The battle over NCSE

It’s still going on. Jerry Coyne repeated our common criticism that the NCSE spends too much effort promoting Christianity; then Richard Hoppe fires back, complaining that his comment was held in moderation (Coyne has been sick for a while, you know…I wish people would have more patience), and then repeating the common and misguided defense that NCSE is not an atheist organization. We know. We’ve both agreed on multiple occasions that the NCSE should not be an atheist organization. But still we get this same tiresome objection.

NCSE’s main remit is defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools. That defense is both legal (think Kitzmiller) and political (think the Dover PA school board election after that trial but before the verdict was in). One cannot win political battles without accepting alliances with groups with whom one does not agree on all aspects of all issues. To imagine otherwise is to live in dreamland.

Yes? Please look in a mirror, Richard!

As I’ve said before, said just above, am saying again, and will no doubt have to say a hundred times more, no one is asking the NCSE to become an atheist organization, and no one is saying that the NCSE shouldn’t make strategic alliances with religious organizations. I’d put it in 72 point type if I thought it would help, but I doubt that anything will.

The problem is that the NCSE is not neutral on atheism vs. religion, but has clearly taken a side in preferring one particularly fuzzy, liberal, soft version of Christianity as its ‘acceptable’ religious belief. I have a preference for it myself — it’s what I was brought up in, and I think the country would be in far better shape if there was more widespread support for a faith that quietly defers to science on material matters and supported progressive ethical values — but that does not justify exclusively endorsing it, especially since I think promoting atheism would have even better consequences for the nation. If the NCSE is to be respected as an honest broker, supporting only better science education, it can’t do so by this weird sectarian favoritism.

What raises hackles is that once again NCSE is caught promoting a cult event, a group of theologians and preachers gathering to babble incompetently about evolution. As usual, they’re being selective: Spong and Giberson and their ilk will always get a thumbs-up from the NCSE, but they don’t seem to appreciate that they are almost as great a minority as atheists, and that supporting this one slippery version of Christianity is not going to suddenly win over the majority to their side. The fact that most of the participants at this conference are generally nice people is not a reason to argue that they’re right.

Here’s what would make me content, and satisfy me that the NCSE was not turning into a religious organization. It’s only two things, and it does not involve sticking a knife in the back of any Christian groups, and none of it involves adding an atheist bias to the center.

  1. Demonstrate some rigor in who they’re going to promote. Right now, it looks like any religious group that announces that they’re OK with evolution, for any reason, gets the happy-clappy treatment from the NCSE. It doesn’t matter if what they’re doing is pushing teleology and a history of godly intervention — if they say their faith is compatible with evolution, no matter how much they distort the science, they get the thumbs-up. Have some standards; don’t allow your logo to be slapped on a gathering of theologians of the acceptable faith, unless there is going to be some critical thinking encouraged, and honest evaluation of the evidence.

  2. Be more equitable in distributing information. The most glaring discrepancy in NCSE’s current policy of so-called alliance-building is that atheists are left out; I presume their support is taken for granted. But I will note that some ditzy conference by Biologos-types gets front page attention from the NCSE, while Richard Dawkins can tour the country giving talks on evolution (if anyone had been paying attention, they’d know that most of his talks are about science, not atheism) and be completely ignored. It’s as if the biggest, most popular promoters of science in the world do not exist, simply because they aren’t liberal Christians.

    Why? Apparently because the alliances they are trying to build are with delicate bigots who will balk if the NCSE even occasionally acknowledges that atheists are sharing goals with them. It doesn’t help to pander to such fragile souls, especially if you’re going to turn around and use their sensitivity to accuse atheists of refusing to work alongside Christians on the issues of science education. We aren’t the ones threatening to abandon science education because Christians are involved in it, please notice; we aren’t the ones refusing to cooperate with religious people who want to better teaching in this country. Instead, we’re the boogey men the NCSE would like to hide in the closet.

Note that I agree that the principle in point #1 should also apply to #2. There are plenty of atheist conferences that address evolution, and many of them are using it to lead the cheer for atheism in the same way that Biologos uses it to promote Christianity. The NCSE is under no obligation to promote every atheist meeting. But I think if they’re going to push anything as aiding the cause of science education, it ought to be events that feature science and education. Right now, it’s science and education and friendly theology. That latter addition represents mission creep, and a growing bias towards promoting a version of religion.

Jerry is precisely right. NCSE is becoming Biologos, and Biologos is an openly and honestly sectarian organization that evangelizes for a specific version of Christianity. That makes NCSE the secretive and dishonest version of the same, and as a long-term supporter of the NCSE (and someone who never will support Biologos), I object. Get back on track with an honest neutrality on the conflict between science and religion, please.

And do I need to say it again? That doesn’t mean promoting atheism. I know what that looks like, and I do it myself all the time, and it’s not what anyone is asking the NCSE to do.

Terry Pratchett and the ubiquity of negligent chance

As you all should know, the inimitable Terry Pratchett has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. He’s writing about it as long as he can, and so far he’s remarkably lucid and open…and also, you can tell, a bit angry at the sheer arbitrariness of the disease and the difficulty in finding treatment for it.

…it is strange that a disease that attracts so much attention, awe, fear and superstition is so underfunded in treatment and research. We don’t know what causes it, and as far as we know the only way to be sure of not developing it is to die young. Regular exercise and eating sensibly are a good idea, but they don’t come with any guarantees. There is no cure. Researchers are talking about the possibility of a whole palette of treatments or regimes to help those people with dementia to live active and satisfying lives, with the disease kept in reasonably permanent check in very much the same way as treatments now exist for HIV. Not so much a cure therefore as – we hope – a permanent reprieve. We hope it will come quickly, and be affordable.

When my father was in his terminal year, I discussed death with him. I recall very clearly his relief that the cancer that was taking him was at least allowing him “all his marbles”. Dementia in its varied forms is not like cancer. Dad saw the cancer in his pancreas as an invader. But Alzheimer’s is me unwinding, losing trust in myself, a butt of my own jokes and on bad days capable of playing hunt the slipper by myself and losing.

Zeno has also found an appropriate quote from Pratchett’s Unseen Academicals(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) (I recommend it!). It’s a quote from Havelock Vetinari, one of my favorite characters in the Discworld series, on natural evil.

I have told this to few people, gentlemen, and I suspect never will again, but one day when I was a young boy on holiday in Uberwald I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs. A very endearing sight, I’m sure you will agree, and even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged on to a half-submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature’s wonders, gentlemen: mother and children dining upon mother and children. And that’s when I first learned about evil. It is built in to the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior.

The casual cruelty of nature is one example of the absence of a benevolent overseer in the universe. For another, I’d add the fact that Pratchett has been afflicted with a disease with no cure, of a kind that will slowly destroy his mind. We’re left with only two alternatives: that if there is a god, he’s insane or evil and rules the world with wanton whimsy; or the most likely answer, that there is no such being and it’s simple chance that leads to these daily haphazard catastrophes.

That’s so depressing. Here, cheer up, it’s the holiday season — go read Hogfather(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). You own a copy, right? If not, buy it — the money will go to a good man who has just donated a million dollars to Alzheimer’s research.

God save the Queen!

The Queen of England gets it right:

The Queen, who is supreme governor of the Church of England, said: “In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals and groups of all faiths and none.”

I tip my hat to the lady. She’s a voice of reason for at least once.

The War on Christmas escalates

Now the Catholic League — you know it’s going to get ugly when Bill Donohue joins the fray — has bought a billboard near the American Atheists’ billboard. The pro-superstition sign says, “You Know It’s Real: This Season Celebrate Jesus“. Isn’t that sweet? It’s just like the religious side to proclaim a falsehood. Anyway, they’re welcome to buy the ad space. The real winners here are the commercial enterprises marketing billboards and selling, selling, selling…and when you get right down to it, isn’t that what Christmas is really all about?

Meanwhile, the British have their own weird version of an indignant Christian majority standing up against oppression: a group has launched the Not Ashamed campaign, in which Christians are urged to be shameless, as if they’ve ever had a problem with that.

Paul Sims calls them out on the silliness. They’re seeing the same ridiculous whining over there that we are here, where outraged empurpled Christians claim that “Merry Christmas” is an endangered phrase and somehow they’re being repressed by the fact that sometimes people say “Season’s Greetings!” or “Happy Holidays!”, which I have to say as an atheist are about the two least ferocious battle cries I could imagine. In response to the Christian persecution complex over Christmas, he says:

But it isn’t happening. When are campaigners like Carey – and members of the government like Eric Pickles – going to take a look around them and finally admit that there is no widespread movement to ban Christmas. Lots of non-religious people (I’d wager the majority) even quite like it. I know I do. Some might even (whisper it…) confess that they quite enjoy hearing the odd carol, and find the local nativity scene (yes they still exist) quite endearing. Sure, there are Season’s Greetings cards and the like, but I guarantee that your local card shop will have plenty of religious ones too. It’s called catering to a diverse market – Christmas is a Christian festival, yes, but it’s also a mid-winter celebration (whose history stretches back to pagan times) that means lots of different things to lots of different people. But one thing we can all agree on is that it’s an enjoyable time of year, whether you include the baby Jesus or not. Banning it would be a really bad (and quite frankly bizarre) thing to do.

He also has a poll question. Would you believe that so far, it looks like people will still be able to celebrate Christmas even when the atheist dictators take over the universe?

Would you like to ban the Christian version of Christmas?

Yes 11.39%

No 88.61%

Of course, the evil truth is that I don’t want to ban Christmas either — I plan to coopt it as an atheist holiday. Bwahahahahahaha!

Get over yourselves, timid atheists

i-bca9dcf70ebd3eb18beab69acffc53ca-mythbillboard.jpeg

That is a billboard that’s appeared in New Jersey, thanks to American Atheists. It is assertive and strong and clearly expresses an idea of atheism, that the tales we are told about religious ideas are superstitious myths, and I approve of that message.

Some atheists don’t.

I was raised pretty devoutly Catholic, attended a Catholic university (Go Irish), and after college realized that I’m an atheist. My family is still Catholic and many of my friends still attend mass, and every day, I struggle with Not Being A Big Fucking Dick About It (and I often fail and end up acting like a jerk, and then I feel horrible). This is an example of a group of atheists losing that struggle.

Chris Hitchens-like atheists and agnostics would disagree with me (and then tell me that it is impossible for me to be funny, as a woman), but, in my experience, I’ve found that confrontational atheism isn’t productive, just as aggressive proselytizing on the part of religious groups isn’t a good way to endear the religion to the populace in the modern era. Many of the holidays that are celebrated around this time of the year are religious in nature, and part of existing as a decent person in this world is letting people go about their daily lives in peace.

She doesn’t want to be a Big Dick to the religious, but oh, yes, sneering at a bunch of loser atheists…that’s safe. No one feels bad about that. As we all know, good atheists bow and scrap and say “Yassuh” to the religious, and never ever disagree with them. It’s so much more productive to reassure believers in dogma and superstition that their myths are reasonable, or at least to sit back and keep our mouths shut.

I agree that letting people go about their lives in peace is the decent thing to do. So, tell me, what about that sign interferes with common decency?

Are people who see that sign subsequently unable to go to church? Does it silence preachers all across the land?

No.

Does that sign incite hatred, does it deprive people of their civil rights, does it oppress a minority?

No.

Does it misrepresent atheism, does it unjustly criticize religious people for ideas they do not hold (which, by the way, would be wrong, but doesn’t interfere with people’s lives)?

No.

Might it stir a little resentment, maybe even sting Christians a little bit because it reminds them that atheists exist and freakin’ disagree with them?

YES! And that is a good thing that does them no harm, and even does them considerable good. We’re here, we’re just as much a part of this society as they are, and we’re not going to sit silently any more.

If Christians resent that, well, they can just read Jezebel or a thousand other sites and discover the self-loathing atheists who consider the forthright expression of their ideas to be dickish and indecent, and restore their sense of smug superiority that way.

So, how did Hitchens do?

There was a debate in Toronto yesterday, between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair on whether religion is a force for good in the world, and I think readers here properly predicted the results: Hitchens was dynamic, clear, and forceful, while Blair was a simpering, weak, maker of feeble excuses. It is resolved: religion is wrong and evil.

You can get full accounts from the BBC, the Guardian, and the New Humanist.