1.31.2015

Super Bowl: An Exercise in Reaffirming One's Faith

Tomorrow is Super Bowl Sunday in the U.S., one of our most popular and most ridiculous national celebrations. Don't get me wrong - I certainly understand why someone who likes football and whose favorite team is playing would enjoy the game. I'd be glued to the game if my favorite team was playing. There's no doubt about that. The rest of the time, however, I don't see much appeal. The most common reason I hear from others about why they watch the game every year is a vague sense that they are supposed to do so because it is what everyone else is doing. I can't say I find this a compelling argument for doing much of anything.

When I watch the Super Bowl, it is usually because I'd like to see one team win or one team lose. And once in awhile, I really want one team to win and the other lose. These often end up being enjoyable games to watch because I care about the outcome. But I don't always watch the Super Bowl. I usually don't care who wins or loses, and I find that this makes for a boring experience. And not just that, but when I don't care who wins, the hype somehow becomes less tolerable. Beyond not caring who wins, I have skipped the game some years for other reasons. Sometimes I find myself thinking that this entire spectacle is something I'd rather not support.

1.28.2015

Most Social Justice Advocates are Not Social Justice Warriors

Occupy Oakland Nov 12 2011 PM 40
By Mercurywoodrose (Own work)
The term social justice warrior has a specific meaning that is clearly distinct from "social justice advocate" or "social justice activist." Most social justice advocates are not social justice warriors. I tried to address this distinction previously, but I did not do a very good job of it. In fact, I did a rather poor job of it. Among other things, I made the mistake of sticking too closely to an imperfect definition and focusing too much on internal states (e.g., motive and intent). In this post, I'd like to take another stab at highlighting the primary differences between social justice advocacy and "social justice warriorism."

Why is this a relevant topic for an atheist blog? First, we regularly encounter it. Many atheists have been affected by social justice warriors at least since the emergence of Atheism+. More recently, we have seen it in #GamerGate, #ShirtStorm, #manspreading, and even in the aftermath of Ferguson. Second, the distinction continues to be widely misunderstood. I regularly see atheists and humanists complaining that they are being criticized for advocating for social justice. This is almost never why they are being criticized; they are being criticized for engaging in specific behaviors associated with social justice warriors. Third and most important, the behavior of social justice warriors undermines valuable social justice advocacy on a number of issues about which many atheists are concerned. Thus, much (though certainly not all) of the criticism of "social justice warriorism" is coming from people who care about social justice issues.

1.27.2015

Redefining Faith

English: 1857 lithograph by Armand Gautier, sh...
1857 lithograph by Armand Gautier, showing personifications of dementia, megalomania, acute mania, melancholia, idiocy, hallucination, erotic mania and paralysis in the gardens of the Hospice de la Salpêtrière. Reprinted in Madness: A Brief History (ISBN 978-0192802668), from which this version is taken. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Since I picked up a Chromecast back in August, I've been watching lots of atheist-oriented videos on YouTube. One of my favorites so far would have to be this brief talk on faith by Dr. Peter Boghossian from 2012. In the video (embedded below), Dr. Boghossian suggests that we redefine faith as "pretending to know things you don't know." He suggests that this will have at least three benefits:
  1. It will bring greater clarity by helping us avoid some of the more "slippery" definitions used by religious believers.
  2. It will help us separate faith from morality.
  3. It will help us more clearly distinguish between faith and hope.
All three of these benefits strike me as worthwhile. I have encountered many religious believers, mostly Christians, who seem to change their definition of faith (and many other words) on the fly as it suits their purposes. This complicates any sort of meaningful discussion. And Dr. Boghossian is absolutely correct to suggest that the popular association of faith with morality is one of the most significant obstacles we face in promoting reason and working to overcome bigotry toward secular persons. Lastly, the distinction between faith and hope should be obvious in the sense that one is a knowledge claim and the other is not. This rarely seems to be the case, however, and Dr. Boghossian's proposed definition of faith might help make this a bit more clear.

1.24.2015

Base Rate Fallacy: Gender and Atheism in Britain

phone booth

If you are an atheist living in the U.K., you might have noticed that your local secular activist groups seem to attract more men than women. What might this mean? Does this mean that the secular movement in the U.K. is "hostile to women" like some have suggested it is here in the U.S.? Are women refusing to join such groups because of rampant sexism and misogyny? I suppose that is possible, but a recent study from the UCL Institute of Education offers at least one alternative explanation: we may see more men in the secular movement because men are more likely to identify themselves as not believing in gods.

According to the National Secular Society, the study sampled the 1970 British Cohort Study, meaning that it included roughly 9,000 Britons in their 40s. This is an interesting age range since we tend to hear far more about younger samples. Using this sample, they found that men were about twice as likely to identify themselves as atheists as were women. If this is the case, wouldn't we have to expect to see more men involved in secular activism?

1.21.2015

Difficulty Explaining Something is Not Useful Evidence

German garden gnome
By Colibri1968 at en.wikipedia [Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons

Suppose I planted a small vegetable garden in a corner of my yard. In spite of my lack of any real gardening ability, it is coming along well. Everything is growing as it is supposed to, and I am thrilled that I will soon have fresh vegetables. But then disaster strikes. I go out one Saturday morning to do some weeding and discover that something has been digging up my garden. Some of the plants have been completely uprooted. I repair the damage the best I can, but it keeps happening. I consult with the staff of the local garden store and try a variety of solutions they recommend, ranging from a small chicken wire fence around the perimeter of the garden to various chemical compounds supposed to safely repel rodents and other small animals. Nothing works.

What is digging up my garden? Suppose I were to tell you that I believe the culprit is some sort of magic gnome. After you were finished laughing, you'd inquire about my evidence for such an implausible scenario. "I've got plenty of evidence," I tell you, "just look at my garden!" I remind you that my garden is being dug up every few days. I list off the various solutions I have tried, all of which has been ineffective. I remind you that nobody has been able to explain what is causing the damage. "You see, it has to be a gnome."

1.20.2015

#Manspreading and Publicly Shaming Strangers

manspreading

I have a confession to make. When I've had a long day, am in dire need of a laugh, and find myself craving the sort of absurdity that will always bring a smile, I check out the #manspreading hashtag on Twitter.

If you haven't heard of manspreading, you soon will. It seems to be the next big thing for many online feminists. It refers to men sitting like men on public transit. From what I've been able to gather, it is an extremely serious problem. It seems to have started in New York toward the end of last year, quickly gaining momentum before spreading to other cities in the U.S. (e.g., Seattle, San Francisco) and even some European countries. And yes, it has become my new favorite thing.

I don't mean that actually manspreading has become my favorite thing. I don't live in an area with public transportation. I mean that following the hashtag has become my favorite thing. The content one finds there consists primarily of outraged women (and a few men) taking candid photos of men sitting on public transit and then sharing these photos on Twitter for the purpose of publicly shaming these men.

1.19.2015

Coalition Building for Atheists

coalition
I cannot think of very many areas where we atheists, humanists, skeptics, and/or freethinkers can bring about meaningful change all by ourselves. Even if we look at the few things most (though certainly not all) of us have in common, we are quite limited in what we can do with regard to any one of them. We probably can't bring about significant improvements in reality-based education, preserve separation of church and state, end discrimination against atheists, or stop our elected officials from pursuing religiously-motivated policies detrimental to the public good all by ourselves. To produce the sort of change many of us are interested in, we have to be able to work with each other. We are probably even going to need to build coalitions that include religious believers.

Perhaps we could do it on our own if more secular individuals were interested in activism and willing to organize. If we could figure out how to effectively mobilize non-theists around issues like the separation of church and state, our numbers could not be ignored. But this doesn't seem to be happening. For many issues, even those as basic as the separation of church and state or free speech, it often seems like we have an easier time finding allies in the form of religious minorities (e.g., non-Christian religious believers). And that means that those of us who are interested in such issues need to be ready, willing, and able to work with religious believers on shared goals.

1.18.2015

Muhammad Cartoons, Pork Sausages, and Muslim Outrage

Mohammed2

Here are three statements to consider:

  1. I don't like pork sausages.
  2. Eating pork sausages is wrong.
  3. Anyone who eats pork sausages should be punished.

Statement #1 is a preference that tells us something about the person making the statement, and nothing more. It cannot be meaningfully debated. It makes little sense to talk about it being true or false, right or wrong. Statement #2 is a value judgment. It contains a moral claim which can be meaningfully debated. Statement #3 represents the use of state power to enforce a value judgment. We can debate it, but we often do so at our own risk. This is something we have come to expect in theocratic societies, but we see it in democratic societies like the U.S. too where religious beliefs are often legislated (e.g., blue laws).

Statement #1 causes no problems for anyone, as long as we understand it for what it is. Statement #2 is not inherently problematic. It is easy to imagine someone adding "for me" or "for Muslims" at the end. This would make Statement #2 little more than an individual moral decision or a harmless religious tradition. If Muslims decide not to eat pork, so be it. In fact, more power to them. Statements like this can be problematic when they are elevated to the sort of absolutes often associated with "sacred" or "holy" beliefs and subsequently imposed on unwilling others. For example, it is not reasonable for Muslims to demand that non-Muslims eat pork sausages because their religion says it is wrong. Statements like this can also become problematic if they are used as a basis for treating people who do not conform to it poorly (e.g., you are an evil person because I saw you eat a pork sausage).

1.17.2015

Discouraging Human Rights Violations

Flag of Saudi Arabia
Flag of Saudi Arabia (Public Domain Images)
I find myself wishing these days that the United States had not seriously undermined our moral standing in the world by refusing to hold our political leaders accountable for war crimes, including torture. Even if it is not too late for us to remedy this serious moral lapse now, it seems clear that we remain unwilling to do so.

It seems to me that we would be operating from a more solid position in seeking to discourage human rights violations on the part of allies like Saudi Arabia if we had only shown some moral backbone in dealing with our own atrocities. I have to imagine that many other countries have a difficult time taking us seriously when we complain about their various abuses. We tortured people and continue to refuse to hold those who authorized it accountable in any way. And now we want to lecture other countries on their human rights violations?

Of course I would like to see the United States intervene to stop human rights violations in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. The manner in which the Saudis have treated Raif Badawi is appalling, and I sincerely hope that the international outcry brings his punishment to an abrupt halt. Our own moral failings aside, intervening on the side of human rights is still the right thing to do. It just seems like we might have a bit more clout when we did intervene if we were a bit better about following our own advice.

1.15.2015

Preferences Are Neither Right Nor Wrong

English: Justin Bieber at the Sentul Internati...
Justin Bieber at the Sentul International Convention Center in West Java, Indonesia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
We all differ in our preferences (i.e., the things we like), and one of the things that makes preferences so interesting is that there really isn't any meaningful way they can be right or wrong. You and I may like very different things, but neither of us can be correct or incorrect in what we like. There are almost certainly foods you love that I can't stand and vice versa. Neither of us is right or wrong in what we like; we are just different.

As simple as this seems, I am fascinated by how quickly it can break down in practice. Announce publicly on the Internet that you have used iOS and Android devices and prefer one to the other, and you will see what I mean. Many people will tell you that you are wrong; some will even condemn you on the basis of which smart phone OS you prefer. You'll see the same thing with sports teams, game consoles, and all sorts of other things. But as long as you are stating your preference and not making claims about how X is objectively better than Y, your preference isn't right or wrong; it just is.

You may love the music of Justin Bieber and look forward to hearing the Christmas music that plays in all the stores every December. I may think you are nuts for doing so, but I can't really argue that you are somehow wrong to do so. You may be equally puzzled by my enjoyment of the music of bands like Cannibal Corpse or Slayer, wondering how anyone could like a band that just sounds like noise to you or that sings about such awful things. We clearly have different preferences, but that would seem like a silly basis for condemnation. At least, it should seem like a silly basis for condemnation, shouldn't it?

1.13.2015

Christian Fatalism

Fatalism.
Fatalism. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Many evangelical fundamentalist Christians are fond of talking about how some sort of god works in their lives, and some may actually believe this. They attribute virtually anything that happens to their preferred god. When they receive a job offer, it is because their god wants them to have this particular job. When they are subsequently fired from this same job a few months later, it is because their god apparently changed its mind and decided that something else would be better for them. When they meet someone and fall in love, it is because their god put this person in their life. When their child is expelled from school for stabbing a classmate, this is their god working in mysterious ways they do not fully understand. But since their god never gives them more than they can handle, they persevere.

What I've described here is not uncommon for evangelical fundamentalist Christians. What I find most fascinating about it is that they often seem to count it as a form of evidence in support of their god belief. That is, they claim that an important part of why they believe is that they experience their god working in their lives. And how do they know that this god is working in their lives? Because they believe it. We may recognize this as circular reasoning, but they rarely seem to do so.

1.12.2015

Why is Free Speech So Important?

Steven Pinker
Steven Pinker (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Nearly all of us agree that our right to free expression is important; it is their right to say things we find objectionable that often seems to become controversial. We are quick to agree in the abstract that free speech is valuable even if we often disagree about how important it is relative to our desire to shape society in ways we personally find more pleasing.

It is also interesting to note that many of those who are willing to utilize social pressure in an attempt to shape the speech of others do not recognize what they are doing as suppressing the free speech of others. Some go so far as to mock and deride those of us who try to defend free speech (e.g., "freeze peach"). If they recognize that their efforts have the aim of suppressing speech they find objectionable, they seem to have decided that protecting the feelings of those who might take offense is worth more than the right of free expression. It is baffling to see some of these same people now jumping to express support Charlie Hebdo, almost as if they fail to recognize that the views they have expressed have been closer to people like Bill Donahue and others calling for the enforcement of blasphemy laws and seeking to demonize the cartoonists. Others have been more consistent in their opposition to free speech. Jerry Coyne (Why Evolution is True) linked to a few recent examples of atheist bloggers accusing Charlie Hebdo of racism, sexism, hate speech, and the like.

But why is free speech so important? Why is it something that always seems to be threatened? And why is it something we should all seek to defend, even when it involves the expression of ideas we find abhorrent? Many find that these are surprisingly difficult questions to answer.

1.09.2015

Ridiculing, Mocking, and Satirizing Religion

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Mohammed by Hlkolaya
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Mohammed by Hlkolaya (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Philosopher Stephen Law (The Outer Limits with Stephen Law) wrote an informative post following the Charlie Hebdo murders in which he explains the point of making fun of religion. While he is understandably focused on Islam, I believe that what he says applies to all religious traditions, figures, and institutions. For this reason, I encourage anyone who has questioned the utility of mockery, ridicule, or satire directed at religion to read his post.

Law begins by explaining that the point of mocking, ridiculing, and/or satirizing religious figures, traditions, institutions, or beliefs is not usually to offend religious believers. Such content certainly may produce offense among believers; however, this is not usually the primary goal.

This is an interesting point and sure to be controversial. If offending Muslims is not the aim of mocking Mohammad, then what is? If someone's primary goal is not to provoke outrage or offense among the religious, then why would use ridicule, mockery, or satire? Law offers two reasons:
  1. Through laughter, people may be helped to recognize the truth about the subject matter.
  2. Ridicule, mockery, and satire are all forms of free expression that are under assault (e.g., blasphemy laws). When more of us use them, we make their use safer for everyone, protecting the right to free expression from those who seek to destroy it.

1.08.2015

More Violence From Offended Muslims?


When a major news story breaks, especially an emotionally charged one, I generally try to keep my thoughts to myself for at least the first 24-48 hours or so. Not only am I much more likely to say something stupid when I'm emotionally aroused, but I have learned that the information reported by our news media during and immediately after major events often turns out to be wrong in major ways (e.g., Oklahoma City bombing, Columbine).

With this in mind, I want to acknowledge that it is possible we might eventually learn that some or all of the persons identified as responsible for the murders at the Charlie Hebdo in Paris were not Muslim or that their motivation for this despicable act had nothing whatsoever to do with the paper's cartoon depictions of Muhammad. But at this point, the emerging narrative strongly suggests otherwise. And this raises the following question for me: if it does turn out that the perpetrators were Muslims who were motivated primarily by offense over cartoons, how will those on the political left who continue to deny that Islam is a problem will explain this away?

1.07.2015

Promoting Skepticism

English: Skepticism educator James Randi at a ...
Skepticism educator James Randi at a lecture at Rockefeller University, on October 10, 2008. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
As one gets to know more atheists, it becomes clear that there are many different paths that bring people to atheism. Some atheists were never indoctrinated into any sort of religion and have always been atheistic. They did not have to travel any sort of path to atheism. Those of us who were indoctrinated were indoctrinated into different religious traditions and in different ways. Some never really believed in what they were taught and had relatively short paths to atheism. Others of us were believers and took years to abandon faith.

When I think about how I gradually overcame my early indoctrination and eventually came to atheism, I cannot separate it from skepticism. For me, atheism was an outcome of skepticism. One of the mistakes I have made is that of assuming that this is true for most other atheists. But as Christian at I am an Atheist and this is why recently noted, there are atheists among us who did not come to atheism through skepticism at all. This is one of those realities of which I am aware but find that I still benefit from periodic reminders (of which I find plenty whenever I use Twitter).

1.06.2015

The Importance of Free Speech

SHOOTING OFF YOUR FACE WON'T HELP FREE SPEECH ...
SHOOTING OFF YOUR FACE WON'T HELP FREE SPEECH - NARA - 515409 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I am forgoing any New Year's resolutions this year because I plan to continue with the three I had for 2014. All three worked out reasonably well for me during 2014, and I think they are worth continuing through 2015. I recognize that I can do better with all of them, and that's what I plan to do this year.

What I'd like to mention here instead is a deliberate addition to the topics I regularly address here at Atheist Revolution. Okay, it isn't a new topic so much as it is me finally giving recognition to a topic that has been on my mind quite a bit lately: free speech and its role in freethought, secularism, skepticism, and atheism. I am increasingly viewing free speech as a vital human rights issue, and I plan to continue writing about it in 2015. I've added a "Free Speech" label to the topic cloud in the right sidebar to make it easier for readers to find posts on the subject.

1.05.2015

Christians Behave Like Prayer Does Not Work

The Christian Martyrs' Last Prayer
The Christian Martyrs' Last Prayer (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
One of the recurrent themes you can expect to find addressed repeatedly on almost every atheist blog involves the degree to which religious believers actually believe what they claim to believe. In observing their behavior, there is ample evidence that most do not. Here are just a few of the previous posts in which I've addressed this subject:

1.01.2015

Christian Extremists Convinced that LGBT Children Are Recruiting

I will readily admit that there is plenty about Christian extremists I don't understand and probably never will. One of the things that ranks especially high on the list of things I don't understand is the obsession with gay sex and the fear that LGBT persons are "recruiting" straight people - especially straight Christian people - to participate in it.

Right Wing Watch had an interesting post (with video) shortly before Christmas about an interview Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt (R - Colorado's 15th District) did with Brian Camenker (MassResistance) about how "LGBT-themed clubs in public schools are bent on recruiting 'vulnerable' Christian students." To be clear, when these men talk about "recruiting," they are not referring to efforts by LGBT kids to persuade Christian kids to set aside their religiously-motivated bigotry and become more tolerant of individual differences. No, that would make far too much sense. Instead, they seem to be talking about "recruiting" straight Christian kids into the dreaded "gay lifestyle," which almost certainly includes participation in homosexual behavior. Camenker said,
And pretty soon these kids are getting involved in these really horrible behaviors, horrible things at the meetings. We've seen it up close and we've seen the anxiety that the parents go through when their kids are suddenly taken over by this.