Atheist Revolution

Satanism, Atheism, and Anti-Theism

2009-11-02T05:25:00.000-06:00

I knew that this series was going to be controversial when I started it. Misconceptions about Satanism abound, even among atheists. And the suggestion that atheists might have something to learn from Satanists has already been criticized even though I have not written anything about it yet. In the first part of the series, I explained that Satanists do not in fact worship Satan but that they are atheists who adopt a strongly anti-theistic position and use Satanic imagery and symbolism to shock. In this post, I'll examine the relationships among Satanism, atheism, and anti-theism. The next post will discuss whether atheists could learn anything from Satanists.

Satanism and Atheism

Most atheists are not Satanists. In fact, most atheists scoff at the very image of a Satanist. For many, this is based on the same misconceptions about Satanists that Christians hold (e.g., that Satanists worship Satan). However, there are many perfectly valid reasons for atheists to reject Satanism.

Some atheists find nothing appealing about Satanic imagery and desire to shock. It strikes some of us a juvenile or counterproductive. For other atheists, the rejection of Satanism is based on the extremely negative connotation and lack of interest in associating oneself with it. We atheists are fully aware of how much we are despised, and we recognize that part of this is due to the fairly common practice religious people have of equating us with "devil worshipers." Many of us understandably seek to avoid anything which might lend credence to this strange association. These are perfectly valid reasons for atheists to reject Satanism, and there are others.

What should be remembered, however, is that while not all atheists are Satanists, all Satanists are atheists. Huh? Here is how the Church of Satan describes themselves:

We were established in 1966 c.e. by Anton Szandor LaVey, who declared it the Year One, Anno Satanas, thus opening the floodgates to a revolution designed to smash the hypocrisy and unreason of organized religions and mystical philosophies. We stand as a formidable threat to those who would halt progress in the name of spirituality. We are explorers on the untrodden paths of science, human motivation and mystery—all that is most truly occult. Our primary goal is to clearly disseminate the philosophy created by Anton Szandor LaVey to those who have an interest in understanding the truth regarding our beliefs and practices, and to encourage individuals who embrace Satanism to utilize this tool as a means for enhancing their lives and for leaving a legacy of creativity that demonstrates to human society the potency of our diabolical perspective.

Except for the part about disseminating LaVey's philosophy, this sounds a great deal like something with which many atheists can relate, anti-theism.

Satanism and Anti-Theism

Not all atheists are anti-theists, but all Satanists certainly are both atheists and anti-theists. If you read the above quote again, omitting mention of LaVey if you like, you will recognize anti-theism. Magistra Blanche Barton wrote:

We are sickened by the complacency, hypocrisy, prejudice, and self-righteousness that most conventional religions (including “Wicca” and “paganism” as they are currently defined) encourage in people. When my back is up against the wall, I’m not strengthened by Jesus’ supposed martyrdom, or by the idea of praying and being saved, or of mooning over some glorious afterlife (so I don’t have to take responsibility for this one). Satanists’ scorn for such drivel is in our hard-wiring, and we could no more “give our lives over to Christ” than we could cut off one of our own limbs.

I suspect many of us feel the same way. I know I do. She also wrote about how humans create and define their gods. Again, Satanists are atheists and anti-theists.

But I Thought Satanism Was a Religion

You are correct. While atheism is clearly not a religion, LaVey intended Satanism to serve as a religion. In essence, he suggests that the long survival of conventional religions suggests that humans have a need for both dogma and ritual. In Satanism, he seeks to provide both. Admittedly, his dogma reads far more like a philosophy than a religion, but the injection of ceremony and ritual does make it appear more religious. According to LaVey himself, Satanism can be distinguished from atheism in that these added components help to make it an actual religion.

Nobody is claiming that atheism and Satanism is synonymous (except many Christians). LaVey would certainly disagree with this, as would I. Satanism aspires to be a religion and deliberately incorporates ritual for this purpose; atheism does not. Satanism attempts to provide a coherent philosophy; atheism does not (although many atheists adopt some form of humanism or naturalism).

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Understanding Satanism

2009-10-28T05:24:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

My path from atheism to Christianity and back to atheism was not a straight line. There were a few detours along the way which led me to various dead ends. One of these was Satanism. If there is one stance on religion that is more misunderstood than atheism, it would have to be Satanism. In this series, I will attempt to clear up some of the misconceptions about Satanism, highlight some of the important similarities and differences between Satanism and atheism, and even make the shocking suggestion that we atheists could learn something from the Satanists.

Understanding Satanism

I want to distinguish between two forms of Satanism so that the reader will understand what I am talking about here and not get bogged down in Christian hysteria or inaccurate media portrayals. There have been way too much of both.

What most of us think of when we heat the term "Satanism" does not really deserve to be called Satanism at all. Think of this as the catch-all category containing all the various forms of unorganized mysticism involving dark, Satanic themes with which many American teenage metal fans are fascinated. This is the form that Christians tend to become hysterical about, to exaggerate, and which the American media loves to cover. If you lived in the U.S. during the 1980s, you'll know exactly what I mean.

I am not proud of this at all, but this is the form of Satanism in which I dabbled as a teenage metal fan. I still love metal, the darker and more "evil" the better, but I've outgrown the desire to emulate these darker themes. But back in the day, I was into this stuff. I never sacrificed anything, robbed graves, or did most of the other things that the media wanted you to believe was epidemic in the 80s. I did do (and believe) some pretty ridiculous things back then though. In my defense, this was little more than short-lived experimentation of no real consequence.

The second form of Satanism is what I want to focus on, the real Satanism. It is the religious philosophy and ritual established by Anton Szandor LaVey in the form of the Church of Satan and described in The Satanic Bible. From this point on, this is what I am referring to when I use the term "Satanism."

If you are not familiar with Satanism, here are some things to keep in mind:

The Church of Satan came out of San Francisco in the late 1960s, and LaVey's initial following included a magician, a filmmaker, various authors, at least one local politicians, and even foreign royalty.
Satanists do not actually believe in or worship Satan; they use the symbol of Satan to shock, challenge, and unsettle. For Satanists, Satan is merely a powerful image of an adversary.
Satanists are atheists and are intensely anti-theistic.
Satanism explicitly prohibits human and animal sacrifice.
Satanic rituals are based on psychodrama and are as much if not more about personal transformation than belief in the supernatural.

In the next post in this series, we will examine the relationship between Satanism and atheism, identifying the relevant similarities and differences. Stay tuned.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Church of Sweden Votes to Allow Gay Marriage

2009-10-25T08:23:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

In spite of veiled threats by the Church of England about how it would harm relations, the Synod of the Lutheran Church of Sweden recently voted to approve church weddings for homosexual couples. Good for them! It is nice to see that some churches are actually willing to promote civil rights, even if the texts which they claim to be sacred are fairly clear about not doing so.

I agree with atheist and Swedish blogger, Jesper Isaksson (Jazzperous), that marriage should ultimately be separated from religion. To speak of marriage as a sacred covenant before some god may sound good, but it overlooks the simple fact that there is no evidence that any such gods exist. In our modern world, marriage is a legal matter. As Jesper writes,

The problem today is that marriage isn't only about religion and love - it's also about legal rights. A not married couple doesn't have the same rights and isn't equal in front of the law as married couples. This is what needs to be changed. In a secular country like Sweden, few couples get married "religiously" anyway even if they marry in church and by a priest. It's tradition and a romantic goal for many of us to achieve. It is time to leave the idea of marriage being a religous (sic) ritual behind and instead let it be what it is to many of us anyway: an act of love and law.

What religion has done to many in the LGBT community is indeed tragic. The Christian bible is undoubtedly anti-gay, and yet, many cling to a religion in which they have no place. I admire the progress the gay community has made in forcing some churches to evolve when it comes to human rights, but I would hope that more would turn their backs on the ancient superstition that remains the primary obstacle to their equality.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

How to Improve Our World: One Stone for Many Birds

2009-10-04T08:20:00.000-05:00

We all realize that the world we inhabit is far from perfect, right? Even on a good day, there are some things we'd probably all like to improve.

Consider the following goals for a moment:

Reduce costly military conflict
Promote LGBT equality
Promote atheist civil rights
Promote the equitable treatment of women around the world
Reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS
Improve quality education for all
Reduce unwanted pregnancies

Wouldn't it be great if there was something we could do that would lead to simultaneous progress in each of these areas, as well as many other worthy goals? What if I told you that there was indeed something we could do that would have that sort of impact?

We can work toward ending the special status currently enjoyed by religious belief. This is not going to happen overnight, but it is an extremely worthy goal. We do not need to call for the abolition of religion, although I see little wrong in hoping that that will eventually occur. We need only end the privileged status currently attached to religious belief.

As AC Grayling wrote in a recent article in The Guardian,

It is time to demand of believers that they take their personal choices and preferences in these non-rational and too often dangerous matters into the private sphere, like their sexual proclivities. Everyone is free to believe what they want, providing they do not bother (or coerce, or kill) others; but no-one is entitled to claim privileges merely on the grounds that they are votaries of one or another of the world’s many religions.

H/T to Proud Atheists

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheist Activism Needed on Catholic Clergy Abuse

2009-09-29T05:31:00.002-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

So there I was sitting in front of my computer, coffee in hand, looking forward to enjoying a nice quiet Sunday morning catching up with the atheist blogosphere. I clicked on a link left in a comment by pelican666, and my calm was shattered. The priest abuse scandal in Italy commands attention but is receiving virtually none in the U.S. media. There are plenty of things in this world that piss me off, but I am finding that few have more power to do so than what this article characterizes as the "culture of silence" around sexual abuse by Catholic clergy.

I know that sexual abuse is often an uncomfortable topic. I also know that the pedestal on which many Western cultures place religion inevitably leads to greater discomfort and avoidance of discussing abuse committed by members of the clergy. Unfortunately, this means that the burden of raising awareness of these crimes tends to fall disproportionately on two groups: victims' advocates and atheists.

I have known a great many victims' advocates who work tirelessly to raise awareness about the prevalence and dire consequences of child sexual abuse. But they need our help. Many are in positions where it is difficult for them to call out religious institutions or point to the unique manner in which religious belief protects pedophile priests and allows the churches to perpetuate such abuse. Frankly, they should be expected to do this because their primary role is one of providing assistance to the victims.

Perhaps atheist activists can increasingly take on the role of raising public awareness of how religious belief facilitates child sexual abuse. Whenever I see one of these stories, I experience what can only be described as rage. "How dare these sick Christians do this to children!" But at least an equal source of outrage involves the growing realization that the rest of us allow this to continue. The institutions which have been proven to perpetuate these atrocities need to be dismantled. Bill Donahue be damned!

For decades, a culture of silence has surrounded priest abuse in Italy, where surveys show the church is considered one of the country's most respected institutions.

Maybe I should feel relieved that such news is reported at all. But when I see how quickly these stories are buried and hear Bill Donahue claiming that those of us wanting to protect children are somehow anti-Catholic bigots, whatever relief I might have felt evaporates.

What can we do? For starters, I think we need to do a better job of covering these stories and demonstrating how religious belief facilitates these crimes. We need to overcome our hesitancy about confronting these crimes. I also think that it is important for us to spread the word about organizations such as the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). Those who are victimized need to know where to go for help. It is clear that the Catholic power structure remains determined to sweep these crimes under the rug. We must not allow that to happen.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Ambushed by Jehova's Witnesses

2009-09-27T07:44:00.000-05:00

Image by Dan Patterson via Flickr

I was mowing my back yard yesterday morning. It was hot and muggy - typical Mississippi weather, and I was quite sweaty by the time I was finished. As I opened my gate and pulled the mower through on the way to the garage, I heard a voice behind me that startled me. I had been listening to my iPod, and it was tough to make out what the voice was saying through the music. I turned around quickly to see two well-dressed men. One was about 30 feet away, and the other was all the way on the other side of my front yard. My first thought was that one of them was a political candidate campaigning for something.

When I pulled the headphones off, I heard the man who was closer to me comment about how I was smart to get my yard work done early before the weather heated up. He did look like a politician, and he was dressed too nicely to be a neighbor. Then I noticed what looked like a Christian bible in his hand.

He motioned to the front of my house and said, "We noticed your signs and weren't sure whether to knock." Caught off guard, it took me a moment to realize what he was talking about. I have a large "no soliciting" sign in the flowerbed in front of my house and a no proselytizing sign in a window near the front door. The combination has been extremely effective at deterring Christians.

As I paused, he continued, "Yes, we're Jehova's Witnesses." I laughed reflexively and replied, "In that case, you were probably wise to not to knock." After a bit more small talk and no more references to religion, they left.

As much as I despise proselytizing, it was a polite encounter all around. Had I not been itching all over from the grass clippings and longing for a shower, I might have asked him why he bothers to seek converts in Jesusland. I can't help wondering if most of his encounters with the Southern Baptists in my neighborhood were as civil.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Are Religious Extremists the Only True Believers?

2009-09-16T07:27:00.001-05:00

Image by ASurroca via Flickr

Perhaps the real difference between a religious moderate and an extremist is that the extremists consistently behaves as if he or she really believes his or her religion to be true. Religious believers are fond of talking about testing faith. Some of the Christian bible passages most cherished by adherents of that religion are those that involve various figures passing difficult challenges to their faith. To retain one's faith in the face of such a challenge is widely considered a virtue.

I suppose it should come as no surprise, then, that adherents of various religions around the world tell women to shut up, maim or kill their own children, oppose bullying prevention measures in schools, try to kill those who do not share their beliefs, disown their children for seeking life-saving medical procedures, rape women who are curious about other religions, praise acts of terrorism, pray for the death of those with whom they disagree, become violent over cartoons they don't like, and undermine democracy, all in the name of their religion. They believe that these and many similar acts are not just justified but actually required by their religion. They can point to passages in their "holy" texts that do indeed seem to condone such behaviors.

Could it be that the religious moderates refrain from such acts at least in part because they do not believe with the same intensity as the truly faithful?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Baylor Study Reveals Prevalence of Clergy Abuse

2009-09-14T05:22:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

When you hear someone say that the prevalence rate of something is roughly 3%, does this seem like a lot or a little? I suppose it depends on the context. The lifetime prevalence rate of schizophrenia in the general population is only 1%, and yet, many of us know someone who suffers from the disorder. The prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Washington DC is 3%. The prevalence of ADHD among school children in the U.S. is usually described as being between 3-7%. In such contexts, 3% is not at all trivial, is it? Well, something else occurs at a rate of 3%, and I bet you'll never guess what it is (unless you read the title of the post).

The Washington Post recently reported on a study conducted by Baylor University that revealed 1 in 33 women (i.e., 3%) who regularly attend religious services report being subjected to sexual advances by a religious leader.

The study, by Baylor University researchers, found that the problem is so pervasive that it almost certainly involves a wide range of denominations, religious traditions and leaders.

The study also showed that most of those who made sexual advances were married at the time. So much for religious morality, huh? Okay, maybe that isn't fair. After all, it isn't like these leaders are using religion to to influence their victims or anything - or are they?

Carolyn Waterstradt, 42, a graduate student who lives in the Midwest, said she was coerced into a sexual relationship with a married minister in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for 18 months. He had been her pastor for a decade, she said, and told her the relationship was ordained by God.

It is good to see that some churches are taking steps to prevent this sort of thing from happening. It is even better to see that some states are moving to criminalize this sort thing.

Of course, it is important to remember that members of all sorts of professions engage in this sort of activity. The power differential inherent in many professions inevitably opens the door to exploitative relationships. The public needs to be aware of this, as do professional organizations and their members.

But, Garland said, "when you put it with a spiritual leader or moral leader, you've really added a power that we typically don't think about in secular society -- which is that this person speaks for God and interprets God for people. And that really adds a power."

Indeed. There are many corrupting influence besides religion, but nothing corrupts quite like religion.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

On Miracles

2009-08-31T05:35:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

If there was unambiguous evidence to support the existence of gods, religious believers would have little need for either faith or for so-called miracles. If gods were in the business of revealing themselves to all of humanity, which we have to assume they could do if they so desired, worship would look very different than it does today. There would be no religious faith. In its place would be the feelings of awe, devotion, and respect, with which we are all familiar. While it is conceivable that some would willingly choose to oppose these gods, they would do so with full awareness of the considerable risk their actions involved.

Of course, I have described a set of circumstances very different from those in which we now find ourselves. There is no evidence for the existence of any gods, and this leads believers to the refuge of faith, a refuge they have managed to mold into a virtue. And one of the beams supporting the structure of their faith is belief in miracles.

Most religious believers will readily admit that they have not personally witnessed a miracle, but they will profess belief in the accounts provided by others. A subset of believers appear to be so desperate to find the miraculous in their own empty lives that they will take virtually anything they can find as a sign of the divine.

Hokum-Balderdash Assay brings us the following brilliant synopsis of how believers cling to medical miracles:

I'm really so hungry for signs. So without even having the foggiest idea of the thousands of medical events occurring daily worldwide, I find this one--in my medical and scientific ignorance--to be extraordinary and see it as a miracle--a supernaturally caused event. Forget the fact that this medical event is (merely) a statistical outlier (occurring at the tail end of the bell curve--the positive end of course, not the negative). And perish the thought that I'm calling this a miracle not because there is evidence for the supernatural but because I am--in my breathtaking ignorance again of course--at a loss for the real explanation. No one else seems to know or wants to provide a natural explanation, therefore, in unabashed hubris I declare that I do know and that it was caused by G, and mind you not just any G, but my G. It is a miracle because I want to believe it is and I say it is...

It seems to me that believers cling to miracles in a desperate attempt to defend that which is indefensible. Or perhaps they simply find life without miracles so intolerable that they must craft an altered reality in which to dwell.

For more on the subject of miracles, see:

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Religion and Relationships: Converting for Love

2009-08-17T05:48:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

You can file this one under "random thoughts." It isn't something I've thought about much, but I wanted to get it out because it has been rattling around in my head for awhile. If religious beliefs are as important to religious people as they often claim, why is it so common to hear about people converting to different religions for the sake of a relationship? We hear about people converting to their partner's faith to get married all the time. But if one's faith is supposed to be so damned important - important enough that people are willing to kill for it - what are we to make of this?

It would seem that one's faith would have to be a lower priority in such cases than one's goals for a relationship. But if this is true, why do so many religious people insist that their faith is the most important thing in their lives?

It seems like we're seeing an inconsistency here. It faith really less important than many insist, or is there another way to understand this? I can't help wondering if I am just misunderstanding these situations somehow.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Did Your Parents Give a Damn What You Wanted?

2009-07-27T06:25:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

I often find some of the most thought-provoking and emotionally-charged posts at EXchristian.net. A recent one, "Angry and disillusioned with the Christian cancer," caught my attention by the title and did not disappoint.

Evidently, it didn't occur to my parents that my mind wasn't fully mature and I had no idea what the hell they were getting me into. It didn't occur to them to ask what I wanted -- they just presumed upon me that I naturally wanted to be a Christian too.

Yep. That describes my experience too. My parents, now Christian-in-name-only as far as I can tell, say that they dragged me to church, required me to attend Sunday school and bible school in the summers because they thought it would be good for me (in the sense of being good for my "soul"). I'm no longer mad at them for doing this - I'm old enough now that I came to terms with this year ago and harbor no real resentment on this issue. But one thing is undeniably clear: they did not care what I wanted.

Like the author of the post at EXchristian.net, my parents had good intentions. We have talked about their intentions over the years, and I do understand that they meant no harm. Part of it involved them wanting me to have the sort of connection to the church that they fondly remembered from their own childhoods. Part of it did involve the superstitious fears over my "soul" roasting in "hell" if I was not indoctrinated. And still another part involved a desire to protect me from the social consequences they knew I would experience without religion.

What made the difference - and eventually allowed me to rediscover myself - was that my parents did an excellent job of promoting education, including science. I was permitted to read whatever I wanted, and knowledge was generally celebrated. Sure, there were times when I was told not to ask so any questions or to take something on faith. But it always seemed half-assed to me and was no real deterrent.

As childhood gave way into adolescence, I rebelled in many ways. This included rejecting religion as the nonsense I knew it to be. This did create quite a bit of conflict initially, but my parents eventually came to terms with it. There were a few years where they attended church without me, and then they also stopped going.

Over the years, we've had many discussions and some heated arguments about the nature of religion. The end point is always the same - they recognize that there really is no compelling evidence but insist that the belief, regardless of its truth, works for them somehow. This isn't something I bother to bring up anymore. There is little point. If they need superstition to feel whole, there is little I can do about it. I have no such need, and I am very fortunate for that.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Christian Investors Swindled In "Blessed" Ponzi Scheme

2009-07-20T06:12:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

A reader e-mailed me a heads-up about this story, and it was way too good not to share.

According to an article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution from July 17, 2009, the Peachtree City Gresham Co. has been accused of defrauding Christian investors with a Ponzi scheme designed specifically for Christians. According to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Eldon A. Gresham targeted Christian investors by claiming that the "Lord had blessed him" and that he was offering his program to "a limited number of Christians for a limited time."

Wow! Not only did these Christian investors have the opportunity to invest with someone who had been blessed by their god, but it was an exclusive Christians-only deal. What could possibly go wrong?

It seems to me that credulity in one sphere (e.g., believing in supernatural entities without evidence) often generalizes into other spheres. What better marks could an unscrupulous con artist hope to find than those who have already demonstrated a propensity to ignore evidence in favor of wish-fulfillment?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

But For Religion...

2009-07-15T05:22:00.000-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

In the legal arena, discussions of criminal responsibility often include statements such as, "But for the effects of alcohol, Mr. Jones never would have shot Ms. Smith" or "But for the the mental illness which impaired Ms. Smith's judgment, she never would have assaulted Mr. Jones." Such considerations help us to unravel often complicated situations and parse responsibility. We can apply the same process to religion, and in so doing, we may gain insight into the degree to which it is or is not responsible for various acts.

Take the disturbing case of 12 year-old Khyra Ishaq in Birmingham, England. Khyra was allegedly starved to death by her mother, described as a recent convert to Islam. According to The Telegraph,

When the circumstances surrounding Khyra's death emerged this week, the initial debate focused on alleged neglect and child poverty. But there is now speculation that Khyra's condition may be linked to some form of "religious" process.

But for the recent conversion to Islam by Khyra's mother, would Khyra still be alive? Testimony during the trial suggests that Khyra's mother thought her daughter was possessed and may have tortured her as well.

As The Good Atheist suggested in a recent post,

It’s rather difficult to get the real story as to what happened. One thing is for sure, however; religion played a role in the neglect and torture of these children. To what extend (sic), it’s difficult to ascertain, but it’s not uncommon for extremely religious individuals to completely isolate themselves from the outside world, especially if they feel it has a corrupting influence.

It does appear that religion was relevant, but can we really say that this wouldn't have happened but for religion? We need to know more about the mental state of Khyra's mother before we can answer that. Still, it is a question worth asking in this and many other cases.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Is Religion the Primary Front in the War Over Reality?

2009-06-22T06:29:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Spanish Inquisitor wrote a great post, "The War Over Reality," which warrants discussion. He describes the struggle between a set of worldviews based on religion, faith, and the supernatural vs. atheistic worldviews rooted in materialism, nature, and science. He suggests that this particular war has been over for hundreds of years, as the utility of the scientific method was realized, but that the religious are "simply clinging onto their religious view out of pure fear." Despite my agreement with this analysis, I am not so sure that religion is the primary front in today's war over reality.

Spanish Inquisitor sees modern theists as stubbornly refusing to accept that their view of reality is incorrect, primarily because they fear the implications:

What they don’t realize is that the battle over which view of reality is correct was over hundreds of years ago, and they are simply clinging onto their religious view out of pure fear. They delude themselves cannot accept the indisputable fact that they will die, and their religious beliefs give them comfort and hope that they will linger on after they’ve completed their enlistment in the human race.

I think he's right, but I see today's war over reality as being so broad that I'm not sure religion even remains the primary point of divergence.

There seems to be, at least in the United States, a fundamental conflict over the nature and importance of knowledge. A Congressman allowed himself to be captured on film by Bill Maher defending his own ignorance by pointing out that there is no intelligence test required for members of Congress. Politicians and other decision-makers not only refuse to listen to scientific experts on a wide range of issues, but some go out of their way to denigrate expertise itself. That they are able to do so without consequences is illuminating; that doing so may actually earn them the admiration of their constituencies is truly startling.

I think that Spanish Inquisitor is absolutely correct to focus on religion, as it is a particularly dramatic example of the lengths to which people will go to ignore reality. But I have the sense that there is something even more fundamental going on of which religion is certainly a part.

We envy Bill Gates' money, but American adolescents who excel in school are still referred to as nerds and pressured to minimize their intellect. As Japanese technology demonstrated it's superiority, many continued to buy American products and berate those who did not. What may have initially been misguided patriotism became an increasing hostility to reality itself.

And consider those who today rely on Fox "News" or Rush Limbaugh as their primary source of information. They will not be swayed by research showing the biased nature of their chosen media. For them, "ivy league" and "intellectual" are insults. They have little patience for facts, no respect for those able to utilize them effectively, and are quick to anger when questioned.

Religion is certainly relevant. I wouldn't be writing this blog if I didn't think so. But I am starting to suspect that religion may be a symptom of a deeper problem rather than a root cause.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Catholic Doctrine Facilitated Child Abuse

2009-05-24T14:09:00.000-05:00

I wanted to see a day or two pass without thinking of the tragic Catholic child abuse scandal in Ireland. I really did. But then I read a heartbreaking op-ed in The New York Times by John Banville, and once again, I just can't get it out of my head. Here is how Banville concludes:

Ireland from 1930 to the late 1990s was a closed state, ruled — the word is not too strong — by an all-powerful Catholic Church with the connivance of politicians and, indeed, the populace as a whole, with some honorable exceptions. The doctrine of original sin was ingrained in us from our earliest years, and we borrowed from Protestantism the concepts of the elect and the unelect. If children were sent to orphanages, industrial schools and reformatories, it must be because they were destined for it, and must belong there. What happened to them within those unscalable walls was no concern of ours.

We knew, and did not know. That is our shame today.

It is not my claim that Catholic doctrine, or even religious belief itself, caused this to happen. That would be far too simplistic. However, I believe it is fairly clear that religious belief facilitated this and continues to facilitate similar atrocities today.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Catholic Responses to Irish Child Abuse Conspiracy

2009-05-22T07:58:00.001-05:00

Image by AFP/Getty Images via Daylife

Confronted by mounting evidence of the scope of their crimes, a conspiracy to protect the perpetrators from prosecution, and a growing public outcry (at least I sure as hell hope it continues to grow), some Church officials are issuing apologies while others are simply continuing to ignore the issue. In this post, I will examine some of the statements which have been issued so far by Church officials, former Church officials, and assorted Catholics speaking out.

We're Sorry

I'd like to start with the apologies. After all, many people will commend the Church for issuing them at all. Cardinal Sean Brady, described as the leader of Ireland's Catholics was quoted as saying the following:

I am profoundly sorry and deeply ashamed that children suffered in such awful ways in these institutions. Children deserved better and especially from those caring for them in the name of Jesus Christ.

The Sisters of Mercy, one of the homes for girls where the systemic pattern of atrocities were documented, stated that they:

Accept that many who spent their childhoods in our orphanages or industrial schools were hurt and damaged while in our care. There is a great sadness in all of our hearts at this time and our deepest desire is to continue the healing process for all involved.

Several victims have refused to accept these apologies, and I can't say I'm surprised. It wasn't just that the abuse occurred or that it was chronic and widespread. One must also remember that the Church successfully conspired to prevent prosecutions of the perpetrators and worked out a deal with the Irish government to limit the amount of compensation they would have to pay to victims and their families. In light of this long-term conspiracy, these apologies seem hollow.

We Didn't Know Child Abuse Was A Crime

As hollow as the apologies might seem in light of the horrific material contained in the report, I suppose they are somewhat better than the response from retired U.S. Catholic Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland:

We all considered sexual abuse of minors as a moral evil, but had no understanding of its criminal nature.

This accused rapist says that he had no idea that sexually assaulting children would have long-term consequences on them. He says that he:

Accepted naively the common view that it was not necessary to worry about the effects on the youngsters: either they would not remember or they would ‘grow out of it’.

Wow! I'm not sure what else to say about this.

Ignore It or Throw Faith at the Problem

And then there is what I expect will be the most common response of all - simply ignore the issue. This is from Fr. Roger J. Landry and was written in 2002 in response to the Boston abuse scandal:

We can focus on those who betrayed the Lord, those who abused rather than loved those whom they were called to serve, or we can focus, like the early Church did, on the others, on those who have remained faithful, those priests who are still offering their lives to serve Christ and to serve you out of love. The media almost never focuses on the good "eleven," the ones whom Jesus has chosen who remain faithful, who live lives of quiet holiness. But we, the Church, must keep the terrible scandal that we've witnessed in its true and full perspective.

This reminds me of the "bad apples" claim used by Bush administration officials to explain away detainee abuse after the photos from Abu Ghraib first surfaced. I do have to give Landry credit for one thing though. He does an absolutely outstanding job of unintentionally summarizing one of the things that makes faith so dangerous:

No matter how sinful a priest is, provided that he has the intention to do what the Church does — at Mass, for example, to change bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, or in confession, no matter how sinful he is personally, to forgive the penitent's sins — Christ himself acts through that minister in the sacraments.

Read those words again and let them sink in. See the problem? Yeah, it is a big one. I wouldn't have thought to include Landry's response to the Boston scandal here except that a self-described "faithful Catholic" presented it as an answer to the Irish scandal. That she regards it as an answer is disturbing.

Atheists Are Evil!

The only thing that could be better than ignoring the issue or attempting to obscure it with faith and Christianspeak would be ignoring the issue while demonizing everyone's favorite target...the atheists.

This appears to be precisely what outgoing Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, decided to do.

He said, rather controversially perhaps, that a lack of faith is 'the greatest of evils.' He blamed atheism for war and destruction, and implied it was a greater evil even than sin itself.

Hmmm, I didn't realize we were the ones raping children and concealing it. I didn't realize we were the ones making sure that those who committed these despicable acts would never be held criminally responsible for them.

What would I like to see in the aftermath of the news out of Ireland? I'd like to see the fall of the Catholic Church, but I'm not particularly optimistic that I will live to see that. However, there is something that I would accept as a consolation prize. I would like to reach the point where any discussion of Catholicism inevitably mentions widespread child abuse, systemic efforts to avoid prosecution and protect the perpetrators so that they may continue to prey on children, and the dangers of faith. Yeah, I think I'd take that.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Let Latest Catholic Abuse Scandal Be Last Straw

2009-05-21T18:10:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

It is tempting to use evidence of the "decades of rapes, humiliation and beatings at Catholic Church-run reform schools for Ireland's castaway children" to slam the Catholic Church (see Catholic Church shamed by Irish abuse report). With a damning 2,600 page report including the discovery of "previously secret Vatican records that demonstrated church knowledge of pedophiles in their ranks all the way back to the 1930s," I think this is precisely what should happen. The problem of child abuse in the Catholic Church is not going away, and it is time for the outrage to translate to action. It is time for the Catholic Church to fall.

What is the appropriate response to learning that "church officials shielded their orders' pedophiles from arrest amid a culture of self-serving secrecy?" Outrage. Anything less is simply insufficient.

According to Ireland's Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse:

A climate of fear, created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most of the institutions and all those run for boys. Children lived with the daily terror of not knowing where the next beating was coming from.

No child deserves this. Bringing those who directly perpetrated on children to justice is important. However, when the Church itself turns out to be a conspirator, it is time to dismantle this sick enterprise once and for all. Anything less is not justice or even a reasonable facsimilie.

The report found that molestation and rape were "endemic" in boys' facilities, chiefly run by the Christian Brothers order, and supervisors pursued policies that increased the danger.

Endemic molestation and rape at the hands of Catholics, concealed for decades by the Church. It is not good enough for various Irish orders to die out. Not when other officials within the Church were aware of this and turned their backs. It is not enough that the Church has paid out some money to survivors, not when these sorts of scandals continue to pop up all over the world.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheists Not Fully Human

2009-05-15T06:10:00.000-05:00

Image by davesandford via Flickr

The next time someone wants to instruct me in the art of fly catching (i.e., honey vs. vinegar and all that), I think I will note that it is helpful when communicating with others to have at least a modicum of respect for each others' dignity and basic human worth. Sure, we can disagree. We can even find our opponent's worldview to be somewhat contemptible. But as long as we can respect the other as an individual human being, we at least have the potential of some sort of meaningful interaction. After noting that, I will then direct the expert fly catcher to the video below.

Watch as a high-ranking Catholic official, Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O'Connor, clearly indicates that he does not consider atheists to be fully human.

Am I really to attempt meaningful dialogue with such a man? I think not. How could I possibly expect it to lead anywhere positive? I would not expect it to be any more fruitful than it would for my Jewish colleagues to attempt the same with a Nazi or my African American colleagues to try it with a Klan leader.

When one side refuses to acknowledge even the basic humanity of the other, the barrier to bloodshed is thin indeed.

H/Ts to Blue Linchpin and Evolving Thoughts

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Religulous, Miss California, and Dick Cheney: Defend the Delusion

2009-05-06T05:26:00.000-05:00

Cover of Religulous

What does one get when one watches Religulous and then finds oneself thinking about Miss California? I had one more fleeting observation about Religulous that did not make it into my review and Miss California's infamous quote somehow solidified it. In watching Religulous, one of the things that struck me was how little many religious believers seemed to know about their claimed religions and the scientific or historical consensus surrounding many of their claims. I should have mentioned this in my review, but it was not until I read and re-read Miss California's quote several times that the full significance of this observation hit me. When one is exposed only to dogma and not to reality during one's upbringing and when one is taught not to question the teachings of one's parents and one's church, this is precisely the outcome the rest of us should expect. Many of the religious believers in Maher's film were like Miss California - they had been raised to think this way and never really bothered to question it.

It is widely recognized throughout the atheist community that we frequently know more about religious teaching than do those who claim to practice the religion. In part, this is because many of us are ex-practitioners ourselves. However, I believe that this is more about the process of questioning and exploration that many of us went through before discarding superstition. It was through critical examination that many of us were able to escape.

In watching Religulous, I was initially shocked to see Christians at the Holy Land Experience who seemed to have no idea that their bible was written decades after the death of their alleged savior. How could they not know this? Enter Miss California. They were raised to believe certain untruths and have not yet embarked on the process of critically evaluating much of what they were taught.

An earlier scene in Religulous is instructive here. Maher visits a truckers' chapel at a truck stop and is asking a handful of congregants about their beliefs. It does not take him long to get to what will strike most of us as fairly basic questions that no one in the group can answer (e.g., why is believing in things without evidence a good thing?). One man says something like, "If you are challenging my god, we're gonna have problems - I'm not listening to this" and storms out the moment it Maher begins to sound even mildly skeptical. So desperate was this man to protect his delusion that he was not willing to tolerate even a few minutes of disagreement with his religious convictions.

It occurs to me that millions of Americans are exactly like this man, not just when it comes to their Christian delusion but also with regard to their political views. In fact, I suspect that this is precisely what makes Fox "News" so appealing to some. Remember the reports about Dick Cheney's handlers having to arrive early at wherever he would be staying to set the TVs to Fox "News" lest the Grand Torturer might be confronted with dissent? Unfortunately, Cheney was not unique in this regard.

Just look at how the torture debate is shaping up. "We do not torture because torture is bad, and we don't do bad things" runs smack into the reality that we did in fact torture. The resolution simply cannot be acknowledgment that we did bad things, and so it is perverted into "What we did was not torture" or even "Torture is usually bad, but it was not bad when we did it because we had no choice." Such massive bullshit and yet really not that different from how countless people maintain their religious beliefs every day.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Death and the False Comfort of Faith

2009-04-26T08:39:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

It has been less than 48 hours since my grandmother died, and I know full well that this is not enough time to give me much perspective. I write this more in the hopes that it will be cathartic and that it may provide me with something to which I can later return when I have more perspective. Coming to terms with the death of a loved one is a gradual process, and one which I am merely beginning.

Our collective inability to deal with death in industrialized Western cultures is a central component in many psychological theories and is widely considered to be one of the factors maintaining the cultural importance of religious belief. We are so uncomfortable with the reality of our mortality that we resort to a variety of mental gymnastics to keep this reality at bay. These range from subtle psychological defenses to the actual conjuration of supernatural entities on which we impose human characteristics.

I have to say that I understand the appeal of telling myself that my grandmother is "in a better place" even though I know this is false. There is no better place unless one wants to argue that nonexistence is somehow superior to existence. But if I could somehow make myself believe this falsehood, I see how it might make me feel better, at least temporarily. Of course, so would a variety of substances that I no longer ingest, so that is a pretty weak case.

I also understand how my grandmother's strong Christian faith helped to comfort her, at least initially, as she came to terms with her impending death. Wait a second, you say, aren't such beliefs supposed to bring peace right up to the moment of death? Aren't we always hearing about atheists finding (only the Christian) god on their deathbeds? Sadly, my grandmother showed me that this is just another convenient fiction manufactured by Christians as a way of avoiding the reality of death.

You see, this devout Christian woman who had been "blessed" with good health and a sharp mind well into her 90s died slowly, gasping for air as her lungs gradually filled with fluid and her heart failed. Those with her as she died told me that she was conscience, terrified, and repeatedly called on her god to help her. This went on for more than a week. Evidently her god had better things to do.

My mother was there at the bedside to witness this torturous experience. It was what she wanted, but she was clearly traumatized by the experience. It was frustrating that the doctors would give my grandmother just enough morphine to make it possible for her to breathe but not enough to do anything about the pain. As ridiculous at it sounds, they were worried it might kill her. Remind me to eat a gun well before it gets to that point.

Contrary to what our culture insists, death is not a pretty experience. Only a tiny minority die peacefully in their sleep in familiar surroundings. I had hoped that my grandmother would be one, but her destiny lay with most of the rest of us: prolonged agony.

How then, can Christians praise a god who lets this happen to so many? It must be that the comfort of the "better place" delusion outweighs the reality of the suffering. But this is only a guess on my part. In truth, I have no idea how anyone could find such a god anything but worthy of contempt and disgust.

I'll tell you one thing - since the Christian god doesn't seem to give a damn about how much suffering we humans must endure, we had better figure out how to legalize assisted suicide and make it more accessible. Nobody deserves to go out this way, and they shouldn't have to.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

American Religion in the Recession

2009-04-03T07:27:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Conventional wisdom would suggest that there should be an inverse relationship between prosperity and religiosity (i.e., the more dire economic circumstances become, the greater the religiosity of the affected populace). To the degree that religion provides comfort, one would expect it to become more popular in those times where comfort is more likely to be needed. And yet, there has been little increase in religiosity in the U.S. during the last 15 months. Before we conclude that prosperity and religiosity have no relationship, there are a few more issues to consider.

True, there has not been a measurable increase in Americans' religiosity over the past 15 months, but it is difficult for something already so high to show much of an increase. This is what is often referred to as a ceiling effect. Essentially, the fact that American religiosity is already quite high makes it less likely that additional increases will occur. Imagine a sponge that is already quite wet. It probably isn't going to absorb much more water because it is already so saturated.

In addition, while it makes sense that church attendance (an extremely common measure of religiosity) might decline as people have less money to spend on transportation, the importance one attributes to religion or to one's god may be less susceptible to economic trends. Thus, the precise manner in which religiosity is measured is likely to be quite important.

Gallup notes,

It is not an unreasonable conjecture that the current recession would cause Americans to increasingly turn to religion as a surcease from their economic or personal sorrow. But that does not appear to be the case.

Perhaps Americans are finding comfort elsewhere. Of course, these data do not suggest any sort of decline in religiosity over the last 15 months either.

To the degree that it makes sense to view religious faith as delusional, one would expect precisely the results obtained by Gallup: religiosity is somewhat immune to reality. In times of prosperity, the religious will be religious. In times of distress, the religious will be religious. The self-maintaining nature of the belief system may come from the manner in which it is relatively impervious to reality.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Religion is Just Another Superstition

2009-03-13T07:14:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

You may not have even noticed, but today is Friday the 13th. Despite the fact that it is 2009 and not 1809, there are still people around who treat this date as if it is somehow different from any other day. They regard the number 13 as unlucky and seek to avoid it. We call this "superstition," and we are right to do so. But even in 2009, atheist blogs and books by atheist authors are among the few places where one can expect to see the same label applied to religious beliefs. This presents an interesting puzzle, as it is quite obvious that religious beliefs are merely culturally sanctioned forms of superstition. What makes them different from other forms of superstition is largely the structure erected in order to protect and maintain them against...well...reality. And yet, we atheists have to be careful about referring to religious beliefs as superstition for fear of retaliation.

Many Christians will eagerly join in the mocking of those who continue to believe in those superstitions which have fallen out of favor with mainstream culture. They join us in snickering at the man who avoids stepping on sidewalk cracks for fear of bad luck, and they are perfectly willing to laugh at those who fear black cats. They are right to do so because these beliefs are absurd, and their continued presence is a source of amusement.

And yet, notice how quickly things change when we atheists expose religious beliefs as simple superstition and magical thinking. The very same Christians who had no trouble recognizing the folly of other examples of superstitious belief are unwilling to do so when it comes to their own. "The difference," they insist, "is that what I believe is true." Sure it is (except that it isn't).

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Power, Responsibility, and Religion

2009-03-03T06:14:00.000-06:00

Image via Wikipedia

Earlier this week, our graduate program conducted interviews with prospective students applying for our doctoral program. After meeting with applicants, it was time to make some difficult decisions. Who would gain admission, and who would be turned away? How would I rank-order the applicants, and at what point would I draw the line so that nobody below this point would gain admission? As I reflect on the process, I must say that I find something unpleasant about this sort of power - the ability to influence the educational and occupational paths of others. I found myself feeling bad for those who didn't make the cut, even as I rationalized my decisions by telling myself that I would be doing a disservice both to the profession and to the applicants if I admitted people who were not qualified. It puzzles me how some could find pleasure in such an exercise of power, but it is clear that many do.

To some degree, each of us has power. We can influence the course of our lives within limits. When applied to ourselves, we often refer to this sort of power as "freedom." Many of us have another sort of power in that we can influence the lives of others. For example, a parent has power in that he or she can influence the lives of his or her children.

Most of us realize that this sort of power involves tremendous responsibility, and we do not exercise it lightly. Others seem to focus more on the exercise of power itself and much less on any sense of responsibility. For them, power becomes a tool with which to manipulate and control.

Some people even crave this sort of power to the point where they will commit despicable acts to obtain or maintain it. Some become the sort of politicians who work largely to line their own pockets and punish those who disagree with them. They may actually inflict harm on those they are supposed to represent in the interest of strengthening their political power.

Other power-hungry sorts become members of the clergy. Indeed, it is this sort of power at which religion truly excels. I am not sure any example one could find in the political or business worlds can touch religion. For the faithful, what could be a greater power than wielding influence over one's soul?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Embarrassed For Humanity

2009-02-17T05:52:00.000-06:00

Image by stevegarfield via Flickr

Late last month, Bligbi wrote a great post titled "What century do we live in again?" I don't know about you, but I find myself asking that question every time I open a paper, watch a news program on TV, or get my fix of news from multiple sources on the Internet. Increasingly, I find myself feeling embarrassed for humanity. I know we can do better than this, and I am becoming increasingly impatient that we refuse to do so.

Here are some quick examples of what I'm talking about:

Texas school suspends teacher after a parent accused him of being an atheist
Christian extremist in Colorado murders Catholic for not being sufficiently Christian
Virginia public school pressures employee to participate in Christian activities
Under the guise of news, Fox spreads hatred of atheists
Pope welcomes Holocaust denier

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

No Atheists During an Economic Collapse?

2009-01-12T06:45:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaThe "no atheists in foxholes" myth is not only alive and well, but it is being applied to all sorts of other stressful situations. Take, for example, this commentary from The Buffalo News. The author, Lisa Earle McLeod, begins with the foxhole claim and then takes it a step further, "I would also say there aren’t too many atheists during an economic collapse or when your kid gets really sick or when your car flips over in a traffic accident and you find yourself in a ditch." Simple ignorance about atheism and atheists or despicable anti-atheist bigotry?

Just as the more common claim regarding atheists in foxholes, Ms. McLeod's claim can be falsified quite easily. But I submit that it may be even more interesting to walk through the door she opens at the beginning of her comment and see where it might lead.

Why do we always wait until things get awful before we ask for help?

We wait until our marriage is in a ditch before we go to a counselor.

We wait until our kid is failing before we hire a tutor.

And we often wait until we’re desperate before we turn to God.

Why indeed? In the first three cases (i.e., asking for help, going to a counselor, and hiring a tutor), I expect the answer often centers on embarrassment, time, and money. We all like to believe that we can take care of ourselves without help, and many of us were even raised to view asking for help as a sign of weakness. Obtaining professional counseling and hiring a tutor not only require us to admit that we have a problem but also demand resources in the form of time and money.

I think that the fourth example provided by Ms. McLeod is different. Turning to some sort of god can be a personal and private matter, so the risk of embarrassment (at least the type of embarrassment noted above) is unlikely to be relevant. Similarly, if we are talking about something like prayer, monetary expense is probably not involved (until churches figure out how to charge for that too). Time may be a factor, as even something like prayer can require some free time. However, I have a hard time believing that this is a serious obstacle.

Still, I'm not ready to dismiss Ms. McLeod's claim that people only turn to their preferred god in dire circumstances. How then are we to explain it?

There’s nothing like a big problem to bring us to our knees, both literally and figuratively.

Perhaps religious people know, at least on some level, that their god(s) is merely a theoretical fiction, conjured to bring comfort. In their day-to-day lives, they have little use for such an abstraction and have no trouble living as atheists. However, during times of crisis, many may not be strong enough to face reality and overcome the embarrassment of seeking worldly assistance. Instead, they may resort to superstition to provide a fleeting sense of order and control in an often chaotic world.

A quick trip to any hospital chapel and you’ll find people who aren’t even sure they believe in God, praying with all their hearts promising to do anything if only the Almighty will intervene and help their loved one get better.

Forget for a moment that this simply is not the case and that many of us endure awful situations without resorting to superstition. Pretend for a moment that this is true. Just like the religious person, the atheist who engaged in such behavior would simply go right back to business as usual the moment the crisis resolved. When no gods intervene and prayers go unanswered, temporary relief may be obtained, but nothing changes.

I have to wonder what would happen if we prayed for answers when things were going well.

The same thing that happens in response to prayer in dire circumstances...nothing. I think most of us realize this, atheist and theist alike, and this is why the religious behave as Ms. McLeod describes.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution