4.29.2015

How Our Scripts Lead to Apathy

Baltimore Light Rail outside Camden Yards
Baltimore Light Rail outside Camden Yards (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Have you ever had the experience of watching a new episode of a TV show and having the strong feeling that you have seen it before? No, I'm not talking about your "sixth sense" or anything as silly as that. I don't mean that you've actually seen that particular episode before (it is new, remember); I mean that it feels so incredibly derivative that the story line was likely borrowed from another show you previously watched. It doesn't have to rise to the level of plagiarism for you to feel like you are watching something familiar. If you watch a lot of sitcoms, I'm sure you can relate. In my experience, they tend to recycle story lines fairly often.

If you are anything like me, you do not find this terribly appealing. Unless you are already invested in the newer show or it manages to put some sort of clever spin on the old story line, you probably find it less enjoyable once you recognize how derivative it is. You might even find yourself feeling bored and changing the channel.

The question I'd like to consider for this post is whether we have similar reactions to important news stories when the manner in which they are presented and/or how the public reacts to them becomes so highly scripted that we feel like we've seen it all before. I think such scripts are far more common when it comes to the news than we see for entertainment media. I also think that there is a significant downside in that the prevalence of such scripts fuels apathy and maintains the status quo.

4.28.2015

Obstacles Atheists Face in Gaining Acceptance

Aspergeversperring Muiden
By MartinD (Own work), via Wikimedia Commons
In honor of the recent Openly Secular Day, Tom Krattenmaker wrote an article for USA Today in which he discussed five challenges atheists in the U.S. face as we work to improve the manner in which we are treated by the religious majority. Hemant Mehta (Friendly Atheist) subsequently shared his thoughts on Krattenmaker's article. Now that I've had a few days to think about it, I'd like to do the same here.

I'd like to start by saying that whatever criticisms I have of Krattenmaker's article, I am pleased to see that articles like this are being written and picked up by the mainstream news media. The topic it addresses (i.e., barriers atheists face in our efforts to improve our place in society) is an important one that has been discussed on countless atheist blogs. I expect that it will inspire additional discussions, and that is a good thing.

1. Who Has It Worse?

Krattenmaker begins by acknowledging that atheists do face discrimination...sort of. The only example he provides is the fact that a few states (including the one where I live) have laws on the books prohibiting atheists from holding public office. By not mentioning any of the other far more common and serious examples of the sort of discrimination many atheists face, Krattenmaker is able to suggest that we have it far better than LGBT persons.
While it's true that non-believers face discrimination — as testified by the fact that several states forbid atheists from holding public office — seculars have not faced the severity of demonization, bullying and violence that gays and lesbians endure.
Seriously? I'm really not interested in getting into a "who has it worse" debate because the answer to that question depends heavily on where one lives. Come to Mississippi, meet with teenagers and young adults who have expressed doubts about the Christian faith in which they were raised, and tell me about how they have not faced anything like the "demonization, bullying, and violence" experienced by LGBT youth.

4.27.2015

What Does Secular Mean?

Manifestacion Anti Clerical or (The Street Gaz...
Manifestacion Anti Clerical or (The Street Gazzete: Anti Clerical Manifestation) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When used to describe a person, secular might mean "not religious," but it does not necessarily mean that. It could also mean that the person supports secularism, regardless of whether he or she is religious. Confused yet? Don't worry, secularism is not that difficult to understand and it probably makes sense to start there before we take a look at the meanings of "secular."

Despite widespread confusion, secularism is not synonymous with atheism. So what is secularism? The National Secular Society explains it well when they note that secularism "is a principle that involves two basic propositions." The two propositions are as follows:

  1. There must be strict separation between church and state, and
  2. People of various religious beliefs (including those with no religious beliefs at all) must be equal under the law.
Secularism is primarily about the separation of church and state. Someone advocating secularism is seeking government neutrality on matters of religion. One can be a religious believer and support secularism. And fortunately, many religious believers do so. They recognize that secularism is good for them too.

4.26.2015

Are Atheist Chaplains Needed in the Military?

Stained glass window, U. S. Pentagon, honoring...
Stained glass window, U. S. Pentagon, honoring the Four Chaplains, USAT Dorchester, 1943 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Using data from a recent Christianity Today article, Hemant Mehta (Friendly Atheist) wrote a post in which he noted: (1) there are more atheists than Southern Baptists among active duty military personnel, and (2) there are far more military chaplains who are Southern Baptists. And by far more, he shared that there are 437 Southern Baptist chaplains compared with 0 atheist or humanist chaplains. That is quite a difference.

If I am to be honest, I must admit that I am struggling a bit here to wrap my head around why non-religious individuals (i.e., atheists, secular humanists) serving in the military might want access to a non-religious chaplain. I can certainly understand why non-religious individuals would want access to professionals who would listen to them in a nonjudgmental manner, help them cope effectively, wrestle with existential issues, and the like. But they already have access to people who can do this in the form of counselors, psychologists, and other mental health professionals.

What is a secular chaplain able to do that a mental health professional cannot? I suppose there could be more of them because they would be cheaper to employ. Is that what this is all about though - access? If so, I can see how this could be framed as a church-state issue. Religious persons would have access to something that non-religious persons did not, and I can imagine how that could be a concern. But is there really a need to non-religious chaplains in the sense that this is something that military personnel want?

4.24.2015

Advancing Secular Goals

Picture I made for my goals article
Picture I made for my goals article (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
What are your personal goals when it comes to atheism or the larger secular community? Do you have any? Are you seeking to bring about some sort of social change, provide support to other atheists, promote secularism, protect or expand certain freedoms, or something else? I have been asking this question of myself lately and finding that it is not an easy one to answer.

Part of the problem I'm having is that my goals often seem to change. I don't have to look back more than a year ago to identify a goal or two that was at least moderately important to me then that seems much less so now. And I certainly have some goals today that strike me as more important than they did a year ago.

As of this moment, some of my goals include the following:
  1. Protecting the separation of church and state by promoting the necessity of a secular government that provides both religious freedom and freedom from religion
  2. Promoting reality-based public education
  3. Informing others about atheism in order to replace stereotypes and myths with accurate information
  4. Critiquing religion in order to contribute to the gradual erosion of the power and privilege it enjoys
  5. Encouraging the use of scientifically-informed and data-driven approaches in the legislative process
  6. Promoting freethought as a way of minimizing tribalism and reducing conflict

4.23.2015

Atheist Activist Whack-a-Mole

Whackamole

You know how the Whack-A-Mole game works. You stand there in front of the game waiting on the moles to pop up. You don't know exactly when or where they will appear, but you know they will appear. And when you whack one, others will pop up momentarily. There is something about this that I find a fitting metaphor for much of atheist activism, particularly the sort that focuses on church-state violations.

Relatively few atheists go around looking for trouble. We do not generally go door-to-door seeking to deconvert religious believers. We do not usually insert our atheistic views into conversations where they do not belong. We do not typically introduce ourselves to strangers by announcing that we are atheists and that that somehow makes us morally superior to theists. In fact, if it wasn't for the inevitable church-state violations popping up like moles in the game, many of us would not even think of ourselves as atheists much of the time. It wouldn't be relevant to do so.

4.21.2015

Dealing With Hostility From Christian Co-Workers

Rumors
Photo by methodshop

An atheist recently asked for advice on Twitter about a difficult situation she encountered at work. She indicated that a Christian co-worker had found out that she was an atheist and had started spreading vicious rumors about her. She wanted to know what she could do in this situation. I'll admit that the first thing that went through my head was, "We'll let you know as soon as we figure out what to do about PZ Myers." I'm kidding! That wouldn't have been particularly helpful.

Instead, I suggested that she start documenting what the co-worker was saying and doing in case she needed to support a formal complaint through human resources at some point. These complaints often end up being more successful when one can provide evidence of a pattern of behavior interfering with their ability to do one's job, creating a hostile workplace, and the like. Even though documenting incidents is a pain in the ass, I have found that it is far better to have the documentation and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Finding oneself in a situation like this (i.e., a Christian co-worker decides that one's atheism warrants mistreatment) is not a pleasant experience. I suspect it is not an altogether uncommon experience either. With that in mind, I thought I'd use this post to share some thoughts about what I might do in such a situation and invite readers to chime in with their thoughts.

4.20.2015

A Tale of Two Hospitals: Which One Would Christians Choose?

Cancer Hospital in final stages of co...
Cancer Hospital in final stages of construction at the University of Florida. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Let's build two large hospitals in one lucky city. One of them will be a state-of-the-art medical center offering evidence-based medicine from a collection of talented physicians, nurses, and other highly-trained medical professionals. Although atheism will not be a condition of their employment, some of them will undoubtedly be atheists (gasp!).

The second hospital will be very different. It will be staffed only with evangelical fundamentalist Christians, none of whom will have medical training. The only "treatment" this hospital will provide will consist of prayer delivered in Jesus' name. No medicine whatsoever. Atheists need not apply for jobs with this hospital, as they would not be welcome.

4.15.2015

Dealing With Bad Ideas: Some Options

Censored section of Green Illusions by Ozzie ZehnerIn the first post in this series, I explained what I mean by "bad ideas," at least for the purpose of the series. I said that for now I am content to let us define them subjectively as nothing more than ideas we consider to be bad ones for whatever reason. They are things we do not like and would prefer not to exist at all (e.g., racism, creationism, climate science denial, the conviction that anyone who disagrees with certain bloggers is necessarily misogynistic).

In this post, I'll suggest that we have multiple options for dealing with bad ideas, including some designed to suppress their expression and some not aimed at suppressing them. But first, it is necessary to consider why anyone might favor the suppression of bad ideas.

Suppressing Bad Ideas

I'd like to begin by posing a question: Why would anyone seek to suppress bad ideas from being expressed? There are many reasons we might seek to do this, and some of them do not seem so bad at first glance. If you think about some of the bad ideas many of us consider to be toxic to society, it seems natural that we might want to suppress them. In fact, it might be challenging for us to imagine why some people would object to efforts aimed at suppressing certain ideas.

4.14.2015

Atheist Morality

Detail from James Gillray's "New Morality...
Detail from James Gillray's "New Morality" published in the Anti-Jacobin Review (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I have never been convinced that one's answer to the question of whether gods exist has much of anything to do with whether one is a decent and moral person. Plenty of atheists are decent and moral persons; plenty of atheists are not. Plenty of religious believers are decent and moral persons; plenty of religious believers are not.

Unfortunately, I live in a society that uses god belief as a proxy for morality. From an early age, many of us are taught to assume that there is a strong connection between the two; however, I have found little evidence of an actual connection. Moreover, the assumption that god belief suggests morality has led to widespread bigotry toward atheists and made it far easier for some who profess religion to exploit others.

As an atheist, nothing stops me from recognizing that atheists can be morally deficient. I have no reason to believe that atheism confers any sort of moral goodness on someone. I need not be surprised when an atheist does something morally wrong. I am free to recognize that atheism is irrelevant to morality. The fact that another person may have reached a similar conclusion on the question of gods tells me nothing about whether he or she shares any values I might consider to be evidence of a moral character.

4.13.2015

No, We Shouldn't Shun PZ Myers

shun
Conservative Skeptic recently asked whether skeptics and atheists should shun those we deem toxic. I will get around to elaborating on my views about this in my dealing with bad ideas series, but I wanted to give my initial reaction to the question now while I'm thinking about the recent events that prompted the post.

Fortunately, my initial reaction ends up being extremely simple and should not take long to unpack. No, we should not be shunning anyone for the "crime" of saying things we do not like. Efforts to do so are not something I'll support.

Like Conservative Skeptic and many others, I find some of what PZ Myers says to be embarrassing, counterproductive, or just plain idiotic. But that is okay. He gets to say things like that. Not only am I not interested in trying to stop him from doing so, but I do not see myself as having any right to try to stop him from doing so. I don't have to agree with what he says or enjoy hearing it in order to defend his right to say it. I also don't have to listen to it if I would prefer not to do so. I can also respond to anything he's written, explaining why I disagree.

4.12.2015

Do Humans Need Religion?

English: A schematic showing the spreading of ...
A schematic showing the spreading of humans in history. The schematic is made based on an image in the magazine "Natuurwetenschap en techniek, oktober 2009". This image in the magazine was an image made using data from the (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Do humans need religion? Some are fond of claiming that the fact that religious belief is encountered in virtually all human cultures throughout history proves that humans need religion. And yet, there is a powerful counterexample that seems to suggest that religion is not a basic human need. In fact, there are several million of them.

Are you an atheist? If so, you are a living, breathing counterexample challenging the claim that humans need religion. You don't need religion, do you? You don't have a "god-sized hole in your heart" making you incomplete without god belief, do you? Of course not! Your very existence suggests that religion is not a basic human need, as least not a universal one.

4.10.2015

Atheist Blogosphere Weighs in on PZ Myers

Iceland RiftAfter Atheist Ireland issued their statement dissociating from PZ Myers, I wasn't sure what would happen next. Would other individuals and/or organizations sign on, or would the statement be met with uncomfortable silence? Then something I did not expect happened. Atheist Northern Ireland quickly issued a statement on their Facebook page in which they expressed support for Atheist Ireland's statement. The Secular Policy Institute then posed an interesting question about why “shock jock” bloggers continue to be invited to speak at prominent secular conferences. They noted, "We believe the secular movement should stop rewarding those who cause discord."

Not surprisingly, the atheist blogosphere has been buzzing about these various statements and their implications. This has been an unusually busy week at work, and I am way behind on my reading. I haven't had any time to seek out posts on the topic, so I thought I'd share those that have turned up in my feed and that I have had a chance to read.

4.09.2015

Dealing With Bad Ideas: Introduction

English: The philosopher John Stuart Mill and ...
The philosopher John Stuart Mill and Helen Taylor, daughter of Harriet Taylor. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
As we moved into 2015, I indicated that I planned to focus more on free speech. I am happy to report that this is exactly what I have been doing. While it has not eclipsed the other topics I address here, I have been giving it more attention so far this year than I had previously.

I started by explaining a bit more about what I meant when I said that I'd like to see people who are secularists, freethinkers, skeptics, and/or atheists take the lead on defending the freedom of speech against those who attack it. I wrote a few more posts on the subject, focusing on the importance of free speech, the need to make sure that our defense of free speech is not limited to the expression of ideas with which we agree, some of the trickier issues surrounding the manner in which some Muslim extremists seem to be using our commitment to free speech against us. I've also continued to address some of the threats to free expression happening in the U.S. today.

Now I'd like to start what I expect to be a slow and lengthy process of taking a look at how we deal with bad ideas and whether attempting to suppress their expression is one of the strategies we should be pursuing.

Here is what I wrote previously on this subject:
I believe that the answer to bad ideas (e.g., sexism, racism, creationism, faith) is not to suppress them through the use of legislation and/or social coercion against those who hold them; the way to answer bad ideas is to reveal their shortcomings in the public forum and provide reasonable alternatives.

4.06.2015

Atheists Need Legal Protection From Discrimination

The state capitol of Madison, Wisconsin
The state capitol of Madison, Wisconsin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Atheists face plenty of barriers to being fully open and honest about who we are. Many of these barriers are symbolic in the sense that they communicate that we are not part of mainstream society or involve forms of social disapproval resulting from widespread anti-atheist bigotry (e.g., losing friends when they learn of one's atheism). Others are far more serious and involve forms of discrimination that would be illegal if they were done to other groups but that remain legal when they are done to us. We have had a few victories along the way when it comes to eradicating this sort of discrimination, but the sad reality is that it remains perfectly legal in much of the U.S.

Madison, Wisconsin recently became the first city in the United States to extend anti-discrimination protection to atheists and other secular persons. Thanks to the new city ordinance, it is now illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their atheism just as it is to discriminate on the basis of gender, race or ethnicity, religion, age, disability, martial status, and other protected classes. The protections cover housing, public accommodations, and employment.

4.04.2015

Sin, Salvation, and Social Control

Damnation/Salvation
Damnation/Salvation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sin and salvation are prominent aspects of Christian doctrine. They have something else in common too. Sin and salvation are made up constructs that do not actually exist. Nothing is inherently sinful, and there are no supernatural entities against which one can sin or that can offer salvation. But these things are made up, that does not mean that they cannot be extremely useful.

The idea of sin was made up a long time ago by people in power who wanted to control the behavior of our ancestors. By convincing them that certain behaviors were sinful, they gained greater control over them than could be accomplished through other means. The idea that supernatural entities were always watching and that they would be faced with eternal damnation for their sins was quite effective for their purposes. And what is salvation if not a reward for behaving the way those in power want you to behave?

4.03.2015

Good Friday and the Other Paths to Salvation

English: Altar of St George's church Compare t...
Altar of St George's church (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is Zombie Jesus weekend. It begins with Good Friday, the occasion where many Christians celebrate the brutal death of a man they claim to love and revere, and ends with Easter, the day when many Christians think their god brought this man back to life to "save" them. It is a bizarre story that is rarely recognized as such because of the manner in which we are indoctrinated to accept it and how familiar it has become to many of us.

Why would Christians celebrate the suffering, torture, and death of someone they claim to worship? We don't even see international celebrations of the death of those we claim to despise (e.g., Hitler). Why are some eager to celebrate the death of one they claim to admire so much?

When asked about this, most Christians refer to salvation. They see the death of Jesus as a sacrifice on their behalf. What they are celebrating, they say, isn't so much that Jesus died but that he did so in such a selfless act for their benefit. He died in this way for them. But if the death of Jesus was such a sacrifice, it seems to have been an unnecessary one.