Image via Wikipedia

I received the following e-mail:

MTV is currently producing a documentary about young people (late teens and
early twenties) who are clashing with their parents over their choice of religion (or lack of one). If you know anyone who fits this description please call:

Jennifer Clark
MTV News & Docs
310-752-8149

Also, if you can direct our producers to any other resources you think would be helpful in our research, that would be great too.

Thank You.

I'm a bit skeptical of the authenticity since it was sent from a yahoo.com address. I would have thought MTV would have their own e-mail address. Regardless, I thought I'd pass it along.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Image via Wikipedia

Now that we know that those in Elizabeth Dole's campaign responsible for the attack ads attempting to link Kay Hagan with atheism are not even a little remorseful for their tactics, we should be ready to respond even more forcefully the next time this tactic is used. And I continue to predict that there will be a next time. The price for resorting to such bigotry in a political campaign must be made higher if it is to be abandoned. And for those still not convinced that Dole's tactics were bigoted, Bligbi's post offers a good explanation.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Related articles by Zemanta

• Addressing Anti-Atheist Bigotry: Emptying the Ocean With a Bucket (atheistrev.com)
• What is the Atheist Stereotype? (atheistrev.com)
• What is the Future of Atheism? (friendlyatheist.com)

Humanist Symposium #34 will be hosted right here at Atheist Revolution on March 22. If you have a post that fits with the goals of the carnival, you can submit it here. And if not, you still have plenty of time to write one. I guess I better get writing too.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Image via Wikipedia

We have been hearing about the American "culture war" for several years now. The U.S. media loves to talk of "red states" and "blue states," but just how divided is our nation? Is it more accurate to characterize the U.S. as one nation, largely united but with frequently differing opinions, or should we be talking about two Americas? I tend to think that we are far more divided than most Americans realize, but I recognize that the nature of our divide is also far more complex than the media would have us believe.

The American cultural divide is something about which I have frequently posted. I have addressed the implications of the divide for atheists, and I have repeatedly emphasized the media's role in widening the divide. My position has not changed much, although I do find more reason to be optimistic today than I did previously.

Reality Sucks!

A college friend and his wife recently told me about their visit to a science museum in honor of Darwin Day. It was not a formal Darwin Day celebration or anything - just a bunch of people who thought it would be fun to go to the museum to commemorate Darwin's birthday. What my friend did not expect were the angry protesters. While they were waiting in line with others to enter the museum, they were subjected to insults from a group of Christian extremist protesters.

My friend's wife wrote a brief post on her Facebook page about this, noting how surprised she was to encounter this (they live in Seattle, WA). Not unlike something you might find here, she referred to the anti-evolution protesters as "morons." This led one of her friends with whom I am unfamiliar to comment on her post that she was being intolerant, etc. Apparently, it is now intolerant not to want a bunch of creationists hurling insults at you on your way to a museum.

It is 2009, but we actually have people protesting against science. I do not think it is just for show. I think that many of them genuinely believe that science is a threat to their worldview and feel pressed to defend themselves.

Nobama

I was disappointed when Gore lost to Bush, but I was horrified when Bush beat Kerry. It wasn't that I liked John Kerry (I didn't). What really got under my skin was that Bush had shown himself to be an unfit leader during his first term. I could not comprehend how anyone could possibly vote for him that second time.

I mention this because I can empathize with how those opposed to Obama feel now. Sure, some were die-hard McCain supporters because they believed in McCain. But others simply did not like what they saw from Obama. And now they feel like I did after Kerry's loss.

The difference, and I think it is a big one, is that I do not ever recall wishing that Bush would fail. I realized that a failure on his part would be bad for America. I hoped he would prove me wrong even though I saw this as extremely unlikely. I can completely relate to how the Nobama crowd feels, but I cannot relate to how they hope Obama falls on his face and hurts our country.

Media as Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

The media's need to oversimplify the information they disseminate is understandable. After all, the U.S. education system is in shambles and our entertainment culture has left us with short attention spans. But the oversimplification also contributes to the broader dumbing-down. Why bother to push ourselves when we can count on being fed what we are supposed to think?

The problem is that oversimplification combined with the ratings-driven system yields high conflict punditry masquerading as news. The "news" of today is delivered by yelling windbags who will not hesitate to cut the mic of someone with whom they disagree. Opinions are so frequently interspersed with political talking points that even the intelligent among us can be fooled.

The media has done an excellent job of creating the very sort of simplistic conflict in which they delight. Unfortunately, this has become the new reality in which we live.

Two Americas

There are two Americas today, but the fault line is not always easy to identify. It is not just about religion, for their are many religious people on both sides of the divide. While appealing in its simplicity, the model of red and blue states falls apart when we realize that next-door neighbors all over our country may occupy the different Americas.

I believe that the complex line dividing our two Americas largely boils down to where residents of each America get what they regard as information. Sure, one America watches Fox "News" and listens to Rush Limbaugh, but it is more than that. This America also reads conservative publications, attends socially conservative churches, and spends more time with like-minded individuals. And the other America is doing the same thing in the opposite direction.

It is human nature to prefer the company of like-minded people. We tend to gravitate toward friends who are like us. We also share a well-known cognitive bias for seeking out information which confirms and validates our pre-existing worldviews. The liberal watches Olbermann while the conservative watches O'Reilly.

Welcome to the two Americas.

Epilogue

What about the optimism I mentioned earlier? Regardless of what one thinks of Obama, I think we can all agree that a large part of his campaign centered on setting aside bitter partisan politics and embracing a new sort of politics. My point is not that this was necessarily genuine but that it likely helped him to get elected. This tells me that many Americans are fed up with the divide and interested in exploring an alternative, even one that remains poorly defined. This gives me at least some optimism.

I do not think we can afford to become much more divided than we are now. The future is bleak if we do not find a way out. And yet, I am encouraged to see more people recognizing the problem and at least beginning to talk about it.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: American, Americas, culture war, media, red states, blue states, cultural divide, science, Darwin, Christian extremist, anti-evolution, worldview, nobama, Bush, McCain, Olbermann, O'Reilly

Image by JackVinson via Flickr

Astute observers may notice a new widget called Lijit atop my right sidebar. What the heck is it, and why should you use it? Basically, it is a tool for creating a customized search box for one's blog (and more). However, it does quite a bit more for both the blogger and the readers who use it. Best of all, I plan to use it here to allow you the readers to give me input about what topics you would like to see me address in future posts.

I am very new to Lijit, so I will plan to come back and do a follow-up post or two after I've been using it for awhile. For now, I would simply like to mention how I plan to use the service.

Lijit provides me with metrics about what readers are searching for on my blog. It also tells me whether what you are searching for is fairly well covered by previous posts or not. When I notice readers searching for topics that I have not adequately addressed, that will prompt me to post on these topics. Make sense? If it works like I expect, Lijit will provide you with a way to steer future Atheist Revolution content.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: Lijit, blog, widget, search, blogger

Related articles by Zemanta

• Who's Lijit? (lijit.com)
• Lijit Launches Content Networks After Feedburner Closes Theirs (centernetworks.com)
• Lijit Wordpress Plugin Update (lijit.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Earlier this week, our graduate program conducted interviews with prospective students applying for our doctoral program. After meeting with applicants, it was time to make some difficult decisions. Who would gain admission, and who would be turned away? How would I rank-order the applicants, and at what point would I draw the line so that nobody below this point would gain admission? As I reflect on the process, I must say that I find something unpleasant about this sort of power - the ability to influence the educational and occupational paths of others. I found myself feeling bad for those who didn't make the cut, even as I rationalized my decisions by telling myself that I would be doing a disservice both to the profession and to the applicants if I admitted people who were not qualified. It puzzles me how some could find pleasure in such an exercise of power, but it is clear that many do.

To some degree, each of us has power. We can influence the course of our lives within limits. When applied to ourselves, we often refer to this sort of power as "freedom." Many of us have another sort of power in that we can influence the lives of others. For example, a parent has power in that he or she can influence the lives of his or her children.

Most of us realize that this sort of power involves tremendous responsibility, and we do not exercise it lightly. Others seem to focus more on the exercise of power itself and much less on any sense of responsibility. For them, power becomes a tool with which to manipulate and control.

Some people even crave this sort of power to the point where they will commit despicable acts to obtain or maintain it. Some become the sort of politicians who work largely to line their own pockets and punish those who disagree with them. They may actually inflict harm on those they are supposed to represent in the interest of strengthening their political power.

Other power-hungry sorts become members of the clergy. Indeed, it is this sort of power at which religion truly excels. I am not sure any example one could find in the political or business worlds can touch religion. For the faithful, what could be a greater power than wielding influence over one's soul?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: power, admission, freedom, responsibility, parent, politics, religion

Related articles by Zemanta

• Letter to Obama: Stop Excluding Non-Believers (atheistrev.com)
• Guest Post: Getting Involved (atheistrev.com)
• Correcting the Atheist Myths (friendlyatheist.com)

Image via Wikipedia

After Friendly Atheist's recent post in which he asked readers whether they fit "the atheist stereotype," I realized that I was not completely sure what this particular stereotype entailed. Sure, I had some ideas, but I also thought it fairly likely that I was missing some important ingredients. I posed this question to my readers and received some useful input. Some of what I heard confirmed my hunches, but there were new aspects of the stereotype as well. In this post, I'd like to present the atheist stereotype in the hopes that it will facilitate future discussions of topics such as how atheists are perceived in society, the degree to which atheists fit the stereotype, and the like.

Below I have provided what appear to be components of the atheist stereotype. Please feel free to add to the list.

Atheists:

1. are politically liberal (e.g., support gay rights and abortion)
2. hate Christianity and/or the Christian god
3. trample people's rights of free religious expression
4. are always depressed, sad, or grumpylack hope
5. are immoral
6. are moral relativists
7. are uncivil and do not respect others
8. are prideful and lack humility
9. are angry
10. are militant
11. are evil
12. are arrogant
13. are mean, stingy, unforgiving, and generally horrible people
14. are sexually promiscuous
15. are more interested in science than the average person
16. are ignorant of scripture
17. have faith in evolution and worship Darwin
18. are determined to convert everyone else to their religion of materialism and negativity (i.e., secular humanism)
19. worship the devil or are agents of Satan

My goal here is not to challenge the accuracy of this stereotype but merely to uncover it so that we all know what each other means when we refer to the atheist stereotype. Again, please let me know if I have omitted anything you consider particularly important.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: atheist, stereotype, atheist stereotype, atheists

Image by danny.hammontree via Flickr

We all make a number of assumptions about the world in which we live. Some are fairly explicit and form the framework of our various worldviews. Others are implicit and may influence us outside of our conscious awareness. When we fall into overly rigid or inflexible patterns of thought and behavior, these implicit assumptions are often to blame. One of my implicit assumptions has recently come to light, and I am starting to wonder if it has been leading me in some wrong directions. In this post, I will reveal it, highlight its relevance to my own atheist worldview, and invite comment. If I've been in error on this one, I really want to know about it.

In a nutshell, my assumption is that more dialogue between disagreeing parties is nearly always preferable to less. I realize that disagreeing parties will not always come together in agreement, and I certainly realize that dialogue cannot solve all problems. However, I find myself clinging to the idea that more discussion is better than less.

It is this assumption which leads me to write posts encouraging atheist-theist dialogue and identifying obstacles to such dialogue. Even if I recognize that such dialogue will change few minds about the theistic claim itself (i.e., that some sort of god or gods exist), I am convinced that greater dialogue is beneficial to both sides and will ultimately reduce conflict.

I suppose this assumption was ingrained in me during childhood. For years, I was not even aware of it. There have been periods in my life where it got me in trouble, as I often found myself trying to make peace by encouraging opponents to come together and talk. Obviously, it does not always work.

Still, I cling to the idea that parties coming together to discuss their differences is nearly always preferable to the alternative. I am honestly not sure why I am starting to question this now. It is difficult to question what has long been an implicit assumption, but I feel that I must do so.

I suppose my questions to you (and to myself) are along the following lines?

• Are there circumstances where increased dialogue is counterproductive, and if so, what would be some examples of such circumstances?
• Do you think that atheist-theist dialogue is something to encourage?
  

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: dialogue, discussion, assumptions, worldview, atheist, atheist-theist dialogue