I want to tell you about a blog you might not have heard of and will probably find valuable: Religion Clause. It is written by Howard M. Friedman, Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Toledo. Like the title suggests, it focuses on legal news of relevance to the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Prof. Friedman has a real talent for writing brief but highly informative posts. Religion Clause has become an indispensable resource for me in staying abreast of important church-state developments. Check it out.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Why is there something rather than nothing? Many Christian apologists and theologians are fond of this question. Through some complicated mental gymnastics, they manage to convince themselves that the only answer to this question is "god did it." It does not seem to bother them that many find the question irrelevant or regard their method of of answering it as circular at best. Nor does not seem to bother them that cosmologists have been considering such questions scientifically and doing quite well without having to rely on gods.

This question has been posed to me many times by amateur Christians (i.e., those who do not make their living from writing about questions like this). It usually comes in a challenging tone.

Oh yeah, then why is there something rather than nothing?

At least 99% of the time, the speaker seems to think that this is the first time I've ever heard such a question. To the contrary, I've heard it many times. I've never found it even a little bit compelling. I rarely bother to respond anymore. Who has time to drop whatever they're doing at the moment to teach a Christian who may not even have a basic science education about cosmology?

Maybe I'm being too harsh. The thing is, I've grown awfully tired of this same old debate and the form it inevitably takes. This isn't how science works. We don't get to rely on supernatural explanations for anything we can't fully explain. The Christian who tries this line of attack is merely revealing an utter lack of knowledge about science itself.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

I respect the right to free expression, but I will not necessarily respect the content of what someone decides to say. A racist statement, for example, is one that I not only will not respect but against which I may speak out rather forcefully. A factually incorrect statement, presented as fact, also deserves no respect. Yes, you have the right to speak your mind, the right to be wrong, and even the right to make an ass of yourself. What you do not have is the right to do these things without being held accountable for the content of what you say.

Thanks to Dangerous Talk for reminding me about a topic I keep meaning to address here: the "Smut for Smut" campaign being carried out by Atheist Agenda, an atheist student group at the University of Texas - San Antonio. The campaign involves the sort of porn for bibles exchange we've seen atheist groups organizing on many campuses. Here is how the group describes it:

We’ve set up a table where people can stop by and donate their religious reading material and – if they desire, and if they are old enough – receive a number of porn magazines. This can include fundamental texts like the Koran, the Bible, or Dianetics; religious apologia and self-help like Warren’s The Purpose-Driven Life and Lewis’s Mere Christianity; or those unnerving little tracts that Jack Chick makes.

Now you see why they are calling it "Smut for Smut."

John Corvino, Ph.D., wrote an interesting post for 365gay.com titled "The Village Atheist." One part in particular got me thinking about atheism and the questions around if and how to promote it.

Frankly, there’s a part of me that feels a bit impolite even bringing up the subject [of nonbelief in gods]. I’m trying to get over that feeling, since I believe this nation could use a healthy dose of religious skepticism. A great deal of mischief gets licensed in the name of faith, giving people “infallible” backing for their prejudices.

Atheism for the good of society. I agree completely. We do need more religious skepticism in the U.S. It is not simply a matter of assisting others in the de-conversion process (although that is important to) but one of introducing skepticism toward religion into the public discourse.

As Dr. Corvino suggests, one of the most important things each of us can do to change the world for the better is to contribute honestly to the public discourse. We can "provide an example of a thoughtful, real-life openly atheist person to people who had never knowingly interacted with one." Like Dr. Corvino, we can stand for "truth, and courage, and integrity."

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution