Since arriving in Calgary, I made a simple promise to myself. I vowed that I would further my involvement in the local atheist community. It was therefore fortuitous that after only of few days of adjusting to my new surroundings, an opportunity to meet up with other atheists presented itself in the form of a lecture. Held at the University of Calgary last night, it was entitled “The Evolution-Creation Controversy“. Dr. David Eberth presented a stimulating discussion on the framework of Creationism, and argued the real ‘debate” is a political and cultural rather than a scientific struggle.

Dr. Eberth was coming into his approach from an admittedly accommodationist angle. You’re all probably terribly familiar with my thoughts on the matter by now, and can venture to guess I had a few things to say about it. Specifically I focused on one of his metaphors: that of a pendulum illustrating the tendencies for movements to shift from side to side. My argument was perhaps it would be in our favor to put as much emphasis on “our end of the spectrum” rather than concentrate on those who’s opinions were unformulated (the overly solicited “middle ground”).

While I admit it may seem strange one becomes more popular the more you alienate others (to a certain degree, of course), this paradox is undeniably true. Perhaps it’s because the unconvinced masses are impossible to sway, and so they require a “flash-point” in order to be compelled to choose (the safest thing, after all, is not to do anything). The “proles”, Winston observed in George Orwell’s dystopic masterpiece, were simply incapable of grasping the idea they were being oppressed. The experience was so pervasive, it was essentially invisible to them.

Delusion functions similarly. And while Eberth expressed no real interest in what people believed – since in his view it didn’t influence the process of science – it nevertheless interferes with the perception of science. This may be cultural, but it is the systematic irrationality on the part of everyone involved (at all levels) that creates fertile grounds for the controversy. Like any other poisonous concept such as racism, bigotry and sexism, there are no institutions that vanguard these antiquated and dangerous ideas; they are merely the subtle manifestation of a broader set of shared beliefs.

In other words, what you believe really does matter. The importance of belief leaves me unmoved by the limited reproach we give to bad ideas. Even worse, if we try to seduce people to see reality, the truth is we do provide a far less tempting offer. Religion entices followers with a host of promises we couldn’t begin to match. Instead we offer the bitter reality, like all offers which are too good to be true, it really was that and more. What our species accepted in the bargain of religion was the formation of an idea whose very existence created culturally dominant forces which withheld at bay our growing curiosity. Only in the light of reason, a glacially slow process many have perished to preserve, have we wrested away control from these institutions.

Soft pats on the back and a Scooby-Snack will not be enough to entice people to reason. We must instead appeal to the need that all humans share: to wrestle against the absurd. It is in our nature to fight the confusion of enigmatic forces acting upon one another. That struggle creates order to the world we experience. If you doubt this, a simple test can be arranged: simply try and manage that monster struggle after a only few days of sleeplessness. Our capacity for reason is the ultimate triumph of this struggle, but it is a delicate thing, difficult to maintain, and often contrary to our more potent instincts.

We must dissuade them as strongly as we can not to surrender this fragile capacity for reason simply for wishful fantasy. At the end of the day, I believe it is our desire to win the struggle for reason that will make us triumphant, and it is not one we should mask in an effort to be polite.

The faithful often confound me with their tortured explanation as to why their own beliefs are somehow intellectually justified. They want to make faith a virtue; as though believing in God despite any solid evidence is far more brave and integrous than doubt and healthy skepticism.

A fan of the site showed me this article, which claims that it’s the faithful who truly have doubt, while “scientists” are close-minded fools who turn their backs on truth:

…scientists under normal circumstances strive to make their data conform to agreed-upon paradigms. They cling to these paradigms quite tenaciously, even when evidence mounts against them, and the scientific community will only switch paradigms as a last resort. The notion of a completely neutral and objective perspective from which to discern all truth – so crucial to the Enlightenment project – has been shown to be something of a myth, even in the so-called “hard sciences”.

It’s the rare scientist who will claim perfect objectivity, and are perfectly willing to throw out their own pet scientific theories. We know that every human being is prone to accept what confirms his own biases and disregard what doesn’t. This point, however, is irrelevant; science is a method, a way of discerning the truth. It doesn’t matter if a particular scientist is attached to his/her own theory. If it’s incorrect, the error correcting mechanisms of science inevitably weeds out good theories from bad ones.

There is no such method in the world of religion. The very existence of faith is the suppression of doubt, and the celebration of undeserved certainty. While the author claims that “Christian theology has often regarded doubt in a positive light”, he has ignored the legacy of his faith in regards to heresy (were the followers of Arius rewarded for their doubt in the Holy Trinity?) What are we to think of Mark and Luke’s passages that allude to eternal damnation if one even doubts for a moment the existence of the Holy Spirit? How many Christians confess to doubting the validity of the claims of divinity of Jesus, or the virgin birth itself?

Socratic doubt, as understood by Hamann, is the beginning of faith; it’s a form of repentance and confession before the Almighty. And it’s far more radical than any rationalist conception of doubt, which confines itself only to penultimate matters and never creeps into the depths of the soul. The scientist (as scientist) may be skeptical, he may be curious, but he can never really doubt. That is reserved for those who know only as they are known, in faith.

I have no problems believing that religious people have doubts like the rest of us. The difference is in their confidence their doubts are misplaced and ultimately wrong. Faith is a mask of assurance, a false certainty about matters for which there is little or no proof, and more often than not, evidence to the contrary. It should be celebrated the same way ignorance is.

There’s an article that appeared in the Guardian today entitled “Christianity: a faith for the simple“, and while I agree with the premise of the article, I feel as though the author got everything precisely wrong on the subject.

There was a recent study done in the US polling the religiosity of the country’s scientists, which I’m unhappy to report is higher than in most other countries. Of course, the relative numbers are still well below the religiosity of your average citizens, it hasn’t stopped some from claiming the argument our most brilliant minds are prone to non-belief is now dead in the water. Rather than recognize society plays a huge role in just how religious an individual is, there are those who want to believe there is no correlation between education and atheism, even when there clearly is.

My problem with the article is the author seems to think while scientists are unquestionably brilliant people, it means very little when it comes time to make some conclusions about the “God question”:

Our conviction that scientists, elite or otherwise, are somehow better qualified to discern the nature of reality is dubious. Elite scientists undoubtedly know vastly more about their subject than other people. But to imagine that makes them somehow better qualified to adjudicate on big-picture questions is like saying because I know my home town like the back of my hand, I am well-equipped to lecture on European geography

.

Yeah, kind of a failed analogy there. Scientists are experts in their fields, which just happen to tap into the very nature of our Universe. A biologist who understands evolution would definitely have a better idea than a layman as to the possibility of there being a God. Recall until we actually bothered to uncover the truth about the natural world, its wonders were often used as evidence for a supreme being. That’s still the case with people who aren’t “elite”.

It was thus a fundamental tenet of Christianity that not only was the gospel for all, no matter how they were disenfranchised, but that it had a particular simplicity to it.

I think the author of this article has forgotten that for the longest time, the Gospels were hidden from public view (many men had died trying to translate it into a language of “the people”), and only the educated elite (priest class) were considered intelligent enough to read it. It might be due to the fact the Gospels often contradict one another (like Jesus’ genealogy), offer different accounts of certain events (like when Jesus was born), and often omit parts altogether. So arguing dumb people get the Bible because it’s simple is both untrue and certainly not an explanation as to why Christians tend to be stupider on average.

Odd as it may be to admit, there is some reason within the Christian tradition to think that Christian believers should, on average, be less intelligent, or at least less well-educated, than their opponents. Before atheists get too exited by this, it isn’t an admission that Christians are naturally stupid, though no doubt some will choose to read it that way.

Rather it is the recognition that there is a long-standing theme within Christian thought that sees the Christian message as having a particular appeal to the underclass, not only those socially and politically alienated, but also those the intellectually and educationally excluded.

That’s a nice way of saying if you’re uneducated, poor and have few prospects for the future, you’re more likely to believe in fairy-tales. This point, I’ll concede. When life sucks, you are going to cling to religion. I think we can all agree on this point. But this is precisely WHY religious belief is so deceptive and wrong: it prays on the weak, feeding them lies and falsehoods. The fact you are more susceptible to religion when you lack education demonstrates just how gullible one needs to be to believe in nonsense.

Education is corrosive to religion for 2 main reasons: 1) as you study world history and other cultures, you realize your own very localized religion makes the exact same claim as all others with an equally pathetic grasp on reality, and 2) primitive myths about the origins of our Universe, world and species have little resemblance to the truth. Intellectual integrity is antithetical to religion, pure and simple. This is why ignorance is so vital to belief.

There’s been a little debate that’s been raging in one of the posts I put up a few days ago, and while I have no forum (yet), I thought necessary to respond to this comment made by our resident Christian, Brandon.

Michelle, Those “myths” in Genesis match the order in which scientists tell us the earth, the moon and everything on the earth were formed.

Please give me evidence to prove otherwise.

I’ll proceed to dissect Genesis to show just how pathetic the scientific knowledge of a primitive desert tribe really was. We’ll start with the first 4 days of creation. This was actually part of a project I called “The Good Atheist Annotated Bible”. Let me know what you guys think:

1:1 In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth

Ok, not a bad beginning, but obviously it’s a little bit confusing for you. You thought it started out with some king of light, or something related to the Big Bang maybe? Yeah, not so much. Even at the very beginning, it doesn’t sound like anything a scientist would say when describing the birth of the universe. We’ll get to the light part soon (which will show you how much “science” there really is in this thing), but for now I have to say I’m fairly unimpressed with this character so far. He begins by creating a tiny, insignificant planet, and follows this master stroke by immediately building some imperceptible magical fun land where he supposedly lives. It kind of like building your house and then building a little doghouse on the side even before you get a puppy.

According to Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Biblical scholar, there is a mistranslation from the Herbre word “bara” which should have made it “In the Beginning God separated heaven and earth”. If that’s true, it makes the whole “build your house and doghouse right after” beginning less than stellar.

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Is he surfboarding here? Did God finish building his magical play land and decide he needed to hang ten?

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

So is this the point in the Bible you think might be a parallel to the Big Bang or something? Was it after the Earth was created or before God was surfing on it? It’s almost freaky those millions of priests never really figured out the Big Bang with such an obvious clue…

1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Here we have God boasting about his achievement, presumably to himself. I guess you can create something without seeing it, but the only activity where that happens is when I shit, so I’m going to have to assume that God shit out light, turned around, saw it was very good, and then went about separating it from darkness. No offense, but it just seems like darkness and light don’t really need any help separating. They seem to do it just fine on their own.

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Yeah, after naming something, I’m usually pretty tuckered out myself. So, this is the first day, and so far no a lot has happened, but he’s got 6 more, so we’ll let him finish up the others before we really start judging his performance.

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

It’s the beginning of the second day, and again God is still just entirely focused on Earth here. It’s another fairly mediocre start. So far the Universe consists of heaven, some light, and now a planet that finally has some dry land.

1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

If you are wondering why they feel the need to practically repeat themselves here, it’s just because they want presumably to avoid making him seem like a laborer of some sort. God doesn’t “do” anything. He likes to say shit, and then things just happen. It makes him look more regal and less servile. That’s a PR job right there. Here he commands land, which was previously under the water, to float to the top. So basically, ancient Jews believed that the earth was just a large landraft floating on a body of water. They go into more hilarious detail of their vision of the Earth later, as we’ll soon see.

1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Is he creating heaven again?

1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

So now he needs to separate the land and the waters again for some reason. He doesn’t seem to really understand how the planet is actually formed, but that’s not unusual for a group of nomadic desert people living thousands of years ago to have a level of scientific knowledge comparable to a 3 year old.

1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Here he is looking back at his creation, really breathing it in there. He’s thinking to himself “what a fantastic job”. And for what? Day two and he seems about as efficient as a government employee.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

So far we don’t even have a sun, and already God is busy making grass, trees, wheat and a bunch of stuff human beings can eat. The authors seem especially fond of seeds, which I’m sure back then was like talking about diamonds. When food is your main concern, each fruit seed is a chance to not die of fucking starvation. So obviously, these writers might be a little seed happy. Just saying.

1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day

It’s the third day, and even now there are no stars, no galaxies, no other planets. There isn’t even the Sun yet, and somehow God is all tuckered out. He has to be the laziest cosmic laborer ever.

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years

So now finally we get a bit of action here. God supposedly creates all the tiny lights in the sky as a way for people to read signs. Astrology was the latest fashion back then, so if you didn’t have a crazy nutjob yelling out some stupid absurdities based on all the blinking lights in the sky, you couldn’t be a half decent empire. Christians now don’t like astrology very much, but it’s a pretty big part of their history, and we’ll be referencing it pretty extensively in some of the later chapters. Rest assured: they thought it was pretty cool back then.

1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Yes, we know he made the stars, it’s mentioned twice, since the writers can’t seem to decide what stars are supposed to be for. If you think about it from their limited perspective, the actually purpose for stars must have seemed pretty confusing. They didn’t seem to do anything, and if they did, it usually scared the crap out of people.

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Here he makes the Sun, and since the authors of the Bible were essentially scientifically retarded, they actually think the moon generates its own light. To be fair, a lot of kids ask this kind of question. You would be shocked by how few parents know the answer, or believe in something similar.

So far we’re only at day 4 and there’s nothing even remotely close to anything resembling the picture of the Universe we have now thanks to modern science. Discuss!

I’ve recently been enjoying Greta Christina’s rather elaborate and lengthy blog posts over at Alternet.org, and I’ve been REALLY enjoying the debate her articles seem to generate in the comment section. Unlike our safe atheist-only environment we’re accustomed to, Alternet seems to be populated by an eclectic mix of believers, atheists and agnostics.

I was particularly fascinated with some of the comments generated in her recent article entitled “Why Are Believers So Hostile Toward Atheists?”. While Greta argued atheists are damned if we do, and damned if we don’t, her readers appear to have jumped on the “atheists are arrogant” argument as a way of sidestepping the issues:

Atheists (of the herd variety) are typically condescending and arrogant. They often cite ways in which non-atheists are ill-educated, stupid, irrational or misinformed. All based on the implicit paradoxical faith of the herd-atheist’s belief in no god. Of course this is sensed as a hostile stance. Which, of course, induces a hostile response.
There’s something strange and paradoxical about atheism. It’s a faith system who’s sole purpose is to deny something that isn’t defined. It’s a faith system rather than a rational system because, the thing that is denied isn’t defined. If it’s not defined, then it can’t be subject to logic. For the sake of logic, “god” is just a meaningless sound until it’s defined. And there are uncountable definitions that could be made for “god”. And not all those possible definitions can be subject to logic (naturally, considering the scope of what the word “god” suggests). So, atheism is just another kind of religion.

So this person is arguing because a proper definition of God doesn’t exist, it’s irrational not to believe in it? See, this might be a clue to why people are condescending to you, buddy. Terrible arguments don’t make you a lot of friends on the Internet.

Whilst I am a non-believer, I actually find myself partly in agreement with you:

1. I have observed many Atheists in this place to be “condescending and arrogant”, and I’d add even darn right hostile and rude towards Theists.
2. I agree Atheism is a kind of “faith” in as much as it is a position that defies any hard evidence to support their oft claimed scientific position, only that those who support it have not witnessed anything that suggests to them there is a God.

Well, at least this guy is proof not every nonbeliever knows what the fuck they’re talking about. While I agree to the charge of hostility, I think the reader missed the point Greta was trying to make; mainly that our anger is directed at the way religionists treat their fellow believers, and not ourselves. As for the argument it’s “faith” to have a healthy skepticism towards an unfalsifiable and improvable God, I don’t know what will convince someone this profoundly confused that rejecting a poor hypothesis is NOT tantamount to faith.

I have been verbally assaulted on several forums by atheists who are offended by my faith. My response is always kind. It doesn’t seem to soften up their anger. I really don’t understand why the atheists are so afraid of Christians.

The simple answer to this question would include things like: The Inquisition, the Crusades, the Reconquista, and the French Wars of Religion to name a few. The more complex answer would be we fear anyone who bases their entire lives on The Bible or any other violent, misogynistic and xenophobic book. Beliefs can be scary things.

Greta, why are you making sweeping generalizations about a group of people? I would have thought that you of all people would know that sweeping generalizations are almost always false. I’ve met very happy, kind Christians and Believers who could care less about Atheists, and even those who are perfectly happy to socialize with their Atheist friends. And of course, I’ve met many rabid Atheists who are Hostile Toward Believers. Your arguments are getting worse all the time. Now you’ve degenerated into making sweeping generalizations about a group of people as an easy, simplistic way of portraying them in a bad light. I wonder: Why is Greta Christina so Hostile Toward Believers?

I know we treat the word “generalizing” as some kind of pariah, but it’s often really the only way to make statements about the world that have any merit. If I say “most human beings are friendly”, it’s a pretty broad generalization, and there are plenty of examples why this isn’t true. Still, we expect there to be exceptions to the rule. There are theists who aren’t hostile towards atheists and nonbelievers, but so what? Does it suddenly mean there’s no hostility to speak of?

You know, after reading all the comments on her blog posts, I hope she’s getting paid decently for this gig. The amount of baseless criticism for her innocuous article would test my fucking patience to its limits. What do you guys think?

Hey, do you have a few minutes to kill and you want to see how a terribly constructed argument works (or doesn’t)? Well, head on over to “proofthatgodexists.org” and let them blow your mind with their irrefutable logic!

Basically the site has a welcome page that wants you to chose 4 different buttons to assess your belief. Depending on what answer you give, it’ll direct you either out of the site (if you chose the “I don’t give a shit” button) or into a little page with wordplay (asking you if it’s absolutely true no absolute truths exists). Once they have your feeble mind entrapped in this idiotic word game, and you decide to click the “There is Absolute Truth”, the sale is on to get you to believe in God.

It is true that God does not need anyone, let alone this website, to prove His existence. The Bible teaches that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for denying Him. No one needs proof that God exists, I simply offer these 8 steps to the logical proof of God’s existence in addition to what you already know (and may be suppressing).

Ok, so God doesn’t need to be proven because he’s so obvious, but there are a bunch of proofs anyways. Seems like a waste of breath if that’s the case, but who am I to argue? I didn’t write the damn thing.

What’s hilarious about this site is anytime you try to disagree with it on the concept of fundamentals, it asks you a completely loaded question which basically makes your mind up for you. When you dare question the idea of absolute moral laws, you get this:

1. Molesting Children for Fun is Absolutely Morally Wrong
2. Molesting Children for Fun is not Absolutely Morally Wrong.

If you chose the second option, you’re told you in fact have no morality since you’ve evidently made a bad choice! But wait, it gets more awesome as you travel deeper. When asked if the laws that govern the Universe are material or immaterial in nature, the obvious answer (well, to us materialists anyways) produces this hilarious gem:

If you believe that laws of logic, mathematics, science, or morality are made of matter, please show me where in nature these laws are. Can you touch them, see them, smell them, hear them, or taste them? Rather than have you produce a material, physical law I will narrow down the field for you… just show me the number ’3′ somewhere in nature. Not ‘three things,’ not a written representation of the number 3 but the real physical, material number 3.

It is my hope and prayer that you come to see the futility of trying find an abstract entity in nature, and return to seek the truth, otherwise your road to this site’s proof that God exists ends here.

Is there ultimately something ironic about the fact he wants someone to produce material proof of a concept? Maybe just a little. Remember, he’s convinced already he’s right, and he’s still trying to entice you with the ultimate proof.  In a weird way, it’s the religious equivalent of a “choose your own adventure book”.

Alright, it’s getting a little long after a while, and you start to wonder what the big payoff is, after a while. Finally, it’s the end, and the author wants to blow you away with this one:

The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.

That sounds like something a burnt out stoner would think of. Your proof is that without this improvable being, there would be nothing to prove at all? Did this fucking guy feel like a genius when he said that? I almost feel like he only had a few educated friends who weren’t willing to be honest with him and inform Blaise Pascal here this is the very definition of one of the most basic of all fallacies: a tautology. There’s literally no value to that statement at all.

Someone posted this on Reddit/r/atheism (for those of you unaware of the existence of this site, go there immediately), and I thought I might take a few seconds to respond to his request:

I went to a Catholic high school and kept the fact that I was atheist a secret most of the time because I wanted to avoid any religion debates. My closer friends knew and didn’t care but mentioned it once when we were eating lunch with some other of our class mates. The response I immediately received from one of the guys was basically “How stupid are you? You’re atheist? Why don’t you go home right now and kill yourself. You already have nothing to live for.” I did not know how to respond and I let him just ramble on. I never tried to defend myself and I regret not saying anything. I still don’t know how I’m supposed to respond to another “Go kill yourself” type statement. I’ve always struggled with depression and I honestly don’t know why I shouldn’t kill myself. Does anyone have a reasonable response to say to that kind of person if that were to ever happen again? This happened a few years ago, I’m in university now and probably won’t ever encounter that kind of person again but it still makes me nervous thinking about it.

What’s a good way to respond to a religious person telling you to kill yourself because you are atheist?

My first instinct would have been to tell him to go fuck himself, but it seems as though you might be a bit more sensitive than me, so that probably wouldn’t have worked out.

I’m constantly surprised by how cold and callous Christians can be in regards to the wellbeing of others (despite their assertion they are somehow morally superior). Sure, I’ve made fun of plenty of religious people in my day, but I certainly wouldn’t tell anyone to take their own lives for what they believed or didn’t believe. I would have lambasted this ignorant bastard for making light of what is still a huge problem with today’s teenagers. Suicide is no fucking joke. Too many talented, promising and sensitive young men (for it’s still mostly men) extricate themselves from this adventure we call life before they fully bloom.

I would have also asked him how his belief in fairy tales makes him an “expert” on the subject of “purpose”. No doubt he’s young, not terribly educated, and completely unaware of the world beyond his tiny purview. Has he even bothered to find out the majority of the world does not believe what he does, or lives how he lives?

When you’re young and inexperienced, it’s easy to have tunnel vision. You feel depressed and admittedly have perhaps seriously contemplated suicide. That’s not unusual as the chemistry of your brain is undergoing some radical changes. Atheists don’t have any sanctions against taking one’s own life, but I think the realization we only get one kick at the can should inspire all of us to live it to its fullest. Remember life is about having new experiences, and sharing those with people who care about you, and because you don’t live in a world controlled by religious dogma, you really can explore it in any way you deem fit.

Perhaps the real lesson here is there’s nothing you can really say to ignoramuses that will make them change their minds, but why would you want to? I feel sorry for anyone who thinks believing in magic is the best way to appreciate the beauty of this incredible Universe we live in.

If there’s one thing you have to credit religion with, it’s their ability to insert themselves into things, often painfully and occasionally in a way that merits jail time, but mysteriously enough results in no real punishment. Religion is so skilled at doing this they manage to convince throngs of people to believe without them, the fabric of their lives would fall apart. Take marriage for instance, how many Christians in North America believe with absolute certainty the legal contract of marriage is bound to their religion? They are convinced that the union of minorities they revile, formerly other skin pigmentation and now sexual orientation, ought to be restricted, if not outright banned.

“From the beginning, the church has taught that marriage is a lifetime relationship between one man and one woman,” the bishop wrote in his diocese’s newspaper The Courier. “It is a sacrament, instituted by Jesus Christ to provide the special graces that are needed to live according to God’s law and to give birth to the next generation”

In Montana, there are serious legislative attempts to make homosexuality a crime, a reminder bigotry can remain veiled for only so long. The fact this is happening on the eve of a new decade in the 21st century should be a rude wakeup call for anyone still slumbering in America. Your country is being systematically dismantled by religious conservatives intent on creating a hybrid of theocracy and democracy. As you can imagine, these two elements are completely incompatible with one another, and it’s precisely this reason that the very founding document of your nation forbade this. The Founding Fathers knew first hand the M.O. of theocrats intent on suppressing the rights of not only those they disagreed with, but also of their own flock.

Marriage isn’t a religious institution. It’s a contract a person enters according to the rules of our society, not those of Rome nor those of the local mullahs. Meanwhile, religions proclaim they can dictate for others, who don’t share their delusions, what their own rights are. How then are we supposed to react to the free exercise of religion when it interferes with the freedom of others? It reminds me of the asinine utterances of Christian fundamentalists who interpret the Constitution as meaning: “you have freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion”.

How can I pretend to be surprised when religion itself is antithetical to freedom? What has historically been the punishment for the crime of apostasy in Christianity? The Old Testament makes no bones about it: kill anyone who tries to turn you away from Yahweh, your God. Islam may still take the notion of deserters very seriously indeed, but it’s only been recently that the crimes of heresy haven’t been investigated by Christian Inquisitions.

There’s a reason “free-thought” is associated with atheism and agnosticism; it is only by the virtue of being free to contemplate a Universe without a creator we can come to be fully liberated. Perhaps a person who does so will still continue to believe in a God, but the ability to contemplate otherwise, even for a brief moment, is not something our ancestors benefited from. In many parts of the world that have abandoned their murderous campaigns against apostates, it is the fear of persecution, death and alienation that prevents so many others from coming forward and announcing they too have nothing one would characterize as belief. What then, do we make of freedom when these institutions are in positions of power?

Someone sent me a link to a video and wanted me to answer his 5 challenges (the video has since been taken down). Since I’m relatively bored and feeling productive, I though I’d give it a try.

1) Is chance the same as “God in the Gaps” when explaining the origin of life?

If you can’t accept probability and chance, then you can’t accept reality. It would be swell if we lived in a deterministic Universe, but the simple fact is we don’t. Mutations in a organism’s DNA is a random process, and most of the time, these mutations aren’t beneficial at all. But because natural selection tends to favor mutations that provide some slight survival advantage, the element of chance is bred out, with only those mutations providing some benefit being passed on to future generations. So, although this guy would like to think evolution is the product of randomness, it is in fact only a mechanism of change, not selection. And unlike “God in the Gaps” which answers nothing, evolution offers us a model to understand how organisms change and adapt to their environment over time.

2) Why should there be something instead of nothing?

It’s a compelling argument, but the explanation a supernatural entity did it creates more questions than it answers. If everything needs a first cause, then who created God?

He also foolishly believes the Earth was somehow “manufactured” for us to live on it. This is kind of like arguing the reason your nose sticks out of your face is so you can wear glasses. We are suited for this planet because we evolved to adapt to its environment, not the other way around. To claim life bears the mark of “intelligent design” merely illustrates the fact the maker of this video has little or no education in biology.

3) Where do you get your morals from?

This is probably the most frustrating and annoying question religionists ask when they think they are being clever. I’m not going to argue most believers credit their religion for their morality. What I argue against is the truth of this assertion. You can believe something fervently even when it isn’t true. If religion really was the basis for morality, it still doesn’t explain where morals come from, since all modern religions are relatively recent inventions in our history as a species. Did our ancestors, who possessed the same cognitive faculties as us, suffer from a terrible lack of morality? Could they not experience love, suffering, anger and pain like we do? Could they not determine the consequences of their actions, and how those might be interpreted in the future? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that one doesn’t need codified religious laws to act morally.

In any event, it’s a far more serious problem to attribute morality to a supernatural being who apparently does not interact with the natural world in any measurable way. How are we to trust the “words” of such a deity? If God asks us to do something which seems wrong (like killing another desert tribe), then how are we supposed to know if it’s right or wrong? Is it right merely because of his say-so?

4) How did morals evolve?

This isn’t really a challenge for atheists, but rather a question an evolutionary psychologist should answer. Michael Shermer’s book, “The Science of Good and Evil“, and Richard Dawkins “The Selfish Gene” attempt to do just that.

If you want the quick answer to the question, look at other social animals and how they have evolved behavior that allows them to function as a group. It’s not hard to imagine in the struggle for survival, cooperation would be beneficial, and our species would adapt to favor traits that would make us more trustworthy and empathetic towards one another (the more selfish and opportunistic ones presumably dying without passing on their genes).

5) Can nature generate complex organism, in the sense of originating it?

Do you get the sense that this guy would benefit from studying biology a little bit more? He’s not an idiot, but his points center on the fact he doesn’t seem to understand how natural selection works. We have a relatively chauvinistic way of looking at life; we tend to think we are infinitely more complex than other beings simply because we’re intelligent. But if you measure complexity by an organism’s genome, we’re no more complex than a mouse, and a lot less complex than some species of ferns. The point is evolution doesn’t mean improvement, and certainly doesn’t mean “increased complexity”. The e-coli bacteria that makes you sick is just as “evolved” as you are. The difference is the niche we exploit, and that’s it.

If you want to attribute intelligence to the working of some higher power, you’re free to do so. You should, however, realize this “explanation” only offers up more questions (where did God come from, why does he let bad things happen, etc). The insulting thing about the “God in the gaps” argument isn’t only that it’s not an adequate answer to anything; it also shuts down the impulse to find those answers. It’s good to ask questions, but rather than feel proud for asking them, you should seek those answers for yourself!

It occurs to me we have a strange interpretation of what the word “natural” means. We tend to think anything natural must inherently be good or desirable. How many consumer products try to play that annoying angle? I also find it fairly telling that behaviors or lifestyles are deemed “unnatural” are also considered undesirable and evil. Of course, just because something is natural certainly doesn’t mean it’s any good. The bubonic plague is entirely a product of nature, but I certainly don’t want to contract the disease.

We should keep this fact in mind when considering the latest study by psychologists at the Bristol University which argues religious and superstitious beliefs are hardwired in our brains. I think if any of you have watched the Derren Brown video exposing how easily human beings acquire strange habits when looking for patterns, I think you may be inclined to believe perhaps there is some truth to the claim.

Of course, the claim that superstition is hardwired in our brain is perhaps the weakest conclusion anyone can draw. The study determined that even completely rational individuals will have superstitious reactions to various stimulus (like refusing to wear the cardigan of a known murderer), but the conclusion that people with superstitious behavior are somehow more fit to function in society is a stretch by any measure.

We know from experimentation on pigeons that superstitious belief derives from the need to find meaningful patterns in nature. Whether or not a pattern exists is of secondary importance; it matters more that we feel the need to explain and conceptualize a world that can often be strange and randomly cruel.

At the end of the day, even if religious or superstitious belief is a natural phenomenon, why would anyone think this is desirable? Does anyone think there is a survival advantage in thinking breaking a mirror will cause bad luck for 7 years, or throwing salt over one’s shoulder wards off evil spirits? Sure it may be completely natural. Cyanide is natural too, but you don’t see me guzzling a gallon of the stuff, do you?

**NOTE** It turns out the Times article was complete bullshit, and totally distorted the findings in order to have a more controversial and “newsworthy” topic. The author of the study wrote a response that I think will help clarify the situation. When are journalists going to stop distorting the truth just so they can get a few more eyeballs reading their shitty stories? It’s embarrassing…

I received this email, and I wanted to share “B”‘s story with everyone (he asked that I not include his name, since he works with the boy Scouts and would like to keep his job).

This past summer I staffed a Boy Scout summer camp. I just wanted to share some of my experiences. Before every meal shift, since a scout is “reverent,” we had a volunteer say a “non-denominational” grace. They usually were just speeches and went like this:

Dear God,
Thank you for letting us come to camp this week.
Thank you for the food which we are about to eat.
Please help us complete all of our merit badges.
Please help us have fun during free time.
Please keep everyone safe this week.
In Jesus’ name we pray,
Amen.

All I got from grace was the impression that Christians are ungrateful. I doubt that anyone thanked their parents for working hard every day to earn enough money for them to come to camp, or thanked their adult leaders for taking a week off from work to spend it with them in the middle of the woods. Very few of them thanked the staff for getting up at 5 AM to unload a food truck, or the kitchen staff who worked all day to prepare it for them. I didn’t feel divinely inspired when I was teaching my class and probably wouldn’t mark off requirements just because God told me to. Most of the scouts took it for granted that we would show up and babysit them for the hour and a half of free time so they could break every possible rule just to have fun. I can’t imagine how many people would have gotten hurt during the week if the staff were godless atheists, except that most of us were. We spent a whole week learning CPR, first aid, and every safety precaution that needed to be taken; God didn’t have anything to do with it. I didn’t know that Hindus, Muslims, or Jews believed in Jesus; so much for non-denominational.

One night two staffers and myself were walking back from campsite visits on a dark trail. One of them remarked, “Aren’t you guys scared, there could be ghosts and stuff.” The other one called him stupid for believing in superstitions; I asked him, “Don’t you believe in God?” Neither of them could figure out what that had to do with anything…

One of my better friends while I was there happened to be a home-schooled Catholic. He is really intelligent, he’s writing a 5 act full orchestra musical while in college, and it made me sad to see such a great mind go to waste. Anyway, he had to fill in for the chaplain’s aid one week and give a chapel service. It was supposed to be non-denominational, but he decided it would be better if he became a preacher. At the end of the week, a group of Hindus complained that they didn’t receive a proper chapel service and that it reflected badly on the camp. The camp director, who I was pretty sure was an atheist, had a talk with him. Afterward, I tried to convince him that it was his fault for giving a denominational church service and he should take the punishment for his actions. He wouldn’t accept the fact that he was wrong and went on a tirade against all religions that weren’t Christianity, pointing out that they weren’t real because only his religion was real.

One week I had a student in my class who was slow. He came in during his free time to finish soldering on his electronics kit. While I was talking to him I learned that he was from a local town and considered eating at Whataburger [Jake’s note: I didn’t know what that was, but now I want one] a rare privilege. His favorite movie was Mary Poppins because that was one of the newest movies they had. Somehow we got onto the topic of religion and he mentioned that he didn’t see how anyone could be an atheist, and didn’t think they counted as people. I asked him why he thought that; the only reason he could come up with was that his pastor told him so. When I asked him if he liked me, he told me I was his favorite counselor. It’s really sad how the church is taking advantage of his disability and economic status by brainwashing him into thinking that his religion can do no wrong and that all the others were an unforgivable sin.

It’s sad, but I’m not entirely surprised. They are accustomed to making anyone who doesn’t believe in their theology the “bad guys”. It’s a shame the Boy Scouts are such a religiously motivated organization, because I actually think learning about survival skills, being in the woods with their peers, and sharing positive experiences with others is a great thing for kids. Considering you have to keep your identity secret, I’m sure you feel the same way.

I received this email from long time fan of the site James, who recently had an experience with his mother he thought was worth sharing. I’ve received this kind of question pretty often, and I thought it might be good bring it up again to clarify my position. Here is James’ letter:

I really liked yesterday’s TGA bonus episode. Couldn’t agree more that End of Faith is my favourite of the books you mentioned. Letter to a Christian Nation is a close second, mainly because it’s kind of a quick-reference handbook of decent retorts to ridiculous Christian arguments. The show made me think of a recent conversation/debate I had with my parents, actually… it kind of made an impact on me so I figured I’d share.

Just for background: My dad’s a Catholic who grew up in Montreal North in a family of 8 kids, with a VERY devout mother, and a few aunts who were (still are) nuns (they must be doing something right because they seem to live forever). Anyway, he pretty much gave up his faith at a young age when a flood destroyed their home and the Church (to which his parents donated a large percentage of their extremely meager earnings) refused to give them any help, effectively leaving a family of 10 on the street until the Red Cross stepped in. He basically shares most of my viewpoints on religion, but takes a bit more of a Deist perspective when it comes to the creation of the Earth/Universe (fairly harmless as far as beliefs go)… but he tends to keep it all to himself because of my mom.
My mom is a United Protestant who likes going to church but doesn’t go as often as she would want to, and I was raised United as well. We pretty much went to church at Christmas and Easter, said prayers before bed, and grace on special occasions. I never really thought of my mom as particularly religious, until a conversation we had a couple of weeks ago kind of threw me for a loop.

They had come out to visit me in Calgary and we were sitting at a restaurant having dinner, about a bottle of wine in, when the topic of religion somehow crept into the conversation. Being someone who both loves a good debate, and has trouble keeping his opinions to himself, I started going off on how ridiculous the idea of a “sky god” was, while my dad sat uncomfortably silent, and my mom looked at me with a combination of anger and shock. She then told me that belief in God was a personal opinion and that I should respect people’s right to believe what they choose, to which I gave her the standard atheist response of  “if you told me you believed in unicorns and tree fairies, would I be expected to respect that belief without question too?” I think I also threw in something about intellectual laziness just for good measure. Anyway, completely unexpectedly, she started to get extremely emotional – tears started welling up in her eyes and her face started turning bright red. Stifling a sob, she choked out “someday, when things get really tough, you might find that you need that faith in God and Heaven”

At that point, a couple of things hit me. The first was the confirmation of my belief that crying truly is the female default setting, and anything else is only a temporary state of disequilibrium. But more importantly, from what she said, I realized that her belief in God must stem almost entirely from her intense desperation to someday be reunited with her father, who died about 10 years ago, and whom she was extremely close with and respected immensely, when she passes on. That got me thinking. Setting aside my preferred viewpoint of dealing with death when it happens, realizing its finality, mourning, and eventually moving on, I started wondering if belief in God for that reason was really so bad. Yes, it’s a crutch that she is using to help her deal with difficult emotions, but ultimately, so what? I suppose it all kind of harkens back to the “there are no atheists in foxholes” cliché; If you need faith for no other reason than to keep you going, and you’re not hurting anybody else, who am I, as a devout non-believer, to try to convince you that my way of thinking is the right one?

If all religious belief were that innocuous, I really wouldn’t have any reason to arm myself with as much knowledge as I can as to why God doesn’t exist, because it ultimately wouldn’t matter. Unfortunately, I think Bill Maher’s right (one of the few things I agree with him on) when he says that if things keep going the way they are, humanity’s in for a rude awakening.

So I’m wondering, do you think my “so what?” interpretation of her belief is reasonable, or am I missing something? I know she would fall into Sam Harris’ hated “moderate” segment, but that said, I fail to see how trying to convince her, or anyone of similar belief, of anything different would in any way make the world a better place.

It’s can be difficult to know just what to do in these kinds of situations. Odds are most of you have close family members who believe in God, and I don’t doubt most of you skirt talking about it just to avoid a situation like the one James was in. A newspaper in Colorado once asked me if I thought it was OK for people to believe in God. Naturally, I said “of course it is”, curious as to why he would ask such a stupid question. I don’t imagine I could ever really tell someone straight up that they weren’t allowed to think perhaps there was a God in this universe, one who granted people’s wishes and prayers, and who offered the reward of eternal life for those who chose to believe.

The sad truth is for all of it’s beauty, life can be breathtakingly cruel. Here we are, adrift on a large cooling rock orbiting a ball of nuclear fire, trying to live out our lives in peace and tranquility. We get to meet others like us, befriend them, make them part of our lives, and spend the rest of our lives with them. The problem, of course, is we are terribly fragile, and mother nature is a cold hearted bitch who will smack your ass into an early grave if you give her the chance. So invariably, the ones we care the most about will lose their lives. Their absence fills us with grief and pain. For some, it’s too much to bear. In our moment of weakness, the attraction of religion cannot be denied. They will chose to believe in it, even if it doesn’t make sense, simply because it “feels right” to them.

What would I gain from tearing down their belief system? Not much I imagine. It doesn’t sound like your mother was trying to brainwash you with her religion too much, and the fact that you still have a relationship with her despite your “godlessness” at least proves she can live with the fact you are a non-believer. This is perhaps the most important factor here. I don’t mind someone believing in God; I object only when that belief prevents people from forming new meaningful relationships with other human beings (religious hatred is a bitch). At the end of the day, we should all acknowledge the hubris of our own thinking, and finally admit we really don’t know shit.

I wouldn’t tell a dying man begging for his last rites there is no God. It certainly wouldn’t do him any good. What is he going to do, contemplate his non-existence after he dies? The whole reason I hate religion is because of their dead certainty there is a God. I accept the fact that so far, the evidence is severely lacking, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize the limits of my own knowledge. That’s what bugs me the most: when people aren’t willing to question their own assumptions.

I always sympathize with people. I can’t help it; I’m a big softy at the end of the day. If someone believes in God but keeps that belief private, who am I to criticize them? I object to the influence of religion on public affairs, but I’m perfectly happy discussing it in the context of theology alone. If your mom really does believe in God because of her need to reconnect with her father, I cannot help but feel sympathy for her. I would tell her that I am inspired by her love, and that I wished what she believed really was true. Perhaps that is the redeeming thing about belief in God: at the very least, it demonstrates how powerful our hope is we will meet our deceased loved ones again some day.