My kind of art gallery

A gallery in Glasgow has put out a Bible and suggested people write in it.

The Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow has invited art lovers to write their thoughts down in an open Bible on display as part of its Made in God’s Image exhibition.

Next to the Bible lie several pens with a note saying: “If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it”.

It’s an interesting idea. I’ve signed a few bibles at people’s request myself — I usually mark up the first page with the question, “Where are the squid?” — so I like the sentiment that people ought to be free to comment on it. Some people, of course, are having the vapors over the fact that some scribblers say very rude things. It comes with the territory, though.

It’s unsurprising stuff, really, but the last line of the article made me laugh.

A Catholic Church spokesman said: “One wonders whether the organisers would have been quite as willing to have the Koran defaced”.

They are so predictable!

Put Maher in the hot seat

Some people are quite rightly appalled that Bill Maher won the Richard Dawkins Award from AAI, and is at the top of the list of speakers at the AAI conference. I sympathize; Maher certainly has some wacky ideas, and I even gave him a mixed review on his movie, Religulous. (I also must repeat a clarification: the Richard Dawkins Award is not given by Richard Dawkins or the Richard Dawkins Foundation: it is an award by Atheist Alliance International, named after Richard Dawkins.)

However, let’s be clear about the obvious. He is being given this award for making a movie this year that clearly promotes atheism and mocks religion, and that’s all that is being endorsed. Not many people have done that, and it’s especially unusual in that it was a movie entirely about ridiculing religion, and it was a mainstream movie with wide circulation. That’s it. It would be difficult to ignore, and it’s something AAI would like to promote.

Let’s be clear about something else. This is atheism: we have no dogma, we have no infallible leaders, everyone is naturally flawed, and we recognize that within our ranks there is a huge diversity of opinion. Our strategy for dealing with these ideas is the same as the scientific approach — constant, relentless criticism. There is no Atheist Supreme Leader. There is no Atheist Pope. There is no Godless Ruling Council, no Atheist Inquisition, no Freethought Dogma.

What that means, of course, is that it is open season on everything and everyone. Everyone going to the AAI convention should be enthusiastically prepared to cheer wildly when Maher says something right and reasonable and even funny about religion, and if he brings up anti-vax woo or anti-research fluff, you should be equally prepared to pull out the rhetorical knives. I think anyone speaking at this convention should be aware that they are not there to receive unthinking hugs and kisses from an adoring audience of fans — they should come with ideas to make everyone think, and they should know that they will get arguments.

So that’s our answer to the other, most unfortunate idiocies which Maher espouses. Let’s make him uncomfortable. Don’t be shy about asking pointed questions and making him squirm. It’ll be fun. It’ll also be safe, because a majority of the audience will be feeling the same way about him.

This is also true for all of the other speakers*. They’re supposed to make you think, and you’re supposed to make them think. Keep ’em all honest.

*Well, except for me. You can just show up for my talk on militant atheism (title so far: “Don’t Tread on Me”) and blow me kisses.

Wikipedians, do something about this

The wikipedia article on “New Atheism” is nothing short of a travesty. It mentions nothing of the fact that the people associated with this “New Atheism” clearly state that there is nothing “new” about it, and the only sources it cites are Andrew Brown, who has become something of a mewling whiner about it, and Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary! It even talks about “Doctrines”, as if we have any!

It does list books by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens…but doesn’t bother to say word one about what’s actually in them.

This is an article that actually belongs on Conservapædia—it is that bad.

Here’s the old version of the page that I was criticizing. If you go to the “New Atheist” page now, it redirects to the entry on atheism in general. Good, fast work!

Poll to insert random slogans in civic spaces

Someone in Kissimmee, Florida got it into their head that the city logo was lacking in pointless accolades to their deity, so they want to jam one in. There’s a poll, of course.

Kissimmee city commissioners are considering putting “In God We Trust” on a new city logo. Commissioner Art Otero says he proposed the change because he doesn’t like the way the country is headed. Commissioner Carlos Irizarry questioned its legal advisability. The ACLU says it discriminates in favor of religions that believe in one God.

Should Kissimmee add “In God We Trust” to its official city logo?

Yes. It’s a patriotic move, just as the commissioner said.
53.3%
No. It discriminates in favor of monotheistic religions.
35.5%
I don’t know. What’s wrong with leaving it the way it is?
11.2%

I never can quite get the connection between patriotism and religion. Oh, wait, of course: it’s because the loudest proponents of both tend to be equally mindless!

I think they should have a new poll: “Should Kissimmee add ‘There is one god and Mohammed is his prophet’ to its official city logo?” If Art Otero can see that as a reasonable alternative, then I’d give him credit for being open-minded and really wanting to endorse faith as a solution to the nation’s problems, rather than being just another sectarian wackjob.

The choice is clear

If you’re considering a pet, you have to weigh the pros and cons.

i-eabfa6aa2d1c06d62f05bb85e2b097db-pets.jpeg

Wow, when they’re all laid out like that, you just have to choose the squid.

Now wait — maybe you’ve got some brain-damaged children running around who chose poorly, or you flipped a coin and are now stuck with the decision to get puppies. Don’t despair! Get both! In fact, get lots of puppies — they make excellent squid chow, and they’re also useful fresh stock to have around in case peckish atheists come to visit.

More Discovery Institute bulldung on the way to my door

Supposedly, the Next Big Thing in the Intelligent Design creationism movement is Stephen Meyer’s new book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Meyer is wandering about the country, peddling absurd op-eds and flogging his book in bad talks. Here’s a good summary of one of his presentations in Seattle:

To sum up, Meyer’s argument is as follows:

(1) According to Bill Gates, DNA is like a computer program.
(2) Because I am unfamiliar with the field known as genetic programming, every computer program I’ve ever heard of has had a developer.
(3) Charles Darwin once used the principle of Inference To The Best Explanation.
(4) Even though Darwin was a wicked, wicked man, I’m going to use that same principle to refute him. It will be, you know, irony.
(5) I say that intelligent design is the best explanation for the computer-program-like-ness of DNA.
(6) Therefore, by Darwin’s own reasoning, intelligent design must be true.
(7) Please buy my book.

I’ve read excerpts of this book. I’ve seen reviews and summaries of its argument. I’ve seen the freaking title. I know what is in this book — “ooooh, it’s so complex, it must have been…DESIGNED!!11!” — and I know that Stephen Meyer lies and makes up pseudoscientific babble, so I have very poor expectations of this book: I anticipate bad biology and even worse information theory, and a mangled pretense of science by a contemptible poseur. I do have a review copy on the way, though, and I will read it from beginning to end, taking notes and snorting in derisive laughter all the way, and I will take David Klinghoffer’s ridiculous challenge to make a serious response. I won’t win, though: my review will be too long for him, and unless there’s some magic ju-ju that will completely reverse my opinion of ID creationism hidden in the text (which, strangely, none of the favorable reviews have bothered to highlight), it will most likely not be the kind of positive cheerleading for creationism that Klinghoffer favors.

Up or down?

A professor of religion has decided that atheism is in decline and the “New Atheists” are over. Why? Because sales of books by the “New Atheists” have declined since their release several years ago, Karen Armstrong has published her silly book, and surveys show that atheists are still a minority. And the reason they flopped is because atheists are such mean poopieheads.

In other words, more bleary-eyed wishful thinking from a mind squicked by religion. Gosh, yes, older books sell at a much lower volume than fresh, new releases. And if you want to claim a trend, you can’t just cite data from one time point — you need at least two. He also thinks atheism needs to be “kinder, gentler and (most of all) wiser”. Sorry, guy. I gave all my “kinder, gentler” to my mom, and all I’ve got left is kick-ass for you…and it’s a funny definition of “wiser” that means “believe in angels”.

Besides, Mr Religion Professor ought to be reading the Christian Science Monitor, which reports that atheism is growing. Unlike Mr RP, they at least know that you need to report prior numbers compared to current numbers if you want to talk about a trend. He tut-tuts over a mere 15% of the population reporting a lack of religion. The CSM says,

Some 15 percent of Americans claim no religious affiliation, up from 8.2 percent in 1990, according to Trinity College’s American Religious Identification Survey, released in March. Also, the American Humanist Association claims 20,000 financial supporters. That marks a doubling from five years ago, says spokeswoman Karen Frantz.

It’s got much more evidence, too. My subjective feeling from visiting many freethought groups over the years has been one of remarkable growth and booming enthusiasm; the article confirms that with reports of enrollment numbers and donation figures.

Mr Religion Professor needs to stick to his day job. At least there, making stuff up and imaginary figures are considered normal.