9.30.2014

Content to Ignore Gamergate

I have been asked a few times why I have had nothing to say about the gamergate controversy currently raging on social media. I have explained that I don't know enough about it to have much to say.

To unpack that a bit more since it seems to be of great interest, I have steered clear of gamergate for at least three reasons:
  1. I do not consider myself a gamer.
  2. Much of the controversy sounds so familiar to what we have been hearing from social justice warriors about atheists and skeptics that I'd prefer to address these issues in the context of atheism and skepticism.
  3. I have outrage fatigue.
Not a gamer

With a few brief exceptions over a decade ago, I never really got into PC gaming. I enjoyed a few titles for a while but had neither the interest nor the money to build the sort of gaming systems that were required to keep up with the latest and greatest. I have minimal experience playing with others online. I guess doing so never held much interest for me.

At the present time, my gaming activity consists of occasionally playing obsolete sports games on an equally console. If it died tomorrow, I wouldn't bother to replace it. So no, I don't see myself as much of a gamer at all.

What I will say is that sexism and misogyny were certainly evident the couple of times I dabbled with online gaming years ago. Same with racism, homophobia, and all sorts of other unpleasant utterances. This didn't surprise me in the least. I assumed that most of the people I encountered in these online gaming communities were teenage boys. Having once been a teenage boy, I figured that this stuff probably comes with the territory. This doesn't make it acceptable; it makes it typical.

On the question of whether sexism and misogyny are serious problems among gamers, I'll gladly defer to the avid gamers. They are in a much better position to evaluate this than I am.

9.29.2014

Liberals Giving Islam a Pass Are Mistaken

English: Bill Maher attending a ceremony to re...
Bill Maher attending a ceremony to receive a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
What is it called when we routinely criticize one group of people for objectionable behavior while virtually ignoring the same behavior when committed by another group? Perhaps there is a more precise name for this sort of thing, but the one that most readily springs to mind for me is hypocrisy.

Yes, we usually think of hypocrisy as condemning someone else for doing what we ourselves are doing (e.g., "It's okay when we do it!"). But condemning the behavior of one group while giving another a pass for doing the same thing - or even worse things - certainly strikes me as hypocritical. At the very least, it is the sort of thing we should seek to avoid.

Bill Maher (HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher) recently scolded liberals for giving Islam a pass on all sorts of human rights violations. I think he's right that this is a problem, and it is one of a handful of things that has come to irk me about my fellow liberals. Yes, I am still a liberal. And no, that does not mean I have found it necessary to drink the kool-aid that prevents me from thinking critically about liberalism and its more problematic aspects. I suppose one could say that I'm a freethinker before I'm a liberal.

9.28.2014

Biblical Immorality

Titlepage of the New Testament section of a Ge...
Titlepage of the New Testament section of a German Luther Bible, printed in 1769. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
When atheists criticize the sort of morality found in both the Old Testament and New Testament of the book Christians call "holy," we tend to select a few choice examples that highlight the sharp contrast between what the Judeo-Christian god allegedly did and modern values. We might pick slavery or rape, for example, and point out how the god Christians claim to worship advocated these things which we now recognize as abhorrent. Many of our criticisms are fairly specific in this way, but it is also possible to step back and draw on larger examples of the sort that might be described as themes which permeate much of the bible.

Imagine that a parent raised a child to think and behave in a certain way. The child, who trusts the parent, conforms to the parent's wishes. If the child is young enough, we might conclude that the child does not have much choice in the matter and is effectively being molded by the parent. Now suppose that this same parent brutally punishes the child for thinking and behaving in the very ways he or she has instructed the child to think and behave. Perhaps the scope of the punishment even includes murder. It wouldn't make much sense, would it? We would be fairly quick to agree that such a parent was doing a rather poor job of parenting (to say the least). And yet, it is perfectly acceptable for the Judeo-Christian god to do this throughout the bible. Mysterious ways and all.

9.24.2014

Outrage Culture: Effects

Profesor Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Now that we have at least a cursory understanding of what we mean by outrage culture, we can ask ourselves why it is worth discussing. Is it merely an annoyance we are likely to encounter from time-to-time that we should just ignore, or could it affect us in ways we might not like?

From what I have observed, the effects of outrage culture are extensive in the sense that it has changed how people interact with one another. It has impacted businesses and how they deal with their employees, celebrities and how they interact with the public, blogs and how they view their audience, and it has had a pervasive impact at institutions of higher education. Just think of how many times you've read something online and thought to yourself, "The author is going to take some heat for that."

Paradoxically, outrage culture has effectively neutered some genuinely necessary social justice activism (i.e., it is difficult to bring about transformative change when one merely drifts from one outrage to another). It divides activist communities, fueling tribalism and turning potential allies against one another. How are we supposed to make progress on real-world goals when we spend so much of our time fighting with each other on the Internet?

And not surprisingly, outrage culture is a threat to free speech, one which aims to limit the exchange of unpopular ideas for which the Internet has been so beneficial. I have seen many atheists, for example, suggesting that Richard Dawkins should not use Twitter. Why? It seems that he has a tendency to say things with which they disagree. Evidently, it would be preferable for him to remain silent. Outrage culture can even serve to limit the type of material we have access to.

As concerning as all of this should be, I am beginning to think that there is an even more troubling aspect of outrage culture, one that makes it especially toxic and resistant to change: outrage culture seems to provide cover for treating others poorly.

9.20.2014

Criticizing Dogpiling vs. Defending the Target

English: Clachan Yell Looking North towards th...
Clachan Yell Looking North towards the summit of Clachan Yell. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In the typical social justice warrior dogpile one sees on the Internet, someone says something at which others take offense, and the the offended pounce. The rhetoric quickly escalates from "what you said was sexist" to "you are sexist" to wild accusations of "misogyny" and complaints that the target of the dogpile is an utterly contemptible person. This transformation takes no more than seconds.

What would it look like to defend someone being hit with such a dogpile? In the case of alleged sexism, one line of defense might be to argue that what the target said was not sexist. This might involve providing an alternative interpretation of what the target said in order to make the point that the statement, while perceived as sexist by some, may not have been intended that way and/or may not be perceived that way by many others. In essence, the person using this defense would be gently suggesting that the statement had been misinterpreted by the outraged. Of course, this defense might involve a more direct challenge of the claim that what the target said was sexist. Such a defense could flatly deny that there was anything even remotely sexist in the original statement. The point in both cases would be to challenge the notion that the statement was sexist.

9.18.2014

Keep Speaking Out to Celebrate Free Inquiry

Salman Rushdie presenting his book "Shali...
Salman Rushdie presenting his book "Shalimar the clown" at Mountain View, USA, October 2005 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Anything one says that is truly meaningful will end up offending someone. Of course, the fact that a meaningful statement will inevitably offend someone does not mean that an offensive statement is necessarily meaningful. And this in no way means that you or I should go out of our way to say offensive things. It simply means that we should not let others' protests about feeling offended prevent us from saying something meaningful.

Most of us will be subject to various social pressures, but we must not allow others to prevent us from making what would be meaningful statements. This is true whether the offended are religious extremists complaining of blasphemy or secular social justice warriors advocating a repressive form of political correctness propelled by outrage culture.

We need to hear from people who are different from us and/or who have different views than we do. This includes viewpoints we may not like. We need the experience of having our views questioned and even challenged by others. Without these experiences, we fall prey to groupthink, confirmation bias, and a host of other errors in thinking that will lead us astray. Without these experiences, we deprive ourselves of many excellent learning opportunities. We need to accept - even embrace - the inevitability of being wrong. This helps keep us humble enough that we may be open to learning from others.

9.16.2014

Who and Why Does Jesus Save?

I said something recently on Twitter about how it seems that there is no one unified Christianity but many Christianities, almost as many as there are Christians. This was hardly an original thought or an attempt at profundity. It was a passing observation of the sort that Twitter is well suited for sharing.

The following response quickly appeared in my timeline:

Jesus Saves
Not a bad point. Christians do seem to have the Jesus belief in common. Of course, that does not mean that Christians agree on what sort of person Jesus was, what he wants from them, and the like. And as I suggested in my response to the tweet above, there is still great variability in who and why Christians think Jesus "saves."

9.14.2014

Dismantling Pascal's Wager

Blaise Pascal argued that if reason cannot be ...
Blaise Pascal argued that if reason cannot be trusted, it is a better "wager" to believe in God than not to do so. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Like it or not (and I don't like it one bit), it is apparent that those of us who limit ourselves to producing text content are limiting our reach considerably. The people, particularly the younger ones, want podcasts, image-oriented memes, and YouTube videos. And while I don't plan to do any of this anytime soon, I'm glad that others are doing so. We need variety, especially if it leads to greater reach.

I've only recently started to watch more than the occasional atheist-oriented video on YouTube. I know, I'm horribly behind the times in this regard. I'm not sure what to say except that I haven't wanted to do anything that requires me to sit in front of a computer for any more time than I already sit in front of a computer. This has meant that I probably haven't been watching more than 1-2 YouTube videos a month.

After picking up a Chromecast recently, I've been watching more atheist-oriented videos on YouTube. I may still be anchored to the TV to which I attach it, but I can at least move around while using it. Watching more videos has been an interesting experience because I am finally starting to become familiar with some of the names I've heard regularly but did not know much about.

9.09.2014

Principles of New Atheism

Principles of New Atheism

As you have undoubtedly heard, Victor Stenger died recently. He was an influential voice writing on atheism, and it is clear that his contributions will be missed. I really enjoyed his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, which I read in 2008 (you can find some thoughts on it here). I'd like to get around to reading more from him one of these days.

John Loftus (Debunking Christianity) recently posted the graphic above, which he said he found on Stenger's website and suggested that it may have been based on another of his books, The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason. I have not read that one yet, so I cannot say I am familiar with how Stenger argues for the points above.

As I scanned down this list, I realized that I had no idea some of these were supposed to be part of what some continue to call "new atheism." The only ones on the list I've ever associated with this so-called "new atheism" would be the first two. Then again, I don't find "new atheism" to be a particularly meaningful label. The only thing new about it seems to be that the news media has finally decided to pay attention to atheists. That is nice, but does having a larger platform really make something new? I then realized that I do not agree with everything on this list of principles.

9.07.2014

Church Billboards

English: Smithville Christian Church and its b...
Smithville Christian Church and its billboard. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Many of the larger churches here in Mississippi have billboards around town, and many of the smaller ones have electronic signs that are visible to passing drivers. Some of these signs are merely advertisements, announcing what time services are held; however, most of them seem to be more general and appear to have the goal of getting people to believe in someone named Jesus. Using as few words as possible, they try to sell this Jesus character in much the same way any good advertiser would attempt to sell goods or services.

Who is the intended audience for all this signage? I'm guessing it probably isn't atheists. Many of us are ex-Christians who have read the Christian's "holy" book and found it lacking. We're familiar with the pitch, and we aren't buying it. I suspect many Christians must know that, even if they are reluctant to admit it. Perhaps the audience for these signs is more likely to be the sort of "cultural Christians" who profess belief when it suits them but live lives that are not appreciably different from non-Christians. Maybe the hope is that these signs will make them feel guilty or fearful enough to return.

9.04.2014

Outrage Culture: Introduction

English: An Internet troll in its native habitat.
An Internet troll in its native habitat. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Internet has been referred to as a great equalizer in the sense that it puts the power to disseminate ideas in the hands of many who previously lacked an effective way to spread their message. One no longer needs to own a newspaper, radio station, or television channel to share one's views with a global audience. Instead, one can start a blog, a podcast, or a YouTube channel and participate in a variety of social media platforms.

As a result of these capabilities, the Internet has become a bastion of free expression where unpopular views can find a home. Some of the messages now spread by the Internet are potentially beneficial (e.g., informing the public about police brutality, war crimes, political corruption); others are potentially destructive (e.g., racism, xenophobia, misogyny). This seems inevitable as the Internet has become an effective means of spreading the sort of diverse viewpoints and dissenting views that often ignored by many in the mainstream news media. In fact, this is a big part of what makes it so attractive to many of us who do not feel that our interests are adequately represented by what we read in newspapers or see on television news.

Atheism is an excellent example of this, for it remains a minority view and is still considered a taboo subject by many. While we are certainly hearing more about atheism today than we did only 10 years ago, it still pales in comparison to what we hear about religion. Fortunately, it has become easy for people curious about atheism to find information on the Internet. I suspect that the meteoric rise of atheism on the Internet is one of the reasons that we are hearing a bit more about atheism from the traditional news media.

9.03.2014

Many Atheists Do Care About Religion

Kevin Sorbo
Kevin Sorbo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Why do so many atheists seem to care so much about religion? If we don't believe in gods or share religious beliefs, why do we spend so much of our time thinking about them, talking about them, writing about them, etc.? This is a common question atheists face from religious believers.

I usually seek to answer it by explaining that atheists differ in our motives for focusing on religion. Some atheists are interested in trying to understand something they find quite puzzling (i.e., how could anybody possibly believe this nonsense in this modern age?). Others don't feel like we have much choice in the matter - we consider religion because it is constantly being pushed on us, forcing us to contend with it. We consider it because we feel that we must.

Writing for The State Press (Tempe, AZ), Megan Janetsky responded to actor Kevin Sorbo's recent bigoted tirade against atheists by addressing why many atheists might concern ourselves with religion.
Obviously Sorbo feels very strongly on a topic of which he’s only willing to present one side, but it does pose the question: Why do atheists care about religion?

9.01.2014

Bigotry Against Atheists is Still Socially Acceptable

Touro Synagogue, built in 1759 in Newport, Rho...
Touro Synagogue, built in 1759 in Newport, Rhode Island, is America's oldest surviving synagogue (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today is Labor Day in the United States. I do have the day off, but I'll be working from home in the hope that I can get somewhat caught up. I seem to be behind no matter how many hours I put in.

Instead of writing some diatribe about how those of you who have the day off should be thanking liberals and labor unions, I thought I'd touch on something only peripherally related to Labor Day but sadly relevant to most working atheists: bigotry in the workplace.

Imagine a conversation occurring in one's place of employment in which one party identifies himself or herself as Jewish and the other party, an evangelical Christian, responds with something like the following:

Oh, I didn't know you were Jewish. You always seemed like such a nice person!

I may be wrong about this, but I suspect that most employed adults in the U.S. today would recognize the bigotry reflected in this response and would not expect to hear it in their workplace. They would perceive the statement as inappropriate. I realize that there will be exceptions to this, particularly in regions dominated by evangelical fundamentalist Christianity like the South. This is important to acknowledge because I have actually heard this statement from Christians on multiple occasions here in Mississippi. So no, not everyone is going to recognize it as inappropriate. But on balance, I have to imagine that most people outside such regions would experience the sort of involuntary cringe we tend to have when someone says something offensive after hearing this statement.

And yet, if we replace "Jewish" with "atheist," something striking happens. The statement is no longer widely recognized as inappropriate. Many people can now hear it without the cringe reaction. They might not agree with the sentiment being expressed, but they are much less shocked to hear it. Many do not even perceive it as bigoted.