Atheism

Christian theologian Alister McGrath, author of The Dawkins Delusion, managed to help persuade Norwegian astrophysicist Øystein Elgarøy that atheists had the better arguments. Elgarøy, formerly a liberal Christian, is now an atheist and a member of the Norwegian Humanist Association. (Hat tip to DMB at the Talk Rational forum.) Eamon Knight (2008-06-27): Ooh, thanks for that link. As someone who has made a similar journey from conservative Xty through liberal to atheist, I found that story fascinating. Elgarøy was asking many of the same question I asked myself, during my t.o years. ...

I just read yesterday at the Friendly Atheist blog that Ray Comfort has conceded that the banana is not really the “atheist’s nightmare," and that it’s not a good argument. But he is still continuing his habit of saying incredibly stupid things, such as that light is invisible and California wildfires are punishment for same-sex marriage. I find it remarkable that he continues to pass himself off as a “master” when his blog is full of commenters who are vastly more intelligent than he seems to be, who shred his arguments in a manner more amusing, witty, and persuasive than anything he writes. But then, maybe he’s actually an atheist playing the role of an exaggeratedly dumb Christian, in the way that Stephen Colbert plays an exaggerated conservative. After all, there’s clearly success to be had and money to be made by being wrong on the Internet. I’ve speculated in the past that some people are intentionally putting forth bad arguments just to get the traffic from corrections. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that, despite the fact that people like Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Moore, Michelle Malkin, and the Stop the ACLU bloggers often say things that they clearly should know are false, it’s not that they are being ironic parodies like Colbert, it’s that they just don’t care about the difference between truth and falsehood–they are bullshitters. And it’s just scary that there are people who take them seriously as reliable sources of facts. ...

The fourth episode of the ApostAZ podcast is now out, and this time I contributed a segment on “Lucy”’s knee joint. Episode 004: Atheism and Freethought in Phoenix- Squared by Greydon Square. Happy Freuder’s Day. Inappropriate Teachers and the Children They Burn. Philly Coalition of Reason creates the Sign of the Times, wow. Science and Skepticism Segment by Jim Lippard, “Lucy’s Knee Joint”. Fleshing Out the Humanity of Godlessness. Check it out. (BTW, correction to the podcast: there’s a reference to Kenneth Starr that should be a reference to Ken Lay of Enron–but he died of a heart attack, not a suicide or fake suicide like Samuel Israel III. And the quotation about “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is from Theodosius Dobzhansky. ApostAZ talks about EquallyYoked.com, which this blog has discussed here.)

ApostAZ podcast #3 is now online: “Jesus Loves the Little Zygotes” written by Frank Zindler, performed by Brad. Rev Wright is All Wrong for Obama. Catholic Anti-Feminism. Nóel’s story. For Love or Faith? Deity Nihilo: Proof #3 (2/50 from http://godisimaginary… ). Absurd Dunkin’ Terror. God’s Own Dealership. Group Events. Outro from ‘Dream’ Greydon Square’s Album ‘The Compton Effect’ Anders Branderud (2008-06-15): Hello! I found your website. My name is Anders Branderud and I am from Sweden.Who then was the historical “Jesus”?Did you know that the original “Matthew” was written in Hebrew and it’s called Hebrew Matityahu. It speaks about an Orthodox Jewish leader..I am a follower of Ribi Yehoshua – Mashiakh – who practiced Torah including Halakhah with all his heart.He was born in Betlehem 7 B.C.E . His faher name was Yoseiph and mother’s name was Mir′ yâm. He had twelve followers. He tought in the Jewish batei-haknesset (synagogues). Thousands of Jews were interested in His Torah-teachings. The “Temple” Sadducees (non-priests who bought their priest-ship in the “Temple” from the Romans, because they were assimilated Hellenist and genealogically non-priests acting as priests in the “Temple”; they were known by most 1st-century Jews as “Wicked Priests.” decided to crucify him. So they did - together with the Romans. His followers were called Netzarim (meaning offshoots [of a olive tree]) and they continued to pray with the other Jews in the synagogues.Christianity does not teach the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua. Ribi Yehoshuas teachings were pro-Torah.If you want to learn more click at our website www.netzarim.co.il -- than click at the lick "Christians"; click at my photo to read about what made my switch religion from Christianity to Orthodox Judaism.Anders BranderudFollower of Ribi Yehoshua in Orthodox Judaism ...

Dan Barker has a new book coming out, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists. It’s available for pre-order on Amazon.com. Also check out the organization run by Dan and Annie Laurie Gaylor, the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Ken (2008-07-09): Thanks for the heads up.I think that some day Mr. Barker will wear out his arguments form authority by repeating once to often that he is an ex-preacher. If anyone ever specifically debated him on the biblical passages that he is constantly misunderstanding, misapplying and misinterpreting his arguments form authority would come to a screeching halt.Besides, (1) since he does not believe that lying in absolutely immoral and (2) he recommends lying in order to avert danger and (3) he believes that religion is dangerous (4) he leaves the logical thinker with no choice be to not believe a single word that comes out of his mouth since he could lie all that he wants and not even consider it immoral.Just some thoughts.aDios,Mariano ...

The second ApostAZ podcast is now available for listening at ApostAZ.org. Topics include the Virgin Mary visible on a biker’s leg wound, Phoenix atheists meetup group organizer Shannon’s deconversion story, an “Arizona Atheist Action” segment on the current proposal to create another anti-same-sex marriage amendment to the state constitution, and more. Correction, guys–our sun is a Class G star, not a Class B star. (It doesn’t negate your point–Class G stars are more common than Class B stars.)

Some Arizona atheists are putting together a regular podcast called “ApostAZ,” including music from Greydon Square (who will be performing at The Amazing Meeting next month in Las Vegas). Subscribe to the RSS feed here. The first episode discusses a woman who killed her six-year-old daughter thinking she was killing a demon, upcoming Atheist Meetup events (Arizona Fetish Prom, ballroom dancing–which turned out to be swing dancing and was a fun event Kat, Einzige, and I attended, and a musical performance to benefit Ayaan Hirsi Ali), a baby-tossing event that they take issue with but seems unobjectionable to me, and more. ApostAZ has a website here.

There’s been a lot of commentary in the blogosphere about a January 3, 1954 letter from Albert Einstein to philosopher Eric Gutkind which contains the following statements: The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.and For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.Einstein expressed similar sentiments in a pair of letters he wrote on July 2, 1945 and September 28, 1949 to Ensign Guy H. Raner of the U.S.S. Bougainville which were first published in Skeptic magazine in 1997: From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere–childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of the world–as far was we can grasp it, and that is all. [July 2, 1945] and I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. [September 28, 1949] Einstein didn’t consider himself an atheist in the common usage of the term (his 1945 letter restricts the term to “from the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest”), though he was clearly comfortable being called an agnostic. He rejected the idea of a personal god, but was apparently willing to accept the possibility of Spinoza’s pantheistic god. UPDATE (May 14, 2008): ERV quotes this description of a statement by Oxford historian and theologian John Hedley Brooke, and describes it in a comment as “a ‘respected’ theologian lying to try to ‘keep him’” (emphasis hers): “Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him,” said Brooke. “It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions … but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion.” Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. “The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." ...

Discovery Institute Fellow and bad movie critic Michael Medved has written an article arguing that an atheist should not be elected U.S. president. P.Z. Myers gives it a hilarious fisking at Pharyngula.

Yesterday I spent a few hours being filmed in an interview for a DVD being put out by Creationist Ministries International, a 20-year retrospective on the 1988 debate at the University of New South Wales between Duane Gish and Ian Plimer. I went back and forth a few times about whether I should do it, finally concluding that it would be worthwhile. I have no fear of an “Expelled”-like distortion in this case–the questions were provided to me in advance, and I negotiated the terms of the release agreement and had my attorney review it. I have the right to use the full footage myself (to put on YouTube or otherwise distribute or broadcast), so if I were to find myself misrepresented through creative editing (which I don’t believe will happen), I would be able to demonstrate it. My involvement was requested because of the role I played in criticizing Plimer and certain of the Australian Skeptics for misrepresentations of the creationists, which I wrote about first in the article “Some Failures of Organized Skepticism” in The Arizona Skeptic, and later in “How Not to Argue with Creationists” in the Creation/Evolution journal, “How Not to Respond to Criticism” which is available online through the talkorigins.org website, and in my review of Plimer’s book Telling Lies for God, on my website. In preparation for the interview, I dug out my file folders regarding these articles, which amounts to a stack of paper about six inches thick. Reviewing the files, I re-read some of the correspondence I had with Mark Plummer, then president of the Victoria Branch of the Australian Skeptics, and former executive director of CSICOP (now CSI). At some point, I should put some of that stuff online–it was quite unbelievable. I thought it went pretty well, though it took me several takes to get through some of the questions, and I didn’t say everything I wanted to say. The one item that I kick myself for forgetting to say was to emphasize the point that Duane Gish, debater for young-earth creationism, has two things that he always refuses to debate–the age of the earth and flood geology. Those also happen to be the two main areas of positive claims that make up young-earth creationism, which he rules out of court at the start of every debate. The interviewer, Tim, is a CMI supporter who once applied for a job with Answers in Genesis and is now happy that he didn’t get it, since he feels he was deceived by them about their split from CMI. The cameraman, Mike, who was hired for this job, was also a Christian, but didn’t seem to be a young-earth creationist. He frequently films both interviews and outdoor nature footage, often for science documentaries, and he expressed his love for knowledge and science. We had an interesting discussion after the interview about creationism, Christianity, and science. Tim took the position that young-earth creationism is an essential part of Christianity, because God must have been able to communicate his word accurately in the first place, because Jesus endorsed the truth of Genesis, and because death before the Fall in Eden would imply that God didn’t create a perfect universe. He also holds the position that only “operational science” is valid science–that which can take place in the laboratory and be “directly observed” (which philosophers of science know is very little, since instrument-assisted and even naked-eye observation is “theory-laden”). (Tim’s view of science, where it came from, and what’s wrong with it is the subject of Christopher Toumey’s excellent book, God’s Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World.) I pointed out to him that that’s the kind of choice–young-earth creationism or atheism–that helped drive me to atheism. Mike, by contrast, didn’t think young-earth creationism was essential to Christianity, but that the discoveries of science open more possibilities for religious interpretation. Today, I agree with Mike–given what I know about religions and how they work, Christianity is not defined solely in terms of the content of the Bible, even for evangelical Christians. Fundamentalism as it exists today didn’t exist until the early twentieth century. And even within evangelical Christianity, there are those who have argued very forcefully against young-earth creationism (I pulled out my copy of Daniel Wonderly’s Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared With Young Earth from the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, and could have also pointed to Davis Young and Howard Van Till’s Science Held Hostage: What’s Wrong with Creation Science and Evolutionism, or pointed to Mike Beidler’s blog, “The Creation of an Evolutionist”). I think it’s interesting that if all Christians took Tim’s viewpoint rather than Mike’s, there would probably be a lot more atheists and a lot fewer Christians. UPDATE (January 1, 2009): I wrote up my initial reaction to the completed documentary here, and you can view the video yourself here. ...