Well, Dammit.

I had quite a different post ready to share with you today.

You see, I had very recently googled “cuttlefish” (yes, ego-surfing. Sue me.) and found that, miracle of miracles, I was listed ahead of Answers in Genesis. (For context, see this early post where I first noticed how high AiG is on the list of results for “cuttlefish”, and this later post checking up on the situation.) I was overjoyed; I never expected to overtake The Great Satan AiG, so I prepared a post in which I marveled at the exposure Freethought Blogs had given me, to be able to climb so high (actually, it’s not a matter of my blog being up there–it’s a matter of something, anything, pushing AiG out of the first page).

And I just double-checked. Cos, you know, it would be embarrassing to write the whole thing up and then be wrong.

Yeah, anyway, I wrote the whole thing up and I was wrong.

My most recent search (I re-did it twice) showed AiG comfortably ahead of me–I am on the first page, but just barely, and a creationist lying piece of shit… sorry, a site dedicated to bearing false witness… is ahead of me. And ahead of XKCD, for that matter.

It may be that the algorithms have locked in a lie. It may be that AiG has sufficient inertia on its side that it will continue to serve up disinformation until the heat death of the universe. But could you maybe do me a favor? First… could you do whatever internet search you do for “cuttlefish” and confirm or disconfirm my fears? And secondly… I know I have a lot of smart and savvy readers–is there anything that can be done?

Yes, I know this is a small and perhaps insignificant little battle. But damn, a creationist site on the first page of “cuttlefish”? I was so happy, thinking I had vanquished this dragon. But hey. Reality beats happy fantasy, and (well, dammit) AiG beats The Digital Cuttlefish.

*sigh*

If you’ve read this far, here’s the original verse (now over 5 years old!):

Similarity shows that a common designer
With similar blueprints and parts
Constructed the human and cuttlefish forms—
I swear by all three of your hearts.

The God who created the heavens and earth
And killed dinosaurs off in The Flood
Used the same old ideas again and again
You can tell by your copper-green blood.

But the clearest, most obvious clue to His Touch
Is the similar form to our eye
(They are really quite different, in various ways,
But if you won’t tell, neither will I).

Color-blind cuttlefish never see red
But they can see polarized light;
This common designer gets different effects
Out of human and cuttlefish sight.

Anatomically, too, these are two different eyes
They have retinas frontward-to-back,
And cuttlefish reshape the whole of their eye
Because shapeable lenses they lack.

The shape of the pupil allows them to see
To the front and the rear all at once
So similar, clearly, to what we can do—
If you dare disagree, you’re a dunce!

When Answers in Genesis says it’s design
And not just a matter of fitness
I know they’re not fibbing—right there, number nine—
Thou shalt not bear false witness.

I only have one little, lingering doubt
Though I really, I promise, am trying—
If it’s perfectly clear they see common design
It’s even more clear that they’re lying.

What If Atheism Really Is Just A “Lack of Belief in God”?

There’s no reason to think that we’re better
There’s no reason to think that we’re worse
There’s no reason to think we’ve been chosen
Or are damned by some ultimate curse
There’s no call to put faith in the Torah
Or in any or all of its sequels
And without such a misguided compass
We are free to treat others as equals.

There’s no reason to think there is magic
There’s no need for an ultimate cause
There’s no need for some stellar mechanic
Who’s unburdened by natural laws
There’s no need to infer a creator
Looking on as creation unfurled
And without all those misguided questions
We are free to examine the world.

So today’s title comes from a bit of musing on a religious blog–they don’t have comments there, so I had to write here.

The author starts out largely in agreement with me. He defines (for purposes of this essay) atheism as the privative, the empty category of faith systems, the “none of the above“. It is a “lack of belief”. (The author notes that this view clearly does not encompass all of atheist thought–including things like atheism plus in his additional examples. He is addressing only the “lack of belief” view.) He points out that this non-belief, while it may be associated with any number of positive beliefs, is not itself a positive belief at all.

And this is true. But then, he makes some judgments that are poorly framed.

Atheism Is Not Pro-Reason or Pro-Science
This point is just a clarification of the prior section. Because atheism cannot offer support for any positive belief, atheism is not intrinsically pro-reason or pro-science. Individual atheists might be in favor of reason or science, but they are not in favor of reason or science because of their atheism.

True. More on this later.

Atheism is Not Morally Progressive
If atheism cannot offer support for any other belief, then atheists may or may not value the abolition of slavery, gay marriage, equal pay for women, abortion, communism, and greedy Wall Street bankers.

Also true. And more on this later as well.

Atheism Is A Comfortable Belief
Christians are often accused of believing in God because it is such a comfortable belief system, especially when we consider death.

Note, this stands in opposition to the recent “Where are the honest atheists?” moaners and groaners. Atheism, if the author is going to be consistent, cannot be seen as either comfortable or uncomfortable.

It depends on what you are comparing to. Ay, there’s the rub. Atheism is a comfortable belief, if you compare it to the notion of original sin, fallen humanity, and grace only at the whim of a deity known for death, destruction, and the threat of eternal punishment for simply not worshipping Him. And not, if you compare it to the notion of psalm 23.

But then, let’s be consistent. Atheism is not pro-reason or pro-science… unless our standard of comparison is religion, in which case, religion’s giant step back leaves atheism looking quite pro-science by comparison. And atheism is not morally progressive, unless our standard of comparison is religion once more.

Conclusion: “Atheism” Is Unworthy of Our Respect
Because this kind of atheism is such an impoverished position, unable to establish any other beliefs, and unable to support a pro-reason, pro-science, morally progressive worldview, it does not deserve our respect. Furthermore, because this atheism is clearly appealing to people who want to live selfishly, and not necessarily for the good of others, this “lack of belief” is not worthy of anyone’s respect.

As a Christian, I believe that every human being is made in the image of God, and that Jesus died out of love for every human being, and that God offers forgiveness to all who trust in Christ for salvation. Christianity ought to lead me to respect every person, which most certainly includes these atheists. So I believe in treating all people with respect.

Even though he concludes atheism is not worthy of our respect. Love the sinner, hate the sin. It’s the idea of atheism that is bankrupt, but even heathens deserve respect. Mind you, the notion of atheism being appealing to people who want to live selfishly does not stand up to scrutiny–witness any number of counter-examples from prosperity gospel to the recent study of religious beliefs of criminals justifying their actions (Jesus forgives all!). And mind you, “unable to establish any other beliefs” does not mean “incompatible with other beliefs”. The often-cited fact that there are scientists who are christians has been used to argue that christianity and science are compatible. Well, they are, if you compartmentalize; atheism, even “lack of belief only” atheism, need not even be compartmentalized. It is perfectly compatible with a pro-reason, pro-science, morally progressive worldview.

There are times when it is better to start out from nothing, when the alternative is worse. Better to avoid making up answers to questions, and to avoid making up questions that can’t be answered, than to take bold steps in the wrong direction.

Atheism, as just a lack of belief in god, doesn’t have much going for it (which is why we have A+, and humanism, and naturalism, and more). But at least it’s not actively telling lies and doing harm. And that makes it a better starting-off place than religion.

Where Are The Honest Believers?

Where are the honest believers?
The ones who know life is a shell?
Who know that this life
Is just struggle and strife
Till we cross into heaven or hell?

Where are the moaners and groaners,
Condemned from the start, by The Fall?
Those who don’t find it odd
That, unless there’s a god,
Their lives hold no meaning at all?

Where are god’s empty meat puppets?
Where can such creatures be found?
They just stumble along
Terrified they are wrong…
They’re everywhere! Just look around!

Obviously, the bookend to my “where are the honest atheists?” from yesterday. The difference is, the honest believers are everywhere. They were the ones who inspired yesterday’s verse, after all. Most of them don’t realize the implications of their question, when they start their “if I were an atheist…”

And in any major story that even tangentially mentions religion, you’ll find them in the comments threads, reminding us that this life is nothing compared to the eternal one to come. And there is Rapture Ready, if you want an extreme caricature. No, I am not going to link to them. Life’s too short, and it’s a sunny day!

Where Are The Honest Atheists?

Where are the honest atheists?
The ones who think life is so bleak?
The ones who recall
There’s no value at all
And no ultimate purpose to seek?

Where are the doomers and gloomers,
Who have realized we’re here all alone?
Who know life passes by
All to soon, then you die,
And that’s it for the life you have known?

Where are the nihilist numbers?
Who see nothing above but the sun?
Whose lack of belief
Brings them nothing but grief?…
I’ll tell you—we’re out having fun.

The above is based on two sources, actually. First, a Yahoo article that shares the title, which claims that New Atheism is dead, and yearns for honest atheists who recognize the bankruptcy of our world view:

If atheism is true, it is far from being good news. Learning that we’re alone in the universe, that no one hears or answers our prayers, that humanity is entirely the product of random events, that we have no more intrinsic dignity than non-human and even non-animate clumps of matter, that we face certain annihilation in death, that our sufferings are ultimately pointless, that our lives and loves do not at all matter in a larger sense, that those who commit horrific evils and elude human punishment get away with their crimes scot free — all of this (and much more) is utterly tragic.

Author Damon Linker says that “Honest atheists understand this”, and cites Nietzsche, Camus, and others who have a considerably gloomier view of life than, say, I do.

The other source is something my aggregator pointed me to, a religious blog that took a look at Jason Rosenberg’s “The Atheist’s Guide To Reality” and found its conclusions bleak and not worth believing. “What atheism gets you”. Mostly I’m just pointing out that site because I commented at length there, and I’m too lazy to collect it back here.

Sure, there are some prominent atheist writers who see the world as bleak. There are, to be fair, writers of all stripes who may see the world as bleak. But that does not make them the “honest” ones. I am honestly an optimist; I honestly find great meaning in my life, without requiring a god to put it there for me. And I honestly wonder why some people can’t accept that.

Music!

Just passing along a link; much too busy for anything else at the moment. You may have already seen it, but NPR has a collection of 100 songs from artists at SXSW (South by Southwest), the music festival in Austin. I’ve shared this with a few family and friends, with nothing but positive feedback, and I have, myself, listened up to the 70’s (out of the 100) at this point, and have only skipped ahead two or three times–a relatively amazing percentage, when it comes to something as subjective as “good music”.

So, yeah, at the link (here it is again), there is a zip file of 100 free songs, so you have nothing to lose but time.

Of course, when I put it that way… that’s the one thing no one can ever pay you back, and arguably among the most precious of commodities. Fair enough; for me, it’s a good collection thus far. If you hate it… quit listening and go do something else.

(I do note that it is really neat, or weird, or something, that a decade can have a sound–but compare this collection to, say, the ’80s. Or the turn of the millennium. I wonder how many years it will be before this collection is … quaint.)

Proud!

I first met her in 1993, her first semester in college. She sat in the front row of my 270-person section of Cuttlefishology, and never missed a day. Over the next years, she took 4 other classes from me, including an independent study that produced what still is the best paper I have received in over 2 decades of teaching. Of course, she was one of those students you really don’t want to see graduate, because you are human, and will miss her. But she did graduate, and went on to do good work in the real world, and I never saw her again.

Except, I did! I ended up writing a letter of recommendation, years later, to help get her into the grad program in Cuttlefishology, and had her as a colleague, not a student, for another 4 years! I was quite flattered to be asked to be on her dissertation committee (yes, of course!) and flatter myself to think I actually contributed a bit to the process. It was nice to be there for the beginning and the end of this particular journey. Bookends, of a sort.

And as of today, there is another Ph.D. in the world, competing with me for jobs. And I couldn’t be happier, or prouder.

No verse. Just proud.

Public Cross Chucked In Duck Pond

A cross was seen
On the village green
As we’re nearing the Easter season
They’ve done it for years
As spring appears—
It’s a beautiful symbol, they reason—
Though they think it’s fine
There’s a civil line
They have taken a few steps beyond
And so, one man
Took the matter in hand
And he chucked the cross into a pond.

He admitted his act
As a matter of fact
And he said that he’d do it again
If the church put it back
That’s a form of attack
Treating non-Christian folk with disdain
If they put back the cross
He’ll just give it a toss
Till it’s floating again with the ducks
I’d suggest that they pray
On the matter, all day…
But the gentleman won’t give two fucks.

Here’s another link to another paper’s coverage, as well. Basically, an 82-yr-old former solicitor saw the cross erected in the village green, as it has been for years each Easter-time, and decided to remove the unwanted litter from public property. He chucked it into a nearby duck pond.

Reaction has been… mixed. The first story notes that “an angry parishioner and her husband” sent out an email to village residents, and that 82 yr old Alan Pickard replied, owning up to the act and stating outright that if the church replaced the cross, he would re-dunk it. Six others expressed objections to the cross’s placement on the green, while 21 reported it did not bother them. Some of the quotes are just delightful. From the second link:

“To fling it into the pond is an unacceptable, wanton act of violence. It’s tantamount to religious hatred in my book. It must have been quite heavy though, so it’s not bad going for an 82-year-old.”

Hey, respect given where it is earned.

“No Atheists In Retirement Homes”

So apparently Frank Newport (editor-in-chief of Gallup Poll, and recently author of God is alive and well: the future of religion in America) gave his book talk in Madison, NJ, and included a line he’s been using for some time: “There are no atheists in retirement homes.”

My mother-in-law is an atheist
In a southern retirement home
She reads Dawkins and Hitchens, and Dennett and Krauss,
And she sends me her thoughts on each tome
She’s a volunteer, there, with the hospice
So she sits with her friends when they die
Since she has no illusions she’ll see them in heaven
She just wants to tell them “goodbye”
She’s aware that her days must be numbered
And that death will arrive for her, too
I suspect, if she met with Frank Newport one day
That she’d happily tell him… fuck you!

Yeah, actually, every bit of this one is true. She sends me clippings from atheist articles in the news, was practically giddy when she heard about the Brights (I think she’s a card-carrying member), and read God Is Not Great before I did (actually, she sent me her copy when she finished).

On the other hand, she is a staunch Republican who favored prayer in public schools because Reagan did.

I think she has been an atheist for as long as I have known her. I’m not certain, though–I know that she has, in contrast to Newport’s expert opinion, become more vocal in her atheism over the years, in part because she no longer feels obliged to keep her opinions to herself. Once you have a certain number of decades under your belt, in her view, you have earned the right to speak your mind.

Newport insinuates that the fear of death–whether in nursing homes, or in the foxholes his quip borrows from–drives religious belief. I have to say, very few outside of particular professions are more familiar with death than my mother in law. She has been a hospice volunteer for decades now, becoming friends with people she knew were going to die. Many, many times she was the only one–not family, not clergy–to stay with them in their final hours. My mother in law has no illusions about mortality.

The wording of a poll has tremendous influence over the answers that are given (I’ve written before about a researcher who claimed that Americans were very accepting of atheists… but his research chose not to use the term “atheist” because so many people were put off by the very word); it seems clear that Newport has A) a chip on his shoulder and B) a book to sell, when it comes to counting atheist numbers.

I know it was only a rhetorical exaggeration, but a universal claim is disproven by even a single example. My mother in law’s existence is sufficient to prove Newport wrong. But I want more… I want the two of them in a cage match. Newport doesn’t stand a chance.