Expelled founder Paul Kurtz explains his departure from the Center for Inquiry

On May 18, 2010 the Center for Inquiry, the Council for Secular Humanism and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry jointly announced that they had accepted the resignation of Paul Kurtz from each of these boards. Kurtz, who had founded each of these three organizations, had been serving on each of the boards, and as well as serving as Chair Emeritus of CSH and as Editor in Chief of CSH's flagship publication, Free Inquiry. In the joint announcement, the boards recognized Dr. Kurtz for his "decades of service to the Council for Secular Humanism, the Center for Inquiry (CFI), and its other affiliates." This same announcement also contained the following statement:

At Paul Kurtz's behest, CFI and its affiliates began years ago to organize a leadership transition. Moreover, in recent years the board had concerns about Dr. Kurtz's day-to-day management of the organization.

As a long-time subscriber to Free Inquiry and Skeptical Inquirer, I was familiar with many of the writings of Paul Kurtz, but I had never before spoken with him or corresponded with him. As a result of reading his articles at Free Inquiry, I was also aware that there was internal tension at those organizations (e.g., see here , here, and here). After reading about his resignation, I emailed a short note to Mr. Kurtz to wish him well in light of the announcement of his resignation. I also asked him whether he would allow me to interview him with regard to the announcement. He agreed: [Note: CFI's CEO Ron Lindsay responded to the following interview of Paul Kurtz here.] EV: To what extent was your resignation from the Center for Inquiry voluntary? PK: It was done voluntarily, but under great duress. [caption id="attachment_14572" align="alignright" width="150" caption="Paul Kurtz (Permission by Wikimedia Commons)"][/caption] -- EV: What were your titles and job duties prior to your resignation. PK: I founded the modern skeptics movement and sustained it for over three and a half decades. I had been the Chairman of the Center for Inquiry, the Council for Secular Humanism and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. In June, 2008, I was made "Emeritus" and stripped of any authority. Since 1980, I was Editor-in-Chief for Free Inquiry, but starting in June 2008, I no longer had any authority. I never received any compensation working for these organizations. I worked as a volunteer, living off savings I accrued while working as a philosophy professor. In fact, my wife and I donated more than $2 million dollars over the years to CFI, CSH and CSI. We were the second largest donors to these organizations. Over the years, I helped to raise over $40 million for the Center for Inquiry. -- EV: I saw the announcement of your resignation in the August/September, 2010 issue of Free Inquiry. Why didn't you publish any explanation regarding your resignation in Free Inquiry? PK: Tom Flynn and the CFI Board refused to run my letter of resignation in Free Inquiry or any of the Websites of CFI. It was censorship, clear and simple. I was censored four times, beginning in June 2008. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingExpelled founder Paul Kurtz explains his departure from the Center for Inquiry

Separation of Church and State?

I was on my way to lunch today, when I saw an ad on a local 'mega-church' billboard. It was promoting a "Restoring America Conference". This is a church. It pays no taxes. It should have no say, as an entity, in our political process. Based on the speakers, this will not be about Restoring America in any social sense - something that a church should indeed participate and lead. This 'conference' will undoubtedly be a rabidly right-wing diatribe from start to finish. I have absolutely no problem with free speech, not do I have a problem with Partisan speech. I do have a problem when political speech is not only associated with religion, but sponsored and promoted by a religious organization.

Continue ReadingSeparation of Church and State?

Americans are ignorant of basic religious teachings

Lots of people are talking about the new Pew Religious Knowledge Survey, which dramatically demonstrates that Americans are incredibly ignorant about the basic teachings of religions, including the basic teachings of their own religions. These Pew findings don't surprise me at all. I was raised Catholic and I have knows…

Continue ReadingAmericans are ignorant of basic religious teachings

Britain’s advertising authority bans pregnant nun ice cream ad.

An ice cream ad has been banned by Britain's advertising watchdog, apparently out of fear that it will offend those people who believe that it is possible to get pregnant without having sex. Actually, the "strapline" of the ad uses the phrase "immaculately conceived," which is interesting. In my experience, most Catholics will tell you with some certainty that the "Immaculate Conception" refers to the "fact" that Mary gave birth to Jesus even though she never had sex with a man. I challenge you to try this out on Catholics. At least 3 out of 4 will say this, but it is fundamentally incorrect. The "Immaculate Conception" refers to the claim that Mary herself was born without original sin. The writers of the ad got it wrong too, though maybe they did so purposely, knowing that so many Catholics get it wrong. And a new Pew survey shows that devout believers notoriously get the basic facts of their faith wrong (and see this DI post). This is phenomenal, given that so many believers claim that their faith is quite important to them.

Continue ReadingBritain’s advertising authority bans pregnant nun ice cream ad.

Tolerance of Religion Scale

In The God Delusion (at page 50), Richard Dawkins presented the following spectrum of theistic probability:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.' 2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.' 3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.' 4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.' 5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.' 6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.' 7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.' Incidentally, Dawkins placed himself at a “6″ on his 7-point scale. See also here.
This above scale is quite useful. How sure are you that there is no “God”? Now you can rank your own confidence level based on a scale that quantifies your beliefs; you can then compare your degree of beliefs to that of others. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingTolerance of Religion Scale