8.28.2009

When Our Feelings Mislead Us

Let's Talk About Feelings album coverImage via Wikipedia
Have you ever felt very strongly about something, acted on your feelings, and then turned out to be completely wrong? Yeah, me too. Whether it was that relationship you stayed in longer than you should have out of love or the gadget you bought because it seemed so exciting at the time, I think we can all relate to this experience. Clearly, our feelings, beliefs, and the like can (and often do) lead us astray. Most of us know this and try to take various precautions. For example, one of the things I've learned to do to prevent impulse buys is to force myself to wait a week before buying a big-ticket item. But what about those who are not able to distinguish between their feelings and reality?

In a recent post at Cubik's Rube, we encounter those objecting to an atheist ad that reads simply, "You can be good without God." It is easy to imagine that many religious people would disagree with such a statement. It is equally easy to imagine that some opponents of free expression might oppose the right of an atheist group to publicly display such a message. What is not at all easy to understand are those who insist that such a message is offensive.

8.13.2009

Organizing Atheists: Advancing the Atheist Movement

How can we take the atheist movement to the next level, improving our organization to better utilize our numbers, without erecting the sort of centralized hierarchy which so many atheists oppose? I think the trick is that we need not one atheist organization but several, each with a different but complementary mission. And for this to be maximally effective, we need to limit the amount of redundancy. For example, we need at least a few active atheist think tanks, but I am not sure we need 20 or 30 of them. We need a network for informing and mobilizing activists, but we do not need several (at least not if we want to begin to effectively utilize our numbers).

Herding Cats

In response to the inevitable question about why we should even consider improving our organization, I'll offer the following:

The atheist movement has so many important tasks to accomplish that some level of organization is essential. We need to better utilize our numbers and reduce redundant effort, much of which may be wasted.

Many atheists fear that improving our organization means a loss of freedom, but this is not necessarily so. The goal is not - and should not be - the development of a single organization to "govern" all atheists. The American Atheists model is not what we need. Rather, I envision a system laid out something like a wheel. Each spoke represents an organization (or small coalition of organizations) working toward a common goal. The hub of the wheel is merely a point of coordination among all the spokes.

I realize that some are so determined to interpret any form of organization as a threat to their autonomy. I find this unfortunate because it severely limits what the atheist movement can accomplish. We are far stronger when we come together than when we refuse to affiliate.

Spokes on a Wheel

Some of the necessary spokes are already in place and functioning quite well. For example, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State do an impressive job of working to protect the separation of church and state. We probably don't need additional groups focused on this task as much as we need to strengthen those that already do it so well.

We also have some great options in terms of community-building and social networking in the form of Atheist Nexus, Think Atheist, and others. We do not need more of these as much as we need to strengthen those already functioning well.

Other necessary spokes are virtually absent and represent opportunities for creative individuals or groups to make a significant impact. Atheist think tanks come to mind as something we need but do not currently have, at least not to the level we need. Another example might be a system for disseminating information about instances of anti-atheist bigotry and facilitating rapid responses from the atheist community. I am sure you cant think of a few others.

Local Atheism

What about the state and local atheist groups? How do they fit in? They are perhaps the most vital of all because they reflect the true grassroots. They are a critical part of the wheel too. But like the other parts, they would benefit from increased communication and coordination.

Imagine a local atheist group in Nevada doing some wonderful things. Unless their story is picked up and accurately portrayed in the right form of media, atheists in Montana may never hear of it. Moreover, some of what has been so successful in Nevada may be just what the Montana atheists are seeking.

Imagine how much more effective state and local efforts might be if there was improved communication among the many groups. Groups would remain autonomous but could at least hear what is working or not working elsewhere.

Organizing Atheists Via the MoveOn.org Model

I suggested that we create an atheist organization to inform and mobilize ourselves modeled after MoveOn.org. Such an organization would be merely another spoke in the wheel. It would serve a vital function which is now being shared by a number of groups that are spread too thin as a function of their much broader missions. By giving our atheist version of MoveOn.org a comparatively narrow focus, we would be able to devote all our work to a smaller set of goals.

8/20/09 Update: Since writing this post, I have rediscovered the Secular Coalition for America and realized that they are already serving at least some of the MoveOn-like function I previously described. Perhaps it would make more sense to strengthen them instead of creating yet another group.

8.12.2009

Organizing Atheists: The MoveOn.org Model

As disorganized as the atheist movement is, we have been making slow, steady progress in some areas. As much time as we waste duplicating each others' efforts and retreading the same ground, it is hard to deny that atheism is experiencing something of a renaissance today. If nothing else, we are seeing increasing numbers of atheists making the decision to no longer conceal their atheism. As happy as I am to see this, I can't help wondering what more we could accomplish with even small improvements in organization. We have not even come close to realizing our vast potential.

I have written quite a bit about the benefits of increased organization, activism, community building, and the like. I'm not going to repeat that here. Instead, I just want to throw out something that I think should serve as a model of precisely the sort of organization I think we could accomplish. Best of all, I think this model has the crucial advantage of being perfectly suited for overcoming much of the resistance many atheists have to organizing. That model is MoveOn.org.

I encourage you to spend a few minutes looking around the MoveOn.org website. Forget about their politics if you need to, and just notice the layout, capabilities, etc.

MoveOn.org has signed up over 5 million members. Think about what that means. They have contact information (at least e-mail addresses) for 5 million people. That means 5 million voters, 5 million potential donors, and 5 million potential activists which can be mobilized.

MoveOn.org regularly polls their supporters and actually modifies their agenda to reflect what the majority of their supporters want. This is how grassroots is supposed to work. Imagine being part of an organization which not only listens to its members but tailors its agenda to represent them. What a welcome departure from how such groups usually seem to work.

Now that you've looked around their website, can you really tell me that we couldn't do that for the atheist movement? I may not personally have the technical expertise to design a slick website like that, but I am fairly confident that many of you could do so. What else would be needed? A web domain and host, a board of directors, a little money to get up and running, publicity, non-profit status perhaps? I'm sure it isn't quite as simple as I'm making it sound, but I cannot believe that we in the atheist community couldn't pull it off.

Just imagine the next time some jackass pundit or politician engages in anti-atheist bigotry. Action alerts go out to members via email, petitions are circulated, letters are written, calls are made, press releases go out to news agencies. And instead of every damn blogger, forum host, Twitter user, etc. having to do it themselves without necessarily knowing what others are doing, it is done from this sort of organization. Imagine the clout of a Pharyngula multiplied several times over! That is what we're talking about here.

I refuse to believe that this is beyond our means. Together, we could do this. The only question is why we aren't doing it.

8.07.2009

Atheism Does Not Require Certainty

For a variety of reasons, some Christians erroneously insist that atheism entails absolute certainty that no gods exist. They attempt to paint atheists as irrational or demand that we somehow prove that there aren't any gods. This reflects either a misconception about the meaning of atheism or another less innocent motive. In fact, atheism does not require any particular level of certainty. All it requires is the failure to affirm belief in some sort of god(s).

Consider each of the following two questions for a moment, and notice the important difference between them?
  1. Do you believe in some sort of god or gods?
  2. Are you absolutely certain of your answer to question #1 to the degree that you have no doubt whatsoever that your answer is correct?
Only one of these questions is relevant to atheism. I'll give you a hint: it isn't the second one. Okay, that is not really fair. Both are relevant, but only the first is necessary to classify someone into the mutually exclusive categories of theist and atheist.

By definition, a theist is someone who believes in some sort of god or gods. That is, one must answer question #1 in the affirmative in order to be a theist. And yes, anyone who affirms question #1 is a theist. This is why atheists ask theists for evidence of their god(s). The theist is making a positive claim that something exists, and so the atheist is inquiring about the evidence to support this claim.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in any sort of god(s). One who fails to affirm question #1 is, by definition, an atheist. Again, if you do not believe in some sort of god(s), you are an atheist.

Question #2 is relevant in the sense that it contributes information about one's level of confidence, but it is not necessary in order to classify someone as theist or atheist. And as we know, one's confidence in any particular belief is not a valid indicator of the truth of that belief.

And so one is a theist if one answers "yes" to question #1 regardless of how one answers question #2. Some theists do profess quite a bit of certainty; others report considerable uncertainty. Doing so does not make them any more or less of a theist, although we might call a theist who is very low on certainty an "agnostic theist."

Likewise, those who do not answer "yes" to question #1 are atheists, regardless of how they answer question #2. That is, atheism does not require any particular level of certainty. An atheist reporting low certainty might be called an "agnostic atheist," but that does not make him or her any less of an atheist.

We would not say that a Christian who experiences some doubts about her faith is suddenly no longer a Christian because she does not claim to be 100% certain. In the same way, an atheist who is not 100% certain (or uncertain, if you prefer) does not magically stop being an atheist.

8.04.2009

Bible Commands Christians to Kill Nonbelievers

Christians and Pagans, a painting by Sergei Ivanov
Christians and Pagans, a painting by Sergei Ivanov (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One often hears that it is not religious belief itself that is problematic but religious extremism. This sounds appealing until one realizes that the presence of religious believers, including religious moderates, is what often shields religious extremists from criticism. That is, the presence of religious moderates seems to provide a context in which religious extremism doesn't seem nearly as irrational and dangerous as it probably should. Moderate believers make it more difficult to question even the most extreme religious beliefs.

But isn't it a bit of an exaggeration to say that religious extremism is actually dangerous? Maybe some Islamic extremists are dangerous, but surely there is nothing wrong with their Christian counterparts in the U.S.! I mean, isn't their "holy" book mostly about how they should be nice to others (e.g., love thy neighbor and all that)? Even if many seem to ignore these parts and treat others with anything but kindness, doesn't their instruction book at least convey that positive message?

8.03.2009

C Street and Our Anti-Democratic Members of Congress

Cover of "The Family: The Secret Fundamen...Cover via Amazon

Uncovering evidence of another Christian extremist organization in the U.S. is not exactly newsworthy. There are many such groups, and they are nothing new. However, when the particular Christian extremist organization proves to be extremely secretive, proudly compare itself to the mafia, and counts many members of Congress among its members, one hopes that a flurry of investigative reporting would be unleashed. Moreover, one hopes that this investigative reporting would continue until all the information worth knowing about such a group becomes public. Now just imagine that the organization we're talking about also proves to be anti-democratic to the core.

Of course, we are talking about "the Family" and their insufficiently infamous C Street "church" for a number of conservative Christians in Congress. The problem with this group and the reason that we need to demand both serious investigative reporting and a dramatic increase in media coverage is not simply that this is a Christian dominionist organization. No, the real problems are that the group poses a clear and present danger to American democracy. They have been convincing our elected officials that they do not answer to us or to the laws we have enacted to preserve our society.

We simply cannot afford to ignore the Family, nor can we allow elected officials to continue to participate in such a group, without expecting seriously unpleasant consequences.

H/T to Stardust Musings and Thoughts for the Freethinker