And I’m hosting the next Carnival of the Godless! I lucked out and got the coveted Halloween edition, on October 28. Godless bloggers who want to get in the carnival, please use the submission form. Thanks!
Atheism
{advertisement}
Humanist Symposium #9: Illustrated Edition
Hi, and welcome to the Humanist Symposium #9. After the bang-up job Elliptica did with the last Symposium and the whole Ruba’iyat of Omar Khayyam theme, I had a seriously tough act to follow. So after trying in vain to come up with some extremely clever theme or twist for my edition of the Symposium, I decided to just relax, be myself, and do what I always do with this blog.
No, I’m not doing a dirty version of the Symposium.
Although I did seriously consider it.
Instead, I present to you the Humanist Symposium: Illustrated Edition.
HUMANIST ETHICS
We have them. No, really.
We’ve all heard the refrain: without God or religion, people would have no morality, no decency, no reason to follow a code of ethics or treat one another well, no reason not to act on every selfish desire and impulse that pops into our pointy little heads. And yet this is the largest category in the Symposium. I’m just sayin’, is all.
The Dangers of Technological Adolescence, by Eric Michael Johnson, at The Primate Diaries. A brief history of scientific “progress” in human experimentation. Eric discusses how experiments on human subjects have changed over the centuries, how they haven’t… and why it matters.
Why You Should Show Appreciation, from INTJ Personal Development. Why you should show appreciation for the little things people do — and how to go about doing that. In other words, reasons for being nice to people that have nothing to do with God.
Self-Ownership, by Shaun Connell, at Reason and Capitalism. A discussion of why self-ownership is the foundation of liberty. Shaun theorizes that without the concept of self-ownership, liberty, freedom, and any non-totalitarian type system of government are philosophically impossible.
The Hope In Weakness (Morality II), by Ian Welsh, at The Agonist. Ian argues here that most human beings are easily influenced by others, both for good and for evil — and he argues that this is actually a good thing, a thing that offers hope for humanity.
Individual vs. Group Responsibility, by Alonzo Fyfe, at Atheist Ethicist. Why a just and peaceful society needs to hold individuals responsible for their actions, rather than giving credit or blame to everyone in the groups they’re part of — and why atheists need to be watchful about this.
THE HUMANIST MEANING OF LIFE
Another common trope of anti-atheist rhetoric is that a life without God or religion is not only without morality, but without meaning. Piffle, say I, and yet again: Piffle. All the pieces in this Symposium address the question of life’s meaning in one form or another; this piece takes it on directly.
The Meaning of Life. Or, do theists ever even talk to atheists?, by Ben D, at Principles of Parsimony. An essay examining why theists accuse atheists of lacking meaning in their lives — and why, contrary to this assumption, atheism is a philosophy that offers hope, liberation, consolation, joy, value, and great meaning.
THE VALUE OF SCIENCE
Secular humanism and a love of science often go hand in hand, and atheist writers devote scads of writing to the transcendent wonders of the physical universe… and to the astonishing ability that the scientific method has to uncover said wonders. Here is one such scad.
Scientific Theory and Philosophical Idea, by Mike White, at Life According To Mike White. Mike highlights the differences between scientific theory and philosophical idea, and discusses why, although philosophy is important in understanding the world and our lives, it ultimately needs science to provide a foundation of facts — and to truly question and explore the unexplainable.
HUMANIST LIVING
This high-falutin’ philosophy is all very well and good… but how do we actually get along and be happy in the practical day-to-day world? Without, you know, God? These bloggers offer both broad theories and practical household hints on everyday atheism.
Brain Wellness: Train Your Brain to Be Happier, by Alvaro, at Sharp Brains. Reflections on brain, mind and happiness. Since self, mind, and awareness come from the physical brain, how can we use the knowledge gained from neuropsychology to make ourselves happier?
On Atheist Janitors, by Ebon Muse, at Daylight Atheism. Is atheism a worldview that anyone can take up, or does the majority of society need religion to keep them happy and pacified? Ebon looks at how atheism can work in the lives of everyone — for janitors and sewer workers as much as for famous authors and scientists.
HUMANISTS ON RELIGION
If you want critiques of religion, you won’t find them here. In the Humanist Symposium, bloggers offer positive explorations of our humanist/ atheist/ etc. philosophies, not snarky rants about how religion is corrupting our children and poisoning our well-water and making our vegetables go all soggy. (We go to the Carnival of the Godless for that — and a rip-snortin’ good time it is, too.)
But humanists do have to live in a world of religion. So how can we do that in a constructive way? I asks ya. And so does this blogger.
Creationism In The Classroom: Is Ignoring It Worse?, by Genwi, at Big Ideas. Genwi takes a look at a specific aspect of this “how do we live in a world with religion” question that’s on many of our minds right now — namely, how should biology teachers deal with creationist beliefs in their students?
META-HUMANISM: HUMANIST COMMUNITY AND PHILOSOPHY
Thus far we’ve had humanists on ethics, science, religion, the meaning of life, and just getting along and being happy. So we wrap up this Symposium with a series of writings by humanists on, you know, humanism. (“Navel-gazing” is such an ugly word. I prefer to think of it as “community building.”)
Meta-Debunking the Empirical Rationalists, by Genwi again, at Big Ideas. How different are the different philosophies and approaches to atheism, secularism, humanism, skepticism, etc.? Genwi is back, arguing that rationalism and empiricism are, in fact, fundamentally contradictory, and that in any theory of life and truth one must take precedence over the other.
The Umbrella of Atheism, by Spanish Inquisitor. A response to the controversy surrounding the Sam Harris speech at the recent Atheist Alliance conference. S.I. argues that atheism is a useful term: an umbrella that can encompass rationalism, secular humanism, naturalism, and other positive non-theistic philosophies of life.
Options For Uniting Nonbelievers, by vjack, at Atheist Revolution. This is the second post in a multi-part series designed to explore community-building among nonbelievers. In the first part, vjack argued that uniting the secular community is a worthy goal. This post considers some of the options for bringing nonbelievers together.
Finally, we have my own contribution to this symposium: The Galileo Fallacy, and the Gadfly Corollary, by Greta Christina, right here at Greta Christina’s Blog. No, it’s not one of the pieces about my cat (although she has been known to succumb to the Gadfly Corollary). It’s a discussion of some of the pitfalls involved in skeptical thinking — specifically, the idea that having an unpopular idea that everyone disagrees with automatically makes you a genius.
Thus concludes this week’s Humanist Symposium. We’re having a casual get-together in the lounge afterwards; please feel free to peruse our library, explore our laboratory, and engage in lively but civil political discussion in our, uh, political discussion place. Further readings and discussions on humanism and atheism are available in our godless pit of doom and damnation. And, of course, please feel free to disport yourself in our tasteful and well-appointed orgy room. (Adults only in the orgy room, please!)
Many thanks to Ebon Muse, of the exquisite Daylight Atheism blog and Ebon Musings website, for organizing this esteemed gathering and for setting me loose on it. The next Humanist Symposium will be held on November 4, 2007, at Letters from a Broad. Bloggers who are interested in participating should check out these guidelines and use this submission form. Thanks for reading, and until next time, may the blessings of Poseidon be upon you.
Why Religion Is Like Fanfic
I was reading some unusually wacky Christian theology in Disinformation’s new book, Everything You Know About God Is Wrong (more on the book when I’m done with it — the thing is great, but it’s huge). Specifically: In the Middle Ages, there was all this theology about the 
immaculate conception virgin birth and how exactly Mary got impregnated by God, with several theologians putting forth the theory that — get this — the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary in her ear.
No, really. In her ear.
What’s more, there’s other theology of the period seriously discussing the question of how, physically, Jesus was born. Did he just teleport out of Mary’s womb, or was he born out of her ear (since he was conceived there, after all), or what?
Because, after all, the pussy is a disgusting, putrid font of sin and evil, and God would never go there. Or be born out of there.
But I digress.
I was reading this, and I was suddenly struck with how familiar it all seemed.
It reads exactly like fan-written blueprints for the Enterprise in “Star Trek.” Or fan-written explanations for discrepancies in star dates, or why the Enterprise has completely reliable lie detectors that they only use in three episodes.
Good Thing They’re Not Atheists
And the hits just keep on coming. Via Pharyngula and about sixty billion other atheist blogs comes the story of Richard and Lindsay Roberts, son and daughter-in-law of Oral Roberts, who are being sued for treating the budget of Oral Roberts University as their personal bank account: spending it on fancy cars, on tens of thousands of dollars worth of clothes, on remodeling their home multiple times, and more. They allegedly used the university jet to send their daughter to the Bahamas; Richard is accused of illegal involvement in a local political campaign (a big, big no-no for religious non-profits); and according to the suit, university and ministry employees are regularly summoned to the Roberts’ home to do the daughters’ homework. (The original story is well worth looking at, if only for the photo of the giant Oral Roberts U praying hands with the police car parked in front of them.)
And that’s just the beginning of their wacky shenanigans. The punch line: Richard is now saying that God is speaking to him and giving him advice on how to handle this lawsuit. According to Roberts — excuse me, according to God — “We live in a litigious society. Anyone can get mad and file a lawsuit against another person whether they have a legitimate case or not. This lawsuit… is about intimidation, blackmail and extortion.”
I just want to say this:
It’s a good thing they’re not atheists.
Because if they were atheists, they’d have no morality or decency, no reason to follow a code of ethics, and would act as if they could just do whatever they wanted.
Friday Cat Blogging: Lydia on the Bible
And now, a cute picture of our cat.
I’d love to think that Lydia is expressing her opinion here about organized religion. But really, I think she’s just expressing her opinion that if there’s a book on the sofa, it should be sat on.
Atheists Do Not Exist
My friend Rebecca saw this sign on a recent road trip, and of course she photographed it and sent it to me:
An ordinary person might just post the photo and let it speak for itself. But this is me, and of course I want to gas on about why it’s both so funny and so nonsensical.
1. The sign seems to be a clumsily humorous attempt to respond to the idea that atheists don’t believe in God, therefore God doesn’t exist. But that’s not what atheists say at all. This isn’t Peter Pan, where every time a little child says, “I don’t believe in fairies,” somewhere a fairy drops down dead. (Tangential note: When I was a child, that enraged me so much — it’s such manipulative emotional extortion, although I obviously didn’t think of it in those terms back then — that I used to go around saying, “I don’t believe in fairies, I don’t believe in fairies, I don’t believe in fairies,” and imagining fairies dropping like flies all over the world.) Atheists don’t think that our disbelief makes God not exist — that’s getting the cause and effect completely backwards. We think there’s no good evidence for God’s existence, and therefore we don’t believe in him.
2. More to the point: Did anyone else notice that the sign actually proves itself wrong?
I find this hilarious. In theory, the all-powerful God could, in fact, make atheists disappear by simply thinking us out of existence. If God were real, atheists’ lack of belief in him wouldn’t have any effect on his existence… but God’s disbelief in atheists could, in fact, make us disappear (or convert) in the blink of an eye.
But atheists do exist. Obviously. There is, in fact, compelling, physical evidence for the existence of atheists.
Therefore, either the Lifeway Southern Baptist Church has it wrong, and God does believe in atheists… or they have it wrong, and God exists but is not all-powerful and does not have the power to make atheists disappear…or they have it wrong, and God does not exist.
I’m just sayin’, is all.
Carnival of the Godless #76
Carnival of the Godless #76 is up at A Load of Bright. They were kind enough to include my piece Good Cop, Bad Cop: Atheist Activism (a piece of which I’m unusually proud), so many thanks for that.
My favorite pieces in this week’s carnival:
Clearing the Ground by Ebon Muse at Daylight Atheism, on why it’s absurd to assume that, in the debates between passionate believers and passionate non-believers, the truth must always lie somewhere in the middle. (BTW, this piece links to another piece by Ebon, The Golden Mean, a more detailed piece also on the fallacy of thinking that the moderate/ middle view is always the right one, which is absolutely brilliant and not to be missed.)
Deluded about Dawkins by No More Mr. Nice Guy, eloquently respnding to criticisms of The God Delusion and pointing out that many critics of Dawkins seem to have not actually read him
And Atheism Does Not Require Faith by Vjack at Atheist Revolution, who clearly and concisely points out the flaw in the “atheism requires just as much faith as religion” argument.
Great stuff. As one commenter on the Carnival noted, “This is better than settling in with the Sunday Times.”
If you’re a godless blogger and want to get in on this hot, hot Carnival of the Godless action, check out their guidelines and use their submission form. Happy blogging!
The Catholic Church: Pedophilia as a First Amendment Right
I think I’m going to be sick.
Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars: In one of the many pedophilia lawsuits against them, having to do with known pedophiles in the priesthood not being reported to the police and in fact being re-assigned repeatedly to new dioceses, the Catholic Church is arguing that the case should be dismissed on First Amendment grounds. They’re arguing that the free exercise of religion clause means that the Church should be able to discipline their priests however they want, and assign and re-assign them wherever they want. They’re arguing that for the courts to rule otherwise would make the courts and the government “unconstitutionally entangled in religious doctrine, practice, or church polity.”
Okay. Let’s get this out of the way first: This defense is complete bullshit. A religious organization’s First Amendment right to run its own ship stops when there’s harm or potential harm to the public. Churches have to obey fire and safety codes; religious leaders can’t commit fraud or murder; etc. 
That’s not my point.
My point is this:
They basically just said that child molestation, and the protection of priests who commit it, is part of the Catholic Church’s doctrine, practice, or church polity.
They said that protecting priests who molest children is a legitimate part of their religion and their religious structure, a Constitutionally protected form of religious expression, an internal matter that they should be free to exercise.
And they think this is a defense???
If this defense were being mounted by anyone other than a respected, well-established religious organization, it wouldn’t just not be a defense. It would be an admission of guilt. They basically said, “Yes, we protect pedophiles from prosecution and move them from parish to parish so they can keep molesting kids for years. What business is it of yours? That’s a valid form of free religious expression.”
I think I’m going to be sick.
Humanist Symposium #8: Interlocking Ruba’iyat
Humanist Symposium #8 is up! This may be my favorite blog carnival of all: it’s the carnival dedicated to discussing and celebrating atheism as a positive, fulfilling worldview, and to defending the philosophy of humanism. The hosts were kind enough to include my pieces Is Atheism What Makes Happy Atheists Happy? and Good Cop, Bad Cop: Atheist Activism, so many thanks for that. And Elliptica has done a wonderful job with this carnival, casting it in a Ruba’iyat of Omar Khayyam theme.
It’s going to be a tough act to follow — which sucks for me, since I’m the one who has to follow it, as I’m hosting the next installment. If you’re a humanist/ atheist/ etc. blogger and want to submit one of your posts to the next Humanist Symposium, please check out the guidelines and use the submission form. Ta!
“I can’t disprove the existence of Poseidon…”
This video had me on the floor laughing. Not quite literally, but almost literally. (Video below the fold.)
Continue reading ““I can’t disprove the existence of Poseidon…””