Michael Shermer Beware

Another excellent xkcd.

Rorty on teaching fundamentalists

“It seems to me that the regulative idea that we heirs of the Enlightenment, we Socratists, most frequently use to criticize the conduct of various conversational partners is that of ‘needing education in order to outgrow their primitive fear, hatreds, and superstitions’ ... It is a concept which I, like most Americans who teach humanities or social science in colleges and universities, invoke when we try to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic, religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own ... The fundamentalist parents of our fundamentalist students think that the entire ‘American liberal establishment’ is engaged in a conspiracy. The parents have a point. Their point is that we liberal teachers no more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students ... When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists, we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures. Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization. We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual to our homophobic students for the same reasons that German schoolteachers in the postwar period assigned The Diary of Anne Frank... You have to be educated in order to be ... a participant in our conversation ... So we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable. We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours ... I don’t see anything herrschaftsfrei [domination free] about my handling of my fundamentalist students. Rather, I think those students are lucky to find themselves under the benevolent Herrschaft [domination] of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents ... I am just as provincial and contextualist as the Nazi teachers who made their students read Der Stürmer; the only difference is that I serve a better cause.”

– ‘Universality and Truth,’ in Robert B. Brandom (ed.), Rorty and his Critics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), pp. 21-2.

Clarification: "Good without God"

So, anyone who reads the Brown Daily Herald will have probably noticed that my 11/10 column "Good without God" got a well-deserved* critique from Anish Mitra '10. The full text of his column can be found here:

Anish Mitra '10: Good without God? A response

What I was more interested in was sharing a little response that attempts to clarify most of his objections; feel free to dissect this in a comment.

Shortly after my “Good without God” column was run, I discussed it with a religious friend of mine. Her first impression seemed to echo Mitra's point exactly: “Are you trying to turn atheism into some kind of religion?”

Not really. We are trying to form organizations, but of a distinct flavor from that of a religion. What we lack is tradition and practice: holy books, sacraments, prayers. But we do have common principles. Our principles guide our interests. It’s entirely reasonable to seek out others who share common interests. The difference is that our group doesn’t seek to dictate the beliefs and thoughts of its members in the same way that a religion would.

He makes a very good point about the tactics of the Big Apple Coalition of Reason’s methods for promoting their cause: it is recruitment. But recruitment hardly defines a religion: the army recruits. The Red Cross recruits. Political parties recruit. Any group of people working towards a common goal must at some point recruit new members. (For comparison, consider the reasons why religions recruit: to increase tithe revenue; to convince impressionable young men and women to strap on vests of explosives and step on crowded buses; because they honestly think that they’re “saving souls”, etc.)

Granted, this does suggest that atheist organizations like the Coalition of Reason set out to accomplish some goals. Atheists in general should have ideological goals, which include broadening the public’s understanding of science, fighting for increased social freedoms, and the strengthened separation of church and state.

While I agree that religious individuals, from historic titans like Isaac Newton to contemporary intellectuals like Ken Miller, have made great strides in the advancement of scientific knowledge. However, religious dogma has been science’s single greatest obstacle for the past thousand years. It was religious hubris that FALSELY placed the Earth at the center of the solar system. It was the story of creation that caused the FALSE belief that the world is only six thousand years old. It was religious ignorance that gave rise to the FALSE belief that mental disease was caused by demonic possession. Even today, it is religious obstinance that stands in the way of stem-cell research. This stands opposed to our principles, and we have decided that we are not going to stand idly by while superstition holds a greater sway over public policy than reason.

At this point, it makes very little sense to try to equate an atheist organization to a religion. We aren’t recruiting for selfish reasons. It is perfectly reasonable for us to seek out others with similar interests and principles. And if religions have the ability to sway public opinions and dictate public policy, then we should at least have the same sort of opportunity to voice our concerns: not as individuals, not as constituents, but as a group.

Don’t get me wrong; I very much agree with Mitra that atheism should be the conclusion of one’s personal reasoning, and I wish I hadn’t glossed over that fact in my column. But just as those who choose to believe in God join a church, synagogue or mosque, those who choose otherwise deserve the right to associate with like-minded individuals.

*I say "well-deserved" in reference to my shameless mockery of another columnist's religious frustration a couple months ago, a sarcastic piece of which I am far too proud for my own good.

Bad Faith Awards

It's time, yet again, for the annual Bad Fairth Awards. The New Humanist holds this online poll to give the person who has "made the most outstanding contribution to the cause of unreason" in the past year a little something for their efforts. Last year, Sarah Palin swept the vote and the year before, Dinesh D'Souza claimed this prestigious prize. This year, the short list of contenders features everything from creationists, to chiropractors, apologists, and a pope (guess which one):

Adnan Oktar, aka Harun Yahya 99 (7%)
Anjem Choudary 73 (5%)
Anthony Bush 22 (1%)
British Chiropractic Association 209 (16%)
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor 68 (5%)
Dermot Aherne 90 (7%)
Damian Thompson 67 (5%)
Pope Benedict XVI 418 (33%)
Terry Eagleton & Karen Armstrong 67 (5%)
Tony Blair 132 (10%)

Feeding Christians to the Lions

I find debate barbaric. Its goal is to convince as many people as possible to believe some proposition. This isn't bad in itself. Rather, it's the format of the debate that I dislike. Humans, the imperfect beings that we are, respond better to good rhetoric and presentation than substantive argument. Debate substitutes persuasion for accuracy and thoroughness. I can't think of a more fitting word than barbaric to describe such disregard for the truth and rigor.

However, just because something is barbaric, doesn't mean it can't be entertaining to watch. Debate, in my opinion, is best looked at like the Roman games. Yes, killing dozens of people in a day for sport is barbaric, but the Romans found it very entertaining. This debate should be thought of along the same lines.

The motion is that the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdencombe speak for the motion while Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens speak against it. This debate doesn't really resemble a gladiatorial battle so much as the mid-day events where criminals (e.g., Christians) were executed by being fed to wild animals (e.g., lions).

Good without God

Since I have yet to contribute anything to this blog, I figured my latest opinions column would be appropriate.

Michael Fitzpatrick '12: Good without God

If you plan on visiting New York City over the Thanksgiving holiday break, I insist that you ride the subway at least once. While you’re at it, take a good look at the ads — you may read something thought-provoking.

For the next four weeks, an advertising campaign coordinated by the Big Apple Coalition of Reason — an umbrella organization that includes several atheist, secular and humanist societies based in New York — will run in a dozen different Manhattan subway stations. In honor of the Oct. 27 release of Greg Epstein’s book, “Good without God,” the ads bear the message, “A million New Yorkers are good without God. Are you?”

Well, are you? That’s an excellent question!

Unfortunately, “good” is a very ambiguous term. Not having read Epstein’s book myself, I am at a loss to understand the intended meaning of the phrase “good without God.” At first glance, two possibilities seem equally plausible: “good” may either mean “morally sound” or simply “content.”

Debating the virtuous interpretation is, quite frankly, a waste of time. Atheists are perfectly capable of making moral decisions. On the other hand, the satisfaction interpretation deserves a closer examination.

To say that a person is happy without God is a confusing claim for some religious people, because God represents the ultimate source of all happiness, meaning and pleasure in their worldview. At Brown, this perspective is mitigated by the open mindset encouraged by an academic setting, but the real world is not always so forgiving. In many religious traditions, atheists are almost certainly damned for all eternity, and some theistic blowhards out there still relish the notion of endless suffering for nonbelievers. By their logic, all atheists should be perpetually miserable.

And yet, a million New Yorkers — and a fair chunk of Brown students — are good without God. The prospect of damnation doesn’t discourage us. In fact, the possibility of losing this existential coin flip is a good reason to smile. With or without God, atheists have no reason to hope for something better. With or without God, life is still worth living. No matter what, we will make the best of the one lifetime we have.

Alternatively, take the message from a more derisive British atheist campaign that displayed the following ad on buses in London this past January: “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Putting aside the feel-good arguments, there is one other interpretation of the aforementioned question. This construal is not an invitation to reflect on faith or question theology; rather, it is a rallying cry — a clarion call to those millions of people who find themselves, by choice or circumstance, without a God.

As you might expect, I commend the efforts of the Coalition of Reason to raise public awareness of the various atheist, secular and humanist societies in New York. Even in large cities like New York, atheists and other secular humanists still represent a minority, but a growing minority nonetheless. And like all minorities, they will seek a community. Even atheists need social cohesion.

Out of all atheists, former believers more fully understand the grim reality of apostasy; especially in situations where one’s family or friends are predominantly religious, atheism can be a very lonely state of mind. Religions are essentially groups of people united by common beliefs. Because of this, rejecting the religion of one’s family and friends often leads to a loss of belonging, a feeling of disconnection from one’s community.

What atheists — especially young atheists — need to know is that we are also unified by common beliefs: namely, a dedication to science, freedom of thought and a firm trust in humanity. A billboard ad campaign coordinated by the Dallas-Fort Worth Coalition of Reason this past March summed up this idea fittingly: “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”

Granted, these ad campaigns are all public displays. They will impact the daily routines of believers and nonbelievers alike. Most religious people will probably shrug off the message, but a few may find the ads offensive. This is, of course, the calculated risk of promoting a controversial point of view. However, it is my sincerest hope that religious groups take advantage of the ad campaign to foster friendly discussion between atheists and theists rather than protest the Coalition of Reason’s freedom of expression.

For their efforts, the Big Apple Coalition of Reason’s ad campaign and others like it are figurative successes, regardless of how many young atheists they manage to recruit. They send a firm message to the members of their local secular communities: We don’t need to hide for fear of rejection. We don’t need to feel like we are alone in the world. We can live comfortably with our choice of values and know that others share them. Michael Fitzpatrick ’12 is great without God. He can be contacted at michael_fitzpatrick at brown.edu.

The Queen of the Homeopaths

This video has been going around the skeptical blogosphere in the past few weeks. However, it wasn't until yesterday that I worked up the fortitude to watch it the whole way through. The speaker, Dr. Werner seems to have heard about a lot of pop physics but doesn't have a clue about the actual science.

I don't know where to begin.