Who's Who in Hell is now online

Warren Allen Smith’s massive Who’s Who in Hell (2000, Barricade Books) is now online as a wiki, provided by the organization Philosopedia (not yet a 501(c)(3)), which manages a wiki of the same name. Unfortunately, they’re not allowing the public to edit the content. I hope they will at least open it up to registered users in some way. It’s also somewhat disappointing that the organization of Who’s Who in Hell puts all the entries into 26 wiki pages, one per letter of the alphabet, rather than having a separate entry for each person. My entry on the L page is woefully out of date. UPDATE: But they’re quite responsive… I have a new entry already. ...

January 1, 2008 · 4 min

Ayaan Hirsi Ali receives Goldwater Award

Last night Einzige and I attended the Goldwater Institute’s award dinner for Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the Phoenician resort in Scottsdale, where she was given the 2007 Goldwater Award for her work in support of freedom, in defense of women against the oppression they face in Islamic countries. Copies of her autobiographical book, Infidel, were given to each table and I obtained the copy at our table since most everyone at the table had already read it and no one accepted my challenge to fight for it. It was a rainy night and it was a huge event, with about 800 attendees. It took me about 25 minutes to get from the entrance of the Phoenician to the event venue, where I later heard that valets parked 400 cars for the event. It seemed as if the Phoenician wasn’t used to hosting an event of that size, which can’t possibly be true. I was extremely surprised to see that the schedule for the event included an invocation. I have attended multiple Goldwater events in the past (such as the screening of “Mr. Conservative”), but this was the first time I had been to one that included a prayer. I noted at the table that it seemed disrespectful in the extreme that an event honoring an atheist would begin with a prayer. The prayer itself was an ecumenical, non-sectarian “meditation” (as the individual who spoke referred to it) of the sort likely to be as offensive to hardcore Christians as it is to atheists for its failure to appeal to Jesus Christ, but it was still a public verbal appeal to an imaginary being for his approval and support. It reminded me a little bit of the “Agnostic’s Prayer” in Roger Zelazny’s book Creatures of Light and Darkness, which goes like this (p. 40): Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you [a man about to die in a “suicide show” who the speaker has put his hand upon the head of] be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen.And I continue to fail to understand why Christians cannot abide by Matthew 6:5-7. The dinner at the event was phenomenal, though portions were small (filet mignon was the main course). Steve Forbes gave a keynote speech which was well done; it was primarily a recounting of some of the basic principles necessary for economic freedom, such as the importance of the rule of law and a system of stable property rights. Regarding property rights, I was pleased that he commented on a survey of businesses and property in Egypt that found that most businesses and buildings were illegal under the country’s laws, and noted that this is common throughout the world. Having recently read Robert Neuwirth’s excellent book Shadow Cities, I’m aware that over a billion people in the world live in squatter cities where they are illegally occupying land and often develop their own informal property rights that are not legally enforceable but tend to be respected within their own communities. Countries which manage to give some kind of enforceable title to such people can dramatically unlock wealth and improve their conditions. The part of Forbes’ talk which most caught my attention, however, was his discussion of the current mortgage crisis. He stated that this is a mere blip, so long as the government doesn’t overreact. He claimed that there is perhaps $400-$500 billion in losses hiding in securitized mortgage packages, which should be easy for the market to take since that’s the amount lost in a bad day on the stock market. The concern is that government or bankers will overreact and withdraw liquidity from everyone (rather than just bad risks) at a time when it is needed. In my opinion, Forbes understates the risks because he repeatedly assumed that the problem exists only within subprime loans, which is already demonstrably false. American Home Mortgage of Tucson, which filed for bankruptcy in August, did not originate subprime loans at all, only “Alt-A” loans, which fall between prime and subprime. The root of the problem has been people of all levels of credit risk using their homes as ATMs who are now underwater, and in particular those using adjustable rate mortgages. This article from someone inside the mortgage industry sets out a worst-case scenario that I think is far more plausible than Forbes’ rosy picture, which fails to account for the cascading effects of foreclosures, bankruptcies, and loss of real estate jobs on the broader consumer-driven economy. But in any case, he predicts that the mortgage crisis will be over before the end of 2008, so by this time next year we will know who is right. Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s talk was actually an interview conducted by Darcy Olsen, the president of the Goldwater Institute, who asked her a series of questions about growing up in Somalia, her subsequent life, what motivated her to escape Islamic fundamentalism and her arranged marriage, and so forth. She was well-spoken (especially for a non-native speaker of English) and charming, and told of being inspired by works of fiction about individual freedom while living in a community that emphasized submission to family, tribe, and nation. Her sources of inspiration were all secular, of course, though surprisingly included Barbara Cartland romance novels and Nancy Drew mysteries as well as books like Huckleberry Finn. Afterward, I stood in line to get my book signed, and had a chance to speak to her directly. Although I thought of asking her what she thought of being honored at an event that opened with a prayer, our brief exchange went something like this: JL: Have you heard of the Internet Infidels? AHA: No. (She smiles.) JL: It’s at infidels.org, it is a group critical of religion. Are you familiar with Ibn Warraq? [I had also meant to mention Internet Infidels supporter Taslima Nasrin, but couldn’t remember her last name.] AHA: Yes. JL: Some of his material is published there, though it mostly focuses on Christianity, since it’s a bigger source of problems in this country. AHA: I think I would disagree that Christianity is a bigger problem than Islam in this country. JL: It’s Christianity that has control of the government here. And then I stepped away with my book, and joined the long line at valet parking right behind Barry Goldwater, Jr. I tipped my valet with a $20, which he seemed very pleased to receive, and then thought that I should have said “this is a tip from an atheist,” since I saw several other people (not Goldwater) apparently fail to tip at all, even though they were more elegantly dressed and driving vehicles several times the price of mine. Ayaan Hirsi Ali seems to be focused exclusively on Islam–not surprising given her history. Several of her answers were somewhat defensive of Christianity (no doubt appealing to her audience), at least by comparison to Islam, much like her response to me above. Yet the Bible contains teachings very similar to the Koran in regard to calling for the death of unbelievers, the subjection of women, slavery, and so forth–the difference is that there are fewer who endorse those teachings, perhaps in part because Christianity has gone through a Reformation while Islam has not. UPDATE: Note that Wikipedia reports that Hirsi Ali has admitted to falsifying some information in her application for asylum in the Netherlands (specifically her name, date of birth, and claim to have spent time in refugee camps on the border of Somalia and Kenya), and her family disputes her account of her forced marriage, though Hirsi Ali has provided letters from family members (including her father) to the New York Times which substantiate her account. It was the exposure of her fabrications on her asylum application that led her to step down as a Member of the Dutch Parliament and led to Rita Verdonk saying that her Dutch nationality was therefore invalid, which was subsequently overridden by vote of Parliament. This blog post quotes from a Reason magazine interview of Hirsi Ali that shows that she is somewhat extreme and illiberal in her position regarding Islam, as well as having some unusual ideas about Christianity (e.g., she thinks Catholics have a conception of God where there is no hell). One commenter at the Reason blog compared her to Ann Coulter. This post critiques her understanding of Islam as overly simplistic, like confusing all of Christianity with its most extreme fundamentalist varieties. UPDATE (February 20, 2008): I’ve just finished reading Hirsi Ali’s book, Infidel, and I highly recommend it. Contrary to my statement above, it wasn’t the “exposure of her fabrications on her asylum application that led her to step down” as an MP; she had been open with many people, including the press, about having used the name Ali instead of Magan on her asylum application and claiming to be a refugee from Somalia instead of a resident of Kenya fleeing a forced marriage to a Canadian. UPDATE (May 5, 2024): Since at least November of 2023, Hirsi Ali now identifies as a Christian, which for her seems to be a cultural stance not grounded in any reasons for believing Christianity to be true. UPDATE (January 11, 2025): Ayaan Hirsi Ali is no longer a remotely serious person. ...

December 8, 2007 · 9 min

Mitt Romney on religious freedom

Mitt Romney made his long-awaited “JFK-style” speech, which was hoped to alleviate concerns that he would rely on Mormon religious authority as the ultimate authority in making political decisions rather than the Constitution. His statement to that effect was rather weak, however, and he never actually came out and said that he would rely on the Constitution as the ultimate authority for his political decisions. He stated that “I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.” But he did assert that lack of faith was grounds for rejection of a candidate, and made the absurd statement that “Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." Romney did say (as the Arizona Republic reported, but CNN did not, in the above link) that “Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.” Conversely, the Republic failed to report Romney’s “freedom requires religion” statement. For Romney, it is clear that he does not agree with Jefferson, Madison, and the Constitutional Convention that the First Amendment protects the nonbeliever as well as the believer (as is clear from their writings, their actions as president, and from earlier drafts of the First Amendment that were rejected). Instead, his version of the Constitution requires everyone to belong to some religion, whether it’s a cult founded by a con artist or an ancient world religion. He thinks that freedom and religion always must coexist, despite thousands of years and millions of people worth of evidence to the contrary. (Though perhaps his “requires” is a moral claim, that in order to be worthwhile or good, those things must come together–in which case I’d agree that religion requires freedom, but not that freedom requires religion.) The Republic also noted another serious defect in Romney’s comprehension of the First Amendment: At the same time, he decried those who would remove from public life “any acknowledgment of God,” and he said that “during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.”Such scenes are already welcome in public places, so long as those public places are equally open to religious and secular displays by believer and nonbeliever alike. The only thing that is forbidden is exclusively allowing displays by a particular religion, which of course is what many Christians are actually demanding. For such an exclusive right favoring a particular religion or religion over nonreligion, displays must be on private property. It’s a simple and fair concept, but the religious right repeatedly misrepresents it and falsely claims to be oppressed because they aren’t given special privileges that no one else has, and whines and complains when something happens like a Hindu giving a prayer before Congress. And nobody has tried to prevent Romney, Giuliani, and the rest of the presidential candidates from their repeated references to God, despite the transparent phoniness of most of their claims to faith. It’s clear that most of them are simply signalling to the religious right that they will continue to be granted special preferences, rather than truly displaying what they believe–their records of political expedience and lack of integrity speak more loudly than their words. With people of such opinions in political power, explicitly willing to deny political freedoms to those who are nonbelievers and grant special privileges to anything calling itself a religion, it should not be surprising that some people will, out of pure expedience and self-defense, take steps to convert atheism into a religion. Yet that should be unnecessary under our Constitution, as a Washington Post editorial on Romney’s speech agrees. UPDATE: DI Fellow John Mark Reynolds comments on and posts the entirety of Romney’s speech, which is certainly better than the quotes above would suggest–he does criticize the establishment of religion in the Massachusetts colony, for example: “Today’s generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation’s forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others." UPDATE: P.Z. Myers and Greg Laden each give their take on Romney’s speech. And here’s Christopher Hitchens’ view. ...

December 7, 2007 · 4 min

Theists and atheists less depressed than agnostics?

A letter in QJM: An International Journal of Medicine suggests that theism and atheism are both correlated with “fewer reported depressive symptoms than the in-between state of ’existential uncertainty’.” John S. Wilkins (2007-11-27): Well, it's easier to be certain than to be right, I guess. Einzige (2007-11-27): How is calling oneself an atheist a claim to certainty?In what way can the lack of knowledge about something be considered "right"? (I have a theory, but I'd like to know what you meant) ...

November 27, 2007 · 2 min

Sunday School for Atheists

The November 21, 2007 issue of Time magazine includes a story titled “Sunday School for Atheists," about how the Humanist Community Center in Palo Alto, California has been offering Sunday school classes for kids for the last three years. The article notes that similar programs are under consideration in Albuquerque, NM, Portland, OR, and Phoenix. It doesn’t mention it, but the Phoenix group considering offering such a program is the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix, a group which has meetings for adults, often with quite interesting speakers, every two weeks. (Kat and I are members, but we have a pretty poor attendance record.) Also mentioned in the article are Camp Quest, a summer camp program operating in five states and Ontario, Canada, and the Carl Sagan Academy in Tampa, FL, the nation’s first humanist charter school. UPDATE: Mark at Protestant Pontifications has written a blog post on this Time magazine article, and I’ve submitted this comment: ...

November 25, 2007 · 6 min

The Rise of Pentecostalism and the Economist Religion Wars issue

In 1901, Bible college students at Charles Fox Parham’s Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas prayed to be baptized by the Holy Spirit. At a New Year’s Eve service that year, as Parham preached, Agnes Ozman began to speak in tongues, and Pentecostalism was born. William J. Seymour, a one-eyed black minister, attended Parham’s college in Houston, Texas, though he had to sit in another room across the hall and listen in, due to Texas race laws of the time. Seymour moved to Los Angeles, where he sparked the Azusa Street Revival in 1906. Today there are over 400 million Pentecostals in the world, and it is the world’s fastest-growing religious sect. The Mormons are lightweights by comparison, having only reached 13 million followers worldwide after nearly twice as long an existence. In Guatemala, Pentecostals have built a 12,000 seat church; in Lagos, one church supposedly has 2 million followers; and South Korea is home to five of the world’s ten largest megachurches. What makes Pentecostalism successful? It’s not intellectual argument. Pentecostalism is what The Economist’s recent special report on “The new wars of religion” refers to as a “hot” religion. It’s not particularly concerned about doctrinal details (which is not to say it doesn’t have them), but about religious experience and personal interaction and participation. The Yoido Full Gospel Church, the largest megachurch in South Korea, has 830,000 members (one in 20 Seoul residents is a member), holds seven Sunday services each of which has 12,000 people in the main auditorium and 20,000 watching on television in chapels in neighboring buildings. While you wait (and you will wait, especially if you want to attend one of the two services led by founder David Cho), you can listen to choirs sing, and sing along with the help of karaoke-style captions on TV screens. Translation is supplied to provide the services in English, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, French, Indonesian, Malay, and Arabic. The Yoido church, like many U.S. megachurches, works by organizing around many small groups. For Yoido, these are “home cells” of around a dozen people that meet in people’s homes. Yoido has 68,000 female deacons and half as many male deacons, who may make 35 visits a week to parishioners. There’s little hierarchy, and an emphasis on evangelizing, sending out missionaries, and producing more and more “home cells.” And it’s a methodology that appears to be winning the religious competition. An earlier Economist story (from 2005, pay content) on the business practices of U.S. megachurches, likewise observed that they function by providing a diverse variety of services to lots of small niches, with groups for hikers, skateboarders, mountain bikers, book readers, and so forth, creating many small communities out of which a larger one is formed. The lesson I take from this for the nonreligious is that a diversity of groups that cooperate with each other on common causes is far more likely to grow and have influence than individual groups that take a hard line on admissions requirements and require conformity to a narrow notion of what it is to be a freethinker or a skeptic, such as an adherence to scientism or atheism. The late Clark Adams of the Internet Infidels and Las Vegas Freethought Society was a strong proponent of cooperation between a broad set of secular groups as a way of strengthening their influence and being able to create organizations like the Secular Coalition for America. He was also a supporter of groups that engaged in social activities rather than intellectual navel-gazing, and promoted his views with humor and popular culture references more than with step-by-step argument. If you’ve thought about starting a secular, freethought, or skeptical group around some interest of your own that’s not currently served by an existing group, go for it. Meetup.com is a great way to get started or to find an existing group–you can find atheist groups, agnostic groups, deism groups, ex-Christian groups, Discordian groups, humanist groups, secular humanist groups, brights groups, skeptics’ groups, separation of church and state groups, and many more. ...

November 22, 2007 · 5 min

John Allen Paulos comes out with an atheism book

John Allen Paulos, the mathematician and author of such excellent books as Innumeracy, A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market, and A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper (all three of which I recommend), has a new book coming out on January 3, 2008 titled Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up. Here’s the review from Publishers Weekly: Few of the recent books on atheism have been worth reading just for wit and style, but this is one of them: Paulos is truly funny. Despite the title, the Temple University math professor doesn’t actually discuss mathematics much, which will be a relief to any numerically challenged readers who felt intimidated by his previous book Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences. In this short primer (“just the gist with an occasional jest”) Paulos tackles 12 of the most common arguments for God, including the argument from design, the idea that a “moral universality” points to a creator God, the notion of first causes and the argument from coincidence, among others. Along the way, he intersperses irreverent and entertaining little chapterlets that contain his musings on various subjects, including a hilarious imagined IM exchange with God that slyly parodies Neale Donald Walsch’s Conversations with God. “Why does solemnity tend to infect almost all discussions of religion?” Paulos asks, clearly bemoaning the dearth of humor. This little book goes a long way toward correcting the problem, and provides both atheists and religious apologists some digestible food for thought along the way. (Jan. 3) I hope the IM exchange described is as witty and funny as Raymond Smullyan’s dialogue with God, “Is God a Taoist?" (also found in his excellent book The Tao is Silent and in Daniel Dennett and Douglas Hofstadter’s anthology, The Mind’s I). UPDATE (January 14, 2008): Jim Holt reviews Paulos’ book for the New York Times. ...

November 15, 2007 · 2 min

Antony Flew's new book

Today’s New York Times has the story about how Roy Varghese wrote Antony Flew’s new book for him, titled There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. Historical Comments olvlzl (2007-11-05): How sad. Though it's not clear just which contentions are closest to the truth of the matter. It could be a lot more complex than the story of a bunch of evangelicals exploiting a failing philosopher but it's unlikely we'll ever know. The trophy aspect of this seems to go both ways, though. Flew, like Ayer and Ingersol and a few others besides, seem to be useful to either side. The best way to handle the situation is for everyone to stop using people like this as poster boys for their side and give up the futile pursuit of an intellectual solution to an essentially unanswerable question. There is no science or philosophy that can answer the "existence of God" question because if there is a one, God is not part of the physical world that science and philosophy were invented to discover. If there is a God it's obvious that for reasons not given to us, she doesn't want to be observed objectively, though people report subjective knowledge of God. Subjective knowledge isn't transferable through logic or science, it's personal.Flew's current belief should not have any effect on anyone else anymore than his previous belief did. It's meaningful for Flew, it shouldn't matter for anyone else. They should consult their own experience and draw their own conclusions. ...

November 5, 2007 · 2 min

Proud atheists: Salon interview with Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein

At Salon, Steve Paulson interviews Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein about their relationship, their work, and their atheism. (Hat tip to Wade Smith on the SKEPTIC list.) Historical Comments Einzige (2007-10-16): Jim,I find much to disagree with in your assessment of Pinker in this post.:-) olvlzl (2007-10-16): I used Steven Pinker's voice for Professor Lockheart when I read my niece the second Harry Potter book. Other than that he's pretty useless. There, does that satisfy you, Einzige? ...

October 16, 2007 · 2 min

Josh McDowell's conversion to Christianity

Chris Hallquist takes a look at the different versions of Josh McDowell’s testimony about being a former atheist who set out to disprove Christianity only to become a Christian, a finds some reasons to doubt its accuracy, as well as the quality of McDowell’s research. UPDATE (January 2, 2009): Vinny at You Call This Culture? notes that McDowell doesn’t appear to have actually been converted to Christianity on the basis of evidence: Commenting on the Hallquist post, self-identified Christian apologist Kevin H said that he had spoken with McDowell about the matter:He’s the kind of guy who is amused at all that is said about him. I noticed he was quick to correct falsehoods. For example, he told me that the evidence for Christianity was a “foot in the door” that kept him from immediately closing it. But it was the love of God that drew him. It seems he knows, whether his fault or the fault of the swirling influence of his books and speaking tours, that people have the conception that he was forced into faith by irresistable arguments. ...

October 16, 2007 · 6 min
Mastodon Verification