atheism

Quick pointer: Derek Sivers, creator of CD Baby and now a TED Talks-type inspirational kind of guy, relays an overheard conversation between an atheist and a believer. The short version is an argument you've certainly already heard: "You ask how I can disbelieve in your God? Well, the same way that you disbelieve all those other gods." But it's a nice write-up; take a look.

The point Derek draws is a good one: Even where we disagree, we can still find and emphasize the points of agreement. It's something to keep in mind. There are times and places to hold the faith-vs-reason discussion with no holds barred, and there are times and places to set it aside and focus on other stuff.

Oh, the atheist in the conversation reveals one more great point: In this age of Google and Wikipedia and what not, getting terribly invested in a topic is no longer a requirement for holding useful knowledge about it. Expertise will always remain hard-won, but anyone can at least pick up the basics of a topic – and some useful facts, too – with incredible ease. Whatever our sides on any issue, that's a wonderful development in our ability to maybe make real headway in resolving our disagreements.

Hey, it's religion week on the popular A.Word.A.Day mailing list!

A.Word.A.Day broadcasts a new word every day for the vocabulary nuts out there, and it's always a welcome ping in the mailbox. It's not a place where you'd expect to see a religion-related message of any kind, but as the list kicks off a week of sacerdotal offerings, I was surprised to see this short paean to free thought leading off today's installment:

The word religion derives from Latin ligare (to tie or to bind, as in 'ligament'), but it best serves as a tool to divide people. My religion is better than yours. My god true, yours false. What, we have the same religion? No problem, my sect is better than yours.

I recently read a thought-provoking book 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God by Guy Harrison. I found the author's patient and thoughtful discussion worthwhile reading and I highly recommend it to all, believers and non-believers. 

Yep, it sure is a tool to divide people. I'll add, though, that the "tie or bind" root still holds as well: There's nothing quite like religion to tie people to dogma and superstition, and bind them to the commandments of bejeweled priests.

Speaking of priests, did I casually pop the word "sacerdotal" up there? Why, that'd be today's word: Sacerdotal (the "c" is like an "s"), meaning "Of or relating to priests: priestly."

(Oh, Latin, is there anything you can't make sound good?)

By the way, you also gotta love the Internet Anagram Server found at the same domain. Let's ask it to make anagrams of "defaithed". Here goes... Ye gods, "Dead Thief"? "Fetid Head"? Never mind. 

(You've probably heard somewhere the awesome anagram that exists for "Internet Anagram Server" itself: "I, Rearrangement Server". Show me something that nifty in the so-called "Bible codes", and I'll take an interest in those too.)

The Age's article Beyond Belief, an overview of "new atheism" and atheism in general, is generating comment over a few points that don't ring true with actual atheists. (See Michael Bachelard's story on the New Atheism - a response by Russell Blackford.) 

My instant beef with the article was one small claim. This:

The new atheism is bigger, more organised, and much more assertive than ever before. It's based on the belief that science explains everything we need to know about the world so there's no need for religion. 

Bollocks. No one sane claims that "science explains everything"; we all know there are things that remain very unexplained, and even the most ardent admirer of science (with its incredible record of explaining so much) must admit that some mysteries might always remain outside our grasp. 

Atheism is not based on the belief that science explains everything. Rather, it's based on the demonstrable fact that religion and faith explain nothing.

Oh, and one more small beef, though it's a common flaw not at all confined to the Beyond Belief article. The discussion is the usual one about atheism vs belief in God. As in, singular God. That false dichotomy is so common we usually let it pass, but we shouldn't.

There are still believers in whole pantheons of gods; we have no business handing Abrahamic monotheists the standard as the sole representatives of religion. Any monotheists expecting to automatically advance to the final debate with belief in no gods need to first settle their dispute with belief in three gods and four gods and a hundred gods and so on. We, in turn, should force those warring parties to slug it out every time.

If you've got an atheist blog, consider adding your vital info to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see a feed from other blog members to the right; head to the Blogroll site itself to see all 1000+ blogs on the list.

It's one more small way that the widespread, fractionated, largely independent, and often invisible atheist community can show off its impressive true size. Ask Mojoey at Deep Thoughts if you'd like more info.

And if you don't have an atheist blog, why not start one? Get a low-cost hosting service (I like DreamHost, which offers quick'n'easy installation of a number of blogging platforms), get a domain name, and start writing whatever's on your mind.

Oh, you're not atheist, you say? Well, that's even easier to fix. Just drop the religion – not only is it free, but you'll save money on churchy stuff! (Big money if you're shoveling cash to the Mormon church, Scientology, or televangelists.)

Atheist clubs are springing up in American high schools, warns head of US Catholic bishops

People with 'no religion' gain on major denominations

A cartoon from our side of the fence:

From Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

McGill University professor and philosopher Charles Taylor had all kinds of nasty things to say about the "atheist bus" campaign in Canada:

"Putting things on buses, as though that's going to make people somehow change their view about God, the universe, the meaning of life and so on," scoffed Taylor, a defender of religious faith and the recent winner of philosophy's two most prestigious international prizes following the 2007 publication of A Secular Age, his latest acclaimed critique of modern life.

"A bus slogan! It's not likely to trigger something very fundamental in anybody," Taylor told the magazine, the most widely read philosophy publication in the English language. "This new phenomena is puzzling — atheists that want to spread the 'gospel,' and are sometimes very angry."

Pish tosh. The professor, who goes on to call the bus campaign "pathetic", entirely misses the point. As no shortage of wiser people have already pointed out, no one expects the billboard's two-sentence message to send believers to their knees (or is that get up off their knees?) in a burst of mind-clearing enlightenment. Rather, the message sends a very clear message that atheists are out there. In number. Number enough to start making public pronouncements like other, so-far more visible interest groups.

The effect is to give pause to people who imagine atheists are too few or too quiet to stand up to religion's special privileges. More importantly, it's a shout out to all the closeted rejectors of God-babble, the non-believers who thought it's not okay to rock religion's boat, the fence-sitters who'd realize they've already got both feet on the secular side if they just stop to think about it. "You're not alone in thinking these things. We're legion, and we're no longer shy about being heard. Come speak up with us."

It's a beautiful message of menticide, the systematic undermining of a person's beliefs, attitudes, and values. As such, it's...

All right, all right, fine. Yes, "menticide" was today's Wordsmith.org A.Word.A.Day feature. Okay, you caught me. Anyway:

What's being menticided (?) here is not, as the above professor imagines to be the target, religious belief per se. It's that belief that atheists are few, quiet, separated, and doomed to talking amongst themselves in little gatherings or blogs. That mistaken belief is getting a busload of menticide. With much more to come, methinks. 

The A.Word.A.Day email newsletter also contains a daily quote. Interestingly, the quote in today's well-timed issue was this:

The doubts of an honest man contain more moral truth than the profession of faith of people under a worldly yoke. -Ximenes Doudan, journalist (1800-1872)

Not pithy enough for a bus billboard, but good all the same. 

Yes, they did. A man with physical difficulties attended The Amazing Meeting for his first time, and wouldn't you know it, the atheists and skeptics in attendance pushed him... 

...through doorways, to and from meetings, wherever he and his wheelchair needed to go. Here's an excerpt of the fellow's uplifting report:

Here were people I had never met, people I had only known as anonymous nicknames on the JREF forum, and yet they took me under their wing. They arranged for me to get there, got me a place to stay, met me when I arrived, invited me to join them for dinner, pushed my wheelchair around, opened doors for me, picked up all the crap I kept dropping, took the time to sit and talk with me, waited exceedingly patiently while I struggled to scribble a sentence or two, said "It is such a pleasure to meet you", and meant it. These people, every single one who made eye contact with me and smiled, they are the reason this was an Amazing Meeting. I overslept and missed Adam Savage's talk because I was up so late the night before shooting the breeze with fellow JREFers (and it was totally worth it---sorry, Adam!). If not one single speaker showed up, it still would have been well worth it.

It occurs to me that there are those of a religious bent who have said that skeptics, particularly atheistic ones, do not have a moral code to live by. And yet I spent four days in the company of skeptics who have proven that they live by the most basic moral code of all, the one most others are based on and without which would be useless: do good things on a daily basis, be kind to other people, and enjoy the time you have to spend with them. Sure, you could add another 635 rules and regulations on top, but what it really boils down to is what I witnessed. Do good. Be kind. Enjoy life. 

That sounds like most of the people I've had around me all my life, too, believers and non-believers alike. Good, kind, honest people. Oddly, there are those among them who insist that such kindness only comes via religion. It's an utterly bizarre claim – not just because real life (as in the above report) contradicts it, but because it's so sneeringly contemptuous of religious people!

"If it weren't for the moral compass provided by our faith, we believers would be soulless thugs and criminals and worse." That's the line some "faithful" unwittingly insist upon. I for one don't believe it for a second; take away the religious upbringing from those people, and they'll still be just as kind and good as the atheists and skeptics above.

People are generally good. Deal with it, believers. 

Devoted Atheists Grow in Numbers, Goals