Atheism 3.0

Continuing with my previous post about the Rift Among Atheists is this opinion expressed by a poster on one of the religious discussion forums I participate on. From what I have been reading, both on that forum and in other places where the original npr article has come up, is that many atheists are dismissing these arguments on the basis that, they claim, the article is categorizing all atheists, as a single group, as splitting into two groups. That is to say, all atheists, or the majority, belong in either one group or the other. However, this was not how I interpreted the article, nor do I think it was meant to be interpreted as such. I took it to mean that with in atheism, you have two subgroups forming that are, or may end up, at odds with one another. There was another article on USA Today that was similar in nature that defines yet another group of atheists that the article dubs, for convenience, Atheism 3.0.

The old atheists said there was no God. The so-called "New Atheists" said there was no God, and they were vocally vicious about it. Now, the new "New Atheists" — call it Atheism 3.0 — say there's still no God, but maybe religion isn't all that bad.

One of the atheists they quote in the article is the author of the book I am currently reading, An Atheist Defends Religion (although I have currently put the book on hold while I work on Finding Darwin's God for a discussion group I am participating in). Again, many atheists dismissed this article as categorizing atheists as a whole. The following post, I think, is worth reading and helps sum up the situation fairly nicely.

The suggestion that modern American atheists are not united is, in my opinion, a serious misunderstanding of that community and its underlying philosophical principles. It's not atheism itself that unifies the atheist community. Rather, it is the epistemological principle underlying their atheism that is uniting them. That epistemological principle is science. Atheists don't seem to realize it yet, but they are fairly strongly united by their belief in science. It might even be said that American atheists are behaving as if science were a religion.

In spite of that, I don't believe we're seeing a schism in the atheist community. Atheists are united, in the sense that they have strong epistemological agreement, but they have little organization. A couple of sensationalist authors calling themselves "New" isn't much leadership. There are starting to be more real life meetings, and more and more writing about atheism, but there isn't any robust social infrastructure like there is in any other religious community. "Schism" implies that one order is leaving another order. But there isn't much order among American atheists. Instead of a schism, I'm sure that what we're seeing the start of is the emergence of a new order.

The idea of "Atheist 3.0" seems fairly correct, assuming that the so-called "New" atheists are 2.0. The "New" atheists are only different from the old atheists in that they are getting a lot of media coverage and expressing their atheism quite publicly. However, Atheist 3.0 can be described as a group of atheists who are searching for more order in the community, and are making the effort to create order. I know this because I am one of them.

I've been a strong atheist for well over a decade. About two years ago, bashing Christians online started to get boring. Especially when the smarter Christians started posting thoughtful arguments for their positions. Now, I don't support mythology or Christianity, but I've been able to put aside my hate and bias towards Christians and start looking at them objectively. What I discovered is that, regardless of all the atheist smears of Christians, they have a robust social infrastructure. That is the kind of order that American atheists need. After that, I started treating Christians as individuals, and it became obvious that there are a ton of good Christian people in America, people that, despite my philosophical disagreements with, I know I can trust.

I'm now at the point where I am looking at Christian communities as models for "atheist" communities. But of course, the idea of a strictly "atheist" community doesn't make much sense. The American Secular Humanist movement has already resolved this problem by adapting the Christian Humanist tradition to an atheist society. Secular Humanists are taking what is good from the Christian tradition, and adapting it to fit the modern, rational age. I know Secular Humanism has been around for the last few decades, but I predict that its numbers are going to start swelling as American atheists start looking for more than another online forum to bash Christians on.

By the way, this post might seem a bit random, but the fact is I just got banned from an atheist forum for expressing ideas like these. I was accused by several people of being a Christian in disguise, trying to troll their forums. So I definitely agree that there is starting to be a "bitter rift" dividing atheists.

Original Post

The Idea that Religion Rules Out Rationality

Over at Friendly Atheist Jesse Galef wrote a post where a variant of the question “Could you date someone religious” is posed. This variant is “Could you date someone who could date someone who is religious?”, keep in mind this is from an atheist point of view. At first I thought this was a weird question. For when I pose the same question to myself from a theist point of view “Could I date someone who could date someone who is atheist” I consider the question to have a “no duh!” response of “yes”. Then I read the posters response to their question,

I don’t think that I would immediately reject such a girl, but I don’t know if the relationship would last in my case. I consider certain traits central to my identity – my skepticism, my rationality, my willingness to accept what I think is true rather than what I wish were true. If a girl has no problem dating a religious person, how much could she value those traits in me?

When I read this I immediately got the impression that at least a little bit of bias and ignorance, if not a lot, was coming to the surface. I am referring to how the poster implies that if someone is willing to date a religious person, then they automatically do not value certain traits such as skepticism and rationality. This further implies that being religious means one is incapable of skepticism or rationality. This is simply, and utterly, false.

Being religious does not automatically make a person incapable of skepticism and rational thinking. In fact, many people arrive at their particular religious beliefs through the acts of first being skeptical about a belief, thinking critically about that belief, and finally coming to what they consider a rational decision about whether or not to believe it. In other words, they exercise these exact traits. I have noticed that the idea that the religious are incapable of exercising certain traits, such as skepticism and rationality, is a trend that is becoming more common among, mainly younger, atheists.Skepticism and rational thinking do not, by default, lead to atheism.

The second thing I noticed in the post is the comment “my willingness to accept what I think is true rather than what I wish were true”. I realize that atheists consider religious beliefs to be false or non-existent. However, this comment goes a little farther and describes religion as “wishful thinking”. There are ways to express your opinion respectfully about something you disagree with, and there are ways to express your opinion that comes out as ridicule, whether intentionally or not. Implying religion is wishful thinking is the latter. My post Criticism vs. Ridicule touches on this issue.

I am not implying that the poster was intentionally trying to imply these things or even that they were aware of it. I also realize that this issue is one that stretches across both atheists and theists. It is something that I think everyone needs to work on when talking about points of view that they disagree with. If you express an opinion about something you do not believe in, read it over a couple times. Try taking your opinion and pointing it back on yourself. For example, if it is directed towards atheism, try replacing “atheist” with “theist”. Then ask yourself the question if you still would consider it respectful. Generally doing so will help you avoid instances where your own bias may be playing too large a role in your thinking and help you express yourself in a more rational manner so that others may take what you say more seriously.

Who Killed Jesus?

On my way to my Intro to Religion class today I came across a group standing on the Memorial Mall with a large sign that read "Who Killed Jesus". One of the people stopped me and asked if I would fill out a survey. I had heard about this group yesterday but was unaware they were continuing through today and tomorrow. I decided to stop and talk with one of them. Turns out they are a local Christan student group called Purdue Bible Fellowship. The guy I was talking to introduced himself and asked me what my name was and major. He asked me if I was religious, I said I was and that I was LDS. As I expected he did not know what LDS meant so I explained it was the same thing as Mormon. It did not really surprise me as many people only know us by "Mormon" and not "Latter-day Saints". He then asked me the question that was the theme of their event "Who killed Jesus". I hesitated a little and responded that the answer can vary according to what view you take towards the crucifixion and what religion, if any, you believe in. He agreed with me and said his answer was that he, meaning people in general, killed Jesus. I understood what he meant in referring to Christ's need to die for everyone's sins. The conversation then switched a little to our respective religions and the comparison between the two, Mormonism and mainstream-Christianity.

He was interested in the differences in mainstream-Christianity and Mormonism which is what we ended up discussing up until I had to leave. I told him one of the main differences being the Trinity, we do not adhere to it. I also talked to him about baptism and the works for the dead. We continued with works and faith and the slightly different view we each had on the issue. I thought that their event seemed to be very respectful and useful. It would be nice to see more religious groups holding such events on campus. From what I understand they will be continuing with their booth tomorrow. I may stop by again for another discussion.

On a side note it was also interesting to notice standing next to me was the president of the local Non-Theists Society. She was talking with another one of the members hosting the event. However, I did not get a chance to hear what they were discussing before I had to leave.

Image from: Politics and Pucks

Finding Darwin’s God (Part 2)

Today I attended the first in a series of book discussions on Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God. It is being held by the Religious Studies program and the Purdue Religion and Science Group. You can read more about the specifics from a post I wrote previously about the event. We met in the round discussion room on the top floor of Beering overlooking campus which was very nice. That was the first time I had ever been in that room. There were roughly sixteen people who attended this first discussion although it sounds like there are around twenty who are participating as some were unable to be there today. Apparently, we also caused nearly every book store in the city to sell out of the Finding Darwin’s God as they ran out of copies to give out to those participating. The discussion was started by going around the table and having everyone introduce themselves. The group was largely made up of faculty and staff with some graduate students largely from the Religion and Philosophy departments. There were a couple people from the Biology department and even one professor from Civil Engineering. What I found interesting is, as far as I could tell, the only two undergraduate students were engineers, a girl from Civil Engineering and then myself. I would have expected at least one or two undergrads from the Liberal Arts department or possibly even the Biology department. During the course of the discussion a couple people came out and stated their religious position including one atheist who, if I understood him correctly, believed that evolution does not, in and of itself, lead to a belief in God but supports a naturalistic view of life. We also had another person identify herself as a Christian Biologist who saw no problems with the compatibility between religion and biology.

One of the topics that was brought up by one of the coordinators of the discussion was how, or if, science and engineering courses teach about the classics of their fields, such as Darwin’s On the Origin of Species and Newton’s Opticks. She mainly asked this of the engineers in the room as the majority of the people there were from liberal arts backgrounds and did not know how we, engineers, were introduced to this material. We basically had to tell her that we do not go over any kind of classic engineering or science material. That those works have become almost exclusively relegated to classes on literature or the history of science and technology.

The topic of evolution in High School came eventually came up as well. Professor Ryba, one of the coordinators of the discussion, brought up a point from Miller’s book were Miller said he never had any introduction to evolution through his High School classes. Many of the people there were roughly the same age as Miller and thought that kind of strange as they had evolution in High School. A possible reason that was brought up for this is the differences in location. Different areas of the country, and world, have brought evolution into the classroom at different points in time.

A good point was made by the person who stated they see evolution as supporting a naturalistic view brought up a point about one of Miller’s statements in the first chapter. In it Miller makes the statement,

And does [evolution] rigorously exclude belief in God?

He made the contention with Miller’s choice of the word “rigorous”. He argued that science rarely ever can be said to be rigorous in its definitions or predictions, possibly making the point of the book kind of specious.  Another point was brought up dealing, again, with Miller’s choice of words. This time it was with his choice of using the term “traditional” in reference to religion. It was brought up that the definition of “traditional” can by very vague and spread across a fairly large spectrum of beliefs. It will be interesting to see how Miller defines it further.

The next meeting is in two weeks for which we were asked to read up to chapter six and to come with questions and pages highlighted.

A Rift Among Atheists

Over at the Thomas Society a link to an online article from npr was posted that I think very accurately describes a current transition within the atheist movement. The article is titled A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists. It describes a current rift among New and Old Atheists. The New Atheists being the ones who actively rely on ridicule to get their points across. This is something I have been witnessing both on my local campus and online. It is a movement that I believe will only do more harm than good, as the article points out. You can read the full article from the link above as it does a much better job of explaining the current situation. Here are a few excerpts I found interesting.

During the previous Blasphemy Day an art exhibit was held, in D.C., displaying art works that many Christians would find highly insulting. It was hosted by The Center for Inquiry.

Another, Jesus Paints His Nails, shows an effeminate Jesus after the crucifixion, applying polish to the nails that attach his hands to the cross.
"I wouldn't want this on my wall," says Stuart Jordan, an atheist who advises the evidence-based group Center for Inquiry on policy issues.

Naturally, this kind of stuff created a fairly big controversy. The article explains that it is a controversy that is not simply limited to Blasphemy Day, but has a much larger scope.

"It's really a national debate among people with a secular orientation about how far do we want to go in promoting a secular society through emphasizing the 'new atheism,' " Jordan says.

"What we wanted were thoughtful, incisive and concise critiques of religion," he says. "We were not trying to insult believers."

They may not have been trying to insult believers, but many others are perfectly happy doing so.

For example, Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair and author of the book God Is Not Great, told a capacity crowd at the University of Toronto, "I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right." His words were greeted with hoots of approval.

The article ends with a quote from the founder of the Center for Inquiry that I very much agree with.

"I consider them atheist fundamentalists," he says. "They're anti-religious, and they're mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they're very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good."

I Hate Religion Because...

Yesterday a local student group, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, held and event titled "I Hate Religion Because...". They had a board set up for people to come and write down reasons they disliked, or hated, religion. I wish I would have had more time to actually stop and talk with the people who were holding the event but yesterday was fairly hectic for me. I only had time to briefly pause and read some of the comments on my way to, and from, an exam (free time for engineering students is a highly valued, and rare, commodity). I emailed the group and asked if they will be holding any kind of discussion at a latter date about the various comments that were written on the board. I will post the date if they are planning on doing anything when I get a response back. There is a very informative blog post about the event here, written by the president of the local non-theists society. It sounds like she got to spend a good amount of time talking with those hosting the event.

Western Religion Partially Responsible for Secularization?

As I referenced in my first post about An Atheist Defends Religion we have been going over Peter L. Berger's book The Sacred Canopy in my Introduction to the Study of Religion class. On Friday the professor went over a section in Chapter 5 about secularization. The basic idea is that Western Religion, particularly Protestantism, carried the "seeds of secularization within itself". I will try to do a quick summary of the idea while trying to decipher Berger's obsession for using overly complex language. He essentially states that, originally, the Catholic religious world was one where God could be seen in many aspects of life. It was one of complex imagery, saints, rich sacramental rites, and so on. When Protestantism came on the scene it got rid of nearly all of this. Reducing the religious life of the Protestant to the bare essentials, the believer and God.

Protestantism may be described in terms of an immense shrinkage in the scope of the sacred in reality, as compared with its Catholic adversary.

At the risk of some simplification, it can be said that Protestantism divested itself as much as possible from the three most ancient and most powerful concomitants of the sacred-mystery, miracle, and magic. (pg. 111)

He calls this process "disenchantment of the world". Through this process God was more and more removed from this Cosmos. It became more about a relationship between the believer and God. The outside world was no longer part of the process. He argues that this eventually helped in the secularization of the natural world.

In doing this, however, it narrowed man's relationship to the sacred to the one exceedingly narrow channel that it called God's word [not to be confused with the Bible].

It needed only the cutting of this one narrow channel of mediation, though, to open the floodgates of secularization.

 I think the point Berger makes here is, at least, partially valid and one that many people either ignore or do not know about. It implications for many of the fundamental Christians (who are mostly some variety of Protestant) that rail against the "secular world" are, in fact, partially responsible the spawning of the very world, and train of thought, they claim to be a curse upon the Earth. It also holds some implications for many of the new militant-atheists. Basically, they are in debt, in some form or another, to the same people they consider to be deluded and ignorant. This can be viewed as some kind of strange interconnected web. Two groups at each others throats who are ignorant of the fact that each is responsible for the other.

Finding Darwin's God @ Purdue

The Purdue Religious Studies department is having a discussion of Kenneth Miller's book, Finding Darwin's God, on Wednesday Oct. 21. If you are unfamiliar with the book here is a quick editorial review off of Amazon.

Though he takes a different tack than Wyller (above), Miller tries to draw a straight line between two apparently opposing ideas: the theory of evolution and belief in a creator. In a more humanistic account than Wyller's, Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, explains the difference between evolution as validated scientific fact and as an evolving theory. He illustrates his contentions with examples from astronomy, geology, physics and molecular biology, confronting the illogic of creationists with persuasive reasons based on the known physical properties of the universe and the demonstrable effects of time on the radioactivity of various elements. Then standing firmly on Darwinian ground, he turns to take on, with equal vigor, his outspoken colleagues in science who espouse a materialistic, agnostic or atheistic vision of reality. Along the way, he addresses such important questions as free will in a planned universe. Miller is particularly incisive when he discusses the emotional reasons why many people oppose evolution and the scientific community's befuddled, often hostile, reaction to sincere religious belief. Throughout, he displays an impressive fairness, which he communicates in friendly, conversational prose. This is a book that will stir readers of both science and theology, perhaps satisfying neither, but challenging both to open their minds.

The discussion is being led by Professor Ryba. I took a class from him last year on Western Religions and really enjoyed it. I am sure this discussion will be very interesting and plan on attending. The Religious Studies department has a listing under its events page for the full information. Also, if you are quick, you can get a free copy. Click on the pdf flyer above the listing and you can get the information to acquire a free copy if you email the contact by the 14th, tomorrow. I was a little skeptical at first but I received an email saying my copy of the book is waiting for me.

A Dissenting View About Blasphemy Day

I stumbled across this article about the recent Blasphemy Day and thought it was well worth sharing.





A Dissenting View About Blasphemy Day

The celebrating of "Blasphemy Day" by the Center for Inquiry by sponsoring a contest encouraging new forms of blasphemy, I believe is most unwise. It betrays the civic virtues of democracy. I support the premise that religion should be open to the critical examination of its claims, like all other institutions in society. I do have serious reservations about the forms that these criticisms take. For example, cartoons have been recently circulated ridiculing key figures in Christianity, such as a cartoon depicting a feminine Jesus painting his "nails" with red nail polish, or the drawing of the Pope with a long nose like Pinocchio.

When we defended the right of a Danish newspaper to publish cartoons deploring the violence of Muslim suicide bombers, we were supporting freedom of the press. The right to publish dissenting critiques of religion should be accepted as basic to freedom of expression. But for CFI itself to sponsor the lampooning of Christianity by encouraging anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, or any other anti-religious cartoons goes beyond the bounds of civilized discourse in pluralistic society. It is not dissimilar to the anti-semitic cartoons of the Nazi era. Yet there are some fundamentalist atheists who have resorted to such vulgar antics to gain press attention. In doing so they have dishonored the basic ethical principles of what the Center for Inquiry has resolutely stood for until now: the toleration of opposing viewpoints.
It is one thing to examine the claims of religion in a responsible way by calling attention to Biblical, Koranic or scientific criticisms, it is quite another to violate the key humanistic principle of tolerance. One may disagree with contending religious beliefs, but to denigrate them by rude caricatures borders on hate speech. What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way? We would protest the lack of respect for alternative views in a democratic society. I apologize to my fellow citizens who have suffered these barbs of indignity.

 From Center For Inquiry

Final Letter Over FSM Demonstration

Another letter appeared in the Exponent yesterday about the FSM demonstration by the Non-Theists Society. Unfortunately the Exponent has a limit on the number of letters it will publish on any particular subject and this letter reached that limit. So there will be no more letters in the Exponent about this topic. It would be nice to have another forum of communication on campus for these kind of subjects.

Here is the final letter for those interested. Note, I do not necessarily agree with all of it's points.

Jennifer McCreight: First of all you talk about persecution as if non-theists have gone through years of hardships. The only persecutions non-theists endure are the religious nutcases who state their radical views. As for your satire, which was a blatant attack on religions that does nothing to educate, all it shows is that your group feels that life is one big joke and that those who seek more in life and after life are crazy. So yes parading a flying spaghetti monster is discriminating towards religion not just Christianity. My feelings are far from hurt because of childish antics, but it is sad organized attacks are now being planned as campus activities.
Jennifer McCreight: “It’s impossible to communicate with someone whose beliefs are based on emotion.” But as far as I can tell you know neither about belief nor faith. You’re too concerned with how things work instead of looking at why they do; yes, science can show us how living organisms ADAPT over time. But when asked why or even how life started on this earth you have no guesses, no beliefs, and no “evidence” as to what started it all. I’ve listened to so-called rational arguments and none disprove a god.
Evidence by definition, does not mean the answer. Through my faith I may not be able to run tests in a laboratory to prove to anybody but myself. But that’s what faith is and if I am wrong so be it; Religion has made my life better and gives me a moral center. What has non-theism done lately besides give you a reason to dress up like pirates?
Also why Blasphemy Day? What was the need for segregating rights away from religious individuals? Absolutely none, just some whiny brats’ attempt to gain attention.
Michael Ebert
Senior in the College of Consumer and Family Sciences