Further Up The Mountain: A Response to Robert Jastrow’s Infamous Quote

red-planet-snow-fantasy-stars-night-stones-4k-moon-mountains-HD

“At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”[1]

For those who haven’t encountered this quote before, it’s from American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist, Robert Jastrow. This statement has been championed by theists and has even found its way into high profile debates against atheists[2]. I probably wouldn’t have given much consideration to it had it not been thrown at me on more than one occasion. I assume it’s touted by theists so ardently because they think it carries significant weight simply because of his scientific credentials (and not on the scientific merit of the statement itself, proving once again that in apologetics, it’s not what is said but who is saying it). It would seem that Jastrow’s renown is all that is needed to confer the stamp of legitimacy, even if the statement itself doesn’t pass muster.

So what are we to make of this? Many of us will no doubt balk at such an irresponsible utterance, having heard such rhetoric before, but it deserves a retort if for nothing else than the widespread patronization of it by crass apologists.

In taking a closer look, right away we see there are problems. Not just with the statement itself, but also with the way theists present it. For example, it is often used as a point of argument by theists that Jastrow was a self-professed agnostic, but given the many interviews he’s given in various Christian forums, and by the tone of his books, like as evident by the statement on offer here, he’s pretty clearly of a theistic (or at least deistic) slant[3]. Funny how these same theists that prop up this tripe as an honest concession of a skeptic fail to take into consideration that an agnostic can in principle be a theist and continue on portraying him as if he were of the more common atheistic type.

Also, I could spend quite some time addressing other obvious issues that jump out to me. Like in the use of the word “faith” here or the way theology is expressed to take precedent over science (It is a bit surprising to hear such a dismissal if science coming from a scientist). These two issues alone could fill an entire book. But I’d rather focus on analyzing the symbolism of the analogy itself because there’s several problems contained within that I don’t think Jastrow anticipated. In my analysis, I noticed how this analogy could easily be used against theology instead of in support of it. And the finale is that it actually exposes what has been argued by my fraternity to be true of theology in the modern scientific climate all along, and that is that science has passed this antiquated ideology by and left it far behind. Allow me to illustrate what I mean, then offer a response to Jastrow’s analogy in kind.

First, it could be asked if they’re even on the same mountain as theology never answered any such questions about reality. But for the sake of argument, we’ll assume they are. If they did happen to reach any point of the mountain before the scientist, it wasn’t because they knew where they were going nor did they even know where they were. They were essentially wandering in the dark and lost[4]. But it’s even worse for the theologians because in their faith induced self assuredness, they stopped climbing the mountain (the scientist is greeted by the theologians who are just sitting there). Their religious faith gave them the illusion that they have reached the top. We see that the theologians here assume they have met the scientist at a pinnacle that, as science has shown us, hasn’t been reached. Their faith essentially serves as clouds obscuring their view to what lies beyond. And this is the obstacle religious faith creates.

So now that I laid a bit of foundation, allow me to offer (oh so humbly) my response to Jastrow’s careless analogy. This is what the logical conclusion to the story would be…

“As the scientist sat amongst the theologians, he found that he was not content with just faithfully sitting on the rocks. His commitment to reason and scientific inquiry compelled him to explore further and he discovered that the mountain continued past the clouds that had kept the theologians from seeing any higher. So he began climbing further up and out of the clouds to find the vast universe beginning to open up to him as he left the theologians below to gloat by their dwindling fire beneath the cover of the clouds. Left clouded by their faith, they arrogantly thought they had reached the highest peak and so they just sat… as they have for centuries.”[5]

– Rich Hess


Notes:
[1] From God and the Astronomers, Robert Jastrow (1978). Jastrow’s allegory was about the Big Bang Theory (which many fundamentalist Christians still deny). This isn’t relevant to this particular discussion however and I only mention it here for accuracy. But for further research, I recommend looking up works from philosophers of science, such as Quintin Smith, and any number of contemporary physicists and cosmologists (Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Victor Stenger, just to name a few) who explain the Big Bang and why the theologians are wrong.

[2] The example I had in mind was the debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens (23:44 mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVZnwZdh-iM

[3] Now I’m not going to go out on a limb and speculate that he was a believer in God, but it’s enough to point out that there is a distinction in how we are to understand “agnosticism” here. It’s certainly safe to say that he was sympathetic to theology.

[4] After all, it’s theologians that teach as fact Noah’s Flood, the Genesis creation myth, talking animals, etc. Even if they were to stumble onto some observation that turned out to be factual (or even partially factual), we can hardly credit their “methods” of getting there.

[5] The “clouds” here represent the theologians faith. In thinking they had all the answers they were looking for as prescribed by their religious dictates, they were ignorant of the possibility of there being anything beyond. And thus they have stopped searching. Unlike religion, in science, the climb is never ended. 

A Uterus from Nothing (part 8)

10628397_825973394109563_6140106082348978784_n

1 month old

 

 

Arabella has arrived! It is exactly one month since the birth of my baby girl and finally I am able to sit down and share our story with you. The past month has been one of the best, maybe the best, of my entire life… but as seems to be the case for this entire journey, the road was not a particularly easy one.

It was July 19 when I first started feeling minor contractions that were different than the Braxton Hicks I had been feeling for months, the pain was mainly in my back and something just didn’t seem right. I went to labor and delivery on the 20th and they said it was too early and were about to send me home when a gush of fluid (like the kind you see in a movie) came out. I was quickly moved to a birthing room and the process started. The pain in my back began to intensify and then I began having full blown back labor. The pain in my back was so intense that I could not even feel contractions in my stomach, just my back. It turns out baby girl was facing backwards and her head was resting on my spine. She was unable to drop into my pelvis and so I could not dilate properly- I was given pitocin to try to rectify the situation, but it just wasn’t working. After about 8 hours of this, the doctor suggested they preform a cesarean section, this was the absolute last thing I wanted to happen. However, as soon as it was explained that it was not only best for me, but for my child, I consented to the procedure. The spinal block was administered and the procedure began. I remember while being in a twilight like state and looking into Rich’s eyes, that it was astounding that I had such options. Once baby was safely out of my abdomen they began to put me back together. I was not able to hold baby immediately, so her first skin-to-skin was with Rich. I was still on the table in a similar position as you typically see with Jesus on the cross. Within 20 minutes I was back in my room and breast feeding- and that has been her favorite activity ever since.

10551678_809865835720319_2320331630978397595_o

1 day old

I was surprised at how many people seemed saddened by my situation. I received many apologies, some going as far as to say it was a shame I was unable to “give birth”. For the record, that is a bunch of b.s. . Sure, natural birth was not an option but I am thankful that medical science was there to intervene. I still feel that I birthed a child that day and no one will ever convince me otherwise.

Since my Atheism was not known by the nurses, residents and physicians I received many comments about my “little angel” who is “such a blessing”. I did not use this as an opportunity to chastise them for disrespecting me and my lack-of belief. Anyone who has read my blogs will already know that is not my style. Instead I thanked them and thought, she may not be a gift from God but she is a gift from the medical community. From the moment I conceived to the moment I delivered medical science was involved. I could not have done it without the perseverance of doctors, researchers and scientists. So I thank you all for my baby girl- you have changed my life.

As Arabella grows I hope to pass on to her the secular values that I hold so dear. I want to show her that just because someone may feel differently than you do, it doesn’t make them a bad person or a stupid person, it just means that they have had a different journey than we have. I want her to know that bashing those who believe is never the answer, but taking the time to hear them out and educate them is likely to go a long way. People always ask what we will do if she decides to take a different path than we have and chooses to believe. Well the answer is that I will respect her, I will love her, and I will only expect the same in return.

10348365_811064438933792_8828382558466314351_n

Out of Context

Elisha-water-miracle-and-bear-attack

 

“It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”- Mark Twain

 

It can often seem like a mugs game to bring the bible into question during discussions with Christians. It never fails that when I post a verse from scripture that I think supports my argument, I’m immediately charged with taking that verse out of context. The arguments that ensue tend to deteriorate quickly and often frustratingly run in circles. When giving a critical analysis of Christianity in general, the religious faithful are quick to accuse me (and all atheists) of not doing my homework. But this is especially the case when I dare to tread on holy ground, which is the bible itself. It’s as if they assume I was never a Christian (which I was), never read the bible (which I have), and am just being exposed to it for the first time (which I haven’t). The general consensus among Christians seems to be that merely being a non-Christian automatically disqualifies one out of hand from accurately citing the holy book. This careless, outright dismissal proves to be little more than a dodge and it doesn’t excuse the believer from demonstrating this supposed misrepresentation.  

 

It’s confusing at times to know exactly what is meant by “taking it out of context”. Take the story of Elisha’s journey from 2 Kings[1] for example. It’s hard to imagine how a passage stating that God sent two bears to massacre forty two children in gruesome fashion for mocking Elisha’s baldness could be taken out of context. Not to mention how nonchalantly this terrible event is treated and how casually the story moves on. It was as if the children getting torn apart was a mere bump in the road. As if it was hardly worth mentioning. What else are we to interpret from this? In what other context could this be taken? It can hardly be disputed what those words say here. According to the story, either God sent bears to maul forty two children or not. Any extraneous interpretation the Christian wishes to read into this doesn’t do much to make the story less vile and horrific. When Christians offer a different “interpretation” to this story, what they are doing is offering more than the words say. Whatever addendum is made, however many excuses are made, the context is pretty clear. When confronted with the merciless brutality of a passage like this, they often instead focus their attention on finding a way to establish some moral meaning behind it, which ultimately proves to be too big a boulder to push in this case, or they argue that it was badly mistranslated.  

 

Translation is a tricky bit of maneuvering that seems to be the preferred tactic for the more indefensible passages found within the bible, as it is for the passage referenced above.[2] While I don’t doubt that there are occasional mistranslations interspersed throughout the bible, scholars and historians still debate over this very topic, we can hardly say that this alters the context as currently presented in such a significant way as to warrant disregarding entire passages on a whim simply for the purpose of recreating them to appear more acceptable or reasonable. Nor does it account for all the versions of the bible circulating today that translate these passages in a very similar way. Lest the Christian wishes the conversation to regress to the very origins of the bible. At which point it may be the case that we ought to disregard the entire bible altogether. This, of course, would leave the Christian at quite the disadvantage and hardly seems to be their intention. So instead of conceding the bible, many shamelessly commit themselves to an act of intellectual dishonesty and create their own “translation”. And in doing so, they in effect become the ones taking verses out of context, and in the most disingenuous manner, I might add. Tailoring the bible this way is not only indecorous of the Christian, but also immoral. The attempt to hide the horrific nature of this passage, and many others like it, by assuming translational errors ultimately can’t salvage the bible from failing to uphold what we would consider to be the most basic of humanities and common sense. Furthermore, what the Christian fails to realize is that this “lost in translation” argument creates far more problems for the believer than for the skeptic. The biggest one being that they have effectively stripped their bible of any practical reliability, and along with it, any argument for biblical inerrancy.

 

As I stated earlier, being a non-Christian seemingly disqualifies one from accurately referencing the bible. Maybe the problem is in how “accurately” or “correctly” is applied here. Historical implications aside for a moment, the meaning here appears to be supernatural. The Christian often claims that the only way to truly understand the bible is to believe in God, because they believe the bible is the word of God. So, according to the Christian, it stands to reason that if one doesn’t believe in God, then one won’t be able to interpret the bible correctly. Along with the obvious objection of circular reasoning, as well as being a thinly disguised attempt at unfalsifiability, it fails for another very big reason. One that I see as being the most difficult problem for the Christian to overcome. This is the problem of the many various denominations of Christianity. They all believe and interpret the bible differently in some key areas. All claiming the same justification from God. To put this into perspective, just think about how many millions and millions of people claim, and have claimed, that the bible is the word of God. And how millions and millions of these same professed believers disagree with other believers, who are just as sincere, on some significant points. The thing they all have in common is they all claim God assures them they are right. They also have the same explanation as to why the others are wrong. To try to account for every interpretation that is accepted as truth by the vast number of denominations would be far too exhaustive and it isn’t the non-Christians responsibility to do so. My business isn’t to sort out all these doctrinal disputes. It’s as if skeptics (atheists especially) are being saddled with the burden of needing to know every interpretation of every denomination just to even mention the bible in any critical manner. And when we fail to satisfy this imposed burden, the charge of misinterpretation and atheistic bias is assumed justified. But then this would mean the individual believer must also know all the varying interpretations as well. For the believer to be excused this, then they must concede that their own claim to “biblical truth” could not have been from the the same exhaustive search that they hold the non-christian to and either accept that it isn’t necessary or admit they could be wrong. All these problems the believer is now faced with not only render their original objection moot, it sheds light on the shear volume of inconsistencies contained within the bible, and as we see, thus further expounding the Christians own problems…

~ Rich

 

[1] 2 Kings 2:23-24 (NIV) 23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

 

[2] Apologists frequently attempt to re-invent this passage as if Elisha was being attacked by a mob of young men. In it’s original Hebrew, while the word na’ar (boy or youth) could mean “young man”, it is paired with the qualifier katan which means “little” or “small”. Translating literally as “small boys”. And they are telling him to “go on up, baldhead” or “get out of here, baldy” and Elisha turned around to curse them. This indicates that they were behind him and taunting him, not blocking his path or threatening him.

 

 

“There’s a difference between a homosexual and a Christian.”

pride

Pittsburgh Pridefest is one of my absolute FAVORITE events of the year.Typically I will kick the day off by marching with out local chapter of COR and CFI and then see where the day takes me…since I am 8.5 months pregnant I decided it was too much heat, too much walking and (apparently) just not safe. I almost always end up fighting with the religious protesters, trying to get them to leave everyone alone and move on their way… that seems to have backfired on a 19 y.o girl who was arrested, and assaulted by the arresting officer during a confrontation with the protesters… This video was released several hours after the assault occurred.  http://www.wtae.com/news/woman-arrested-during-pittsburgh-pridefest/26510854#!ZPG8D You hear the main protester comment that someone is about to be arrested and then you see a young woman being pulled, grabbed by the hair and punched in the stomach. My first thought was that, if she went a bit too far with them I understand the officer breaking it up, I even understand her being arrested…it is easy to become frustrated with people who only want to agitate and belittle a crowd of joyful individuals.  Others kept saying that we don’t know what happened and in one interview the officer stated that he was being physically attacked by her and that was why he threw her to the side to stop the fight… I always assumed that our police were trained to take down an individual in a humane manner. We put trust in them to use their best judgement to keep us safe… but when you grab a girl by the hair and punch her in the stomach multiple times you are out of line… plain and simple.

Last night the full video was released on our local news website. You will see the officer standing by along side the protesters, you will hear the girl argue against the protester, you will hear him yelling about pedophiles and the evil of homosexuality (including the statement “that’s what happens when you let homosexuals in the church” to explain child molesting priests ), all while she is overcome with emotion at the hand of this hate speech. After that it quickly escalates to the assault from the other video, no prior attack being shown. http://m.wpxi.com/videos/news/raw-full-video-officer-attendee-encounter-at/vCfBYf/

I love my city, it always seems that our citizens are accepting of just about everyone… that is why events like PRIDE, Anthrocon, and even the PA Atheist/Humanist conference can typically go on without a problem. What was sited as one of the most successful Pridefests our city has seen ended with this unfortunate ordeal… and what was the instigator? Religion. This  problem came about because bigoted, close minded, angry people felt the need to shove their beliefs onto others. They are not able to promote their views in a productive way and so coming down and disrespecting others seems to be their bread and butter. I hope that they are proud of themselves. On the video we hear that “there is a difference between a homosexual and a Christian”… well this is the only truthful statement I have ever heard from those men. Our LGBTQ brothers & sisters do not go out seeking to promote hate… they don’t stalk churches in hopes of hurting those that believe in Christ and the ones that believe in God themselves still stand by the church hoping that good is at the root of the evil that is promoted. Thankfully men like the ones on the street corner are not the majority, hopefully the Christians will join together to show us that this is not how they want to be represented and that  there is indeed a difference between a Christian and a bigot as well.

 

 

 

Not all Atheists are created equal…

94qky

 

When it comes to living an openly secular lifestyle I am often confronted with questions that start out with “Does an Atheist…” or “Do Atheists…”. Of course I have no problem answering any questions that are thrown out to me, but whenever they are prefaced with this type of generalization I make sure that one thing is clear… I cannot speak for all Atheists, I can only speak for myself.  Somehow this is frequently met with a bit of confusion, as more and more people are lumping Atheism with religion. People assume that, just like religions have rules that you (are supposed to) live by that Atheists do as well but this is not so. The only thing that all Atheists have in common is a concrete stance that their is no deity directing their life. After that it is up to the individual to decide what type of life they want to live.

I know a lot of times people believe that being an Atheist automatically makes you an Anti-theist, this is incorrect. Personally, I have no desire whatsoever to abolish religion. I do not want to take away the rights of anyone to be able to practice as they wish and I am not trying to create a completely secular world. My non-belief is not strengthened just because I can force it onto others and so I am not in favor of doing so. Simply keep it out of my public policy and this Atheist will gladly let you go on your way.

Another one that I encounter on a regular basis is that all Atheists are Humanists… again, this is incorrect. I would never pretend that all non-believers are living with humanistic values in place. I am in fact a Humanist, our household is run with a Secular-Humanist system of reasoning and respect. The “golden rule” approach in respect for how to treat others is encouraged by both Rich and myself, but this is not something all Atheists believe in. Ideally everyone, believer or non, would use mutual respect and personal dignity as a foundation … but the rules that come with religion do not allow for it, and the lack of rules that come with being an Atheist do not require it… so we are left with a wide range of right and wrong in our world.

The insinuation that only believers can hold seemingly irrational beliefs is possibly the most ridiculous of all. Dismissing the existence of God does not mean that you will not fall victim to the paranormal. I know many Atheists who claim to be “Agnostic” towards ghosts… and I also know some who absolutely believe in aliens. Sometimes if this topic comes up in a discussion group Atheists will start to turn on each other, stating that you cannot believe in the things just as ridiculous as God and still call yourself an Atheist… they are wrong. In fact , as long as God is not a factor you can believe the world is flat and still be a perfectly fine Atheist.

So when confronted with questions about what an Atheist does or does not do, try to make it clear that the better question would be, “since you don’t follow a religious belief system, what do you use to guide yourself through life?”. There are no commandments that Atheists abide by and so each one of us must speak for ourselves. At the end of the day there is no right or wrong way to live your life as an Atheist. The only thing that you need is a lack of belief in God, everything else is optional.

 

 

The Arrogance of Theism

Universo HD Wallpaper (8)
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.” – Thomas Paine [1]
“I suppose that one reason I have always detested religion is its sly tendency to insinuate the idea that the universe is designed with ‘you’ in mind or, even worse, that there is a divine plan into which one fits whether one knows it or not. This kind of modesty is too arrogant for me.” – Christopher Hitchens [2]

As atheists, we have all at some point been charged with arrogance. While it is sometimes aimed at a generalization regarding attitude or conduct, it is more often than not about the simple fact that we don’t hold a belief that a god(s) exists. But let’s explore why this charge is grossly misplaced and why the theist should take a long, hard look in the mirror before accusing anyone else of such a disposition. Especially when we consider that those casting this accusation are the same people who claim the entire universe was created as part of a plan for them; all the while claiming to be so humble. It’s difficult to imagine the “humility” it must take to accept that humanity’s actions and beliefs are so relevant to the functioning of the universe that the very laws of nature are altered by them and their God will destroy everything completely when not satisfied. When it comes to arrogance, theists have it in spades. We see it in the way they tout their faith around with such pageantry and in the expectation that their faith be given special privilege. We see it even more in the way not having a belief in their particular God is to be treated. To simply not believe in God (which is seen as the rejection of God by many theists) is itself a sin, in fact, it is said to be the ultimate sin. Many consider non-belief to the work of Satan, or of other demons, leading us astray. Non-belief is the surest way to earn a one way ticket to hell for eternity and apparently justifiably so. According to theists, the rejection of a God that is so self-evident, so axiomatic, is not as simple as just rejecting the validity of this claim, it requires that we must “disprove” their God’s existence altogether. Often times God is regarded as knowledge that every human possesses and to not believe is simply to suppress this knowledge in rebellion. It is as if we willfully reject our very existence. We can begin to understand why any dissension from their ideology is considered a direct affront to their God when we see how the theistic worldview functions in the adherents life. God is everything good, without God there is no morality, without God there is no meaning, there is nothing without God, and so on.

As I mentioned, there is a profound arrogance in the way opposing views are regarded. I admit that I have taken no small insult from the likes of Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, and many of their contemporaries that continually misrepresent atheists and atheism in the most grotesque manner. While these supposedly scholarly theologians seem to let the basic definition of atheism somehow escape their grasp, they apparently have no problem attributing their contrived definition of atheism to the most heinous crimes in human history. The popular apologetic assumption is that simply discrediting any opposing views leaves theirs as the correct one by default. In defense of the theistic argument, the focus seems to be an attempt to portray atheism as an “irrational” position, but the very formation of this argument is itself irrational. Not holding a belief in a baseless, undefined concept that not only lacks scientific credibility, but that it’s very existence would seem to violate the natural laws as we know them, seems to me the rational position to hold. When we hear things like “the absurdity of atheism” or “atheism is unreasonable”, what is really being said is “the absurdity of not believing in my conceptualization of God” and “not believing in MY God as I envision Him is unreasonable”. They are devoid of any practical meaning when taken in the proper context. Intellectual honesty doesn’t allow for such fallacious argumentation and atheism essentially strips these arguments of their privilege and holds theistic claims accountable for justification under scrutiny, Atheism points out that in religion[3], facts and truth are often operating in two separate spheres and reason is replaced by faith to connect the dots. While it could be said that these are problems within particular religious ideologies, theism in general is at the heart of it.

Now to address one of the prime examples of the arrogance of theism, we’ll take a look at the false dichotomy that’s being circulated ad nauseam by theists that one either believes in something (God) or in nothing (atheism). This clever bit of sophistry is merely a convenient attempt to put atheists in a situation of defending a position of “nothing” while theists get to enjoy the lofty position of “something else out there”. But let’s put this in its proper context. Theists are not simply arguing for a “something”, they are claiming to know what this something is and claim to even know it’s will. They make such unsubstantiated assumptions that this something possesses intelligence and other anthropomorphic qualities such as emotions that conveniently fits their particular religions concept of what God is. While there are variations in these concepts, theists seem to all be in agreement that this something is an intelligent, loving, authoritarian deity that created everything and is itself beyond natural laws and is transcendent of space and time while also simultaneously able to interact with the natural universe. We must then assume that this “something” exists in some unfounded, unknowable supernatural reality and can interact with the natural world unabated by natural laws, and this is to be believed on anecdotal evidence, speculation, and faith. By what right is their position so privileged as to encompass all of what this something might be and claim that their something is the only possible something and that their something is excused the same standard of justification and to subject their belief to the same investigations that all other scientific proposition are subject to? Theists are claiming to know more than the most brilliant minds that exist, or have ever existed.

I want to make one very important point here, it is ultimately the atheist that is free to inquire what else might be out there, and not the theist, as they are bound to their presupposition with no escape or be guilty of apostasy. Nothing about atheism suggests there is “nothing” else, nor does atheism rely on such dubious conjecture to fill the gaps in our knowledge. The theistic position ultimately ends the search for whatever something else might be out there. It is an end to investigations and to thinking critically as it purports to already have the answer. Also, the arguments in favor of theism are less than convincing. Atheists are constantly confronted with Intelligent Design as if this is some profound, enlightened argument that is irrefutable proof for an intelligent creator of the universe. For the sake of argument, even if the “design” argument is to be accepted, this still only leaves us with evidence for a designed universe. It speaks nothing of what the “designer” may actually be. Positing God is not only presumptuous on the theists part, it doesn’t have any explanatory power. Nevertheless, the best a theist can hope for with this argument is to infer a deistic conceptualization of God, the God being invoked by theism is a far cry from say, the kind of “god” Spinoza proposed. This problematic argument proves to be a very weak platform for theists to launch a defense from and we see that it fails for several reasons. By following the evidence, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that things can simply appear designed. The human mind looks for patterns and we see examples of this in all sorts of other apophenia. Here is no different. But theists insist on committing to fallacious argumentation and intellectual dishonesty to tailor scientific evidence to fit an otherwise unsubstantiated conclusion. Theists operate from extreme presumption and hubris, using scientific terminology to expound supernatural concepts to appease a deeply held religious belief. Ignoring that it ultimately collapses under scientific scrutiny, they opt for equivocal word games or a complete dismissal of contrary evidence. We would be hard pressed to find a better example of this than with the war between creationism and evolution.

Another display of extreme arrogance by theists, and in my opinion one of the most insulting, is the assumption that we can’t have meaning and purpose without a belief in their particular god. I personally see this as a hindrance to any practical application of these terms. According to theism, what purpose does THIS life ultimately serve? I matter to my loved ones around me and they matter to me regardless of any deity. Furthermore on a larger scale, we all matter as part of a functioning society in whatever capacity we can, which ultimately reverberates through the entire world. Such as a doctor matters to his or her patients, using treatments developed over time and perfected by others. The people who maintain bridges matter for safe travel everyday using tools and technology developed and made by others. Everyone involved with getting food to our table to feed our families. Our purpose is in doing our part to take care of one another as well as ourselves and ensuring we do everything we can to make the world a better, safer, healthier place to pass on to the next generation. While the universe will continue functioning without us, we as a species cannot function without our contributions and the responsibility falls on us and us alone. To posit that there is some alternate purpose that is beyond this reality is to undermine this very important point. The level of arrogance displayed to assume these things are not meaningful enough on their own and there has to be something more beyond this is quite disheartening. It reduces these meaningful things to merely serve as a pathway to salvation for the believer, to gain favor from their inculcated concept of god when facing “him” to be judged (even though this deity supposedly has no spacial or temporal properties). The afterlife becomes their sole purpose to either spend eternity in paradise or, in many beliefs, in eternal torment (which none actually think they are personally going there). The doctrine of salvation only extends to the individual, ultimately making it a self-serving proposition with no thought for the future. The believer is then  exonerated of any moral responsibilities that promote growth, human dignity, and the deep respect for human life that ensures the greatest amount of human well-being for the future while also alleviating the suffering of the next generations. Atheism has no such restrictions and in fact provides the open-mindedness that is needed to promote such values that is essential for a society to flourish. The fact that theists attempt to portray atheism as nihilism is to say these everyday meanings and purposes are illusory and is an insult to those of us who live meaningful and purpose-filled lives. The theist cannot account for how an absence of their belief diminishes these values. True meaning and purpose is not predicated on an afterlife and is found here in reality. If the theist wants to argue this, then lets see if they would actually follow the disgusting example of Abraham with his son Isaac. While this usually gets a rehearsed apologetic response as to why they are excused of this, it is still sad to see how someone can put God before their loved ones and defend such an ugly doctrine.

We should also take notice of the arrogant attempts by religions to monopolize terms like “God”, “morality”, “faith”, “love”, “belief”, and the list goes on. Basically everything good and worth valuing is considered to be their God. We won’t even get into the absurdity of how a “creator” that’s purportedly responsible for all of creation is somehow not responsible for all the evil, chaos, and suffering also. The idea that we can only be good with God is of the highest arrogance and nothing is more demeaning to our basic human dignity that this. But I will address the issue of morality and religion later as I can’t give it the treatment is deserves here. But back to the topic at hand, there is a sense from believers that their god is the ONLY possible one while looking at other religions as silly, contradictory, or self-defeating. Dismissing the dogmas of other religions out of hand, but expecting preferential treatment of their own. The point they seem to miss is that many of the same flaws they find in other religions are also found in their religion, and why theism is an untenable position. Theism’s inherent absolutism renders its outrageous claims immutable and is precisely why theism is unscientific. We don’t need “absolute” certainty to reasonably reject the claim that God exists, or any supernatural deity. We get along in life just fine without such presumptions. The pretentiousness of the theist is really displayed in the way they adhere to this antiquated, speculative belief with such pomposity, despite all of theism’s glaring flaws and lack of evidence. When we inquire openly and honestly about not only the veracity of the claims, but also what purpose does it really serve, we see the true nature of arrogance and why it is that atheism is on the other side of the spectrum. Theism ultimately leads to stagnation with potential for very real consequences, and the level of arrogance it takes to ignore that is disconcerting, to say the least. I think that it is clearly the case that theism takes far more arrogance than atheism is even capable of.

– Rich  

[1] Thomas Paine, Common Sense 1776

[2] Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22 2010

[3] “Theism” is not necessarily “religion”. They can, however, be used interchangeably here.

A Uterus from Nothing (part 5)

Image

Well, it is official, we are having a little girl. Arabella Lorelei is still due July 22, 2014 and she is developing perfectly. The anatomy scan was amazing.The baby is only half a pound and yet we can observe the kidney function, watch the blood flowing through the umbilical cord and see baby open and close her mouth all while doing little flips and twists right there in my tummy. I understand that ultrasounds have been around for quite sometime, but the advances in technology have been vast and the certainty with which health care providers can give out information is astounding.

Arabella will be the first child in a long line of family births to not be baptized simply out of tradition. The topic hasn’t caused a stir as of now, though to be fair, we have yet to discuss it with those who will care. However, I am sure that once baby arrives the backlash will begin. No matter what we encounter from either side of the family, I assure you that the Couple of Atheists will not back down. I know that some people will say that we should not sacrifice the baby’s “soul” simply because we choose not to believe… or that because of our atheism the ceremony is meaningless and should be viewed as drops of water and words… with a chance at redemption of her soul should me and Rich turn out to be wrong. Well, that is fine for some, but I take a different view.

I believe that participating in this, or any inherently religious ceremony, is disrespectful to those who do believe. Unlike many relationships, there is no internal conflict between Rich and myself and therefore no reason to compromise our ethics simply to appease others. I also do not view this as keeping Arabella away from God, but more not forcing God onto her. If at any point she finds that a life of faith is right for her, that will be fine, but I will not pressure her into something that I do not find beneficial to  life. Despite having one openly Atheist parent,  I was baptized, confirmed and made my confirmation within the Catholic church… and though this did not instill a belief in Christ, it forced onto me the stigma of being Catholic… and I won’t do that to my child.

As I watch the development of the baby progress, I begin to think more of her future. I know that we are going to encounter many situations along the way where the faith of others will attempt to overstep and cross the bounds of our rights as parents. There will be compromise at times, but not to the point that our family forgets what we believe in. And if you really find fault in a secular, humanist household, well I encourage you to keep reading and prepare to change your mind.

Choosing the High Road

The “War on Christmas” has come and gone for 2013, and this year, more than others left me with a sour taste towards a select few Atheists. I found myself engaged in several heated discussions concerning the difference between standing up for our rights and alienating ourselves. The alienation goes beyond just offending believers, that is a bit expected and I know that those sending the angry messages don’t particularly care… but what they should care about is that when we act like “Westboro Atheists” (Thanks Robert Price!) [1] we draw a line between the nonbelievers and the extremists. Some will say that it is a difference between Atheists and Anti-theists… but I know firsthand that this is false. Some say that those who will not fight are weak, but this is false as well. It is the ones who choose their battles wisely, who avoid dogmatic and angry actions, that truly help the Atheist movement. We want all nonbelievers to stand strong together, but I can see why having to associate with overwhelming negativity would make people want to remain silent… and it is not only the believers who are at fault.

I will be the first to admit that separation of church and state is an incredibly important battle. Teaching creationism in schools, a crucifix on the courthouse lawn… these are examples of things that should not be tolerated. However, just because something has a religious undertone. it is not necessarily off limits. Example. In one of my local groups there was a dispute over a “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year” banner being displayed in the center of a small town. The question of whether this was legal lit a fire and it was even taken to FFRF for legality review. Well, just as I thought, they explained that “Merry Christmas” is deemed permissible by the court system, when being used in a secular fashion. Most of those in the discussion found this reasonable, but some still went on the offensive. Arguments that government employees shouldn’t be wasting tax payers money to hang religious propaganda and blah blah blah.  I made a point to remind them that, the government of the United States of America, recognizes Christmas as a national holiday and until that changes they are free to do as they please as long as it falls within the bounds of secular cultural phenomenon. I suggested that instead of beating up the banner, they may want to confront the primary issue, but this was dismissed, as I think we all know Christmas will continue to be recognized by the government for many  years to come.

I do understand why my fellow Atheists are passionate about social issues, but I don’t believe enough thought is put in to what stigma they might draw. When you tell a moderate Atheist that they need to come out and be proud, you need to understand that extreme anti-theist behavior may not be something that they are proud to associate themselves with. For instance, I saw an article in the Huffington Post titled “Atheist Threaten To Sue Town For Putting Up Nativity Scene, But Not Festivus Pole” [2] In the article we learn about Chaz Stevens, the Atheist who created the beer can festivus pole to counter a nativity scene in the Florida capital. Attached was a YouTube video (which has since been made private) which showed the nativity scene in question, and included profanity, mocking of the virgin Mary and baby Jesus and then to top it off, he literally spits on the display. To me, this is humiliating. This is everything that I do not wish to be associated with. We wonder why people stereotype us as the “angry Atheists” but the answer is clear. Instead of getting press for taking the high road, we are shown as a bunch of immature, uneducated, heartless fools. Taking a bunch of trash and saying “This is what represents our group” makes us look like just that, trash. Maybe instead we can take the Winter Solstice back and find a way to display our humanist values. Whether it is through a physical representation or simply actions that spread throughout the Atheist communities, there has to be something out there that can show what we stand for in a positive way.

I firmly believe that the way we portray ourselves to the public will be what makes others decide they want to come out. If we show that we are a group, strong in our convictions yet respectful of those who may not agree, we will surely progress faster than if we fall victim to becoming just another dogmatic institution. Instead of attacking believers over “Who needs Christ during Christmas” [3] let’s keep reminding them that we can be “Good without God”. Focusing energy towards the benefits of being openly Atheist, showing the closeted that we do more than fight, this is what will help us move forward.

  1. Robert M Price “Westboro Atheists” http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/zblog/?p=625
  2. Huffington Post “Atheist Threaten To Sue Town For Putting Up Nativity Scene, But Not Festivus Pole” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/23/florida-festivus-pole_n_4492674.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
  3. Chris Stedman “Why Atheists should quit the war on Christmas” http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/21/why-atheists-should-quit-the-war-on-christmas/

A Uterus from Nothing (part 2)

Success! That is right, not only was science able to make my body ovulate when it wasn’t doing it on it’s own… but now the couple of atheists are pregnant! Only 5 weeks and 1 day… so it is very early, but I can’t bear to keep it to myself.

Since sharing the news with friends and family, mixed reactions have occurred. Of course everyone has been happy and supportive… but not everyone gives the credit to science. For instance one of Rich’s friends said that God keeps giving us all of these signs… we are just refusing to see them. Apparently in his eyes it is God who brought Rich and I together in the first place and now  God has also given us the chance to have this baby. Rich said “but she was taking the medication, it  made her ovulate, we timed our sex and that is how we became pregnant.” His friend begged to differ stating that the medication didn’t have to work, God made it so.

Ok, so say this is true. God chose Rich and I to become parents… why the heck would he do that? Within the privacy of my PCOS support group walls I see women struggle with what they might have done to deserve being barren. They pray EVERY DAY to have a child. They take the same measures as Rich and I… They have the same condition I do and yet, God decided we should have the baby. It just seems unfair. If anything, it shows you’d be better off not believing because then God would have reason to “show himself” through these “miracles”… since of course he can’t just show up in your living room to prove his existence. No he has to test you… he tests the strength of those who believe by putting them through emotional hell and (apparently) proves himself by providing joy through “miracles”to those who don’t… how could anyone have respect for a God like that.

Just as before, I am in awe watching science at work. My blood tests are showing beta levels jumping high, just as they should. I can feel my body changing due to the shift in hormones and yet somehow I am supposed to credit someone other than my doctors and the many, many scientists who researched my condition and provided me with the tools to make this happen… I simply refuse. Heck, even the fact that I didn’t have to look for a faint line on the pregnancy test and then wonder if my eyes were deceiving me is crazy, it simply stated “pregnant”… that’s technology that I doubt God came up with. Certainly if he did exist he’d be fixing all of the disasters that occur each day and not making it easier for me to discover my pregnancy. Yeah, I am going to say this is also man made, not to mention AMAZING!

Now to be clear, I am not typically the type to get combative if someone “blesses me” or congratulates me on “my miracle”, just as when people prayed that we would conceive, I take it is as a kind gesture and say thank you. It is only when someone insists that God played a role that I feel the need to speak up. I am not on a witch hunt to knit-pick every religious reference… no, I simply want to document it here and since religion and spirituality are already creeping in at this early stage, I imagine it will only get more intense as the pregnancy progresses. This is going to be an amazing experience for Me and Rich and I look forward to sharing it with all of those who read our blog.

Disproving God’s existence isn’t my job.

I like you both and you make valid points. But really, aren’t you going to an awful lot of effort to disprove God’s existence? I find that so very sad. You seem to be very intelligent people and yet you hang your hat upon, what I surmise, you wish to be remembered for challenging people who believe in God.
Go down to the Philippines and help rebuild a house; hug a child who has lost her entire family, her world. Go to Somalia. Go to South East North Carolina. Better yet, go to………..

Cyn

This was left as a response to the couple of atheists blog. I dismissed it as a comment because I felt it served a better purpose as the focus of a blog… on the misconceptions of some believers. Cyn has been notified that I will be writing this, I hope they check it out.

First and foremost- Atheists are not out to disprove the existence of God. I am not sure when this atrocious accusation became so popular, but Rich and I hear it all of the time in debates and I feel the need to kick out the leg they think they are standing on.

In order for Atheists to be required to disprove God, there would have to be proof of God… and there isn’t. It is that simple. Believers have the burden of proof. They are claiming that there is something more out there dictating our lives and so before this needs to be disproved, it has to be proven. For me, as an Atheist, I am simply attempting to keep these beliefs out of our public policy.  I am not even a militant Anti-theist and I don’t believe my words or actions ever display something different.  When it comes to religion, believe what you want, but don’t claim it to be a truth and stop asking me to substantiate your argument…because I am not going to do it.

Cyn speculated we want to be remembered as people who challenged others belief in God. This is simply a way of making what we do a negative instead of allowing it to be positive… again, I won’t allow for this. I don’t see what I do in my local community or through this blog as simply “challenging” those who believe. I see it as educating those who perhaps never had access to information other than the religion in which they were raised. I am a firm believer that if you are able to come to the conclusion on your own, without bully tactics or being born into it, well c’est la vie! Adults have the right to research, learn and decide what works for them- so as ridiculous as I think it may be- I never “challenge” for the sake of “challenging”. Cyn said that they like me and Rich, but to make such an accusation shows that they know nothing about us, or at the very least, me. All of my friends of faith will tell you that I never belittle them. I open myself to discussion, I am glad to give information when requested, but never do I force my atheism onto them- as I find that practice to be just as dogmatic as any religious practice.

Moving on to the final portion, where I was directed to all of the things I could do instead of educating others on social issues. First off- kettle, kettle- black, black… as Cyn had plenty of time to hate on my blog while they could have been hugging those poor children and rebuilding houses. I am not going to give this part much weight as I don’t believe it deserves it. I could gush about my favorite charities and causes and all the good I do… but frankly that isn’t the point and I don’t need my good deeds to be justified to anyone.

So there you go. I hope this has cleared up any confusion that  Cyn or anyone else had concerning couple of atheists agenda. I’d join in and say you can “go to ……” but I am not the one that believes in that stuff… so I will just say, thanks for reading.