Of Brights and Scarlet Letters

Since I’ve become so very popular for espousing my (questionably militant) atheist views, I thought I might write a short post about a couple of social movements that I’ve come across in my quest for a personally satisfying anti-religion.

The first would be the Brights movement, founded in 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, members of the American Humanist Association. Their general idea was to create a universal name for people who hold in a purely naturalist worldview. In much the same way that the word “homosexual” holds a neutral or negative connotation in the minds of the general public, words or terms associated with nontheistic beliefs may be considered neutral (e.g. “agnostic”, “humanist” or “freethinker”) to downright negative (e.g. “atheist” or “skeptic”). The term “gay”, however, was historically a positive word that became adopted as a euphemism for homosexual. Geisert and Futrell chose to adopt a similar term to describe nontheists: “Bright”.

Since its coinage, the term has been met with support from a wide range of atheists, including Richard Dawkins himself. Its positive connotation has been bolstered by its symbolic, pseudo-spiritual connection to the Enlightenment, an age that embodied so many of the traits that the modern movement represents.

To be fair, the term “bright” has also been the target of criticism from both sides of the religion debate. Upon hearing about the Brights movement, Christopher Hitchens expressed a deep concern that the term sounded “conceited”. In my not-so-humble opinion, “bright” inspires a well-deserved elevation of morale. If I were concerned about pride preceding a fall, I would have stayed in parochial school.

Other critics have made the point that “bright” necessarily implies that Brights are more intelligent than believers. This would be true if Brights were arrogant enough to call religious believers “dull”. As the philosopher Daniel Dennett quipped, “Those who are not gays are not necessarily glum; they're straight. Those who are not brights are not necessarily dim.” Dennett has suggested that theists be called “super” — short for “supernatural” — a term that has been officially endorsed by Geisert and Futrell.

The other notable social movement that I came across is the Out campaign, started by Richard Dawkins as an initiative to promote the positive image of atheism and Freethought in the public. The campaign draws inspiration from the Gay Rights movement and the idea of “coming out” to one’s family and friends. If anyone has heard of the Rational Response Squad’s “Blasphemy Challenge”, this is essentially a similar idea on a more personal level. Recruits are called to reach out, speak out, keep (religion) out, and stand out in an effort to raise public awareness of atheism. In an ironic twist, the Out movement has adopted a scarlet, stylized capital ‘A’ as its insignia (for “Atheism”, I suppose).

These are, of course, only two movements in a changing social climate. Whether or not you identify as a Bright or wear a scarlet letter on your clothing, there is a revolution going on, and we’re all a part of it.

http://outcampaign.org
http://www.the-brights.net

Manifestos and Freethought

Humanist Manifesto II
Humanist Manifesto III

This is my first post weighing in on In Ratione Speramus; I'll try to be concise as I make sense of what I've read.

Although he drops the issue of atheists' capacity to carry out moral reasoning (to focus on their ability to live fulfilled lives and initiate collective action), I like Michael Fitzpatrick's Good Without God and the responses it generated. I think Michael's column duplicated here is the first concrete stab at what I personally find to be the most interesting and compelling duty of Brown Freethought - our job to provide a careful, constructive, and positive articulation of humanism in the Brown community. We considered this important when we founded the group two years ago and should remember to continue doing so. Our sustained focus on promoting critical inquiry and the scientific method is ultimately grounded, I think, in our shared ethical concerns that should be made clear and explicit.

Anish Mitra's response to Michael raised issue with the atheist movement's need to evangelize. Atheism, he observes, is a logical (or empirical) conclusion an individual comes to accept after he has satisfied himself of its reasonableness. As a bare proposition alone it holds little internal moral import and Mitra consequently puzzles over some atheists' "undying need to tell you about why they feel the way they do. . ." He doesn't think we can explain this away by our advocacy of science. He also claims we're digging ourselves into hypocrisy by harping through slogan-based media on the immanent reality of the godless world we've discovered. Why bother? Mitra doesn't spend his spare time declaring the non-existence of unicorns.

Michael responded that we have incentive for establishing a social presence because there are "common principles" guiding our interest... this is true! And Mitra is well-justified in his failure to preach Unicorns Are Dead, but unicorns have never held a fraction of the political and psychological importance of gods or been prominent in our assessment of human destiny and metaphysical reality. What I think is pertinent is unpacking these shared principles of ours - it is sloppy and dangerous to assume prima facie that the ethics of the academy or values we've adopted in the maintenance of science are a sufficient basis for thinking about the moral impetus behind socially involved atheism.

I'm not suggesting we all become ethicists or philosophers, but if we think contemporary humanism emerges from a rational dialogue about history, materialism, and human nature then we should do what we can to share this. When a believer claims that ethical order is entailed by divine order this sets up debate in their terms and it isn't obvious to many people that there are non-theistic alternatives. I've included links to the second and third humanist manifestos for the purpose of instigating more discussion of humanism even if we find these versions of it inadequate. We've stated our interest in supporting civil freedoms that are denied in irrational religious practices, but there's more to the story than just negating religion and keeping what we find ourselves with after.

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.

Scary Quotes

There are a lot of crazy people out there—especially on the internet. You get plenty of nuts spouting off about one thing or another on forums, blogs, and personal Web sites. Some sites, like Time Cube (one of the classics, a must read), do seem to have actual crazy people on them. But most of what you find out there is just horribly misguided individuals, so I generally feel fine about laughing at what I see and the authors that write them.

Fundies Say the Darndest Things! is an amazing repository of the most outrageous quotes by fundamentalists from across the internet. They have some stunning statements. They now also have sections for conspiracy theorists and racists. Some of what you find on there is hilarious, while some is scary or infuriating (RSTDT mostly falls under this category, the others tend to span the categories better). Below, is a taste of some of what you'll find in their archives:

The Power of the EU Court of Human Rights Compells You…

Luckily for the United States, its government is nowhere near as wrapped up with religion as Italy's is. Sure, we have plenty of loons controlling things over here, but at least we have some separation of religion from government. It is no surprise that Italy, home of the Roman Catholic Church, is a religious country. One of the most religious ones in Europe. From long before Italy became a single country, till long after the fascists were removed from power, Italy has mixed religion and government.

Since the 1920s, Italian law has required crucifixes to be hung inside schools. Now, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that this violates the freedom of religion of the children and their parents' rights. Even better, the court ruled that the law restricted the "right of children to believe or not to believe. [emphasis mine]"

The conservative politicians and Catholic clerics have been up in arms about loosing their ability to shove their religion down the throats of children. In defense of their gruesome symbol, feature a man (or god or man or the son of a god that is the god but also a man) being tortured and killed for all to see, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said that "The crucifix has always been a sign of God's love, unity and hospitality to all humanity.… It is unpleasant that it is considered a sign of division, exclusion or a restriction of freedom."

Really? I wonder why someone might consider a Catholic crucifix divisive or that its use in schools imposes a restriction on the freedoms of students and parents. Perhaps it's because it symbolizes Christianity (or more specifically, Catholicism). You'll find no stars of David, crescents, or happy humanists on their walls. Just their one, preferred symbol of their one, preferred religion.

I'm even less impressed by the claim that a representation of a torture device shows their god's love. Worse, the Catholic crucifixes tend to have a dying man on them. At the very least, the other forms of Christianity tend sanitize their symbol. Sure, they god might have performed the sacrifice to cleanse humanity of sin, but one is tempted to think that there are some ways that don't excite Mel Gibson as much. Maybe he could have stopped humans from gaining sin by using his omnipotent powers or forgiven them without accepting a human/divine sacrifice.

letter from crazy RUE student

This is a letter I received from a crazy RUE student in response to my column. This is better than television.

Dear Jared,

You are brave, but your mind is weak, or more likely, you speak untruths comfortably;
If something is not real, you cannot write about it.
As for non existence, the stock market is real, and it is the very best example of your subject matter that you brought up in your editorial--
"not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material."
Sure you could explain away the pieces that make up the stock market in terms of certain 'natural laws' but you still would not have the thing itself.
As far as the supernatural being a poor model for driving force for market procedure, you might revisit the fallacy of rational actors in light of the last two years of economic history (and the previous 15 years, and on and on back in time) and make some definitions for yourself between the realms of wishful thinking, imagination, and the supernatural.

But I would guess that your view is skewed from your perspective.
You are from a supernatural place, manhattan, which is as far as most people are concerned, is almost entirely an unreal and abstract place,
and because of this you are so deeply embedded in the most logical
and deeply untrue modernist fantasies
that you cannot actually see percieve them
as anything but the rationality that they pose as.
I am from the forest. I have no problem believing in your city. Howzabout a little intelectual generosity?
Seriously, don't they teach you to think in philosophy, or at least encourage a love for thinking?

If you care (I care) to better your mind and self, study some history and philosophy of science and get a handle on what this natural-supernatural business is all about.
Natural is actually not much of a thing to stand on, my friend, speaking again of weak or falacious arguments.
'Controlled scientific conditions' is decided by and acted out by people, just as a satanic ritual is.
The former is actually just better at accessing and gaining power over the supernatural, making it 'natural'.
What is 'natural' now only became so by science forming a bridge to what was once supernatural.
What is the difference between a virus and a devil?
You may be so smart and lucky to know best, but how would you describe what I virus looks like?
I dare you not to use any science fictive metaphors.
While I admire your sense of entitlement to publish, I also encourage trying to think a little deeper before stridently decrying the firmament of human life on earth. Two points to the matter:
1. Your attack reeks of fear. There is no need to attack that which you do not fear.
2. You are not smarter or better than other people.
In 7000 years of recorded human history, people have managed to live with the supernatural with less fear than you.
It seems like you are maybe afraid that if people believe in the supernatural, they will become a threat to you.
But really, even if you will not look to the past, take a minute and look at the conditions of who and where you are.
Are people that are heavily under the influence of a mistaken be
lief in the supernatural the greatest threat to you and your health? Or is it people (and things) spawned from the god of rationality that threaten your life?
Are you more scared of a virus or a car crash?

ok, I gotta go now,

You should work harder now, please,

Bochay I Drum
Science and Society
2009.5        RUE

What delusive dreams may come

I figured I'd post my herald column today to our beloved blog.

Jared Lafer '11: What delusive dreams may come

A recent Herald article (“A spirited tour of the East Side’s major haunts,” Oct. 30) reported on two local organizations: the Providence Ghost Tour and the Providence Ghost Walk. These groups give regular tours of Providence and its allegedly supernatural hotspots. They pass the time with historically informed, creepy stories about people and events in this city’s past, and of course, complete nonsense about the supernatural.

I have no quarrel with this first activity in principle. History is valuable when it is accurate, and if the tour companies are spouting factual tales, then they should be commended. In fact, the Herald article says that both companies have delved into the Rhode Island archives for material, and so all the more power to them.

But the latter activity really strikes a nerve. Even if the companies’ stories are inaccurate, the resulting damage would be insignificant in comparison to the damage caused by their shameless promotion of the existence of the supernatural.

I don’t hate to break this to you: The supernatural does not exist. I assume most Brown students are of a like mind, and I’m not going to bother dignifying the people who believe otherwise by explaining why this is the case. I will say, however, that if you do believe in the supernatural, I challenge you to present one piece of evidence obtained under controlled scientific conditions in support of your point. Call up your God and tell him Jared’s on the other line.

That people have this ridiculous belief in the first place, however, is troubling. I presume the appeal of ghosts, and perhaps the appeal of all supernatural fantasies, is the idea that there is something beyond our physical world. “For in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil,” Hamlet says. Indeed, we take solace in the delusion that there are dreams to come (in this world and the next), dreams that enchant us away from the hard truths of reality.

But, as I stated earlier, supernatural fantasies are false. And they are not innocently false — believing them to be true can be harmful for at least two reasons:

1) They offset our honest intellectual growth (i.e. gaining true knowledge about the world). Supernatural explanations are bad because they are false, and thus when we accept them, we do so for bad reasons (e.g. faith). But, accepting them counteracts our honest intellectual growth, for when we accept a bad explanation we simultaneously deprive ourselves of a true explanation, and we should not develop our minds on a substrate of false beliefs.

Moreover, the lower we set the bar that we use to determine whether to accept an explanation, the more likely we are to accept bad explanations in general. By accepting supernatural explanations, we set the bar really low and therefore are more likely to accept bad explanations, which just feeds the original point.

2) Supernatural beliefs often lead to bad decision-making. We act in large part based on what we believe. If what we believe is just plain wrong, then more often than not the outcome of our actions based on those beliefs will not be favorable.

Should we, for example, play the stock market based on psychic reasoning? Should we play it because God will protect us from financial ruin? Should we play it because there is an afterlife and no matter how badly we do, it will be insignificant in the scheme of our eternal lives? These would probably all be bad ideas.

Note that the consequences for these harms can be devastating. It certainly doesn’t actively help us as individuals or as a society if we’re perpetually intellectually stunted and bad decision makers. Add up all the people who have been killed in the name of the supernatural, and I think you’ll catch my drift.

Now, the problem with ghost tours, and all things that profit from the exploitation of the supernatural, is that they reinforce the harmful belief that the supernatural exists. This reinforcement preys on two types of people in particular: people who already believe in the supernatural and could always use a little more belief validation, and people who don’t believe in the supernatural, but might believe in it if they had a reason to do so (the ghost tour people say it exists). The majority of people, unfortunately, fall into these two categories, and so the damage supernatural-exploiting groups do is extensive.

In an ideal world, all talk of the supernatural would suddenly cease and memories of it would be wiped from our minds. This world is not ideal. Instead, the least organizations like Providence Ghost Tours and Providence Ghost Walk could do is warn their customers that what they say should be taken with a grain of salt. I would have them stop operations entirely, but I do not deny that there is fun to be had in silly notions like ghosts, and we shouldn’t deny our communities their entertainment. Jared Lafer ’11 is a philosophy concentrator from Manhattan. He can be reached at jared_lafer at brown.edu.