belief in a God, without stratifying the data for age, education level, income, country, etc.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, and I hope to get more feedback from you.

Best regards,

Daniel

Did the Reformation Give Us Science?

In an earlier post, I asked for a response to a quote about the negative aspect of belief in God, [I'm not claiming all theistic belief is negative] that which inspires actions like the Crusades, suicide bombings, etc. In the quote, the implication was clear that since atheists don't have a god, they can't feel "divinely inspired" to murder, or justify fascism using divine fiat or appointment. I received, just this morning, a thoughtful response from an anonymous reader. The reader made two major points: 1) Science was birthed from the Reformation, 2) Morality depends upon God. I will copy the comment, and my response to part (1), below.

Anonymous wrote:

The Crusaders were Catholics (deemed by many as Papists commanding false doctrines not in the Bible as finally protested in the OPEN against by Europeans during the Reformation) who were going to remove Muslim invaders who they deemed as following a false prophet/Caravan trader that wrote the Koran that was basically plagarized from what he had learned from Jews and Christians, molded into his own dogma which he said came from an angel). Some of the same Catholic leadership and Papists were dogmatic against certain scientists, but scientists and tradesmen within the Protestant movement were the ones that brought almost all of the science and engineering paradigm from which we have piggybacked off of today. Not Catholics. The Puritan group that killed the witches in Salem etc. were a shortlived group following some goofy legalists. Muslims have the potential to annilate infidels, but only a few million of them have the stomach to use mentally disabled suicide bombers(someone gullible enough to believe they will be with beautiful virgins after killing a lot of people, even young babies)to take over the earth. Atheists can do whatever they want as long as they can get away with it, because once they get past man, they have no god to punish them. They can be good or bad depending on what they want. I say "entrust yourself to no man for I know what is within man". Guess who taught that?

First, I can't find the exact quote, after doing some Google searches. Perhaps you paraphrased?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I suppose I can infer from your separation of Catholics from Protestants, and extolling Protestants for laying the foundation [supposedly] for scientific progress, that you consider yourself in the latter camp? Forgive me if I presume wrongly.

You said:
Some of the same Catholic leadership and Papists were dogmatic against certain scientists, but scientists and tradesmen within the Protestant movement were the ones that brought almost all of the science and engineering paradigm from which we have piggybacked off of today. Not Catholics.

One thing you may omit here is that the only erstwhile educated were those in a seminary. There was no "secular institution" to speak of, nor a "secular education". All philosophy was theology, and all "science" was natural theology. Therefore, it is logically fallacious to claim it as a "piggyback" that science came from men who were educated in this same tradition. The only men (I'm not being sexist, since men were the only ones educated at the time) able to actually do and learn the method of science were indeed quite often of a Christian persuasion, but do we thank their persuasion for science? Indeed, when we examine Christian teachings in the day of the Reformation, do we find an openness and willingness to pursue some sort of value-neutral knowledge about the natural universe...? Hardly. We have the Greeks to thank for the slight advances made during the Scholastic period, and for making the hairline fractures in the dam of dogma that held back freedom to investigate and draw conclusions about our world independently of what the Scriptures taught. The flood of the Enlightenment was no thanks to the Reformation itself, but perhaps accelerated by the bloodshed between Protestants and Catholics in Europe at the time--and the disillusionment with religion that followed.

Notice that post-Enlightenment, the only "piggyback" that we're still dealing with today is in slicing away religious attachments to moral philosophy. In science, the most prestigious body of scientists, the National Academies, reports that of its members, a paltry 7% believe in any kind of personal God. However long you claim religion carried science, it is quite clear that science eventually got too big and crushed its ride. Whatever you can infer from Protestantism and the Reformation generally, if it inspired Science, then Science must have been a cannibal child which ate its own mother.

I don't necessarily disagree that those who dogmatically pledged obedience to the Church were less inclined to teach against it. Unfortunately, those who dogmatically pledged to believe the Bible in all its teachings (Sola scriptura) fall into the same trap.

A few questions for you -- how is it that Protestant adherence to Biblical inerrancy leads to scientific discovery? What scientific discoveries were "facilitated" by faith? (Note here that I am not asking which discoveries can be reconciled with some interpretation of the Bible) I would bet [reckon] that you are pointing more to the "uniformity of nature", the "laws" which you think "imply a lawgiver", as a sort of basis for science. Perhaps you are thinking of Aquinas? Of course, you are ignoring the ancient Greeks, the materialists of the ancient world, who understood the forces of nature and principles of uniformity long before Christianity rolled over Europe. The rediscovery of Greek thought during the Scholastic period of the church is indeed what inspired the later schism--being exposed to the greatness of thought that was to be found in the ancient world upset the idea of blind obedience to the Church and her teachings. One need only read of Roger Bacon and William of Ockham to see the power of Greek thought on orthodoxy, and the fear it inspired in those all around them. One need only see the treatment of Erasmus and Servetus to see how freedom of thought was held in check by Catholics and Protestants alike.

You can't "just blame the Catholics" for burning heretics, much as you'd like to.

Indeed, my friend, it was not the Reformation, nor the Bible, that freed men from dogma and superstition, that led them to the Enlightenment, the Reformation was only the trading of the authority of the Church for the authority of the Book. Dogmatic adherence to the Book is what hindered the Enlightenment's onset, and we can all agree, I think, that "higher criticism", once unleashed on the Bible, marked the beginning of the end for the Book's authority, and the beginning of the beginning for the Age of Reason and her child, Science.

Did you know that Luther and Calvin both, as Protestants, denied heliocentricity, and taught against it, because of the Scriptures?

"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."
Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43. (Source, my friend, Ed Babinski)

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
Martin Luther, Table Talk

"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"
John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

"The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion -- no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced -- YEA, he hath established it."
John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 93, verse 1, trans., James Anderson (Eerdman's, 1949), Vol. 4, p. 7

I would also ask you today, which body of Christians is most vehemently anti-science? Protestants or Catholics? Whatever freedom the Reformation gained believers from a Church of authority, it apparently lost them in freedom from blind adherence to Biblical doctrines which are unscientific. The creation-evolution "controversy", uniquely Protestant in character, is only one symptom manifesting thereof.

In conclusion, I would say you have more work to do if you want to convince me (or anyone else, likely), that Science "piggybacked" Protestantism.

Please respond with more thoughts, if I misrepresented you or attacked a strawman of your arguments.

Best regards,
Daniel

Let's go to church!

Atheist church?

You know, it's great to be able to laugh at your own viewpoint. Can you imagine a Christian making fun of Christianity?

Summer Meetings

Okay, so hopefully everyone has recovered enough from cramming for finals [thank the nonexistant deity that I'm done with those] to meet for beer and talk. Well, not necessarily in that order.

I am going to have a keg party this summer at my house, but it's going to be another month or so.

In the meanwhile, I wanted to solicit comments from those who want to go hang out this summer. In the comments section, please leave a comment saying what day of the week, time, and venue works for you this summer. I was thinking we could go out on the weekends -- Saturdays?

My $0.02 is that we meet every 2-3 Saturdays at a random restaurant at around 7-ish. I'm all about cheapness with respect to beer, that's my only stipulation on the venue (eg no Bonefish Grill).

As of this moment, we have 45 people on our Facebook group, and I'm sure at least 20 of those are still in Gainesville, and at least half of those will want to meet. So...leave some feedback. Looking forward to it.

Cross in San Diego Must Come Down

That was a judge's ruling, anway. See here, here and here.

Apparently, Mayor Jerry Sanders "recommended pursuing all legal remedies that remain," so it may not be over just yet.

National Day of Reason

Today is the National Day of Reason. Go sign up as an individual endorser if you agree with the Statement of Principles:

• Reason and the scientific method continue to be used to advance humanity and are worthy of recognition;
• The National Day of Prayer is an exclusionary, government-funded religious observance that violates the First Amendment principle of separation of church and state;
• Overtly and exclusively Christian prayers in government sanctioned events discriminate against those of minority belief systems as well as those without religion;
• Government funding of religious activities, programs, and personnel is unconstitutional, and constitutes an inappropriate use of taxpayers' money.

Indeed. It almost makes me feel like shouting, "Amen!" Well, almost.

Check out this thoughtful editorial on atheism from a Tuscon podiatrist:

Atheists have observed that the deeper the religious belief the more there is a lack of intellectual integrity.
Whereas atheists would change their position the minute there was evidence for a god or for the supernatural, religionists are so hard-wired and vacuum-sealed in their beliefs that they freely admit that their position is not even open for discussion.
Atheism is the liberating view incorporated in the philosophy of secular humanism. Its central theme is that man alone is solely responsible for his destiny on earth. Morality has been shown to be a product of human development over thousands of years; no deity is necessary to counsel us about right and wrong.
Atheists are continually amazed that Americans can reason with such clarity and critical thinking on most aspects of life except when it comes to God and religion.
God, faith, religion, and the supernatural are, in the atheist's world view, the causes of the delusional wishful thinking that has at best, wasted man's time and at worst, been responsible for his most awful behaviors.

Along those lines, a recent e-book, Kosmos: You Are Here, is being sold by DailyKos to raise profits for their [progressive] conference, YearlyKos. Whether you agree with their politics or not [I'm moderate], the book is worth checking out, with essays on cosmology and evolution, a foreward from renowned science writer Carl Zimmer, and illustrations from world-renowned Carl Buell. It's $18 directly from DailyKos [a bit pricey for an e-book...IMHO].

On a much less serious note, check out The Onion's parody of Pedro Martinez' (baseball) religion:

In an interview following his 200th career win Monday night, Mets pitcher Pedro Martinez said he never could have reached this milestone without the aid of his lucky midget, the Egyptian sun god Ra, and every person and thing who helped him along the way, including an enchanted necklace, former British prime minister Arthur Neville Chamberlain, and a talking whale who lives off the coast of his native Dominican Republic that only he can communicate with.

The Sad State of Science

The government recently released its 2006 Science & Engineering Indicators (SE). You can download the entire v2 as a PDF (2.7 MB). The SE serve many functions, but I wanted to highlight, in particular, its assessment of science literacy in America (and other countries), and consider its impact on our culture. The tables of interest are in chapter 7, "Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding". They are available as Excel files (.xls) and PDF files:

• 7-10 (PDF) "Correct answers to specific science literacy questions, by country/region: Most recent year"
• 7-11 (PDF) "Correct answers to scientific terms and concept questions: Selected years, 1995–2004"
• 7-12 (PDF) "Correct answers to science literacy questions, by respondent characteristic: 2004"
• 7-13 (PDF) "Public understanding of nature of scientific inquiry, by respondent characteristic: 2004"

I haven't yet had time to review the data extensively, but suffice it to say, 2004 (most recent year) was the worst year since 1995 for general scientific literacy, across most categories, if not all. I am not surprised.

Can we ever expect a scientifically-illiterate society to acknowledge rationalism, humanism, and atheism as valuable worldviews/positions? What hope do atheists have for expecting religious dogma and superstition to diminish, and reason and freethought to catch on, in a society where a large majority of the population has no grasp on basic scientific principles and methods, to substantiate a naturalistic outlook? If people have no scientific basis to give them answers to some of the basic questions of natural history and philosophy, should we expect them to have anything other than faith? Here are some numbers to consider, reported as the % answered correctly (2006 SE, Table 7-10):

1. The center of the Earth is very hot. (True) 78
2. All radioactivity is man-made. (False) 73
3. It is the father’s gene that decides whether the baby is a boy or a girl. (True) 62
4. Lasers work by focusing sound waves. (False) 42
5. Electrons are smaller than atoms. (True) 45
6. Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria. (False) 54
7. The universe began with a huge explosion. (True) 35
8. The continents have been moving their location for millions of years and will continue to move. (True) 77
9. Human beings are developed from earlier species of animals. (True) 44
10. Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth? (Earth around the Sun) 71
    

Now, compare these numbers to the 2002 SE report:

1. 70% of American adults do not understand the scientific process;
2. Double digit percentage gains in belief of haunted houses, ghosts, communication with the dead, and witches in the past decade;
   
3. U.S. depends heavily on foreign born scientists at all degree levels, as high as 45% in engineering;
4. Belief in pseudoscience is relatively widespread and growing;
5. 60% believe some people posses psychic powers or extrasensory perception (ESP);
6. 30% believe some reported objects in the sky are really space vehicles from other civilizations;
7. 30% read astrology charts at least occasionally in the newspaper;
8. 46% did not know how long it takes the Earth to orbit the sun (1 year);
9. 45% thought lasers work by focusing sound waves (they focus light);
10. 49% believe antibiotics kill viruses (they kill bacteria);
11. 66% don't believe the Big Bang theory widely accepted by scientists;
12. 48% believe humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs;
13. 47% don't believe in evolution which is widely accepted by scientists;
14. 55% couldn't define DNA;
15. 78% couldn't define a molecule; (particularly sad to me, a chemist)
    
16. 32% believe in 'Lucky Numbers'.
    

So there's always plenty of superstition to fill in people's heads when knowledge and reason are absent.