First Things First: Tsunami, Theodicy, and Recycling for Cyclones in Myanmar

This wasn’t quite how I wanted to start a series of posts on theodicy, but here we are. In the wake of the recent cyclone disaster in Burma/Myanmar, the conservative religious journal First Things has reprinted any article attempting to reflect on the similarly shocking disaster of tsunami. You might remember First Things from my previous rants on one of the journal’s founders Richard John Neuhaus and his loving fantasies of anguished atheists. Well, a link from Exploring our Matrix led me back there yet again, and this was the result:

Are Some Liberal Christians Just Atheists?

Over at Exploring Our Matrix, James McGrath and others, including others elsewhere on Larry Moran’s Sandwalk, are mulling over the question of whether various brands of Christian believers who reject the supernatural (including supernatural Gods) to varying extents are just atheists afraid of the name (or who define it differently), or atheists who happen to just like Christ a whole lot, or something else entirely: a sort of post-theism theist.

McGrath also quotes Liberal Pastor trying to explain the distinction: which as far as I can tell, comes down to a sense of understanding why concepts of God were (and perhaps still are) needed to capture something important about decidedly non-supernatural lives and teachings of great religious figures.

Plenty of atheist writers quite deliberately ignore these more “sophisticated” takes on religion and Christianity in particular, both because they seem to be a minority view with little political influence, and because they often seem either substantively impenetrable or lacking in the sort of objective claims one would have any reason to critique in the first place. I think, for the most part, this neglect is legitimate, at least in the context of the particular assaults on faith and positive arguments for belief that these atheists are mounting.

But that doesn’t mean that these perspectives have no place in the larger debate over the role of religion in society and philosophy. And I wonders whether churches full of such liberalized believers would leave people like Dawkins or Harris with anything left to object to.

Finally: My Own Expelled Review Extravaganza

So, I went to see Premise Media’s Expelled. I paid my way (though matinée), sat alone in an empty theater, and took notes. And now it’s finally time to parse things for your pleasure.

Just as a framing device, I’ll pose some questions as a way to setup and organize my thoughts about various aspects of the film.

I should also clarify at the outset that I’m going to be treating figures who speak unopposed throughout the movie, people like Steven Meyer, David Berlinski, and so on, as if they speak for the film. I think, given how the film played out, this is perfectly fair. They are in some ways more the voice of the film than Stein, who basically is there to nod along and agree with them, or prompt them with leading questions. Indeed, aside from the bookend footage of Stein traveling to meet them or speaking at Pepperdine, I could just as easily imagine the film’s credits listing Berlinski, Meyer, Sternberg, and others as the opinionated hosts interviewing Ben Stein and trying to convince him of their position.

Anyhow, off we go:

Richard Carrier on Atheist Morality & Theist Fears of Depravity

I’ve argued that theism cannot provide any demonstrable advantage over the lack of it in regards to justifying “meaning,” including moral meaning. More recently, I’ve started to flesh out the reasons why I find the specifically Christian version of theism morally incoherent (from, of course, my own conception of what is moral: i.e. fairness, rational principles, concern for others, etc.), specifically the idea of salvation (as well as a response to a cumbersome critic).

Richard Carrier, up and coming historian and philosopher, has some more to say on the subject of morality that I think is worth a look. As he notes, when believers insist that non-believers are always a frightening inch away from rape and pillage, they are looking for a very specific set of answers, which are not always provided by atheists, perhaps because we’re missing the real point of the question.

As I noted in my first essay on meaning, one important key to this debate is to ask how exactly believers really come to their own moral justifications, which they purport to be satisfied with, or at least think superior to all comers. I think they, and perhaps even the rest of us, might be surprised at just how flimsy and often strangely indirect those justifications for moral behavior are.

On a side note, Carrier is also looking for patrons, of sorts, to sponsor him in his writing of a book on the historical Jesus. When the vast majority of Biblical scholars (though perhaps not the ranks of best) are devoted believers or even glorified salesmen like William Craig, it is always worthwhile to have a contrary perspective, especially from someone who is qualified to give one (as Richard is). I know I don’t have a devoted set of wealthy readers, or else you’d have already given ME all your money by now. But its certainly a cause worth passing the word around about.

Bigoted Illinois Representative Blows Up at Separation of Church and State

You may remember atheist activist Rob Sherman from the Illinois moment of silence controversy I blogged about way back when. Fresh from victory on that score, Sherman has most recently been challenging some shady grants to a church and school by the state’s governor.

And that’s how he ended up testifying before the Illinois State Legislature, during which Democratic Representative Monique D. Davis took the time to work herself into a ranting fit. Hemant over at the Friendly Atheist and Eric Zorn at the Chicago Tribune have the full quotes, along with audio of the exchange. But suffice to say that things like demanding to know why Sherman has something “against God” telling him that he’s attempting to destroy the state, and saying “what you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous… to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!” is not exactly the height of legislative decorum.

There isn’t enough context to know if Sherman said something previously that provoked the outburst, but there’s simply no question that Representative Davis’ stated remarks are both ignorant and reflect the usual bigotry towards atheists and those who simply want to keep the government out of religious matters.

More importantly though, they are deeply revealing about the deeply confused manner in which many people approach issues concerning religion in both government and civil society. Look at this statement, for instance:

Davis: Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Forget for a second the absurd red herring about Sherman’s opinions on guns (in any case, I have no idea what he believes the best gun policies are with regards to keeping them out of the hands of children, and I very much doubt Representative Davis had any idea either.) What can she possibly mean accusing Sherman of fighting against the opportunity for kids to be quiet “for a minute?”

What Sherman originally opposed was making a moment of silence, ostensibly to provide a special time for silent prayer, a mandatory requirement for the school day in every public school in Illinois. At no point did he challenge the rights of teachers to make kids be quiet as needed to conduct class (or even voluntarily have a moment of silence at the start of class if they choose). Nor did he challenge the right of kids to be “quiet for a minute,” which they are perfectly capable of choosing to do on their own already (just as teachers are already perfectly capable of disciplining them if they won’t shut up during class time).

So how warped does her thinking on this issue have to be to actually characterize the state forcing something on children and classrooms as an “opportunity?” That’s like saying that when the state rescinds a law forcing businesses to close on Sundays, that it has stripped them of the opportunity to do so. Nonsense. Taking away the opportunity to remain open on a Sunday (or to not observe a moment of silence) is simply not the same thing as providing people with opportunities to close (or observe moments of silence whenever and with whomever they choose). They can do those things on their own just fine, again, if they choose to do so.

Davis’ real problem is that people aren’t voluntarily choosing to do what she wants them to do. Which is exactly where her own presumptuous demands come into the picture. It’s only through a bizarre bit of self-delusion that she’s able to think of herself as liberating the very people she’s actually demanding rigid compliance from.

This sort of backwards thinking is unfortunately quite common amongst critics of secular government. It sometimes seems as it religious people are so bizarrely fixated on having religious endorsements on government land, or direction to pray, and so on, that they completely forget that they are already free to do all these things themselves, on their own time, dime, and land.

Update: Davis does the right thing and apologizes. It’s still not clear that anything in her thinking about prayer in school and so forth has been clarified, or if she’s just apologizing for lashing out at someone in particular.

Christian Salvation Makes No Sense: The Muddle of Good Cop/Bad Cop Morality

I’ve often been asked why I am not a believer, particularly in light of the fact that I used to be one (a Christian one at that). Why, when I have plenty of nice things to say about believers, do I rarely have anything similarly nice to say about specific religious beliefs?

Why it is that, in addition to simply having no reason to believe, I no longer find Christian doctrines especially sensible or compelling in their own right? Well, let me spell it out!

Today my subject is the Christian concept of salvation.

What’s Best for Atheism Isn’t What’s Best

As with any growing social movement, there has been a lot of bickering lately over what’s good for “atheism,” who’s the best atheist activist, what atheists should do, and so on. It’s the usual tiresome war between alleged concern trolls vs. the alleged “we can do no wrong” zealots, with neither side listening to the other.

So, to make my own position crystal clear, let me just state that, as an atheist, I couldn’t care less about what’s good for “atheism.”

What I care about is rationalism. Skepticism. Science. And while these values do, in fact, feed into why I don’t share the beliefs of theists, they aren’t necessary for me to be an atheist (I could imagine not believing even without them). Nor do I think that sharing similar values would make it necessary for someone else to become an atheist. But I care about these values, and there’s a big ole’ period at the end of that sentence.

Atheism is utterly, wholly, entirely incidental. If theists share those values, then I have allies. If atheists reject them, then we’re foes. Theists may well find themselves in the sights of my rhetorical rifle far more often than most atheists, but that’s also incidental. As far as I can tell, it’s simply because theists are the ones making the lion’s share of bad claims in our culture, claims that still go largely unchallenged.

If simply forced to answer on “what’s best for atheism,” I’d have to say that what’s probably best for atheism is for people to cease all attempts to organize it, celebrate it, and most of all seeking to control or lead it. The best and only thing we can do for atheism is define it: clearly, unambiguously, concisely. Atheism is a category: a category of exclusion. It is not the loyal opposition against the forces theism, it is the lack of theism. End of story.

The more that definition is troubled with all manner of philosophical fluffery and organized agendas, the harder and harder it becomes to explain to believers what atheism really is. The harder and harder it becomes to explain to theists what atheists really are.

As before, this latter matter frustrates me not because I particularly value atheism per se (because it’s a term I could take or leave) but because I value good communication. Helping people better understand what atheism is and isn’t is paramount.  Arguing for rationalism, empiricism: those things matter to me.  Whether someone then becomes an atheist because of those values: incidental.  I really mean that.

But in case I haven’t communicated this well myself, I’m not trying to disown “atheism” here: nor even provocatively propose, as Sam Harris has, that the term simply be dumped.  I just want to be clear on where my loyalties lie: where, frankly, I think it makes sense for everyone’s loyalties to lie.  With what I am, not with what I’m not.

Bad Faith Believers: Preist Richard Neuhaus Fantasizes about you Prostrate and Begging

This has me just plain dumbfounded. Neuhaus, founder of the conservative religious journal First Things, quoting Father Ranier Cantalamessa, preacher to the papal household:

“The world of today knows a new category of people: the atheists in good faith, those who live painfully the situation of the silence of God, who do not believe in God but do not boast about it; rather they experience the existential anguish and the lack of meaning of everything: They too, in their own way, live in the dark night of the spirit. Albert Camus called them “the saints without God.” The mystics exist above all for them; they are their travel and table companions. Like Jesus, they “sat down at the table of sinners and ate with them” (see Luke 15:2). This explains the passion with which certain atheists, once converted, pore over the writings of the mystics: Claudel, Bernanos, the two Maritains, L. Bloy, the writer J.K. Huysmans and so many others over the writings of Angela of Foligno; T.S. Eliot over those of Julian of Norwich. There they find again the same scenery that they had left, but this time illuminated by the sun. . . . The word “atheist” can have an active and a passive meaning. It can indicate someone who rejects God, but also one who—at least so it seems to him—is rejected by God. In the first case, it is a blameworthy atheism (when it is not in good faith), in the second an atheism of sorrow or of expiation.” (emphasis added)

When believers complain that New Atheists are arrogant or insulting to religion, sometimes they have fair points, sometimes they don’t. The idea that atheists who happen to dare criticize religious claims are bitter and nasty is an all too easy emotional meme to play upon whether its justified or not. Some can certainly be insulting, as any advocates for any position can: there’s no denying it. But the worst of their jibes is to say that the claims and beliefs of believer are wrong, misguided, unfounded, foolish.

Nothing, nothing any of them has said compares to a man fantasizing openly about how pleased he is to think of those who do not share his ideology moaning and groveling in agony for their failure to share in it. Patting them on the head for their subservience to his beliefs and begging for a means to atone. Imagine this in pretty much any other context, and you would see a person shockingly self-involved: a narcissism beyond belief, a childish and arrogant fantasy bordering on the obscene.

Neuhaus, instead, sees it as a deep insight. He launches into this quote right after declaring that for non-believers, humans lives “have no value.” (A common Catholic claim of philosophical superiority which I do not think he or any theologian can actually back up, for all its grand pomposity.) And, of course, this comes after also implying that rationalism leads inevitably to the Holocaust (because, you know, the Nazis were such rational, liberalized folks).

What’s startles me here is the difference in rhetorical excess. I don’t think I’ve ever in my life seen fit to fantasize about those who don’t share my beliefs groveling and suffering before me, wishing desperately that they could be like me. I don’t think of theists as depraved sociopaths who need to trick themselves into caring about their fellow human beings. Believing these things might well make me feel better about myself, and might even prove effective red meat for inspiring coarse dittoheads to my position. But how would I sleep at night after stooping that low?

Neuhaus, on the other hand, doesn’t even seem to have a second thought about deploying such rhetorical nukes on those who do not share his beliefs. And on top of it all, he and Cantalamessa have the absolute intellectual depravity to claim to judge whether someone’s position is in “good faith” or not.

It shocks the conscience. It’s like finding out that your next door neighbor fantasizes about having you bound and tearful in his basement. You think that one human being couldn’t seriously have such vile designs upon and beliefs about another. And then… then you learn differently.

It’s not the end of the world. It’s, in the end, small and pathetic. And it just sort of makes me sad.

Intelligent Design’s math whiz William Dembski Doesn’t Like Straw Men? (E.O. Wilson is in for it!)

Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski thinks that sociobiologist E.O. Wilson is pushing a caricature of his cause.

Does he have a point?

Here’s Wilson:

The reasoning they offer is not based on evidence but on the lack of it. The formulation of intelligent design is a default argument advanced in support of a non sequitur. It is in essence the following: there are some phenomena that have not yet been explained and that (most importantly) the critics personally cannot imagine being explained; therefore there must be a supernatural designer at work.

And here’s Dembski…

Stem Cell Chicanery: Ramesh Ponnuru quotes himself out of context

When Washington Monthly blogger Kevin Drum and National Review Corner blogger Ramesh Ponnuru went at it over stem cells recently, I was quite startled by something. I’m quite used to creationists misleadingly quoting scientists out of context, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen someone quote themselves out of context. Let me explain.

Drum sees Ramesh as snidely intimating that defenders of embryonic research are less than sincere. Ramesh begs to differ. Here’s the offending paragraph from Ramesh that started everything off:

Yuval is right: It’s not a time for gloating. For one thing, we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves in estimating the political impact of this breakthrough: We should wait at least a few days to see how the advocates of embryo-destructive stem-cell research react before concluding that the battle is over. (In the past, they have done what they could to minimize the potential of non-lethal methods of deriving pluripotent stem cells.)

And here is how Ramesh characterizes what he said above:

My point was that the political debate over whether the federal government should fund certain forms of embryo-destructive research or allow certain other forms of it would not be over under certain conditions. If, for example, these people believe that embryo-destructive research (or certain forms of it) still have advantages that the new research methods don’t have, or that it is still important to encourage research of all types, then the debate isn’t over, although it will change.

…

Go back to my original 4:41 p.m. post: I said that in the past proponents of embryo-destructive stem-cell research had “minimized the potential of non-lethal methods of deriving pluripotent stem cells”; that’s exactly what I’m saying they might still do.

So Ramesh insists that all he meant was that pro-ESCR people might have further arguments for ESCR, and only an illiterate would think that he ever hinted at anyones insincerity. But notice what he cut out from his self-quotation: the “In the past, they have done what they could to minimize” part. The part of his paragraph which just so happens to most strongly imply that he thinks pro-ESCR folks have actively tried to spin or avoid the issue.

That’s a truly masterful bit of rhetorical revisionism: so slick that I wonder if it was even a conscious act on Ramesh’s part.

But then, one should never credit the author of a book entitled The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life with too much of a gift for subtlety and evenhandedness.

Update: I think I’m being a bit charitable by saying that Ramesh “responded” to my post, by which I mean that he links to it, but offers only another re-interpretive sidetrack in defense of himself (at least this time he actually mentions the key phrase, even if he basically still ignores any discussion of its meaning). Unfortunately, “done what they could” is simply not a description particularly consistent with the idea that pro-ESCR folks were making a “simple error” or otherwise mistaken. “Done what they could to minimize” implies active, thoughtful subterfuge and spin. Perhaps Ramesh sincerely misspoke, but he certainly doesn’t seem inclined to consider even that possibility, does he?

What’s truly bizarre here is that Ramesh has had little hesitation asserting in various other places that defenders of ESCR, including Kevin Drum specifically! are playing games of dishonest spin and hiding the truth about adult stem cells. Why so shy about having the accusation highlighted in this case?

Extra Double Update: Yet another Corner blogger, David Freddoso, weighs in. Let me get this straight: he’s defending the integrity of Ponnuru by arguing that Ponnuru didn’t say what it really, really sounds like he said… but that what he didn’t say is totally a good point that he’s entitled to make. I may not have the necessary “reading skills” here, so I’m just asking for clarification to make sure I’m getting it.

To make myself clear, I don’t think Freddoso is off-base at all in highlighting the deceptive language and sketchy science that some embryonic stem cell research advocates and politicians have used. Heck, I just posted about same sort of thing going on with whether or not the pill kills. I was just in this case amazed to see Ponnuru take such elaborate offense that anyone would read his comment in a way utterly consistent with both his literal words and many previous opinions on his opponents’ integrity, as well as noting with amusement his choice of what words to leave out in his interpretive defense.

And of course, I don’t agree that the use of deception is weighted to one side. For instance, a certain Ramesh Ponnuru has long and unapologetically played the exact same sort of spin game with the difference between what “cloning” technically encompasses, and what it implies to the general public (i.e. The Island and The Boys From Brazil). And, of course, I think the entire “embryos are just human beings at a certain stage in their life” argument is just one long exercise in equivocation.

But that’s an argument for another day… how’s this Friday shaping up for ya, guys?

Casey Luskin Loves Lying: Intelligent Design Flails as it Fails

Unless you’re a nerd, you probably didn’t know that PBS recently aired a documentary about the Dover Intelligent Design Trial called “Judgment Day, Intelligent Design on Trial.” Laudably, instead of striving for an artificial journalistic balance, the piece instead went for overall accuracy, which, needless to say, has left the Discovery Institute profoundly pissed. They’ve naturally been bitching up a storm about it, which is always a grand new opportunity for avid fans of falsehoods to get their fix.

Taking the cake with the silliest possible argument, however, is resident DI barrister Casey Luskin, who seems to think that he’s hit upon a truly devious bit of spin: that repeating the program’s claim that “evolution is not inherently anti-religious” would violate the establishment clause if ever mentioned in public schools. “We’re afraid that teachers might get sued,” says Luskin.

Well now. Even if this “fear” weren’t about as sincere as vultures being deeply concerned about the well being of a hiker lost in the desert without a canteen, the logic here is truly daft. I suspect it relies almost exclusively on choosing not to understand what the word “inherently” means. Instead, Luskin seems to be pretending that the sentence reads “there is no possible conflict between evolution and your religious beliefs,” which really would violate the establishment clause if taught in a public school. But it just doesn’t say that, no matter how you look at it. It simply says that a conflict between the two is neither necessary or universal: a simple fact that in no way contradicts anyone’s belief that their religious beliefs are incompatible with evolutionary science.

In effect, the statement is logically equivalent to saying that “evolution does not necessarily have to conflict with ones religious beliefs.” This is basic grammatical logic here folks: diagram the sucker out with neutral terms if you don’t believe me. “X is not inherently B” in no way implies “X is never B” or even “it’s wrong to think that X is B in my case.” It just means that “X isn’t always B, and doesn’t have to be B.”

Luskin’s logically illiterate interpretation is instead just flat-out phony. For a guy who spends the rest of his article whining about alleged straw men and misrepresentations, you’d think he’d take more care in this area.

Besides, how can any statement about the way in which evolutionary science is defined be a “religious” view? Evolutionary biology just isn’t inherently anti-religious: this is simply a matter of understanding what it actually says, not an opinion that depends on anyone’s particular theology. Even if you do think that the conclusions or methodology of evolutionary science violate your religious beliefs, you’d still have to admit that they aren’t in conflict with all possible religious views, or with religion in general. You’d probably even have to admit that evolution does not itself purport to be anti-religious.

After admitting that, you’re then more than welcome to make arguments that evolution is, ultimately, a tool of Satan or destructive to all that is good and pure, or whatever. I still might think you’re wrong, but at least I won’t think you’re the sort of smirkingly dishonest douchebag that Luskin is.

Sam Harris & the End of “Atheism”…. as a term

Hemant over at the Friendly Atheist has a summary of the recent Atheist Alliance International Convention in DC that mentions that Sam Harris got a less than stellar reception at his talk. Why? Because Harris made the case that using the term atheist and organizing under the banner of atheism is counter-productive. It’s a very interesting point, and I like Harris even more that he was plucky enough to raise it at a convention named, well the “Atheist Alliance” where there’s little question that it would be controversial.

Harris apparently argued that when non-believers use of the term atheist, it’s like having religious people draw a “chalk outline of a dead man” and then just lying down in it. There’s a lot to be said for this. Too much time and energy has to be spent explaining to people that non-believers are just people, not a group, not an ideology. We’re people that, if it wasn’t for religion, wouldn’t have any reason at all to think of ourselves as in any way related. Having to explain for the 80th time that we have nothing in common with Stalin just because we are both non-believers (anymore than we have values in common just because we are both non-aliens) just gets exhausting, boring, and irritating.

This isn’t, as I suspect some roaring Secular Spartans at the conference probably understood it, an issue of atheism being bad: it’s really an issue of it just being deeply confusing and distracting in some contexts. And, it has to be said, it’s really often pretty confusing even to atheists. Harris seems to be a good example of practicing what he preaches to: as Hemant notes, he apparently wrote “The End of Faith” without even mentioning “atheist” or “atheism.”

Now, obviously, there is no atheist Congress that is going to pass legislation banning the term, and the convention was not simply going to close up shop on the spot after Harris’ suggestion. Nor is there any possibility of simply dumping any and all terms for non-believers: atheism, for all it’s twisted and convoluted issues with connotation, is here to stay, and we’re here to defend it. But in the case of individual arguments and movements, I certainly think it’s worth considering whether it makes much sense to unfurl the banner “atheism” at every opportunity. When it’s a matter of defending atheists from slander and attack, that’s one thing. When it’s an issue of arguing against religious faith, as Harris has, I can definitely see the advantage of just leaving the discussion of “atheism” to the wayside and getting straight to the point.

I sort of feel the same way about this as I do about the recent push to create more conspicuously “secular/atheist” charities. The whole point of a charity, as I see it, is to just deliver the service, not to spend time or energy promoting any particular ideology or opinion on religion, especially when such matters are utterly tangential to the social need in question. Spending time on the promotion of religion, or trying to rack up the good that’s done as “points” for a particular ideology, is a bad thing that some explicitly religious charities do. Non-believers should not feel the need to “compete” with them by emulating that misplaced focus.

This issue has a bit of the same flavor and overtones of the tiresome “framing” debate, which I’m still working on writing about. So, more thoughts to come.