Atheism

On Saturday, December 1, the Internet Infidels will be holding their annual face-to-face board meeting in Phoenix. After the board meeting attendees have dinner, there will be a social event at our home. If you’re a Phoenix-area supporter of the Internet Infidels or otherwise identify yourself as an atheist, agnostic, freethinker, skeptic, humanist, rationalist, or bright, you’re welcome to attend. Please RSVP in order to obtain details and directions, by contacting ii-event at discord.org. ...

The Goldwater Institute will be giving Ayaan Hirsi Ali, former Muslim turned atheist author of the book Infidel, its 2007 Goldwater award at an event in Phoenix later this year. I plan to attend and will report here afterward.

Taner Edis at the Secular Outpost comments on a recent article by Jon Haight about the benefits of religion, including its impact on generosity. I’ve previously offered some comments on evidence that conservatives and the religious are more generous than liberals and the secular and that believers are more generous than atheists. I’ll add that I doubt that studies of charitable giving dig deep enough to uncover whether the giving is going to charities like these. Is it really being more generous if your charitable donations aren’t being used to actually do good?

P.Z. Myers has written an open letter in response to Sam Harris’ address to the Atheist Alliance, in which Harris said this: So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.Myers rightly takes issue with this proposal. This quotation was the first thing I read from Harris’ address on the SKEPTIC mailing list, and I wrote this in response before I read his entire talk: I disagree with everybody who says there’s only one way we should all be. I have no problem with there being atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, naturalists, skeptics, brights, humanists (secular or otherwise), rationalists, and people in the closet or under the radar.But then, after reading Harris’ entire speech, I amended this as follows: Now that I’ve actually read his essay, I do strongly agree with him that “atheism is not a worldview.” It is a small but significant component of a large set of possible worldviews. I went to my first atheist meetup group meeting a couple of weeks ago, curious to see what it would be like. It was the first meeting of a group of people who have different ideas about what they want to do–some want to be political activists against the religious right. Some want to picket churches. Some want social events with like-minded people. I gave my endorsement for the last of these, and further suggested that they be as inclusive as possible to bring together people from other existing groups in the Phoenix area–skeptics, humanists, atheists, etc., as an informal network to have events and let people know of what other groups are doing. The megachurches succeed by creating a framework in which there are lots of little subgroups catering to a wide variety of interests, and a secular community should offer the same. Harris’ point that “Atheism is not a thing” is the same point I made to this group–it may be that the only thing we have in common is a lack of belief in God. If the group focuses on that, the meetings will be as entertaining as a meeting of people whose only commonality is disinterest in watching spectator sports, who get together to discuss their disinterest in watching spectator sports (or worse yet, watching spectator sports to comment on how stupid it is).I should add to this that in my opinion, the term “freethinker” includes a subset of theists (I am in agreement with Jeff Lowder on this point, though, unlike Jeff, I believe I have met such people, though perhaps I have confused some kinds of fideists with freethinkers), and I welcome association with them. I have a preference for the term “skeptic” over “atheist” because I like the way it focuses the attention on method–doubt–rather than on doctrine–lack of belief in gods. If I were to find sufficient evidence for the existence of God, I would become a theist, but I would remain a skeptic. One of the most inspiring books I’ve read in the last couple of years was Jennifer Michael Hecht’s Doubt: A History, because she shows that there is a very long tradition of doubters of the dominant religious views, and that even in cases where doubters are driven underground, doubt resurfaces again. UPDATE (October 8, 2007): Sam Harris has responded to criticism here, and P.Z. Myers responds to that here. I agree with Myers. UPDATE (October 9, 2007): P.Z. Myers comments on Sam Harris’ references to an atheist “cult." Again, I agree with Myers here–the attributes of a cult are something like this or this. There can be atheist cults, but they need to exhibit those characteristics to deserve the name. UPDATE (October 16, 2007): Chris Hallquist weighs in on the subject at the Internet Infidels website. ...

Jeremy Hall, an atheist soldier stationed in Iraq, attempted to form a meeting of his fellow atheists, after receiving permission to do so from an Army chaplain. That meeting occurred on August 7, and was attended by Hall’s supervisor, Major Freddy J. Welborn, 44, an evangelical Christian who broke up the meeting and threatened to charge Hall with violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as to block Hall’s reenlistment if the group continued to meet. Hall filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon and Welborn for injunctive relief to prevent such unconstitutional abuses. In response to his lawsuit, Hall has been assaulted by fellow soldiers and threatened on blogs with being killed by friendly fire. (There have been some allegations, not substantiated to my knowledge, that Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire may have been the result of his outspoken atheism.) Welborn, who was initially misidentified in the lawsuit as Paul Welbourne, was tracked down via his MySpace page, a visual monstrosity which says that he is a member of the “Department of Eternal Affairs,” his primary occupation is “Bible Study,” he has a Bachelor’s Degree from Tennessee Temple University with a major in “Pers. Evangelism” and minor in “Biblical Worldview,” and he attended Tara High School from 1976 to 1983. (In fairness to Welborn, the heading says that the school information is for “MAJ Freddy & HIS Girl,” so the dates probably include “his girl”’s high school career along with his own, rather than indicating that he took seven years to get through high school.) The U.S. military has had a serious problem with Christian evangelicals who don’t understand what freedom of religion means. Earlier this year, the Pentagon Inspector General’s office issued a report that officers who appeared in uniform in a recruiting video for Christian Embassy, a group that promotes Bible studies by senior government officials, violated military rules by doing so. Two years ago, evangelical Christians proselytizing at the Air Force Academy led to a review of the Air Force rule for chaplains which says that there can be no proselytizing those of other religious faiths, but it’s perfectly acceptable to proselytize to “those who are not affiliated." A lawsuit against this evangelizing was thrown out of court last year, but the rule for chaplains with the double standard was revoked. More on the Hall and Christian Embassy cases may be found at the Questionable Authority blog, as well as the links in this post. UPDATE (March 7, 2008): Hall has updated his complaint to include a charge that he has had a promotion blocked because of his unwillingness to “put aside his personal convictions and pray with the troops." UPDATE (July 10, 2008): The government has filed a motion to dismiss (at the last available moment to do so), arguing that Hall lacks standing to sue and did not take advantage of all available remedies within the military to pursue his complaint before suing. UPDATE (April 26, 2008): The New York Times has now covered this story. (About time!) UPDATE (April 28, 2008): Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars asks the question of why Hall had to be transferred out of Iraq for his own safety, rather than the commanding officers telling the troops to leave him alone or be punished. UPDATE (October 18, 2008): Hall has withdrawn his lawsuit on the grounds that he will soon be out of the military and suspects the case will be dismissed for lack of standing once he’s out. A second case filed by Dustin Chalker will continue.

Part two of the Internet Infidels’ “Great Debate” project has been posted at the Secular Web, on “Evil and Evolution.” Draper makes an argument for atheism on the basis of a version of the problem of evil informed by evolution, and Plantinga gives a version of his argument that evolution undermines naturalism. Each offers an objection to the other, followed by a reply. Reader questions are being solicited for the next couple of months, which the authors will respond to on the site.

British Olympic gold medalist Jonathan Edwards, whose faith in Christianity led him to excel in sports, has abandoned his Christianity in his retirement. The Times Online has a very interesting interview with him, in which he says that he didn’t take time to consider the philosophical foundations or evidence for Christianity when he was so focused on his sports career, but once he retired from athletics, he found the time to question, which led him to nonbelief: “But when I retired, something happened that took me by complete surprise. I quickly realised that athletics was more important to my identity than I believed possible. I was the best in the world at what I did and suddenly that was not true any more. With one facet of my identity stripped away, I began to question the others and, from there, there was no stopping. The foundations of my world were slowly crumbling.” … “Once you start asking yourself questions like, ‘How do I really know there is a God?’ you are already on the path to unbelief,” Edwards says. “During my documentary on St Paul, some experts raised the possibility that his spectacular conversion on the road to Damascus might have been caused by an epileptic fit. It made me realise that I had taken things for granted that were taught to me as a child without subjecting them to any kind of analysis. When you think about it rationally, it does seem incredibly improbable that there is a God.”Now that he has abandoned his faith, he is not unhappy about it: The upheaval of recent months has not left Edwards emotionally scarred, at least not visibly. “I am not unhappy about the fact that there might not be a God,” he says. “I don’t feel that my life has a big, gaping hole in it. In some ways I feel more human than I ever have. There is more reality in my existence than when I was full-on as a believer. It is a completely different world to the one I inhabited for 37 years, so there are feelings of unfamiliarity.I’ve posted some different quotes from the interview at the Secular Outpost. It’s my impression that Edwards was a typical Christian in that his faith was not a position he held on the basis of evidence, but one he found himself in because of his upbringing, but never challenged. Once in a position where he began to question, he found he didn’t have good reasons for what he believed, and had the integrity to stop believing. (Hat tip to Ed Babinski.) ...

I’ve been given the OK to pre-announce the Internet Infidels’ “Great Debate” project, which will publish four sets of exchanges between prominent philosophers about arguments and evidence for and against naturalism and theism. For the first month each debate is posted, readers will be able to submit questions which will be responded to by the debaters. Check out the announcement I’ve posted at the Secular Outpost.

Reed Esau, the originator of the celebrity atheists list, has put together a video introducing SkeptiCamp, an “un-conference” where all of the attendees provide the content, based on BarCamp. There will be a SkeptiCamp on August 3-4, 2007 in Denver, Colorado.

Bill Muehlenberg’s blog has a review of Robert Morey’s 21-year-old book, The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom, which he applies to “atheist storm troopers such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.” Muehlenberg characterizes Dawkins and Harris as trying to “suppress all religious freedom, not unlike what was attempted in the former Soviet Union.” Muehlenberg offers nothing to support this accusation, but that’s not the point I’d like to respond to. In his review, he makes the following statement: He [Morey] even quotes from a famous atheist debating guide, in which every trick in the book is offered to fellow atheists as they attack theists. Published by Prometheus Books, the main atheist publisher, The Art of Deception by Nicholas Capaldi teaches atheists how to deliberately use deception to refute theists. After reading Moray’s [sic] description of, and quotations from, the book, it occurred to me that all the atheists I have been debating must have well-worn copies of the book. It certainly explains why actually having a rational debate with an atheist is so difficult. All the dirty tricks, ruses, ploys and deception makes any debate with them a one-way affair.Muehlenberg has been deceived by Morey, and is deceiving others with this description. First, Nicholas Capaldi is not an atheist, he is a Catholic who teaches at Loyola University New Orleans and has written a number of religious publications from a Catholic perspective (though his central focus is on business ethics). Some of his publications include “From the Profane to the Sacred: Why We Need to Retrieve Christian Bioethics” and “A Catholic Perspective on Organ Sales” (both in Christian Bioethics). Second, The Art of Deception is not “a famous atheist debating guide.” The book’s content is fairly standard introductory material for a course in informal logic, logical fallacies, and critical thinking, and there is no focus on arguments for or against the existence of God. There are four examples of such arguments in the book (pp. 97-100, 120-121, and 142). The first set of pages includes a circular argument for God’s existence from the Bible’s say-so and a refutation of the argument from design from David Hume, the second gives the example of an appeal to ignorance to argue for the existence of God from an inability to disprove God’s existence, and the third is an example from Paul Tillich of arguing that your opponent really agrees with you, for example from the claim that a respect for logic is “a sign of ultimate concern and therefore a proof of God’s existence.” (Similar arguments are made regularly by presuppositionalists–that if you use logic you are presupposing the existence of God.) Note that three of these four arguments are deceptive arguments for the existence of God, not against, and the fourth is an example of a refutation of bad use of analogy to argue for the existence of God. There’s nothing in Capaldi’s book which even purports to teach atheists how to use deceptive arguments against theists. Finally, Capaldi’s book was not written with the intent to promote the use of deception. Rather, he wrote the book in a Machiavellian style in order to make it more entertaining. Capaldi’s explicitly stated purpose is to enable the reader to recognize and not fall for deceptive arguments from others. He writes in his introduction (pp. 13-14): … I have written this book from the point of view of one who wishes to deceive or mislead others. On the assumption that “it takes one to know one,” I have found that people are able to detect the misuse or abuse of logic if they are themselves the masters of the art of deception. I ask the reader to contemplate the prospect of a world in which everyone knew, really knew, how to use and thereby detect the misuse of logic. To exemplify this perspective, I wish to use an analogy with writings on politics. There are at least three great books which seek to describe political reality: Aristotle’s Politics, Hobbes’s Leviathan, and Machiavelli’s The Prince. Aristotle fails because he is so dull that he is often not read, while Hobbes’s perceptiveness is lost in the controversy over the theoretical context in which he embeds his insights. Machiavelli’s vivid account is the most popular and the most effective. I believe that more readers have learned about politics from reading Machiavelli than anyone else precisely because Machiavelli’s Prince is presented in a format of active manipulation rather than passive recognition. I hope that my presentation of informal logic will have the same kind of impact as Machiavelli. ...