Richard Dawkins at Indiana University

Last night I attended Richard Dawkin’s talk about his new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, at Indiana University in Bloomington, IN. It’s about a two and a half hour drive from Purdue, but still a good number (~50) of our club members made the journey down. The drive was fairly uneventful until we got on campus. Mark gleefully directed my attention to a bus that was parked at a stoplight. “Look, the atheist bus ad! …Wait a second…” We realized it was actually the reply to the atheist bus ad – the “You Can Be Good Without God but You Can’t Be Saved Without Jesus” slogan I blogged about a while ago. I guess they really did get printed. Thankfully we soon saw the real ad – “You Can Be Good Without God” – and we felt much better.

We parked and walked to the auditorium, and there were already two huge lines wrapped both ways around the building…and we had arrived an hour and a half early. Granted, our club had vouchers for reserved seats, but I was hoping to maybe get there early for a seat that was up close. Unfortunately the whole front of the bottom floor was filled once we finally got in, so we were sort of near the back. Not a huge loss since Dawkins was just talking, but oh well.I then snuck out before the show started to buy his new book. I had brought the God Delusion for him to sign, but I didn’t want him to get cranky since this is about his new book after all (and I was going to buy it anyway). I kept running into all these people I have random atheist-y connections with. Saw Joel from Campus Atheists and Agnostics of IPFW, a bunch of people from the Secular Alliance of IU, and August from the Secular Student Alliance. Rob (who I met at the SSA conference) tweeted about seeing me rush by in a crowd, but I missed him (sorry!).

The auditorium, which seats 3,200 people, was filled to capacity: they actually had to turn away 500-1,000 latecomers. I have to admit, I was a little disappointed about Dawkins’s talk itself – all he did was read excerpts from his new book for about 40 minutes. I’m going to read the book myself – it’s only a smidgen better hearing it from Dawkins, British accent and all. It was interesting, since he’s an excellent writer, but you didn’t miss much – just go read his book.

They then announced that he would be taking questions at two microphones up front, and I literally dashed out of my seat and raced to be near the front of the line (though don’t believe what my members tell you, I didn’t… seriously harm my competition on the way down). I was finally close enough to actually see his facial reactions, which was pretty awesome. Whenever someone would ask a stupid or confusing question (which was unfortunately the majority of them) he would contort his face in the way that can only be described as “Richard Dawkins is confused by your inane question.” For example (quotes summarized, couldn’t write things down, sorry):

History Professor: Why don’t scientists spend more time proving certain things of the Bible? That would make more people believe in science.
Dawkins: (after much confusion about what this guy was asking) Because the Bible was written by ancient Middle Eastern goat herders in a desert who knew nothing about modern science.

Guy: (In horrible attempt of a British accent) Goodday, I seem to have evolved a British accent during your talk!
Dawkins: …
Audience: *audible groaning*
Guy: (normal voice) Anyway, do you see anything at all as legitimate to intelligent design or creationism.
Dawkins: *walks back to microphone slowly, talks a long drink of water, pauses, then leans forward* No.

Finally I got my chance to speak, and to my best recollection I said, “I had the misfortune of visiting the Creation Museum this summer.” I actually got some random whoops and cheers from the audience at this point, not from Purdue people, which I’m mildly confused about? Anyway, “While there were many scary things there, the scariest was how it was full of children. When you see kids like this or those who are home schooled or going to religious school, they’re effectively being brainwashed. Is there anything we can do to teach them science, or are they a lost cause?”

Dawkins said he was glad I brought it up, because indoctrination of children is the “bee in his bonnet” that always gets him riled up…and riled up he got. He went on a rant you’ll be familiar with if you’ve read the God Delusion, that there is no such thing as “Christian children” or “Muslim children”; just children of Christian or Muslim parents. He went on for quiet a while, and it was a very good point…but then he went on to the next person and never answered my question! Gaaahhh! I was so upset that I finally got to ask Richard Dawkins a question and I didn’t get an answer, especially since many people (some random, not just my friends) said it was a very good one. Mark thinks he sidestepped it since he didn’t have a good answer, but I’m prone to think he distracted himself with his rant and totally forgot what he was originally supposed to be talking about. Sigh.

Oh, as a side not, I was also the only female to ask a question. Represent. The place was a giant sausage fest, like most gatherings of atheists.

There were other good questions (one about being an atheist but not being able to shake the fear of hell after years of indoctrination, which got him ranting again about child abuse) but since I wasn’t jotting stuff down, I don’t remember all of them. If you were there, feel free to add information in the comments. Thankfully, one of my favorite questions (and the closing one of the night, I believe that’s one of my Purdue people!) was caught on video (even though people weren’t supposed to be videotaping, oh well):

After the lecture we went to join the line for the book signing, which was massive. I was sort of afraid we all wouldn’t get through, but I was going to try. At this point some of my members showed me what lovely book they had received…Ray Comfort’s special edition of the Origin of Species! I kid you not. Some guy was outside the auditorium passing them out before the event, along with business cards talking about how evolution = Nazism, yadda yadda yadda. Wow. Two of our members right in front of me in line asked Dawkins if he would sign it, and he looked shocked and amused that they were being handed out, and ended up talking to them for quite a bit about the book. Then it was my turn!That’s me nervously stammering something about how honored I am to meet him because I’m the president of a student group for atheists at Purdue.His response? A very cheerful “Oh good, well done!” Yay! Look, he’s smiling instead of his previous “Bloody hell, how many more books do I have to sign?” look!

After that bit of glee, we all traveled to the Irish Lion pub for food and drinks with other atheists (no Dawkins though, unfortunately). We had the whole top floor of the place reserved, and there were probably a hundred people there. That was honestly the most fun part of the night, since it was either philosophical discussions about atheism or perverted humor (mostly the latter). We also happened to be at IU during their Nearly Naked Mile, where people run around in their underwear. We were all convinced there was, indeed, a god, especially after some random hot girl mooned us. Tell me again why I went to Purdue?

Meeting Dawkins was fun, and the talk was pretty good, but honestly I was most impressed by the turnout. Bloomington is far more liberal than West Lafayette, but it’s still in Indiana. But not only did they fill the place and have to turn people away, but the vast majority of the audience were supporters. Whenever Dawkins made a crack at religion, the entire auditorium was rumbling with laughter. When someone who obviously supported creationism asked a dumb question, the auditorium would groan and you could see people rolling their eyes and giggling.

I’m not saying all 3,200 of these people were atheists, but they were definitely freethinkers and skeptical of religion to some extent. To see that sort of reaction in Indiana gave me so much hope for the atheist movement. When someone famous like Dawkins comes to speak, people start coming out of the woodwork and show we have so much more support than we might think. I had originally cynically stated that if Dawkins came to Purdue, no one would show up – but now I have to wonder. Would we also have seen support that is usually silent? The optimist in me thinks so.

Going to see Dawkins tonight!

In an hour I’ll be leaving for Indiana University to see Richard Dawkins speak, woo! It’s a two and a half hour drive but totally worth it. About 50 members of the Society of Non-Theists are going, so we should have a decent sized group invading IU. I’m still a little miffed that our rival got to host him and we didn’t, but oh well. I’m bringing my copy of the God Delusion for him to sign, then going to a big pub gathering of atheists afterward. Should be fun!

Yeah, I really don’t have that much to say about it – just wanted to rub it in. Neener neener. Will post photos/review tomorrow morning.

Oh, and if anyone is wondering about the GRE, I did fine. Owned the math and did average on the verbal – I guess I’m your stereotypical scientist. The verbal is effectively a vocab test, where if you don’t know whatever obscure horrible word you’re given, you’re just screwed. Lovely. The hardest part of the whole exam was hand writing the paragraph in cursive about how you won’t cheat. Seriously, I haven’t used cursive since 5th grade – it looked like a 10 year old had written my statement!

GRE study book on God’s existance – failing at logical fallacies

So if you follow me on twitter at all, you have probably figured out that I’ve been cramming for the GRE (test to get into grad school). I’m taking the test tomorrow morning, so I’ve been reviewing one of those study guide books. I’m not too nervous, but I figured reviewing can’t hurt, especially since I haven’t done any math other than plugging in numbers for about three years (yay Purdue’s science curriculum).

I think I’m pretty much golden on the writing section. The first part you have to be able to express an opinion, and the second part you have to analyze an argument and find errors in their reasoning. Yeah, I think I’m pretty good at the whole being opinionated and criticizing faulty reasoning. Regardless, I started reading the section of Logical Fallacies…and found this:

Shifting the Burden of Proof
It is incumbent on the writer to provide evidence or support for her position. To imply that a position is true merely because no one has disproved it is to shift the burden of proof to others.

Example: Since no one has been able to prove God’s existence, there must not be a God.

There are two major weaknesses in this argument. First, the fact that God’s existence has yet to be proven does not preclude any future proof of existence. Second, if there is a God, one would expect that his existence is independent of any proof by man.

Are you kidding me? This is in the section on how to think logically? My only gripe is that the sentence says “must” – I would lower it to “most likely” or “probably” because yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But regardless, the explanation they give is itself illogical. One, the burden of proof should lie on those who make claims. An absence of something extraordinary isn’t a claim – it’s a null hypothesis. If you have absolutely no proof, what is supporting your argument? Secondly, it’s effectively impossible to prove a negative (that something doesn’t exist), which again leaves the burden of proof with those making the claims. Three, future proof doesn’t hold any ground in current arguments. If I said that I might potentially eventually have proof that unicorns exist, would anyone take me seriously? If I said one day scientists may find that a diet of nothing but chocolate is good for your health, should we all eat nothing but chocolate? No, because it’s not real evidence. And finally, the last sentence about God’s existence being independent of any proof of man is a logical fallacy I like to call “Making Shit Up.” Why is God’s existence independent of any proof of man? What reason do you have to think that other than conveniently and arbitrarily defining God that way? Why God and not gods, or goddesses, or aliens, or fairies?

Logical fallacies when trying to teach logical fallacies. Thank you, book.

Tony Blair: Atheists as bad as terrorists?

The Times reports on Tony Blair’s recent speech at Georgetown University, where he had some strong words to say about the irreligious:

“We face an aggressive secular attack from without. We face the threat of extremism from within.”

Arguing that there was “no hope” from atheists who scorn God, he said the best way to confront the secularist agenda was for all faiths to unite against it.

He said: “Those who scorn God and those who do violence in God’s name, both represent views of religion. But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century.”

Yet another example of “As long as you’re believe in something, that’s okay.” It’s troubling when such a prominent politician feel the need to attack non-theists and compare us to religious extremists. When’s the last time an atheist has flown a plane into a building, or performed a suicide bombing? The only thing we attack is illogical, delusional thinking, and in that regard he’s right – we’re a threat. For a man in the running for the President of the European Council, you think he’d be a little more sensitive…you know, since Europe has a gigantic amount of nonbelievers.

(Via Gulf Stream Blues)

Another letter to the editor

Apparently my response to the student who called non-theists whiny brats actually did make it to the newspaper – it was printed today. I’m a little surprised, since they never called to verify that it was me who wrote the letter (which they usually do). I guess they just assume if Jennifer McCreight is writing in and defending atheism, it’s probably be, haha.

There was another good letter in support of our protests too. Hooray!

Atheist conventions: Where’s the support for young atheists?

Blogs have been on fire about the Atheist Alliance International Convention in California this weekend. Why wouldn’t they be? Not only is it a gathering of freethinkers (which is always fun), but they have great speakers like Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Daniel Dennett, Brian Dalton (Mr. Diety), PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, Eugenie Scott, Sean Faircloth… It’s an atheist celebrity extravaganza. But on top of the delight of meeting someone you highly respect, the convention is also educational and a great way to motivate atheist activists.

So why no attention for the younger atheists?

We are the next generation of atheist activists, after all. And many of us are already busy forming clubs, debating, and blogging, at an age where many of today’s movers and shakers of atheism would have still been religious. I’m not saying we’re completely ignored by the movement – the Secular Student Alliance is a fabulous organization that works enormously hard to help freethinking students, and even had their own conference. I’m talking about the huge conferences, like AAIC or TAM or the Global Atheist Convention. And I’m mainly talking about monetary support.

Where are the reduced ticket prices for students? I’m fairly well off for a college student since I’m lucky enough to have many scholarships, but I still can’t just shell out $200 to $400 dollars for entrance into a convention. I would have to think about if it’s worth it for a long time, but for most students it’s not even a question. That money is next month’s rent or food. That money might not even be in their bank account yet. Would it hurt too much to offer a discounted rate for students? Most likely, these individuals wouldn’t be able to come without it, so you would be making a profit with their attendance.

Or looking at the model of other academic conferences, why stop there? The only reason I was able to attend Evolution 09 in Idaho and the American Society of Mammalogist meetings in Alaska was because I won awards that funded my trip. For Evolution, NSF actually sponsored the program, and I had my plane ticket, room and board, conference costs, and food entirely paid for. For ASM, they offered their own award that covered my plane ticket (the biggest cost when going to Alaska). Both were on the stipulation that I present my research.

I understand that the economy isn’t at its best right now, especially for a relatively small movement like atheism… but there have to be donors or organizations somewhere that could pay for part of a plane or conference ticket. Make it highly competitive and so the future leaders of the atheist movement can apply. Make it 25 and younger to narrow it down. Make them contribute – tell us what talk you’d like to give at the convention, send a video of it, do something to prove you’re a good speaker and you have a great story to tell. A younger atheist may not be famous like Richard Dawkins, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have something interesting to say. I think the movement can benefit from hearing the voice of a different generation.

PZ said it himself: “Along similar lines, I’m seeing more young people and more women in attendance; not enough of either, but still a good sign of a healthy, growing movement.”

Trust me, there are plenty of us who’d love to come – we just don’t have the money for the admission price, let alone the travel costs. Give us a little help, atheist organizations!

Blasphemy Day Posters

Here are posters from Blasphemy Day. There are a lot of funny/insightful gems in there. Let me know what your favorites are! Click for larger images, and more are located under the break.

Review of my Creation Museum talk at Ken Ham’s blog

Ken Ham again is talking about my Creation Museum presentation over at his blog. He posted some commentary by Brent Aucoin, the pastor who attended my talk and has commented a bit here. I think Brent was pretty fair in his description, even though we ultimately disagree on the validity of the scriptures and the Creation Museum’s message. I’m also glad that he’s passing judgment after actually seeing my talk, rather than Ken Ham who called me a godless atheist (redundancy, anyone?) who presented that Christianity is bad. That’s a whole other debate, and not something I discussed in my talk. I guess Ham was too busy globe trotting to read my email where I linked him to my blog and the video of my talk…oh well.

Review of my Creation Museum talk at Ken Ham's blog

Ken Ham again is talking about my Creation Museum presentation over at his blog. He posted some commentary by Brent Aucoin, the pastor who attended my talk and has commented a bit here. I think Brent was pretty fair in his description, even though we ultimately disagree on the validity of the scriptures and the Creation Museum’s message. I’m also glad that he’s passing judgment after actually seeing my talk, rather than Ken Ham who called me a godless atheist (redundancy, anyone?) who presented that Christianity is bad. That’s a whole other debate, and not something I discussed in my talk. I guess Ham was too busy globe trotting to read my email where I linked him to my blog and the video of my talk…oh well.