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?

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

Exploring reasonable doubts by listening to “Reasonable Doubts” podcasts

If you are interested in hearing well-considered podcasts putting religious claims under the microscope, here's a good source: Reasonable Doubts. The site is a labor of love by the following three individuals:

JEREMY BEAHAN is an Adjunct Professor teaching classes on: Philosophy, World Religions, Biblical Literature, Aesthetics, and Critical Thinking through FSU. LUKE GALEN is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grand Valley State University. He teaches classes on: the Psychology of Religion, Controversial Issues in Psychology, and Human Sexuality. DAVID FLETCHER is the founder and former chair of CFI Aquinas College. He is an English and Speech teacher as well as an adjunct professor of Mythology.
What distinguishes this site from many other skeptic/freethinker sites is that the authors offer dozens of carefully-reasoned podcasts putting specific religious claims under the microscope. There is no ranting or bloviating here; the tone is academic and the presentations are clear. Listeners will come away with thorough understandings of the topics addressed:
What distinguishes us from many other skeptical podcasts is our special focus on counter-apologetics. We provide detailed counter-points to the fallacious logic and blatant misinformation used by religious apologists when attempting to discredit skepticism and provide rational arguments for their dogmas. We also defend the sufficiency of reason, science and naturalistic philosophies to provide a satisfactory and morally compelling understanding of the cosmos, human nature, art and culture.
For example, in the podcast titled "Which Jesus?" (a presentation originally given at CFI), Jeremy Beahan discusses the many contradictions within the Gospel narratives. The lecture includes a powerpoint (see a sample slide below, setting out difference in the Christmas narrative): I also listened to a second podcast discussing Ernest Becker's work, leading to the modern theory of "terror management theory" (TMT) (this is a topic that fascinates me). Becker's general idea is that we are electric meat with large brains that can project into the future by generating "what if" hypotheticals. This makes us self-aware, but also tends to create a mind-body dualism riddled with anxiety--we deeply worry about death. Because we face our inexorable deaths, a paradox is created: we put lots of energy into denying death. We spin elaborate defenses through our symbolic systems (religion, capitalism, political). Becker argues that these defense symbols constitute buffers to our self-esteem, and we can only read self-esteem through our interactions with others. We latch onto group-based symbolic ideologies such as religions that offer simple steps to fend off death in order to enhance our self-esteem. All of our cultural strivings are to achieve a "heroic" feeling (even by serving a powerful Being, or by joining into warmongering) and a system of ready-made ethics for being a "hero" and "transcending death." Cultural striving = immortality striving. I was here and I mattered. But any threat to these immortality strivings threaten believers. Therefore, being presented with a contrary world view (e.g., atheism) is inevitably threatening to our self-esteem and our mortality. Converting others to one's own world view is a way to enhance one's own world view. If one can't convert others they still might be able to convince others to downplay their differences in public ((or even destroying others). About 20 years ago, many social scientists began testing these theories, with notable success (Judges reminded of their deaths set prostitution bond of $455; control judges--not reminded of their deaths--set bonds of $50). Reminders of death profoundly affect our behavior (e.g., 9/11 was a profound reminder of our impending deaths that dramatically kicked up our embrace of religion and patriotism--it urged people of all political persuasions to embrace others like themselves and to embrace more simplistic beliefs than before). Some of these experiments are described in this excellent lecture (I also described some of them in my previous posts on "Terror Management Theory). Beahan highly recommended viewing a documentary exploring Becker's ideas: "Flight From Death." Here is the menu of podcasts currently offered by Reasonable Doubts. I highly recommend a visit.

Continue ReadingExploring reasonable doubts by listening to “Reasonable Doubts” podcasts

A former Christian describes his former Christianity

Mike Baker submitted a few comments to DI over the past few months. Then, after I published yet another installment of my favorite quotes (read: I took a night off from actually writing), Mike offered me his substantial collection of provocative quotes (we’ve published them here and here, and there’s more to come). We started an email correspondence a few weeks ago. When Mike told me that he was formerly a Christian, but no longer, I asked him a few follow-up questions. It turns out that there is an unexpected twist to Mike’s story. He is no longer a Christian, but he believes in God. Yet he believes that organized religions are generally harmful to society. Yet he also admits that good things are sometimes accomplished by religious organizations. After a few rounds of back and forth, I asked Mike whether he would be willing to allow me to share his thoughts with the DI community, and he agreed. I think that you’ll enjoy reading Mike’s genuine thoughts and his engaging writing style. Without further adieu, here is that email conversation: Mike: Thanks for sharing your thoughts on religion in that five-part essay you wrote. As a person who has always called himself a Christian (albeit a loosely wrapped one), I've recently walked away from my "faith". In large part by the inactions and apparent acquiescence of "Christians" to G.W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. Feeling somewhat "lost", I began reading Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris and C. Hitchens just to name a few. I was totally engrossed and amazed too at what is not discussed in church. I now see religion (almost all of the brands) as a brake on human advancement at best and quite possibly the catalyst for civilizations’ destruction at worst. I guess you could say I am in the Sam Harris camp there. I do agree, however, with your summation that bridges need to be built. Here's a little on me. My mother grew up in Nazi Germany and brought me up to fully appreciate the meaning of our Constitution and what true freedom and democratic principles represent. Much to my mothers chagrin (something I didn't fully understand at the time) I joined the Marine Corps after high school and served for eight yrs. Believing that we were the "good guys", bringing peace and freedom where ever we went I served proudly. Time and a better understanding of history have taught me that that is not always the case. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingA former Christian describes his former Christianity

Is religion honest?

Most religious adherents would be aghast if one suggested that they, or their religion, were fundamentally and consistently dishonest. However I believe that is indeed the case. I read a comment on a recent blog post by Ed Brayton (honesty vs intellectually honest). Ed's post argued about the distinction between honesty and intellectual honesty, and noted that intellectual honesty must recognize not only the arguments in support of a position, but also any evidence or arguments against that position. One of the commenters (Sastra) then made the following case that faith was fundamentally intellectually dishonest:

[...] An intellectually dishonest person blurs the distinction [between being intellectually honest, and being emotionally honest], and seems to confuse fact claims with meaning or value claims. To a person who places emphasis on emotional honesty, strength of conviction is evidence. An attack on an idea, then, is an attack on the person who holds it. The idea is true because it's emotionally fulfilling: intentions and sincerity matter the most. Therefore, you don't question, search, or respect dissent. A person who is trying to change your mind, is trying to change you. For example, I consider religious faith [...] to be intellectually dishonest. It is, however, sincerely emotionally honest. [...] "Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of what is not seen." There's a huge emotional component to it, so that one chooses to keep faith in X, the way one might remain loyal to a friend. You defend him with ingenuity and love, finding reasons to explain or excuse evidence against him. He cannot fail: you, however, can fail him, by allowing yourself to be lead into doubt. Being able to spin any result into support then is a sign of good will, loyalty, reliability, and the ability to stand fast. The focus isn't on establishing what's true, but on establishing that you can be "true." This emotional honesty may or may not be rewarded: the real point, I think, is to value it for its own sake, as a fulfillment of a perceived duty.
This is exactly the case with religion, and religious adherents. Their faith in their god is entirely emotional, and no amount of material evidence will alter their belief. They may be entirely honest in their belief, and may be entirely honest in their objection to evidence (cf Karl, Rabel, Walter, et al) but in doing so are being intellectually dishonest, because they refuse to recognize valid and entirely relevant evidence - they conflate with great consistency and verve fact claims with value claims, and deny any difference between them stating it's all 'interpretation'. No, it isn't all interpretation. It's dishonesty.

Continue ReadingIs religion honest?