Atheists, Don’t Unite!

Rose Woodhouse 187 Comments

I’m an atheist, so there’s no one to whom I can pray to save me from the smugness of some of my fellow atheists.

Apparently, some atheists held a rally over the weekend. You know, for atheists’ rights. Or something. I’m afraid I don’t fully understand what I can’t do as an atheist that I could otherwise, except maybe get voted for public office. Granted, I have a workplace where a declaration that you believe in God is greeted with the same slightly hostile curiosity as if you said you get all your news from Fox. But still, I grew up in a reasonably religious environment. I know what it’s like among the religious. With obvious exceptions in fundamentalist communities, I don’t think we are actually being denied anything.

I understand a lot of people don’t want to admit their atheism because atheism bothers some people. Reasonable pluralism is lovely, isn’t it? Maybe the protestors are just trying to win people over to their cause. Of course, what believer wouldn’t be won over by someone wearing a T-shirt saying “Free drinks to the person who can prove God exists”? Or who sees this billboard? Or who hears that some atheists who have taken to calling themselves “brights“? (Which makes believers….Not Brights? Something tells me that St. Augustine, Descartes, G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis are all perhaps a wee bit brighter than the stupidest atheist.)

Also irritating is that they call it the “Reason Rally.” Reason is not the opposite of God. Reason is not a being, it is a method. It’s not a method that always invariably yields truth (neither, for that matter, does science). Reason does not demand belief in anything. Plenty of people have made valid (if not sound) arguments that use reason to prove the existence of God. (Bertrand Russell, no stranger to logic or atheist activism, was almost swayed by the ontological argument.)

What they are arguing for is not so much reason as evidentialism. This view states, in essence, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence – and moreover, that belief in anything without evidence is unwarranted, even immoral. So since we have no evidence that God exists, we shouldn’t believe in Him. Fine – of course, we want to have some sort of normative constraints on belief. But, even if you hold yourself to that standard, do we really want to demand disbelief from others on all topics until there’s actual evidence? Evidence of what kind? I mean, we don’t have empirical or knock-down evidence of the existence of moral realism, but I sure as hell don’t want people to behave as if they disbelieve in moral realism until we prove it to everyone’s complete satisfaction.

I understand that people have some false beliefs that are derived from their religion that are actively harmful. But there are plenty of religious people who do not want to bomb anyone and have no interest in what goes on anyone else’s bedroom. Start with the beliefs that are actually harmful, if you want to protest something.

I do happen to believe that, all things considered, the evidence counts against the existence of God, at least an omnipotent and omnibenevolent one. Lots of people I know have views that I believe, all things considered, to be false. That their kids are the most adorable ever. That their spouses are making them happier than anyone else in the world ever could. Unless those false beliefs are actually hurting anyone (someone whose spouse is making him truly unhappy, someone who is withholding medical treatment from a child because of religious beliefs), do we have an obligation to point anything out to them? Seriously, how annoying would that be?

Just be an atheist. Life is not that difficult for us. If you get into a respectful discussion with someone and you want to defend it, fine. But please let’s not be so damned superior about it.

Rose Woodhouse

Elizabeth Picciuto was born and reared on Long Island, and, as was the custom for the time and place, got a PhD in philosophy. She freelances, mainly about disability, but once in a while about yeti. Mother to three children, one of whom is disabled, two of whom have brown eyes, three of whom are reasonable cute, you do not want to get her started talking about gardening.

More Posts

187 Comments

  2. This type of atheism always bugs me because it’s superficially indistinguishable from the Southern Baptist Church.

    “We’re better than you. We’re more moral than you. We’re the only ones who know what’s going on. If you know what’s good for you, you’d be one of us.”

    I suspect that they can’t cook, though.

    • It wasn’t uncommon, a couple years ago, to hear them referred to as “evangelical atheists” or even “fundamentalist atheists.” They didn’t like that, but it’s hard to care what someone likes when they’re calling you Neville Chamberlain.

          • Vaguely — it brings to mind one of those old cartoons set to 1920s jazz.

          • Its the cover of Soul Coughing’s third and final release “El Oso”….great great album…even better band. I am still trying to find Irresistable Bliss on vinyl for less than $50….it might be a search in vain.

          • Joshua, you might just have become Chris’s BFF. Cover art reigns supreme.

  3. I was once active in atheist groups, and have lost my zest for the “movement” because there really isn’t that much to move against. Yes, it’s very difficult to get elected to any public office of significance as an atheist, and yes, there’s a lot of misunderstandings of what atheism really is (“Oh, you worship the Devil?” or “You worship yourselves,” or “Where do you get your morality from?” or nonsense like that).

    But the real function of such a group is social, to provide a “safe zone” for those who want to vent about their atheism, which in turn breeds an atmosphere of anti-theism. A lot of people who grow up in religious environments and later find themselves without belief go through an anti-theistic phase which can be angry, sarcastic, and otherwise require railing against the evil enemy, religion. I grew out of that.

    • I’m a bit confused. You mention two very real reasons atheists have for forming a “movement,” but you still think there isn’t anything for them to move against?

      I understand being turned off by aggressive atheism, or those that make derisive arguments rather than calm well-reasoned ones (simply from a psyhcological perspective, they’re counter productive) against supernatural claims, but it’s asolutely absurd to suggest that there isn’t a need for a secular humanist (aka atheist) movement in this country. Religious belief has been damaging in myriad ways, and the benefits it purports to offer, as if trying to tip the scales compels us to over look its flaws, have nothing to do with the supernatural claims.

      The supernatural claims of religion are damaging to secular society and, more importantly they are entirely untrue.

      • I didn’t say there wasn’t a need for an atheist movement.

        I said I had lost interest in being part of atheist groups, and why.

        You are free to advance the movement all you like. I’m glad you’re doing it and I wish you well.

      • And you know they’re untrue? Please enlighten us how as to how you are able, with such certainty, to know that such supernatural claims are untrue. Were you there when they crucified the Lord? Were you there when He rose from the grave? Get off your atheist high horse, and listen to Bach’s St. Matthew’s Passion. Your passion and desperation for atheism blinds you to the presence and existence of God. It’s not faith when what you experience is the true, living, breathing God–that you’re incapable of experiencing this hardly means it doesn’t exist. It just means you’re blind. Theism has some pretty good company–lookie yonder…..
        Nicholas Copernicus
        Sir Francis Bacon
        Johannes Kepler
        Galileo Galilei
        Rene Descartes
        Isaac Newton
        Blaise Pascal
        Robert Boyle
        Michael Faraday
        Gregor Mendel
        William Thomson Kelvin
        Max Planck
        Albert Einstein

        “Religious belief has been damaging in myriad ways, and the benefits it purports to offer, as if trying to tip the scales compels us to over look its flaws, have nothing to do with the supernatural claims.”

        Heh, heh, heh—“Fools rush in…

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu_GW2osRVA&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLC86250DED76CF88F

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTW2Dw3P6N4

          • Dr. Saunders, a most hearty and genuine handshake in peace, sir! Thanks for not immediately deleting my comments. I think we’ve had some very interesting and helpful (for me at least) conversations in the past.

            You I’m crazy about you and always read your comments and posts–you’d be surprised how often we’re kindred spirits on so many subjects.

            That said, you’re the only one around here and I do mean EVERYONE who doesn’t immediately toss my remarks right back into the cyber dumpster. Even Mr. Kelly, my erstwhile friend, blocks every single word I write in responding to his posts. Dr. Saunders, sir–you a man with great integrity and intelligence. I hope someday I can comment again on your always thoughtful posts. At least sir, you’ve shown me the kindness and good manners to let me have another shot.

            It would appear that every single person on the Masthead has absolutely no sense of forgiveness or giving someone a second chance–no redemption here–I was banned before there was any kind of articulated, commenting policy–I never received any kind of warning of the specific rules I violated that made it necessary to ban me immediately, on the spot. NQA.

            And Rose, my sincere apologies for the utterly inappropriate comments I made to you a few weeks ago. You’re a joy to read and a bright, bright star of wisdom, humor, and insight.

            Sincere thanks and gratitude, Dr. Saunders, a true Mensch if there ever was one!

            Prosit!

          • Fine, Heidegger. You want a second chance and a clearly articulated commenting policy? Fine. Consider this your second chance, because I genuinely am someone who believes in forgiveness. But let’s be clear:

            You post something off-topic? Gone.

            You post something that is clearly directed at some other Gentleman at one of the other blogs or the main page? Gone.

            You post something rambling and incoherent? Gone.

            And let me remind you that your ban from this site was because you posted a comment that said, in essence, that gays are uniquely diseased. If you want to keep posting here, you will refrain from commenting about gay people entirely. If I post anything about gay people, you are encouraged to view that as an invitation to silence on your part. You are to respond to no comments on the subject by anyone. Not a single word from you about homosexuals. Your opinions about us are not welcome. Ignore this instruction, and back comes the ban.

            Do not make me regret this.

          • None of my business here, but I want to say that I really like seeing that.
            I missed the incident at issue due to time constraints. But outright banning seems like a baby/bathwater approach.
            I always liked Heiddegger, and I thought he was very funny. And my impression is that he probably thought he was saying something funny without stopping to think how others might take it.
            But the League remains a place of special importance to him, and I can see why. Not many political blogs I care to read myself. Neither party serves my interests, and both work against me on occasion; I like to think of myself as an independent actor.
            As for our resident physician, my respect continues to increase.
            I probably see him much differently than he sees himself. These things that define him: gay, physician, parent, spouse; I consider to be no more than trappings. The things I find important are: man of principle, and the idea of him struggling with his weight (and being frank enough to discuss the matter).
            Again, my respect continues to increase.
            And I would second his statement:
            Please do not make this man live to regret his decision on this.
            And welcome back.

          • Your words are very kind, Will. Thank you.

            I toyed with clarifying something, and decided I should for the sake of intellectual honesty. I hope you don’t think I’m being churlish for doing so. I’ve actually been lucky enough never to have really struggled with my weight. My musings on weight loss and how doctors approach the topic are informed by experience in that I think most people who have not struggled with their weight assume that it’s much easier than it is, including doctors. And I think we need to be both more realistic and more understanding about what’s really involved.

            Sorry to go so far off topic, Rose! And thanks again for your very nice words, Will.

    • Wait a sec — we don’t worship ourselves? I’ve been doing it wrong.

      • Oh for fish sake, how many times do we have to go over this?

        You’re supposed to worship *me.* Everyone’s supposed to worship *me.*

        Honestly, is that so hard to remember?

  4. Not being denied anything?? Really? My son can’t participate in Boy Scouts because he has an atheist parent. My oldest daughter has no choice but to sing religious songs in high school because no one has the balls (besides myself) to say “hey, this isn’t right” and she really enjoys singing. I am denied the right to a peaceful weekend because at least every other weekend some door-to-door Bible thumper feels the need to come give me the “good news”. My children are denied the right to some of their friends because they don’t embrace “God/Jesus” as their personal savior.

    Perhaps it was a very good thing you weren’t there (I wish I could have gone). When daily we get to hear about this religious group or that religious crowd having their public gatherings to shout out about their belief, why is it such a stretch to wish the same of those who don’t believe and want to let others know it’s perfectly acceptable *not* to have a belief in “God” or gods?

    • Suddenly kids got a right to friends? Bull fucking shit.
      If you want a tip… treating any bible thumper as doing something sexually arousing is a good way to get on the “don’t go back to that house” list. Figure you can get off a couple of them that way (particularly if you combine it with some strategic undressing…)

      • Regarding my kids and friends – they are purposely shunned because they aren’t religious nutbags. And yet, they are perfectly fine being friends with all types, religious or not.

        In as far as how to treat Bible thumpers – I figured a very stern and adamant “I’m an atheist” would suffice but apparently not. I don’t like having my quiet and peaceful weekend interrupted by people I *did not invite* to my home. I shouldn’t have to put up with it. Would we be just as bending and kiss-ass if atheists were out knocking on theists doors telling them the news of not being an asshat?

        • You really get people coming to your door to proselytize every other weekend? Really? Where on earth do you live? Because I’ve lived in a lot of different parts of the country, with a tremendous variation in religious and political climate, and I can count on one hand the number of times people have come to my door trying to get me to join their church. (Not counting the Lubavitchers on the subway.)

          And “no thanks, I know your church’s policy on gays like me” tends to work just fine.

          • While I live in a very liberal state with many varied religious/non-religious types, the neighborhood I live in has 15 churches within a 2 mile radius. Apparently, they aren’t very good at getting the word out to their fellow believers. So, yes. I get quite a few “good news” heralders at my doorstep.

          • Renee, perhaps you’d feel better about all this if you just accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior. Or maybe you could just shoot the intruders and claim you were standing your ground — it usually works in Florida.

          • … Post satanic symbols around? Start passing out Satanic bibles to anyone who comes, saying you’re glad to get a chance to give them the good news?

          • You could always invite them out back for rattlesnakes an’ strychnine. I haven’t had any takers so far.

          • I must say, now that I telecommute half the time I get someone coming to my door about every week or two. I’m not sure if they always came and I never was here, or if its a new thing.

            Also, I have to say that to a man and woman they have all been pretty great people.

          • Seriously, if someone is out walking around, willing to talk with complete strangers, trying to do a bit of good in the world, I think their heart is in the right place, even if you happen to disagree with their particular position.
            Personally, I don’t like being asked for money for breast cancer research at the pharmacy. My thoughts are along the lines of, “I just paid thirty bucks for this crap, and now you want more?”
            But their heart is in the right place.
            There’s no need to be rude about it.
            A simple, “I’m really not interested,” should do the trick.
            A sign reading, “No Solicitors” should be enough to keep them away from your door.

          • Even if the “good” they are trying to do is enacting legislation to oppress other groups of people???

            Don’t just look at their intentions. Look at their actual message too. If they’re soliciting for charity (and it’s a good charity), then they don’t deserve to be treated badly. If they’re going around soliciting morality and judgment then you have every bit to be as rude to them as they are being to you by tell you that you deserve to burn for all eternity in Hell just for being who you are.

          • I get proselytizers every now and again.

            I’ve even invited them in, although not since I’ve been married. My greeting line is, “I’m a lapsed Catholic with two decades of dedicated attempts to dig myself out of agnosticism. Odds are pretty good you’re not going to get me anywhere if Augustine couldn’t.”

            Mormon proselytizers are very nice people. Also good to know for the neighborhood disaster prep squad.

    • “My children are denied the right to some of their friends because they don’t embrace “God/Jesus” as their personal savior.”

      (citation needed)

      Note that “I don’t think they’d be welcome because their mother is very outspoken in her atheism” is not at all the same thing as “they’re denied the right to some of their friends”. That you think your neighbors would hate your children because you’re an atheist says more about you than it does about them.

      • Actually, once they’ve found out we’re not of a religious persuasion, they are no longer allowed to associate. It’s as simple as that.

  5. I figured a very stern and adamant “I’m an atheist” would suffice but apparently not.

    Why? They’re not trying to convert believers.

    Try these instead:

    * Come to the door naked. Don’t act as if you’re naked; in fact, actively engage him in conversation until he runs away (which won’t take long.)
    * Say that you’re Jewish. This wouldn’t have worked 30 years ago, but nowadays almost all fringey Christian groups believe that Jews are needed for the Second Coming.
    * Try to convert him. Bring out some literature you accepted from the last guy, and preach the most strident and nonsensical version of its contents you can think of. If you run out of words before he leaves, tell him that your soul is in danger from being in the presence of heathens like him and shut the door.

    • Thanks for the tips 🙂 Naked won’t work as I don’t think my kids would appreciate it (though my guy and one or two of our neighbors might). I might try the Jewish comment. As far as literature, I never accept their stuff as we have too much paper fodder as it is. I am, however, considering a huge sign on the door that just has the giant red A to announce it. That might gather some ire from the rest of the neighborhood, though.

      • Well, telling the Lubavitchers on the subway (see above) that I’m Episcopalian seemed to work, so I don’t see why the reverse wouldn’t as well.

        As far as the Boy Scouts go (and my son will be excluded in time, too, assuming they don’t soften their stance), it does suck and I am sorry if your kids really would have wanted to join. And, as a thankful ex-fundamentalist, I can see how certain kids wouldn’t befriend yours, which is pretty sucky, too. If I were in your position, perhaps I’d join an atheist group. (Since I really am Episcopalian, I probably wouldn’t fit in as is.)

        • to be fair, the mitzvah tank folk are just trying to make their fellow jews more jewish as they understand it, rather than converting non-jews.

          we get jehovah’s witnesses now and then. polite folk, not particularly intrusive.

        • Well, telling the Lubavitchers on the subway (see above) that I’m Episcopalian seemed to work, so I don’t see why the reverse wouldn’t as well.

          Because Christianity believes its mission is to convert the heathen; Judaism does not. As dhex said, the Lubavichers’ only interest is to put their fellow Jews back on the “right” path.

          • I can see why.
            That would be way too freaky to have some Jews walking through the neighborhood offering circumcisions.

      • I suggest “striptease” rather than naked. The objective is to get THEM to think dirty thoughts… (this works best if you have a vestibule, so that you’re close to them, and your kids don’t need to watch.

        • I suggest “striptease” rather than naked

          You do realise that if a guy had said that it would have been really misogynistic.

          • only if you count bellydancing as misogynistic. which i don’t. that’s about the level I meant it to be on, anywhich way… performance art.

          • I don’t know. A guy telling women to act hypersexual (or embarrassing) just so that they can get some peace and quiet raises all sorts of red flags with me.

          • Murali,
            you assume that this isn’t a standard tactic that I’d give to men to, I take it? It’s also standard operating procedure to get people to STOP MAILING stuff to your door…. (claim its pornographic, those laws are plenty stiff).

  6. I just need to point out that, as of this moment, the ad at the bottom of the post reads: “Will you pray for our nation in 2012?” and features a man I think is Billy Graham. I don’t know if that’s by some kind of design, or just random, but there it is.

  7. Well written article and a great viewpoint. I feel you addressed a bit of a strawman of what the rally seemed to be about in my humble opinion. Public policy has been dominated by the religious. Not just the election process. A nation where public policy dictates that parents can choose whether to treat life threatening TREATABLE illnesses with proven medicine or prayer. There needs to be a secular voice, and if our voice as athesists/ignostics/agnostics/skeptics, so on is silent who is going to speak out? If the worst thing that comes out of this is just a sense of community so be it, but I hope that this event becomes annual and grows. Not out of smugness but a mere acknowledgement for the need for a more secular nation. Really enjoyed your thoughts on evidentialism! Have you ever in your research studied ignosticism?

    • A nation where public policy dictates that parents can choose whether to treat life threatening TREATABLE illnesses with proven medicine or prayer.

      That is contrary to my experience. In those few times I have had parents express some kind of religious reservation about life-saving treatments for their children, I have secured a court order for said treatment without difficulty. To what degree is this really a problem? Or is this a problem only in certain states (I’ve never practiced medicine in a deeply conservative state)? These questions aren’t snark, by the way — I’m asking sincerely.

      • There have been several deaths because of that very example….I personally feel its not a widespread problem and is rather isolated and a small small percentage of our population that is almost negligible. I don’t even think it should be an issue at all though same thing applies to this new contraception debate, it should simply be a moot issue. Former U.S. Congressman Sean Faircloth wrote a short interesting book on the subject called “Attack of the Theocrats”, I doubt any freethinker religious or nonreligious can read that book and claim the current lack of separation of church and state is not a imminent danger in the US. I look at the “Reason Rally” as a catalyst for fighting separation of church and state issues, and removing the ridiculous bonds of over us that zealous fundamentalist lawmakers have placed illegally and immorally.

        • Not to be difficult, but you said in your comment upthread that public policy dictates that prayer be treated as an acceptable alternative to lifesaving treatments for children. Are you backing away from that claim? From what I understand, parents generally aren’t allowed to choose prayer in lieu of lifesaving treatments, and would be enjoined from doing so in pretty much any jurisdiction in the country. If I’m mistaken about this I’d want to know, but from your follow-up comment it seems I’m not mistaken.

          • Its a states issue…..its not dictated on the federal level yet, in fact it was fiscally inconvenient for states to not allow religious exemptions to medical care for children. Its still something that is a consistent issue in many states.

            In 1974, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare first required states to have clauses in their child abuse and neglect legislation that permits exemptions from prosecution of parents on religious grounds. If a state refused, they would not receive federal child abuse protection grants.

            In 1983, the federal government allowed states to repeal these clauses. However, most state still allow parents to use a religious defense if their child dies because prayer was used instead of medical treatment.

          • Some recent activity at the state level:

            1994 Oregon: Legislature committees heard testimony on two House bills that would require all parents to obtain medical help for their seriously sick or injured children. The bills had strong backing from both major parties, law enforcement, physicians, social workers and child advocates. “…there was limited testimony from Christian Scientists who warned that eliminating the so-called spiritual defense from Oregon’s homicide statutes and other areas of the law would unfairly impose upon their religious rights.” 4 The House later endorsed a compromise faith healing bill that allows defendants to claim faith healing as a defense.

            1994 Minnesota: The state passed a law which requires parents or guardians to alert child protection services if they have withheld medical treatment and that their children were endangered by their decision. Few if any parents or guardians report under this law.

            1998 Texas: Critical-care pediatrician Seth Asser said:
            “Kids die from accidental deployment of air bags, and you get hearings in Congress. But this goes on, and dozens die and people think there’s no problem because the deaths happen one at a time. But the kids who die suffer horribly. This is Jonestown in slow motion.”

            The American Medical Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the Academy of American Pediatrics and a growing number of local and state legislators agree with him.

            2001: The Academy of American Pediatrics went on record in opposition to these exemption laws. 5

            Colorado as well as Oregon had experienced an increase in juvenile death rates that paralleled the growth of anti-medical faith groups. 5 Amanda Bates, 13, suffered a horrendous, lingering and painful death from diabetes and gangrene in early 2001. She and her family attended the General Assembly and Church of the First Born. She was the third child to die in that church in three years. This motivated legislators to eliminate an exemption from the child abuse law that had protected parents from abuse charges if they withheld medical attention from children.

            2002: 38 states had laws that shield parents from persecution if they reject medical treatment for their children in favor of faith healing. However, most of these state laws specify that if a child’s condition is life-threatening, then a physician must be consulted. 6

            2009: Rita Swan is the executive director of the Iowa based Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty. They advocate charging parents who do not seek medical help when their children need it. She reports that about 300 children have died in the United States during the previous 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds.

            Child abuse laws in 30 states still provide some form of protection for practitioners of faith healing in cases of child neglect and other matters. 1

          • With all due respect, nothing you cite actually shows that there are policies making prayer an acceptable alternative to treatment. From what I see, at most they allow faith healing to be offered as a defense, presumably at trial when parents who refuse treatment for their children face criminal charges. In which case it is left to a jury to decide, and in no way shields them from prosecution. There may be some limited protections in some states, but that’s hardly the same as your original premise.

          • Well Russell, I feel we are in disagreement. I feel there is a need for secular laws rather than laws based on faith. I feel there needs to be a stronger separation of church and state. You may downplay laws based on faith as not an issue and nitpick at my example, but I am pretty sure unless you have your head stuck in the ground that faith laws are an issue. You may be playing devils advocate, but I am pretty sure any rational person can see what I am referencing with my one example. Having an exemption for prosecution is the same thing people are complaining about Trayvon Martin right now in Florida, do you think that there is no reason to argue against the “Stand Your Ground” law? Do you think we need to wait until a parents get off scott-free for letting their child die a painful death from a treatable form a cancer. I feel I have a valid point, think what you want, but there is a need to call secularists together to fight secular causes, and this article downplays that, which I feel is wrong.

          • If you are saying that there is a need for laws that specifically outlaw parents refusing treatment for their children, opting for faith-based “treatments,” then I agree with you. I think it should be illegal. My argument is that I don’t believe parents can do this. There may be some who never take their kids to the doctors, but once they end up in a hospital any doctor with two firing brain cells will get a court order before they allow parents to refuse life-saving treatments.

        • Actually, we did a post on this on the main page – Oregon is prosecuting and convicting the parents that do what you’re suggesting they are allowed to do.

          • RTod you failed to read my whole post: I already specifically addressed Oregon eliminated their exemption; in which secularists had a big part in the protests, I will quote myself:

            “Colorado as well as Oregon had experienced an increase in juvenile death rates that paralleled the growth of anti-medical faith groups. 5 Amanda Bates, 13, suffered a horrendous, lingering and painful death from diabetes and gangrene in early 2001. She and her family attended the General Assembly and Church of the First Born. She was the third child to die in that church in three years. This motivated legislators to eliminate an exemption from the child abuse law that had protected parents from abuse charges if they withheld medical attention from children.”

  8. Rose writes, “I’m afraid I don’t fully understand what I can’t do as an atheist that I could otherwise, except maybe get voted for public office.” That’s a big deal in a democracy. If that many voters are willing to write us off as potential political leaders just because we’re atheists, what else do they think atheists can’t or shouldn’t do?

    Here’s another deadly serious example of anti-atheist discrimination: Atheists can lose custody of their children if their ex uses their lack of religion against them.

  9. So this reply is for both Lindsay and Renee – let’s assume that we want to change these things. Is this best way to do that by holding a rally that implicitly calls the people who oppose us unreasonable? Or not bright? How is that going to make them want to vote for us? How is that going to make people say, “We’ve been unfair to them!”

    Let’s identify areas where religious belief is a problem (such as medical treatment for children) and where codified opposition to atheism is a problem (custody battles – which I didn’t know about – and boy scouts) and focus our efforts on changing them. Step one is probably not ridiculing everyone who disagrees with us, or painting all religious people with the same brush.

    • If they are being unreasonable, then yes, it is good to call them out on it. Letting people get away with foolish things without pointing out that they are being foolish is the same as approving it. When little kids make unreasonable demands or do bad things, do parents let them get away with it, or do they scold them or otherwise teach them that their behavior is wrong?

      I don’t know how much of the rally you may have watched, or how familiar you are with most atheist arguments against religion (I have to assume not so familiar, as you didn’t know about the custody issue) but many outspoken atheists are calling out very specific points in their arguments against religion, and not just making blanket statements that “all religious people are unreasonable.” Most atheists do not paint all religious people with the same brush. When people are being ridiculous, they deserve to be ridiculed. This is not an “I am superior to you” thing, this is just common sense.

      I’ve heard your admonishment countless times, particularly by people who have lived their lives in more progressive cities, or who grew up in a liberal Christian household and just eventually grew out of religion with little to no objection from their parents. If you are lucky enough to have that experience, that is awesome! But many many people have it much worse than that, and I think it’s vastly ignorant of reality to *ahem* paint all atheists with the same brush and imply that they are being arrogant by celebrating their lifestyles. I can’t hold it against you if you have never experienced discrimination for being an atheist; but reading your article frustrates me a great deal, because you really do appear ignorant of the real situation while simultaneously trying to make a strong case against the issue.

      • You know, seriously, if you read your first paragraph with a critical eye, you can see where your attitude has gone astray.
        I really don’t care how atheist you are.
        I don’t give a flying flip whether you have a soul or not, or what might happen to it.
        To conflate child-rearing with adult interaction is inane.
        I can see why people would despise you for being an atheist.
        Atheism is the vehicle, but not the cause.

        • Care to explain why? Or is this just you despising me for being an atheist?

          If the shoe fits, wear it. If someone is being ridiculous, call them out on it. If someone is wrong, point it out. Religion does not get a free pass.

          • Care to explain why?

            Not really, but I’ll do it.

            Or is this just you despising me for being an atheist?

            I don’t despise you. I don’t think this thread is worth that level of depth of feeling, or you personally merit that level of involvement from me.
            But I can see why some people would.

            If someone is being ridiculous, call them out on it. If someone is wrong, point it out.

            I just did.
            And really, I think it would do you and everyone around you a lot more good were you to take my advice and re-red that first paragraph with a critical eye.
            Let’s say that I believe that atheists may still attain enlightenment.

            Religion does not get a free pass.

            Certainly.
            Buddhists are atheists, you know.

            If the shoe fits, wear it.

            After you, sir.

          • You didn’t explain anything there either, but whatever. If you’re not interested in talking, don’t bother commenting.

          • I just went through your comment line by line, leaving nothing out.
            If you weren’t able to get anything out of it, then who does that speak to?

            Seriously, if you’re going to go around claiming that you’re much too reasonable to believe in a God, then learn to reason well.
            I’m holding back here, because I’m waiting for you to demonstrate some of that reason.

          • Your putting words into my mouth that I never said, and then accusing me of being unreasonable.

            You are replying to things that have absolutely nothing to do with what I said. “Buddhists are atheists, you know?” So what? What did I say about Buddhists??

            And you’re “holding back because you’re waiting for me to demonstrate some of that reason.”

            Whatever. If you’re just going to be a troll, why should I waste my time replying to you?

            The only thing you said that wasn’t either completely unrelated to what I said or blatant trolling was to tell me re-read my paragraph with a critical eye twice. You haven’t made a point or raised an argument. I’ll be happy to give you a detailed reply if you say something worth replying to, but if you’re just going to be a troll then I’m not going to reply anymore.

          • Ok then.
            You engage in way too many false equivalencies and other fallacious thought for me to consider you to be a developed intellect.
            The irony is that, while exhibiting a distinct childishness, you presume to lecture others concerning the childishness of their own coherent belief systems.

            When little kids make unreasonable demands or do bad things, do parents let them get away with it, or do they scold them or otherwise teach them that their behavior is wrong?

            These are adults we’re talking about here.
            And that makes you, sir, to be an ass.
            And not even an ass of particularly high quality.
            Maybe a 3.

            When people are being ridiculous, they deserve to be ridiculed.

            Really?
            What person is worthy of ridicule?

            Frankly, that one just pissed me off so much, I really don’t care to discuss the matter further.

            You are free to be an ill-behaved child.
            An irrational, incoherent, fallacious, unreasoning, ill-behaved child.

            I can’t make you anything that you’re not already.

          • Will H:

            You are free to be an ill-behaved child.
            An irrational, incoherent, fallacious, unreasoning, ill-behaved child

            And you are the one withdrawing in a huff because someone thinks ridicule is sometimes appropriate?

          • I know when to disengage.
            I sat there for over five minutes thinking of what should come after that.
            And I had a lot of material ready to go.
            I would rather not pull the thread in that direction.

        • Yeeeeeaaaaaah. See the thing is, Matt (and this is also in response to your comment below), you kind of come across as a guy who is perfectly happy to make religious people feel stupid for being religious. Maybe that’s a totally unfair impression. Maybe you don’t think religious people need to be told how preposterous their beliefs are. I could be wrong, wrong, wrong. But that’s the impression that I get.

          I don’t despise you for being an atheist. I really don’t despise you at all. But you come across as a wee bit… let’s say “strident,” and I wonder if it doesn’t give your message a bit less appeal.

          • I think its fair game to point out when beliefs are preposterous.

            Example: If I believed my lucky rabbit’s foot would make me do no wrong, would it bother you? Probably not, because it doesn’t have any effect on you. But you wouldn’t be wrong to tell me that there is nothing special about my rabbit’s foot. But what if I believed the lucky rabbit’s foot was telling me to do certain things? What if I used it as justification to hurt someone else? You would be a lot more correct to point out the wrongness of my belief. It doesn’t mean you are calling me stupid, but wrong is wrong, no matter how smart the person actually is.

            I don’t think religious people need to be told how preposterous their beliefs are. I also don’t think it is wrong to point that out. However, when those beliefs are being used to hurt other people, I think it is not only justified, but it is correct to point out the stupidity and immorality of certain beliefs.

            Yes, I am strident. I feel very strongly that it is wrong to oppress other people in the name of religion. I also feel strongly that religion gets carte blanche from most people, atheists included, to commit horrible atrocities. And it upsets me that there are atheists — like the author of the post and in some of the comments here — who not only don’t fight those who use religion to hurt other people, but actually stand up against atheists who do try to fight. That really saddens and frustrates me.

            So you’ve both argued with me here, but you haven’t actually addressed the main point that I was making: that it is OK to ridicule people when they are being ridiculous, and that it is OK to point out when people are being wrong. That religion does not deserve a free pass to commit whatever wrongs it does without criticism from others. Do you actually disagree with that point, or is your only complaint that you don’t like my tone?

          • Ok, I’ll bite. Which religious beliefs do you find ridiculous? Which do you think undeserving of parental scorn?

          • To start with, Creationism, Young Earth-ism, anything that flatly goes against well-known fact I find heartily deserving of ridicule. Accepting an old text as truth in the face of demonstrable, testable evidence to the contrary is unreasonable and deserves to be called out as such.

            The notion that women should be subservient to men, and that we “shall not suffer a witch to live” is particularly offensive. Everything in the Bible that promotes violence, oppression, and genocide I find morally reprehensible. The idea that a god who is willing to murder the firstborn son of every house in Egypt for the actions of a pharaoh is a praiseworthy being I find particularly disgusting. Original sin, circumcision, slavery, forcing a rape victim to marry the man who raped her… I find these worthy of the strongest condemnation.

            The list goes on, but I’ll leave it at that for now.

            Things that I find unworthy of scorn: the belief in an afterlife, the belief in a personal, loving god, the idea of a god as prime-mover/creator of the universe, belief in a soul, reincarnation, enlightenment, ghosts, UFO’s, to name a few examples. These ideas don’t have any evidence at all to support them, and so I have no problem with debating or arguing or criticizing them, however they are for the most part harmless ideas. From time to time they can lead to more harmful ones, but these beliefs in by themselves are not particularly offensive. I would prefer people think rationally instead of promoting unsubstantiated beliefs, but as long as they are not harming others directly or indirectly, I don’t find these beliefs to be so bad.

            The biggest problem with the “casual” believers and people who stand up for belief-for-belief’s sake is that they provide a shield for those who use religion to directly harm people. I think that any irrational belief is potentially a harmful one, particularly when it serves to bolster the beliefs of those who profess the things I listed in the first paragraph.

            Our beliefs and our actions are not two separate worlds. Our actions are informed by our beliefs, and if we belief bad incorrect things, we are much more likely to behave badly.

          • Hmmm. So, correct me if I’m wrong, but if I sense a pattern here (especially since UFOs are in the second group), it’s that you tend to look down on religious beliefs whose dogma tends to push for the repression of others, and be OK with those that are more personal and about what the believer must do themselves, rather than what they must force others to do.

            Am I even in the right ballpark?

          • Yes, that pretty much sums it up.

            In general, I am against any belief that is not supportable with evidence. But I am tolerant of irrational beliefs as long as they don’t harm other people. As for beliefs that do harm or promote harm directly or indirectly, I am not tolerant of them, and I think none of us should be.

            This is the position of most of the “leading” atheists you see making headlines these days, and it is why I object to the suggestion that anyone here or at the Reason Rally was calling theists stupid or morons. It’s simply not true.

          • I’m glad I asked. I will confess I thought that you were making such a case; I apologize for so badly misreading you.

          • No apology necessary! Thank you for asking, too, by the way. I’m glad we got that cleared up.

          • Having woken this morning to read your reply to Tod, I find that I don’t disagree with what you say (by and large), and can’t quibble with the distinctions you make between beliefs that merit your scorn and those you’re willing to let lie.

          • Wait. An understanding was reached? With people arguing in the comments thread of the blog post? This might indeed be the sign of the Second Coming… 🙂

          • It’s only the first sign of the second coming. Next, the lion needs to lie down with the lamb, and the comments on Youtube need to become civil and friendly!

    • Again, you’ve missed the point of the rally. The point wasn’t to point fingers at individuals and laugh. It was to say it’s perfectly acceptable to find the belief ridiculous and in need of scrutiny.

      In as far as attempting change where it’s needed, that has been done and in many cases it’s been rather ineffectual (case in point, Boy Scouts).

      • > The point wasn’t to point fingers at individuals and laugh.
        > It was to say it’s perfectly acceptable to find the belief
        > ridiculous and in need of scrutiny.

        You might find the belief incoherent, or inconsistent, and therefore in need of scrutiny. You can engage in unpacking that. On the other hand, if you find it *ridiculous*, then you find it worth of ridicule. You know, pointing your finger and laughing.

    • Rose, you seemed to be downplaying the idea that atheists might need to band together to advocate for their rights in the first place. The tactics of the Reason Rally are a separate issue.

      • You’re right, they are two separate issues. My main objection is to the latter (and similar movements/statements/claims), which I think are useless to counterproductive. In objecting, I got a little glib about the former.

  10. I don’t get it. Sure, at this moment there does not appear to be any direct threat to atheists. But, you’re blind if you cannot see that there is a concerted movement by theists, most notably fundamentalists, to rewrite history, reinterpret the Constitution, and create what they want to call “christian America”. And that is what scares me and motivates me to speak and act. That is what the Reason Rally was about. That is why atheists MUST unite in solidarity against the erosion of separation between church and state. Showing ‘respect’ to a plethora of stone and bronze age superstions and dogmas must not be allowed to become the default legal paradigm of our society.

  11. So you can’t run for public office because of your beliefs, and that isn’t enough for you to rally? If that doesn’t bother you, then that’s fine, but don’t begrudge those who do feel bothered by it and want to change that. Maybe you don’t want to run for office, but plenty of atheists do, and can’t. Plenty of states have laws explicitly preventing atheists from running, to say nothing of social prejudices.

    Sure, atheists have it easy compared to how African Americans and gays have had it in the past, but I suspect maybe your happy life has blinded you to some of the very real discrimination that atheists face. I think your being more than a little smug yourself, in fact, by calling other atheists for being smug just because they want to rally to celebrate their beliefs — particularly when a good deal of them face a lot more hostility than you may have had to face.

    So count yourself lucky if you have never been disowned by your family and shunned by your community because you don’t believe in the same magic book that they do. Be happy if your partner has never broken up with you because his or her parents would never let him or her marry a “heathen.” Be happy if you’ve never been mocked or ridiculed or harassed for your beliefs. But don’t begrudge those who have — especially because they are rallying for your rights too, even if you don’t care.

    • “Plenty of states have laws explicitly preventing atheists from running,”

      Which states? I find this odd, since it would never stand up in court.

      • Arkansas State Constitution, Article 19 Section 1 (“Miscellaneous Provisions”)
        No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.

        Maryland’s Declaration of Rights:
        Article 36
        “That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come.”

        Article 37
        “That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God;”

        Massachusetts’ State Constitution, Article 3
        “Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.”
        Comment: Apparently non-Christians are not “equally under the protection of the law”.

        Note: this part of the Massachusetts’ State Constitution was amended. Here is Article XI of the Articles of Amendment:
        “Article XI. Instead of the third article of the bill of rights, the following modification and amendment thereof is substituted.
        As the public worship of God and instructions in piety, religion and morality, promote the happiness and prosperity of a people and the security of a republican government; — therefore, the several religious societies of this commonwealth, whether corporate or unincorporate, at any meeting legally warned and holden for that purpose, shall ever have the right to elect their pastors or religious teachers, to contract with them for their support, to raise money for erecting and repairing houses for public worship, for the maintenance of religious instruction, and for the payment of necessary expenses: and all persons belonging to any religious society shall be taken and held to be members, until they shall file with the clerk of such society, a written notice, declaring the dissolution of their membership, and thenceforth shall not be liable for any grant or contract which may be thereafter made, or entered into by such society: — and all religious sects and denominations, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good citizens of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [See Amendments, Arts. XLVI and XLVIII, The Initiative, section 2, and The Referendum, section 2].”

        Mississippi State Constitution. Article 14 (“General Provisions”), Section 265
        “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.”

        North Carolina’s State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8
        “Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”

        Pennsylvania’s State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
        “No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.”

        South Carolina’s State Constitution, Article VI
        Section 2:
        “No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.”
        Section 5: The oath of office ends in,
        “So help me God.”

        Tennessee’s State Constitution, Article 9 Section 2
        “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.”

        Texas’ State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
        “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”

          • Yes, but in fairness you’re quoting 19th century laws that no longer have standing since Torcaso v. Watkins. I can cite laws from my home city that blacks can’t live in certain parts of town, but it that doesn’t mean they can’t – it just means that they used to not be able to until they were made unenforceable.

          • “In fairness”

            My eyes just rolled so far that they almost fell out of my head.

            Unenforceable is not enough. Those laws need to be off the books and OUT of the constitutions. And you should demand the very same for your hometown’s laws against blacks living in certain parts of town. Just because it’s not enforced doesn’t make it no longer wrong or discriminatory.

            In fact, it is precisely thanks to people like those who went to the Reason Rally that those laws are no longer enforced. If everyone was as complacent as the author, blacks would STILL be quartered to whatever section of your hometown it says on the books.

            Do we have it better than it was a generation ago? You bet! But it’s not enough yet, and its this opposition to positive change coming from people who share the same beliefs that is the most frustrating. Just because you or I have it good, should we discourage others who have it worse off than us from standing up for their rights?

          • I support your assertion that foolish laws like the CPSIA ought to be repealed.

          • “Do we have it better than it was a generation ago? You bet! But it’s not enough yet, and its this opposition to positive change coming from people who share the same beliefs that is the most frustrating. Just because you or I have it good, should we discourage others who have it worse off than us from standing up for their rights?”

            I think our disagreement comes not from desired outcomes but best practices.

            For example, while I disagree with you that getting archaic laws off the books is necessary (let alone a priority), I agree that the fact thaI can’t run for national office, honestly answer questions about my religious beliefs and have a prayer (ha!) of winning is a thing that needs changing. But when I look at rallies that focus on how those that believe are somehow lesser, or idiots, or are in anyway treated in any fashion other than condescending, I don’t see those activities getting us any closer to that point – in fact, I see them as being yet another obstacle to overcome in getting people to recognize that we’re not more or less moral or intelligent or capable than a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim. (Kidding on that last one! The majority of those that don’t want atheists in public office aren’t overly keen on Muslims either.)

          • Well getting old laws off the book isn’t my priority here. I’m more concerned about tangible rights like you mentioned. But getting old laws off the books is one step of that which much be accomplished. After all, we repealed slavery; we didn’t just stop enforcing it. Same goes with other unconstitutional laws. I am happy that for the most part these are not being enforced, but being on the books at all provides some support for those who seek to oppress. The mere fact that someone running for office in one of those states would have to first go to court and fight to show that the particular law or the constitution is unconstitutional is one extra and very unnecessary hurdle that an atheist would face if it were even socially acceptable to run for office in those areas. And just think of the negative publicity of someone running for state office while simultaneously fighting against the state constitution. This is not a non-issue!!

            I mentioned in another comment how I very strongly disagree with the author on the issue of atheists being arrogant or condescending. Pointing out irrationality is not rude. Ridiculing that which is ridiculous is not condescending. The notion that a talking snake tricked a woman into eating a magic apple and causing the downfall of humanity is absurd. Using that to justify oppression of women is morally disgusting and abhorrent, and there is nothing wrong with saying so. I’d go the other way, in fact, and say there is something wrong with NOT saying so. Obviously that is a simplistic example, but the same can be applied for more subtle parts of religion; the parts saying that women must be silent and submit to men, the parts saying homosexuality is an abomination (equal to eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two different fabrics nonetheless!), the parts that promote genocide, slavery, and so on. Calling those out for being the barbaric drivel that they are is not being unduly aggressive, particularly in an age where politicians and world leaders are trying to use those very same passages to justify and enforce truly ignorance and morally wrong things.

            I can’t speak for all atheists, so I can’t start any phrase with “Atheists do not…,” but for the most part, the leaders of the rally and the people spearheading this movement are not mocking people for being religious. They are mocking people for being ridiculous. If the reason they are being ridiculous happens to be religious, so be it. Craziness doesn’t suddenly get a free pass when it is paraded under the umbrella of religion. If sexism is wrong, it is wrong when the Bible is used to justify it. If it is wrong and morally repugnant to use fake science to “prove” that some ethnicities are inferior to others, than it is just wrong and morally repugnant to use religion to do the same. Part of what these “New Atheists” (as much as I hate that term) are fighting for is the idea that religion does not deserve a free pass to discriminate, oppress, teach lies, and so on. That is not the same as bashing religion, yet the argument keeps coming up (from fellow atheists nonetheless!) that Dawkins et al are too harsh, or too aggressive, or are even being unreasonable in their promotion of reason. That’s just so utterly absurd.

          • Just so, Tod.

            A little while ago, I wrote a post about the importance of nominating an atheist to higher office, and how I would preferentially vote for one because of the need to overcome the de facto requirement that exists for elected officials. However, I actually believe in God (on some level), and being told by anyone that I must be a moron to do so would not endear me to their cause, even though it is one I sincerely support.

          • Ugh… it keeps coming back to this doesn’t it.

            I have to honestly ask this: do you guys actually pay much attention to the people who were leading this rally?? Have you actually read books by Dawkins, Harris, Dennet or watched TV interviews with David Silverman?

            Nobody is calling religious people morons. Nobody is calling them stupid. Nobody is out mocking or attacking people for being religious, yet this claim has been brought up I don’t even know how many times in this discussion alone. It’s a strawman argument.

            They are attacking specific *ideas* that are found in religion, not religious people. Nobody is calling you a moron. Nobody is calling you a moron. Nobody is calling you a moron. Please stop using that argument as a protest against atheism. That is not what they are saying at all.

          • Right! They’re just saying you believe moronic things. Big difference. I think.

          • kenB, not sure if you’re being sarcastic there or not, but yes, I think there is a big difference. A very big one.

            Calling someone irrational, whether its true or not, is pretty aggressive and is understandably often seen just as an ad hominem attack, whether it is true or not.

            Calling someone’s belief or idea irrational really shouldn’t be all that controversial. If it’s not irrational you can simply demonstrate that it isn’t. If it is irrational, then what do you have to complain about for having it pointed out?

            If people are taking personal offense at having their beliefs challenged, then they are probably just not used to having their beliefs challenged. It might do them some good to have their beliefs challenged more often, forcing them to think a little more critically about them.

            It’s not a personal attack. Nobody blames a child for getting a complicated math problem wrong in school, and nobody should blame an adult for getting complicated life questions wrong either. But it shouldn’t be controversial to point out what is wrong with an idea, and it shouldn’t cause feelings of personal victimization to have your beliefs challenged.

          • I don’t take it personally, any more than I took personally the criticisms of my parenting skills from my teenage daughter. Some adults are basically overgrown adolescents who think they have all of life’s answers and don’t hesitate to tell others where they’ve gone wrong — one just hopes they’ll grow to adulthood eventually.

          • “The God Delusion” was just gentle trash-talking between friends, then?

        • PA’s is NOT saying atheists can’t run for office (not saying it hasn’t been interpreted that way). JEEZ. Quaker state, tolerance is our motto. You don’t even need a Judge to get married in this state.
          It’s basically saying that Unitarians can hold office, not that atheists can’t. (remember the days when it was “god save us from methodists”?? That’s how old that constitution is)

          • Yeah, what it says is that nobody who believes in a God will be disqualified from holding office or place of trust based on their religion. What it should say that that nobody will be disqualified from holding office or place of trust based on their religion or lack of religion.

            It doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to see why people would find that wording marginalizing or discriminatory.

        • Yeah, I’m getting that. What I’m not getting is the necessity for a movement to combat 19th century laws that are universally accepted and unconstitutional and dead.

          • Because they are not universally accepted as unconstitutional. When that happens they will be repealed.

          • In 2000, Alabama had a repeal of its constitutional ban on miscegenation on the ballot. It passed, 60% – 40%. Does that constitute universal acceptance of Loving?

            As long as these unconstitutional, discriminatory laws are on the books — however dead they are in the letter of the law — they encourage a winking approval to those who still support them in spirit.

          • I thought I was being clear, but obvious fail. So…

            Yes, when I say universally agreed upon, I don’t meant that no human being thinks its a bad idea. I meant that in our entire court system it is universally accepted as decided. Sheriffs in Bum-Fish NameAState don’t do arrest a city employee when they discover he’s an atheist because the DA’s really not clear on whether or not they have a case.

            That’s what I meant by universally agreed upon.

          • You didn’t fail at all, we got it. My point (and maybe Matt’s) is that it’s important to know just how much an accepted legality is accepted socially. I probably overestimate the importance of cultural standing, but you can’t very well craft policy and rhetoric without knowing your audience. And why wage all the symbolic battles on your opponent’s turf?

    • Be a Unitarian Universalist (sounds Christian) or a Mormon. It’s not that hard. Or be a Buddhist. Put on some weight and talk gently.

      There’s no atheist identity. Just borrow someone else’s if you need it.

      • Should an atheist have to hide or lie about their identity?

  12. I have to say I give this most excellent post a “+1, except…”

    … except that even though I agree with you, I feel like I have to put up with enough people explaining to me why I am X [where X is equal to a negative member of society] because I am a nonbeliever, that there is a wee part of me that say “You go, girlfriend!*” to things like this. This admission does not make me proud, but it is there.

    *(and then I realize they’re all men, of course, and I wish I had a better catchphrase)

  13. We ended up in a war in Iraq in part because Presudent Bush believed god told him to go there. Do you not think that affectd us as citizens? Our children have died fighting in that war. Our taxes are paying for that war. Perhaps your day to day life activities aren’t interrupted by religion, but in the larger scope, religion is steering this country. Abortion rights. Who can and can not marry. The social issues of this 2012 campaign have everything to do with religion. I can’t see how you can have an attitude of “Who cares?” about it.

  14. Maybe the protestors are just trying to win people over to their cause. Of course, what believer wouldn’t be won over by someone wearing a T-shirt saying “Free drinks to the person who can prove God exists”?

    You mean free drinks isn’t proof of the existence of God?

  15. I thought this was an excellent post.
    Sadly, the comments remind me of a particular quirk of human character.
    From the Proverbs:
    Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways.
    If that was a little too religious for everybody, here’s this one:
    What do you do when the old man’s gone–
    Do you want to be him?
    —Jethro Tull
    Thick as a Brick
    The concept that superiority may be amply demonstrated by childishness is …
    Whatever.
    It’s not a thing peculiar to atheists, but prevalent among them.
    And being able to read a coherent atheist view without that element was refreshing.
    (as with Tod’s comments)
    (Thank you)

    • It’s not a thing peculiar to atheists, but prevalent among them.

      It’s prevalent among the outspoken atheists, as it is among the firebrands of most groups. I doubt atheists as a whole have a higher incidence.

  16. One thing that I have noticed in my arguments against Atheists (and I am *CERTAIN* that the atheists here are exceptions to my experiences!) is that their main focus is Christianity and *SPECIFICALLY* the flavor of Christianity with which they were raised (e.g., ex-Catholics are more likely to bring up the priest scandals first thing and then onto the protestants, ex-Evangelicals are more likely to bring up Haggard and televangelists and their scandals before talking about the priests raping children, and so on). This makes sense, I suppose, but it gives it the distinct flavor of rebellion against how they happened to have been raised rather than a philosophy in its own right. (I mean, I once started arguing about the reaction to The Satanic Verses (prior to 2001) and atheists started explaining to me the importance of respecting other cultures.)

    Of course, the atheists here are exceptions to these things that I’ve happened to notice and the plural of anecdote is not data.

      • Scrutiny I can understand.
        But ridicule is a few steps beyond scrutiny.
        Why would you get so involved with it that would lead you to ridicule?
        If you find it to be a total negative, then why focus on it to that extent?
        I don’t understand.
        What are you getting out of that?
        What’s the payoff?

        • Our current political environment is the *perfect* example of scrutiny then leading to ridicule. That’s how I get involved to the point of ridicule. And as the current presidential candidates portray what I perceive to be a very negative aspect and these people are supposed to run the country I live in, then yes, I can and will focus. The payoff? If enough people realize how these people’s religious beliefs are at the core of what they plan on doing with the country, they won’t be voted in. Rather nice payoff, if you ask me.

          • That didn’t make a lot of sense to me at first.
            There are wa-a-a-a-y too many aspects of our political culture for me to view any focus on religion (and I just don’t see it) as being the king daddy trump of all issues.

            But then, if you switch “Hondas” for “religious beliefs,” and “country & western” for “ridicule,” it all makes sense.
            Like so:
            Our current political environment is the *perfect* example of scrutiny then leading to country & western. That’s how I get involved to the point of country & western…. If enough people realize how these people’s Hondas are at the core of what they plan on doing with the country, etc.

            I really don’t think Romney is planning to do anything particularly Mormon with the presidency, and Obama seems to have shrugged off the Rev. Wright fairly well.
            I don’t see it.

            I know that you think you’re fighting the good fight.
            I trust in your sincerity and good-heartedness.

            I feel that you probably have some other specific grievance that you’re not willing to share.
            And that’s ok. I’m just some guy on the internet, and I don’t need to know.
            But I can feel that hurt within you from this side, and I feel badly for you.
            So what if Newt Romney wins? Or Obama? Or that one guy?
            We get up and we live the next day.
            We’re still in this together.

        • It depends on the believe and who is acting on it. Beliefs inform our actions.

          If my neighbor down the street believes his dog can talk to him, it doesn’t affect me at all, and there’s not much reason to get involved.

          If the president of the US believes that a god is telling him to attack another country, or enact certain legislation, or if teachers in my kids’ school are telling them that man and dinosaurs walked together and that science is completely wrong, that does have a big effect on my life, and it’s worth the focus.

      • You can start with:
        “When I ridicule another person’s religion or faith, I feel _____.”
        We can work from there.

          • But you feel something when you do it.
            That’s the important part.

            If you feel nothing when you do it, then that would be the important part.

    • Sure, it makes perfect sense that most American atheists focus on Christianity. After all, Christianity is the prevalent religion in the US, and thus it is the one religion that most commonly comes up. For the same reason it’s also the one religion that US atheists feel most threatened by. Singling out the denomination one grew up in only makes sense because it is likely to be the one that a person is most familiar with. That doesn’t mean, though, that they are simply rebelling or that they aren’t concerned with the underlying philosophy.

    • We were raised in a once a year on Christmas Eve Episcopal house. But I get what you’re saying. Hitches and Shermer were each hardcore believers before they were hardcore atheists. But I might suggest it’s not an atheist thing. I think what you describe is a trait of true believers of all stripes. Show me a hardcore “all liberals are evil!” conservative, and it’s not uncommon to find that they used to be just as passionate a liberal (and vice versa).

      Also, non-smokers, paleo-dieters and Big Green Egg owners.

    • Jay,
      Jewish atheists tend to have less of an axe to grind against Judaism. In fact, you sometimes still find them practicing Judaism (Maimonides did say that it’s okay to not believe in G-d and still be Jewish — you just shouldn’t go around the community naysaying other people’s belief in G-d, or proselytizing that G-d doesn’t exist)

      • One wonders if there was something that happened in the 20th century that colors their opinion on atheism wrt Judaism…

        • are you trying to gently bring up the Holocaust? Cause I’d rather we call a spade a spade. (and I do agree with you)
          Also, it’s likely that Judaism is a bit more accepting of strains of Atheism because of the Holocaust.

          • I have spoken with Atheists who explain that, in a perfect world, there would be no religion.

            “No Christians?”, I ask. “Nope!”, they say cheerfully.

            “No Muslims?”, I ask. “Nope!”, they say cheerfully.

            I’m sure you see where I’m going even if they tend to not. Anyway, they argue that the follow up question to those two is seriously unfair and I’m totally twisting everything they’re saying and it’s proof of my bigotry.

  18. Rose,

    First, let me grant you: ‘Brights’ is just embarrassing. I can’t defend it and I can’t imagine how they came up with that. All I can guess/hope is some deep group think rendered them completely tin-eared on how that sounds. I’m just glad the term seems to have died a quick and ignominious death.

    But I think most of the rest of your argument is mostly a strawman, at least as applied to thoughtful atheists.

    First, as far as ‘Reason Rally’, I’m not even sure of your point. Yes, people can attempt to make reasoned arguments. But even you admit that they aren’t necessarily sound and were incapable of convincing Russell. And that is just to prove the existence of the highly abstract God of Deism. But Dawkins et. al. aren’t trying to debate some academic view of religion, they are speaking to religion as it is actually practiced in the US. I.E. where we are getting people trying to set educational, scientific and political policy based on the literal interpretation of the Bible.

    So if you want to defend real life religion as it is actually practiced in the US as reason based, then you better be prepared to present an argument that starts with first principles at one end and comes out with the 6 days of Genesis and the parting of the Red Sea at the other end. And I doubt you have that.

    • Those arguments, though not sound, are not unreasonable. What they lack is good enough evidence. And per your other comment, evidentialism is not something one is guilty of. It’s probably the dominant view in philosophy, and I hold some weakened version of it. You basically state it in your last paragraph.

      Having the slogan “reason not religion” implies that the other side is unreasonable. Which is insulting. They have some false beliefs, which is different. I’m guessing that you and I and Dawkins and Dennett hald some unwarranted false beliefs as well.

      And as for how religion is practiced in the U.S. – not everyone who is religious is hellbent on creating a theocratic state. There is a huge variety of religious practice.

      If you have a rally protesting prayer in schools, I’m there with you. Teaching intelligent design, atheists losing their kids in custody battles, I will hold up my own sign. But just saying religion is is unreasonable or ridiculous will do exactly nothing to achieve those ends. Is the enemy the fact that people believe the world was created in six days, or the fact that some people think banning contraception is a good idea?

      • Having the slogan “reason not religion” implies that the other side is unreasonable

        When I read ‘Reason not Religion’, I see ‘reason’ in the sense of ‘ a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense”. So in that context, the opposite of reason would be to come to the conclusion through some process other than logical explanation or proof, i.e. faith. And, as I said, everyone has to make some conclusions on faith. They just need to recognize the different between those faith-based conclusions and evidence based ones.

        not everyone who is religious is hellbent on creating a theocratic state

        Of course. But I never said that. I was responding to your statement that people have made reasoned arguments for God. I was point out that those reasoned arguments failed to even soundly support the existence of the simplest of deities, let alone the complex set of beliefs of actual believers. And so that really isn’t relevant to defending actual practices on as reason-based.

  19. And as to atheists being guilty of evidentialism. If the definition of evidentialism is a belief that absence of evidence is evidence of absence: please document anyone respectably advocating that. That is simply a lack of basic logic skills, and I can’t picture Dawkins et. al. making that simplistic of an error.

    Now you then extend evidentialism to someone who finds belief without evidence as unwarranted or immoral. Again, I think that misses the point. Instead I think the point is that empirically derived conclusions about the world are qualitatively different that faith-based conclusions.

    (I use ‘faith’ very generally here: short of a sound derivation of ethics from first principles (which I doubt is possible), everyone is forced to make basic ethical assumptions on ‘faith’, including atheists).

    And given that these ‘faith-based’ conclusions are, by my definition, the non-empirically verifiable conclusions, then they are functionally indistinguishable from opinions, albeit strongly held opinions. So this just boils down the old adage that you can have your own opinions, but you can’t have your own facts.

    And I’ll stand by that.

    • It shows a particular type of logical fallacy, and I can’t think of the name of it, because my brain doesn’t work properly without at least a cup-and-a-half of coffee (not there yet).
      But it runs like this:
      Smoking can kill me.
      Therefore, if I don’t smoke, I will be immortal.

      • If you are talking about ‘absence of evidence => evidence of absence’, the ‘official’ name for the fallacy seems to be ‘denying the antecedent’

        But the issue isn’t whether it is an error or not (of course it is). But rather that I don’t know of any respectable atheist making that error and so Rose’s reference to that is a strawman.

        • I am not saying absence of evidence therefore evidence of absence. One is not concluding one from the other, it’s just a cutesy slogan to explain a principle of epistemology that is argued for independently – that one should withhold belief in X until you have evidence of X. I promise I am not making up evidentialism – it is a commonly held view. Follow the link I have in the OP.

          • I did follow the link and I at least tried to respond to your point in my post above. To restate it: evidentialism isn’t necessary to the atheist position. We simply hold that conclusions based on evidence are different in kind then conclusions on faith, and we therefor treat them differently.

          • Actually, reading your reference on evidentialism further, I believe my argument is compatible with Practical Non-Evidentialism.

            Which I offer as an argument that one can be atheist and still not an evidentialist.

          • Dude. I did not say that evidentialism is incompatible with atheism. One of the most famous arguments against evidentialism, Wiliam James, discusses how it is permissible to believe in God or not until more evidence comes in.

            I was trying to say what I think these people were saying by using the word “reason,” which, as our argument shows, can have an amorphous meaning. Was every single person there an evidentialist? No. But I’m guessing if you did a poll of the attendees and asked if one should believe in X with no evidence for X, most would say no.

            I don’t think evidentialism is a fallacy. In its strictest form, it can be problematic (as I argued), but not strictly fallacious.

          • Meant to say that I didn’t mean evidentialism is necessary for atheism.

        • Actually, I hear that sort of thing a lot from atheists.
          It’s right up there with, “I never consented to my own birth;” ignoring the fact that breathing, eating, and the like substantiate volition (at some level) to continuation of life, regardless of quantitative and qualitative concerns in relation to the original consent.
          How many people die in falls that never consented to do such a thing, saying, “I disagree! I disagree!” all the way down?
          The original consent is irrelevant.

          I think Rose did an excellent job of exposing the fallacy as applied.

          • Can you give me a citation? Because, as I said, I seriously doubt Dawkins et. al have made such an error.

            Unless you are holding atheists responsible for positions held in random blog comments? Because if you are, I have a whole slew of random anti-atheism blog comments that I want you to take responsibility for…

          • My brother was an atheist.
            I’m a bit familiar with the concept.
            Again, the fallacy is not uncommon.
            I really don’t care to read through atheist literature.
            And I don’t care to be hectored by some prick.
            It is what it is.
            Go find it yourself.

        • The fallacy is the claim that absence of evidence is not proof of absence. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if we are talking about a situation where evidence is expected. If we suspect there has been a fire, yet there is no evidence of charring, no ash, no soot, no smokey reside, then that can be counted as evidence. We can consider the lack of flying reindeer, the lack of any evidence of large-scale factory operations, and the undemonstrated claim that he flies around the world in one night visiting every house on Earth as pretty strong evidence that Santa does not exist. Are these examples proof? No, because you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist. But when the required evidence is not found where it should be, then it absolutely can be counted as evidence of absence.

          • One thinks that it is not outside of bounds to posit that perhaps an entity that, by definition, possesses the ability to ignore the natural laws of the universe may choose to be unobservable.

            You can only “expect” evidence of such an entity if you can also assign motivations to said entity that are consistent with the entity wishing to be observable, assuming of course that you believe such an entity would be rational.

            Since you have no grounds to make such an assessment in the general form (although in the specific form, perhaps, given certain specific gods to refute), you have no grounds to assign an expectation to the existence (or lack thereof) of evidence supporting the contention that the entity exists.

            Point of fact, this is not exactly unexplored territory in the theology of several religions.

          • The thing is that if you’re claiming something as true when it outside the realm of falsifiability, you can’t really call your claim reasonable. It’s easy to posit such a being, but imagining it and saying that it definitely does exist are two vastly different things.

            There may well be a god, but that god either a) does not interact at all with the universe in any way that is observable or measurable; or b) acts on the universe and then purposefully uses its extraordinary power to erase all traces and evidence of its interaction. You know, like creating pre-aged dinosaur bones in fossil layers that were constructed to look older than they really are, simply to fool us. Proposition A is the god of deism, and is really just an argument for a prime mover more than any theistic claim, while B is not the god of any religion followed here on Earth, and certainly not the Christian god.

            But whatever, speculating about the motives of a god is about as useful as speculating about the color of a unicorn’s tail. Without a single shred of useful evidence to support the claim that X exists, it is unreasonable to believe that claim. One of the common loopholes that people try to use in this argument is the insistence that “God is outside of science, so science can’t touch him!” This may very well be true, but if that’s the case then the theist is neither justified in saying “God exists,” but that itself is a scientific claim that is testable and should be demonstrated before accepted as true. Something may well exist outside of the realm of observation, testability, and science, but we will never ever know.

          • > The thing is that if you’re claiming something as true
            > when it outside the realm of falsifiability, you can’t
            > really call your claim reasonable.

            I disagree. You’re assuming you can construct a complete, correct, and closed system using reason. You can’t. We’ve known this for a while.

            So any system that depends upon bivalent logic (what most people are talking about when they use “reason”) and some finite set of axiomatic statements will by definition be incomplete, incorrect, or open.

            There are actually infinitely more infinite unfalsifiable conjectures than falsifiable ones.

            So… in a very real way… demanding that all of your truths be falsifiable forces you to accept a logical paradigm where most of the knowledge in reality is inexpressible.

            > It’s easy to posit such a being, but imagining it and saying that
            > it definitely does exist are two vastly different things.

            Oh, surely so. Granted, 100%. I don’t in any wise wish to defend any particular God (or Gaia- or gods- or Cthulhu-related) claims, here. Just going against the idea that the defense of the theist is inherently irrational.

            > There may well be a god, but that god either a) does not interact
            > at all with the universe in any way that is observable or
            > measurable; or b) acts on the universe and then purposefully
            > uses its extraordinary power to erase all traces and evidence
            > of its interaction.

            Well, there’s also (c) acts upon the universe in ways that are observable, but only under certain sets of extreme circumstances that haven’t occurred in modern history.

            That last one, I’ll admit, does strain credulity, but it’s certainly the case that the time that has passed since the advent of the philosophy of the scientific method represents a pretty small percentage of just human history, so it also isn’t necessarily completely crazy.

            But given (a), just because God doesn’t interact with the real universe doesn’t mean nothing happens after you die, and most theology is sort of geared towards that part of the conversation.

          • Most theology does not merely assert that a god exists.

            Most theology asserts that a god exists, and then gives a lengthy and very detailed description of that god, its likes and dislikes, its demands, its history, its plan, and so on.

            I don’t think anyone is objecting all that much to the belief that there may be life after death or that a god may exist. What most atheists are objecting to is the use of unsubstantiated beliefs to enforce laws on other people. People are not complaining about lofty philosophical notions that have no effect on reality. They are complaining about the very real effects on society that are coming about because of unreasonable beliefs. Banning gay marriage because this or that god doesn’t like gays. Trying to limit contraception because this or that god thinks sex is dirty, and contraception somehow gives people the free reign to be “sinful” — just to scratch the surface of examples.

            I don’t find much value in arguing over the existence of something that is non-demonstrable or non-falsifiable. It is a non-issue. But I think it is very important to argue over readily demonstrable things.

          • > Most theology does not merely assert that a god exists.

            Sure.

            > Most theology asserts that a god exists, and then gives a lengthy
            > and very detailed description of that god, its likes and dislikes,
            > its demands, its history, its plan, and so on.

            Wrong. You don’t read a lot of theology, I’m supposing. Most theology is actually written discussing other theology that was written before. It’s an awful lot like philosophy, that way.

            God comes in as a first mover, but the rest of the heavy lifting is usually someone elses’ work.

            > I don’t think anyone is objecting all that much to the belief
            > that there may be life after death or that a god may exist.

            Then I think you (read: “generic you” there) need more accurate slogans on signs at events like this. Atheists at events like this are sorta poking theists in the eye, which indicates that either they’re starkers, or they’re incoherent, or they actually do object quite a bit to what theists believe.

            > What most atheists are objecting to is the use of unsubstantiated
            > beliefs to enforce laws on other people.

            I believe that atheists at events like this are not alone in this objection. That “unsubstantiated” part is lifting an awful lot, I’ll point out. See, the theist finds their beliefs to be very substantiated. They think yours aren’t. So I don’t see that they’re engaging in any particular course of action that is different from anyone else who tries to enforce laws on other people. Maybe you should be a libertarian, you’d fit right in here 🙂

            > People are not complaining about lofty philosophical notions
            > that have no effect on reality. They are complaining about the
            > very real effects on society that are coming about because of
            > unreasonable beliefs.

            You are misusing the word “unreasonable”. The beliefs may be lots of things, including unjust, but they are not necessarily “unreasonable”. I imagine you would gain a lot more traction arguing with theists by using the correct term, “unjust”. Theists like justice. They don’t like being told they’re incapable of logical thought.

            > Banning gay marriage because this or that god doesn’t like
            > gays. Trying to limit contraception because this or that god
            > thinks sex is dirty, and contraception somehow gives people
            > the free reign to be “sinful” — just to scratch the surface
            > of examples.

            This is a woefully bad characterization of both of the arguments you’re bringing up as examples. (For the record, I find both of the arguments that are being made in the respective cases to be unjust). This implies to me that you don’t understand the argument that is being presented to you, or you’re reading a misrepresentation of the argument, or you’ve found one nut like Fred Phelps who is making a really bad argument and you’re lumping other Christians in with him. I would respectfully submit that further exploration of the arguments might be beneficial.

            Hang around, you’ll see some of them in these parts.

          • I think we’re encountering some confusion over the terms we are using. So I’ll try to clarify as I respond:

            Wrong. You don’t read a lot of theology, I’m supposing. Most theology is actually written discussing other theology that was written before. It’s an awful lot like philosophy, that way.

            Maybe I should have said “religion” rather than “theology.” I am equating the two, in so much as theology is based on religion; my complaint with any religion is equally applicable to any theology derived from that religion.

            Then I think you (read: “generic you” there) need more accurate slogans on signs at events like this. Atheists at events like this are sorta poking theists in the eye, which indicates that either they’re starkers, or they’re incoherent, or they actually do object quite a bit to what theists believe.

            It’s hard to put a profound statement on a sign, whatever you are supporting. The nature of the medium is generally tongue-in-cheek or provocative, so you can’t really make a case against the inflammatory atheist signs that can’t be equally made against inflammatory theistic signs. And since signs are usually handmade by the individual, it’s hard to equate them with a whole group. The often-seen “God hates Fags” is no less Biblical that the less-often seen “Love thy Neighbor” signs, but neither of those accurately depicts the whole theistic community either.

            > What most atheists are objecting to is the use of unsubstantiated
            > beliefs to enforce laws on other people.

            See, the theist finds their beliefs to be very substantiated. They think yours aren’t.

            For that to be true, atheism would have to assert a positive belief. The only thing that unites atheists is a *lack* of belief — and that is something that requires absolutely no substantiation at all. It is the default position. If you want to talk about evolution, secular morality, or other topics which I and others have made assertions on you will need to point out a specific one. But as far as “atheism” is concerned, there is no assertion and so there is nothing that a theist can point at and demand for reason.

            On the other hand, theists make any number of *positive* claims, and every one of them needs to be substantiated. In my entire life (and maybe you think I don’t read a lot of theology or religious material, but I have read quite a lot actually) I have never once found a religious statement that cannot be boiled back down to logical fallacy. Most commonly it goes back to the circular reasoning that “the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible” and just builds up from there. Other common ones boil down to appeals to emotion (“I just feel that must be true!”) or appeals to ignorance (“I just can’t imagine another possibility!”). The specific issues I have mentioned do boil down to those, but if you think you have got a religious argument that actually IS substantiated, I would honestly love to hear it. Please do post an example.

            There ARE atheists who make unsubstantiated claims, but those are not based on atheISM, they are based on other beliefs that those atheists hold, and criticisms should be directed at those particular stances rather than at atheism.

            So I don’t see that they’re engaging in any particular course of action that is different from anyone else who tries to enforce laws on other people. Maybe you should be a libertarian, you’d fit right in here

            > People are not complaining about lofty philosophical notions
            > that have no effect on reality. They are complaining about the
            > very real effects on society that are coming about because of
            > unreasonable beliefs.

            You are misusing the word “unreasonable”. The beliefs may be lots of things, including unjust, but they are not necessarily “unreasonable”. I imagine you would gain a lot more traction arguing with theists by using the correct term, “unjust”. Theists like justice. They don’t like being told they’re incapable of logical thought.

            No, I meant unreasonable. There’s a long list I could go into, but just to stick with one, let’s talk about contraception. There is overwhelming evidence that shows contraception is a good thing. It reduces the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies, the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, it gives couples more control over their reproductive cycles, allows people to have more sex (which is in turn has benefits that are very well-supported). All of these are very good things — particularly in the developing world where overpopulation, hunger, and disease are major problems, but also in the developed world as well. Contraception reduces the cost of health care in countries that have healthcare systems, so it can lower the cost of taxes by reducing the monetary burden on the state. It reduces abortions, which religious people also oppose (ironically revealing a huge contradiction in church teachings). Yet, despite the incontrovertible evidence that contraception, many religious institutions, the Catholic Church in particular, are vehemently against it. The reasons? Observation and science all point strongly in favor of contraception… so what is left? Well, the bible is very clearly against it. But for what reasons? Essentially, god doesn’t like it. No decent argument is given in the Bible. So it comes down to the very problem I pointed out above: circular reasoning. That is a logical fallacy, and not reasonable. Or, “unreasonable.” If you can show me a reasonable argument against contraception that outweighs the benefits, I will immediately change my stance that being against contraception is unreasonable. If all you have is the Bible — I’m sorry if you don’t like the term, but — that is by definition unreasonable.

            > Banning gay marriage because this or that god doesn’t like
            > gays. Trying to limit contraception because this or that god
            > thinks sex is dirty, and contraception somehow gives people
            > the free reign to be “sinful” — just to scratch the surface
            > of examples.

            This is a woefully bad characterization of both of the arguments you’re bringing up as examples. (For the record, I find both of the arguments that are being made in the respective cases to be unjust). This implies to me that you don’t understand the argument that is being presented to you, or you’re reading a misrepresentation of the argument, or you’ve found one nut like Fred Phelps who is making a really bad argument and you’re lumping other Christians in with him. I would respectfully submit that further exploration of the arguments might be beneficial.

            Pretty much the same response as above to this one. Yes, I think it is unjust, but it is also unreasonable. If your only argument against legalizing gay marriage goes back to the Bible, you are basing all of your argument on a logical fallacy. No matter how carefully you construct the argument (and religious apologists are experts at rationalizing very convincing arguments to support their beliefs), if the foundation is a logical fallacy, every single thing that rests upon it is part of that fallacy, and thus unreasonable.

            I don’t believe that I have misread the argument at all, but if you think I have please give me a clearer understanding of why. I am pretty well-studied about religion and theology, so while I may sometimes breeze over things in blog comments (I could have been clearer about *why* those arguments are unjustified…), it is for the sake of time — not because I don’t understand the subject.

          • Pat (if you return here), can you recall which thread it was a couple months ago here you deployed the, “perhaps an entity that, by definition, possesses the ability to ignore the natural laws of the universe…” argument in a discussion with me? I wanted to review what I was saying that elicited it from you at that time. Thanks for any assistance you can offer.

          • Argh, Mr. Drew, I confess I have no recollection either.

            I’ll see if I can find it. Shoot me an email to remind me pea ess sea at cms dot caltech dot edu.

          • @ Matt

            > The reasons? Observation and science all point strongly
            > in favor of contraception… so what is left? Well, the
            > bible is very clearly against it. But for what reasons?
            > Essentially, god doesn’t like it. No decent argument
            > is given in the Bible.

            No, see, this is what I’m saying when I say you don’t understand the argument.

            The Catholic argument against contraception doesn’t cite the Bible, not once. The Humanae Vitae is here. Go read it. It’s an entirely Natural Law based argument.

            Now, the funny thing is, I happen to disagree with the argument laid out in that document, pretty much in its entirety. But look, you can take it apart, on its own terms. In fact, if you read it, you’ll see its an eminently reasonable argument provided you agree with its premises (not all of which are necessarily grounded in God-belief, mind you), and you find the potential outcomes laid out in the Consequences to be troubling.

            But there’s an easy answer to that; you refute the premise that leads to the central post of the argument (the natural purpose of sex), and you point out that the Consequences pretty much haven’t come into play.

            (Oddly enough, if you research the hubbub over the Humanae, you’d find that a good number of the Catholic clergy and laypersons disagreed with the Humanae on exactly the same grounds that I do back when it was written, and that there is currently still ongoing dialogue about this in the RCC).

          • Pat, I’m sorry but I just can’t agree with any of that. Check out section 4 of the doctrine, where it explicitly states just the opposite. It isn’t citing specific verses or passage of the Bible, but it is clearly using the Bible (including among other sources in the term “divine Revelation”) as a basis. It refers more than once to “Moral Law,” which is the law as laid out in the Bible and further interpreted by the Church.

            If A leads to B, and B leads to C, and C leads to D and so on all the way to Z, we can’t just look at the logical validity of only X, Y, and Z and claim that they are reasonable without following the chain all the way back to A. If A is a fallacy, then everything that follows is just a derivative of that fallacy. You could design and build the most stable and architecturally sound house ever designed, but if you build it on a bed of sinking sand, it will come down regardless of how good the construction is. (Incidentally, I LOVE those Bible verses — Matthew 7:24-27 — I just find it ironic that the book which made that argument famous is guilty through-and-through of being the foolish man.)

            The doctrine refers to God countless times in its reasoning, which I have to point out again has never been substantiated as a reasonable belief. We have no justification yet to believe in any god, let alone the Christian one, and so every argument that basis itself on God’s desire or will or design or authority fails before it even gets out the gate. It uses terms like “sacred” without defining what that means, and people are expected to just nod and believe that sacred=good. Of course, I doubt they would be able to give a definition of sacred without referring back to God, which brings us back to the previous problem. It refers many times as well to “Natural Law” without defining what that is, but, like the existence of God, it just demands that we accept that term without any definition, and then uses that meaningless term to support vast castles of arguments.

            Even setting aside the fact that the entire argument is based on an enormous presupposition, we can overlook that for now and look at historical precedent. Has the Church lived up to the required level of authority that would be needed to be able to issue such moral edicts? Absolutely not. The Church in its almost-2000-year history has demonstrated time and time again, in every country and in every age, a horrendous lack of moral virtue. The Church’s track record when it comes to being a) right and b) moral are about as bad as any institution’s in all of human history. So if we look at precedent, not only can we not accept the moral authority of the church, we should really be actively denying it.

            The Church is stating what is right and wrong based on an unsubstantiated presupposition about a deity, and in the face of mountains of evidence which points in the opposite direction.

            Your words: “In fact, if you read it, you’ll see its an eminently reasonable argument provided you agree with its premises”

            That “if” you have right there is the key to that sentence, and nullifies the entire argument. If your whole argument hinges on premises that themselves are not substantiated, then your argument is not substantiated, regardless of how carefully you construct it within that framework.

      • When you cut a frog’s legs off, it fails to evade predators.

        Therefore frogs hear with their legs.

  20. Nice work, Rose. Much appreciated, really.

    It’s pleasant to see atheism coming out of the closet, so to speak. I couldn’t be an atheist myself but I have considerable respect for those brave enough to step up and say they don’t believe.

    Though the Brights are a bit pesky, they’re no more so than any other gaggle of earnest people who’d like to go a-missionarying. As for C.S Lewis, the patron saint of my alma mater, that erstwhile atheist-turned-Christian got his ass in a very serious sling with Wittgenstein’s student and translator, Gertrude Anscombe. Anscombe, as far as I can tell, is the first to use the term Consequentialism. Lewis would later rewrite an entire chapter of his book Miracles on the basis of the rhetorical beating Anscombe gave him.

    It little matters what we believe. What matters is what we do, based upon those beliefs, these normative constraints. Anscombe, an ardent Catholic, believed in good and evil: she protested in front of an abortion clinic.

    Anscombe makes a curious argument, pulling down great hunks of the bad thinking in the 1950s on the subject of moral philosophy. While I do not agree with her conclusions, (particularly since all Anscombe did was open an untidy can of worms) she makes a powerful case against the sorry state of virtue ethics of those times and erects a powerful defense for religious ethics.

    If religious beliefs have proven actively harmful, and they have, then those who would abandon religion and its asymptotes must now shoulder a great burden, that of their own ethical constructs. It will not be an easy task. If the evidence counts against the existence of God, the problem of evil has not gone away, indeed the evidence for it is palpable and beyond disproof.

Comments are closed.