1.28.2016

This Atheist is Easy to Persuade

evidence

What to convince me of something like the dangers of GMOs, why I should vote for your favorite political candidate, that intelligent alien life is out there somewhere or had an important role in shaping human history, that you have seen Bigfoot, or even the existence of your preferred god(s)? I'll let you in a secret: I have a big weakness when it comes to matters of persuasion. It makes me fairly easy to persuade.

I change my mind about all sorts of things all the time, and it is easy to persuade me to do so. You see, I am highly susceptible to evidence. Provide me with good evidence in support of what you want me to believe, evidence that is sufficient to support whatever it is that you'd like to persuade me of, and I'll probably come around to your point of view.

Suppose an acquaintance from high school I hadn't heard from in over 20 years were to contact me out of the blue on Facebook. While catching up, he informs me that he just bought a new Corvette. Given what I remember of him, I find this difficult to believe. He was always a bit of an anti-materialist and far too worried about the environment to buy such a thirsty car. He was also the boring sort of individual who never seemed to have any interest in risk-taking or recklessness, even as an adolescent. The possibility that he, of all people, would buy such a car would strike me as implausible even though I realize people can change a great deal in 20 years. I'd be open to the possibility that he was telling the truth but more than a bit skeptical.

1.27.2016

My Evolving Political Orientation

my political orientation
My political orientation as of October, 2015

Back in October of 2015, I wrote a post about how we need more than the traditional left-right dimension to adequately capture someone's political orientation. The left-right dimension does a decent job of reflecting someone's stance on economic issues, but it is limited in what it can tell us about his or her positions on social and cultural issues. For that, we need to add the the libertarian-authoritarian dimension to the mix.

Right around the time I wrote that post, I took one of the many online tests available to help one locate oneself along both the left-right and libertarian-authoritarian dimensions. I believe the one I took was the one from the Political Compass. You can see the graph it generated for me based on my results pictured here. The graph shows that I am in the libertarian left quadrant. This indicates that I lean to the left on economic issues and that I am far more libertarian rather than authoritarian on most social issues.

1.26.2016

Is Satanism Ethically Superior to Christianity?

the fallen angelToward the end of November, Hemant Mehta (Friendly Atheist) wrote a post with a great title that I meant to address here. It appears that I filled it incorrectly in my poor excuse for an online bookmarking system since I just found it this weekend by accident. The title of the post was The Satanic Temple's Seven Tenets Are Far More Ethical Than the Ten Commandments. It is a great title, but is it accurate? Are the seven fundamental tenets of the Satanic Temple really ethically superior to the Ten Commandments? Could Satanism have an ethical edge over Christianity?

One of the consequences of Christian privilege is that I can rest assured that you are far more likely to be familiar with the Ten Commandments than with the Satanic Temple or their tenets. So let's take a look at the seven tenets and see what we think:
  1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
  2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
  3. One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
  4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.
  5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
  6. People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
  7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

1.25.2016

Moral Triage: How We Direct Our Outrage

Wounded arriving at triage station, Suippes, F...
Wounded arriving at triage station, Suippes, France from sanitary train. Selected by Scott. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The term "moral triage" is something I heard Dr. Peter Boghossian use during an interview. It was only mentioned in passing, but it started me thinking about its utility in describing one of the many problems with our modern outrage culture. We aren't getting outraged about the right things; we are getting outraged about ridiculous things. We are failing to do effective moral triage.

I think it is fair to assume that we're all familiar with the concept of triage in medicine. Given limited resources, physicians prioritize the provision of care based on the urgency with which it is needed. The patient who comes into the emergency room bleeding heavily from a gunshot is likely to be seen before the one who needs a few stitches to close a relatively minor cut.

In the case of moral triage, we think instead about how people prioritize the sorts of activism they engage in and the things about which they become morally outraged. If you have ever used social media, you have probably seen one person dismissing the concerns expressed by another as "first world problems." Someone complains about the poor cell phone coverage, and someone else reminds them that there are plenty of people who lack safe drinking water. Their whining about their cell phone service seems trivial by comparison. Essentially, mentioning "first world problems" is akin to pointing out that the complaining person is doing a poor job of moral triage.

1.21.2016

How We Talk About Islam and Muslims

Harper's Muslims and Christians
Harper's Muslims and Christians (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
One of the earliest mistakes I made in writing this blog was to use the term "Christians" without attaching any specifiers. This was a mistake because Christianity is extremely diverse, and it is difficult to communicate anything meaningful about the entire group of people who identify themselves as Christians. Even when it comes to some of what appear to be core tenets of their faith, Christians can hold rather different beliefs.

It took awhile, but I would gradually learn to refer to "some Christians" or "Christians who believe..." when I was talking about some but not all Christians. This was not only more accurate, but it reminded me that whatever I was saying almost certainly did not apply to all Christians. Similarly, I began to use terms like "Christian extremists" or "Christian dominionists" when referring to Christians for whom such labels applied. I'm not suggesting that any of what I do now is the final word on terminology - only that it represents some improvement from where I started.

I've made many of the same mistakes when it comes to Islam. Like Christianity, there isn't much that can be said that applies to all Muslims. Some Muslims are Islamists who seek to impose Islam on their neighbors. Some are not only Islamists but jihadists who seek to impose Islam on others through the application of force. These groups are often referred to collectively as Muslim extremists.

1.20.2016

Rock Music is Still Evil

NYC West Indian Day Parade 2 Shankbone 2009
By David Shankbone [CC BY 3.0]
A left-leaning atheist woman I follow on Twitter whose profile contains the hashtags #FreedomOfSpeech and #FreeSpeech recently tweeted about how a particular game should be pulled from Apple's App Store and Google Play because she objected to some of the game's content...*sigh*. Yep. I guess supporting freedom of speech just doesn't mean what it used to.

Frankly, it seems like some on the left are now going after games that offend their politically correct sensibilities in much the same way that some of those on the right used to go after music and books they considered dangerous, subversive, or demonic. While many on the left once protested the pro-censorship push of some right-wing authoritarians, the rise of an authoritarian left (or regressive left if you prefer) seems to have no problem embracing the tactics they once opposed.

In such a topsy-turvy world, it is nice to have an anchor, something or someone who shows that not everything has flipped on its head. Such an anchor lends a sense of stability, reminding us that not everything has changed so much that the place is no longer recognizable. It is a source of reassurance, at least in this sense.

1.18.2016

Someone's Choice of Candidate is a Poor Indicator of His or Her Moral Worth

Conflict (1936) 1We are observing Martin Luther King, Jr. Day today here in the U.S. Instead of writing about civil rights, as I have done in past years, I thought I'd do something a bit different today. I'd like to take a brief look at one puzzling example of our politically divided climate.

If I wrote a post here at Atheist Revolution in which I said that I just returned from Las Vegas, that I had a great time there, and listed various reasons that Las Vegas is one of my favorite places to visit, I am confident that nobody reading the post would interpret it as me insisting that they should go to Las Vegas or that they would enjoy it if they did so. Some might leave comments disagreeing with my assessment (e.g., saying that they hated Vegas or that they liked another place much better), but they wouldn't behave as if I had just told them that they have to like it.

If I were to write a post about a new band I recently discovered in which I described all the things I liked about their music, nobody would conclude that I was telling them that they should like this band. Again, some might leave comments disagreeing with me, but nobody would react as if I had just ordered them to go buy everything they could find by this band. They would recognize that they were reading my opinion and regard themselves as free to take it or leave it.

1.14.2016

The Regressive Left

Maajid Nawaz speaking at LibDem campaign event
Maajid Nawaz
We need terms to group and classify people. This is an important function of language. Without such terms, communication quickly becomes unwieldy. Imagine if we lacked words such as skeptic or freethinker. Every time you or I wanted to refer to some as a skeptic or a freethinker, we would have to list all the attributes encompassed by the relevant label. Indeed, most of us can relate to the frustrating experience of attempting to communicate something for which we lack applicable terms. While there is a downside to some of the words we use to communicate about the characteristics of others, the pros of having words available to us generally outweigh the cons.

If you follow some of the prominent figures in the atheist and/or skeptical communities (e.g., Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Peter Boghossian) or those who describe themselves as cultural libertarians (e.g., Allum Bokhari, Dave Rubin, Lauren Southern), you have probably heard them use the term regressive left to describe a group of people. It has become quite popular over the past few months. I believe Maajid Nawaz has been credited with coining it.

In this post, I'll take a look at what the term originally meant, what it has to do with Islam, and how its meaning has expanded through recent usage.

1.13.2016

Future Trends: Expect More Secular Households

future

If current trends regarding the decline in some indicators of religiosity and the increase in the number of religiously unaffiliated persons (aka, the "nones") in the United States continue, we could soon find ourselves entering the next phase of an interesting era with regard to atheism. The decline in religiosity has already started to mean that there are somewhat fewer religious households. One of the interesting (but hardly surprising) things about these trends is that they are especially pronounced among younger persons. That is, the decline in religious affiliation has been even more dramatic among the youth. This is cause for some optimism about the future.

In the next decade, it seems reasonable to anticipate that we will see many of these young people starting families and having children. If we assume that many of them will raise their children in secular households, we could soon witness the beginning of even more significant changes. Imagine the impact of more and more children being raised without religion. Not only would they be freed from a burden those of us who were raised in a religion had to carry (i.e., religious indoctrination), but the children who are still being raised religious will have a vastly different experience through interacting with them.

1.12.2016

Reading the Holy Bible for the First Time

holy bible
The first time I read the bible some Christians consider holy, I had nightmares for several days. I had not previously understood what the phrase "god fearing" meant or how anyone could possibly worship a being they feared. In church, I had been told about a very different sort of god than the main one described in the bible. It never made sense to me why anyone would be afraid of the god described in church, a loving sort of god. After reading the bible, I certainly understood what "god fearing" meant. One would have to be nuts not to fear this particular god! It was a monster.

It would take me a few years to realize that there was no reason to worship such a being. I was a Christian at the time, and I believed that some sort of god was real. I hoped it was the one described in church and not the one in the bible, but that seemed presumptuous. This was, after all, the bible. If anybody was getting it wrong, it was probably the people at church.

1.11.2016

Criticism and Disapproval vs. Public Shaming

Cone of shame

For some time, I have been operating with the assumption that there is a meaningful difference between publicly criticizing or expressing disapproval with something someone has said or done and participating in the public shaming of an individual who has said or done something of which one disapproves. Perhaps this assumption is flawed. What do you think - is there a meaningful difference here?

In my opinion, it is not just possible but fairly easy to criticize the ideas someone has expressed or how someone has behaved without participating in public shaming. In fact, I'd place most criticism in this category. When you or I point out the problems with someone's argument, reasoning, ideas, or behavior, we are usually providing criticism that does not cross over into shaming. Similarly, I think it is rather easy to express our disapproval with something someone has said or done (e.g., "I disagree with you, and here's why...") without attempting to shame the person.

1.10.2016

No Crime Committed in the Name of Islam is Really About Islam

Fishtown Philadelphia

According to police in Philadelphia, a 33-year old officer by the name of Jesse Hartnett was shot several times while sitting in his patrol car. A suspect is in custody, 30 year-old Edward Archer, and police claim that he provided them with a full confession in which he indicated "he did it in the name of Islam." Wait, what? How can that be?
According to him, police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran.
Police have described the alleged shooting as an "attempted assassination," noting that the suspect "tried to execute the police officer." Perhaps Mr Archer was under the impression that someone acting contrary to the Quran deserved punishment of some sort.

1.08.2016

Teenage Satanism

devil
I've mentioned previously that I briefly dabbled in a cartoonish version of Satanism when I was about 17. My friends and I never took it seriously, but we found it both appealing and useful at this time in our lives. How so? It was fun, helped keep certain people at a distance while attracting others, and gave us a much-needed sense of power when we felt powerless most of the time. We didn't worship the devil; I was an atheist by this time. What we did was use Satanic imagery for its shock value and to express disdain for many aspects of the Christian culture in which we lived.

I never identified myself as a Satanist because I did not think of myself as a Satanist. This label was put on me by others. I guess I found it too ridiculous to deny. When word spread at my school that I did not believe in gods, some of my fundamentalist Christian classmates decided that this must mean I was a Satanist. I suppose I decided it was more fun just to let them go on believing this than to argue. I wouldn't have been able to talk them out of it. And besides, being thought of as a Satanist was much cooler than anything I could have come up with on my own.

1.06.2016

De-Moralizing to Reduce Conflict

conflict
No, that title is not a typo. I did not mean "demoralizing" at all. What I'm referring with the title of this post is the process of deliberately refraining from applying moral judgment to someone else's words, ideas, or behavior. It seems to me that we often moralize things (i.e., make them into moral issues) that don't need to be moralized. Moreover, I suspect we might be happier and have less conflict in the world if we could refrain from doing so quite as often.

I can pick any time of day or night, go on Twitter for 5 minutes, and be almost guaranteed to find someone saying something with which I strongly disagree. I could easily succumb to outrage, rail against it, regard it as a great moral evil, label those saying things I don't like as "part of the problem," and the like. That is, I can (and do) find it quite easy to moralize much of what I find online. Interestingly, doing this almost never seems to make me feel better for more than a brief moment, almost always fuels conflict, and often produces feelings of regret afterward. What I find more challenging but also far more rewarding is recognizing that I am encountering is a difference of opinion that is not necessarily a moral issue.

1.05.2016

Without Dogma, Atheism is Liberating

plants growing

One of the consequences of atheism not having any sort of official dogma attached to it is that those of us who write about atheism and closely related subjects (e.g., humanism, skepticism, freethought) lack the sort of anchor that would keep our views consistent over time. We are free to grow and develop without having to adhere to any sort of dogma. There is something liberating about this sort of freedom.

There are plenty of posts I wrote here at Atheist Revolution between 2005 and 2010 or so that I would not write today. I would not write some of them today just because they were embarrassingly poor or lazy. I would not write many others today because I no longer agree with their contents. That is, my 2016 self does not agree with my 2006 self in some ways. Without the anchor of dogma, my perspectives have shifted in unpredictable ways. My goals are a bit different today than they were then, and the means by which I seek to accomplish them differ as well. Without dogma, I have been free to develop. And this development has taken me in some directions I never would have expected.