Main

September 21, 2008

Pastafarians 1, Phelps 0

Pastafarian pirates did some great work countering a protest by the Phelps hatemongers, as described by the Arkansas Times (h/t: Friendly Atheist):

...the cuckoo Phelps hate group walked the plank this morning after a happy bunch dressed like pirates and holding signs saying "God hates shrimp -- Leviticus" and "God hates cotton-polyester blends" stood opposite them... [...]

With cars honking and waving at the pirates and a TV crew giving them all the attention, the Phelps group -- with a child in tow, sadly -- picked up their "fag" epithets and went away. Pitiful.

20080921-pastafarians.jpg
(photo by Brian Chilson)

Oh my FSM, that's the Best. Counter-protest. Ever.

links:
Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church
Pastafarians and the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

September 14, 2008

the Right's problems with the ninth commandment

Dale (Parenting Beyond Belief) McGowan has a great piece on the Right's "Inconvenient Commandment," (i.e., the biblical prohibition against lying) and how much trouble they seem to have following it. Here's the comment I left for him:

I, too, find it interesting (ironic?) that those with the seemingly strongest prohibitions against lying seem to do more of it than we of the godless-heathen/moral-relativist persuasion...rather like some other "moral problems" that tend to be worse in highly religious states, such as teen pregnancy and divorce. A cross-national study I mentioned three years ago (I apologize for the link-whoring, but it's relevant!) noted that "higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion."

I've seen speculation that--like the menopausal grandmother who insists that everyone should wear a sweater when she shivers--religious voters want to legislate "morality" (anti-choice laws, anti-LGBT, anti-divorce, pro-censorship, etc.) not because society as a whole needs them, but because they themselves do.

I'd like to answer your last question with another question: doesn't shame require a conscience?

P.S. Some political trivia: Carter never used the word "malaise" in his famous speech.

September 11, 2008

imagine

FFRF (Freedom from Religion Foundation) placed an ad (PDF) in yesterday's NYT (h/t: FriendlyAtheist) to remind us of religion's awesome power:

20080911-imagine.jpg

September 8, 2008

has it really been that long?

Originally publicized by Richard Dawkins, I wrote about the Out Campaign for atheist visibility over a year ago. I can't believe that it's taken me that long to add the scarlet "A" to my blog, but it's there now (on the sidebar to your right).

I don't plan on deliberately skewing the focus--such as it is--of my blog to cover atheist news or books any more than I have been, but I want to do what little I can to publicize the freethought community. The analytical skepticism that atheism fosters carries through into all of my writings; I'm always an atheist even when I'm not writing about it.

September 1, 2008

Kurt Vonnegut: Cat's Cradle

amazon.com

Vonnegut, Kurt. Cat's Cradle (New York: Dell, 1998)

Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle couldn't have been a better inaugural choice for the Atheist Nexus monthly book club. His science-fiction concept of ice-nine (a configuration of water molecules that is solid at room temperature) engages the imagination, but it's the religion of Bokononism that makes this book a classic. Indeed, Vonnegut's riffs on Bokonon and his religious writings make me wonder why I took so long to finally read Cat's Cradle.

Vonnegut deftly sets up the ice-nine threat in the first 50 pages, and then gradually adds layer upon layer of intrigue to the situation until < spoiler alert > catastrophe strikes in the last 50 pages. < end spoiler > (Unfortunately, I can't excerpt the narrator's religious asides in a way that would do Vonnegut's literary craft any sort of justice.) As the narrative takes its course, Vonnegut makes observations about war, religion, and humanity's other lunacies are as trenchant as ever. Here's his take on military pomp and pageantry:

"Perhaps, when we remember wars, we should take off our clothes and paint ourselves blue and go on all fours all day long and grunt like pigs. That would surely be more appropriate than noble oratory and shows of flags and well-oiled guns." (p. 254)

This is often a humorous book--not laugh-out-loud funny, but spiced with Vonnegutian touches: the black humor that suffuses its pages and animates its characters is his instantly recognizable style. Vonnegut skewers human pretentiousness with a caustic delight; since his passing last year, this book is a reminder of how unique his voice was.

Cat's Cradle is often mentioned as the Vonnegut novel to read after Slaughterhouse-Five; now I'm wondering which one to read next. Any suggestions?

links:
Wikipedia article on Cat's Cradle
The Books of Bokonon

August 31, 2008

Forrest Church: Lifecraft and Love & Death

amazon.com

Church, Forrest. Lifecraft: The Art of Meaning in the Everyday (Boston: Beacon Press, 2000)

amazon.com

Church, Forrest. Love & Death: My Journey through the Valley of the Shadow (Boston: Beacon Press, 2008)

Historian and minister Forrest Church is the author of many religious/political books: God and Other Famous Liberals, The Jefferson Bible, and The Separation of Church & State. Drawing on his ministerial experience, Church has also written several other books on the big issues of life, love, and death; I am here examining Lifecraft and Love & Death. Like the late Randy Pausch (who was also a Unitarian), Forrest Church assembled the latter book after being diagnosed with terminal cancer; unlike Pausch, Church is happily still with us.

I use the word "assembled" rather than "written" as Love & Death is largely a collection of sermons and other reminiscences that discuss--not surprisingly--the subject of death and how it informs the ways we live our lives. Some of the stories he tells in Love & Death overlap with Lifecraft, but that is to be expected; I read them together because they cover similar terrain, and because Church tells his stories well.

Not surprisingly for a Unitarian, Church's theology is a liberal one; also not surprisingly for a (lapsed) Unitarian, I found myself largely in agreement with him except when his frequent mentions of god distracted from rather than enhanced his message. As Church wrote in Lifecraft, "You cannot expect to pick up a book by a preacher that doesn't have at least a little bit of preaching in it." (p. 92) His harmoniously common-sense stances only veered into jarring dissonance on rare occasion, as in this passage:

At their dying moment, no one wishes that they had spent more time in the office, made more money, read more books, or become a better squash player. (Lifecraft, p. 117)

As someone who has a to-be-read list exceeding 4000 volumes--which is continually growing--I will doubtlessly prove unable to read them all in my remaining years. My regret over those losses will be mitigated by other (greater) joys related to family and friends, but the regret will likely exist nonetheless. (I don't care for squash, but I may well wish I had become a better racquetball player.)

Of everything Church wrote in these two books, this passage was perhaps the most off-key:

If your neighbor disagrees with your personal theology, short of changing your mind--a prospect that may not delight you--you have only four options. You can convert, destroy, ignore, or respect her. Fundamentalists of the right usually attempt conversion, but sometimes, as we know firsthand from recent experience, they chose to destroy in God's name. Fundamentalists of the left tend to ignore such disagreements as irrelevant, but they, too, may choose destruction. One need witness only the gulags and crematoria to recognize that religious zealots alone have not cornered the market on muting the exercise of religious and political freedom by resorting to mass murder. (Love & Death, p. 81)

Church's mention of "crematoria"--clearly a reference to the (Christian) Nazi regime--turns this passage from mildly bothersome to severely disappointing. He should have known better than to ignore the Christian roots of Nazi anti-Semitism.

Also, as someone who overcame a drinking problem, Church has surely heard the term "dry drunk," which is an alcoholic who has stopped drinking but not yet made the other behavioral changes necessary for a full recovery. Giving up alcohol is necessary but not sufficient for recovery, and I would use this analogy for the Soviet Union's tyranny: a "dry drunk" partial recovery from Czarist totalitarianism. They had discarded the religious trappings, but the blind submission and other aspects of the authoritarian mindset were not purged. As their horrific experience demonstrates, secularism is a necessary precondition for a free society, but it is clearly not a sufficient one.

When writing later about William Blake's angelic visions, Church asks,

Does that mean angels really exist? Who knows. It is impossible to prove the existence of angels without leaving their realm. Like God, angels are beyond proof. Once we start arguing about whether or not angels exist, we have already missed the point. (Love & Death, p. 129)

The point is this: since the existence of angels--like gods--cannot be proven, it is not nearly as pointless to argue about them as it is to believe in them. Aren't there enough real things to argue about without inventing other bones of contention?

Depending on your tolerance for god gibberish and other religious fluff, you may get less out of Church's books than I did, but I can still recommend them as aids toward considering some deep questions:

The answers we arrive at may not be religious answers, but the questions death forces us to ask are, at heart, religious questions: Where did I come from? Who am I? Where am I going? What is life's purpose? What does this all signify? (Love & Death, p. x)

Those are philosophical questions--not merely religious ones, as Church claims--but that's an argument for another time. Here's to hoping that he's around to write a sequel...

< digression >

When Church went into his riff on the movie Titanic, I couldn't help but remember these two scenes, (which I have mentioned before) that take place after the ship's musicians had been assembled to soothe the passengers' savage breasts [typos fixed]:

The band finishes the waltz. Wallace Hartley looks at the orchestra members.
HARTLEY

Right, that's it then.

They leave him, walking forward along the deck. Hartley puts his violin to his chin and bows the first notes of "Nearer My God to Thee". One by one the band members turn, hearing the lonely melody.

Without a word they walk back and take their places. They join in with Hartley, filling out the sound so that it reaches all over the ship on this still night. The vocalist begins: "If in my dreams I be, nearer my God to thee..."

[...]

WALLACE HARTLEY sees the water rolling rapidly up the deck toward them. He holds the last note of the hymn in a sustain, and then lowers his violin.

HARTLEY

Gentlemen, it has been a privilege playing with you tonight.

The rest of Titanic was a overwrought mess, but that episode spoke to me in ways that the rest of the film did not: about the power of art even--or especially--in the face of death.

< /digression >

links:
Forrest Church
William Congreve

August 16, 2008

"Everywhere we look, the visible spectrum is rainbows...this cannot be natural."

I keep watching this video, looking for signs that it's a parody...it must be seen to be believed (h/t: Amanda at Skepchick):

"We, as a nation, have got to ask ourselves what the hell is going on."

Indeed. What the hell is going on in our schools that someone can be scientifically illiterate enough to believe that a rainbow from a lawn sprinkler is an unnatural phenomenon to be blamed on something "in our water supply" that is "oozing out of our ground."

It's almost as pathetic as believing that rainbows are caused by an invisible sky-daddy to remind himself to never again create an impossible flood that killed everyone except a mythical boat-builder's family and the residents of his impossibly-huge floating zoo:

9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

(Genesis 9:12-16)

I prefer to think of it this way:

Every time you see a rainbow, god is having gay sex!

August 9, 2008

a Christianist nation?

Carol Hamilton asks "Does Christian Fundamentalism Endanger Our Republic?" at History News Network (h/t: Buffy at Gaytheist Agenda), and the unsurprising answer is yes:

Authoritarian, narrow in its scope, rigid in its attitudes, and tautological in its thinking, evangelical fundamentalism has been making war on the founding ideas of the United States. Its belief in submission to authority puts it at odds with a democratic republic. Its hostility to intellectual inquiry--by its very nature an interrogation of authority--causes it to wage war on scientific research and modern medicine. Its valorization of ancient codes of behavior inspires its attacks on feminism and gay rights. Its revisionist attitude toward history--denying the deism, skepticism, and Masonic associations of certain major Founders--is dishonest.

Fundamentalist Christianity is essentially anti-modern.

That certainly sounds like Christianism to me, and thus a good time to revisit Andrew Sullivan's 2006 essay "My Problem with Christianism:"

Christianity...is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque.

and slidge's 2004 DailyKos post "Christianism vs. Christianity:"

Christianism uses Christianity in order to further its agenda, which can be quickly summed up in two goals:

1. The establishment of a state religion. This state religion, of course, is not to promote Christianity, but rather to consolidate power in order to achieve their second goal.

2. Legislation of their repressive moral agenda. The Christianists plan to destroy the system of checks and balances in the Constitution, and they plan to do this in the name of Christianity. The establishment of a state religion is critical to this.

Given their demonstrated hatred of church/state separation, civil equality, and democracy itself, I definitely categorize Christianists as a threat. They won't control the White House for much longer (I hope!), but don't count them out yet. They have a seemingly inexhaustible supply of fraudulent quotes, fictitious history, and false accusations...and, despite the facts, they're convinced that they're in the right.

August 5, 2008

not a Christian nation, part n

Writing at God Is for Suckers!, KA debunks the Decalogue-is-the-basis-of-American-law myth, based on this article by Richard Carrier. As he notes, we owe far more to Solon (and to English common law, which also predates Christianity's introduction into England) than to Moses, but the Right's historical revisionists can't possibly admit that. Jefferson made a similar observation when confronted with the Religious Right of his day:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law...This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it...that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians...we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." (letter to Thomas Cooper, 10 February 1814)

July 29, 2008

Randy Pausch, Unitarian

While researching the Knoxville terrorist attack, I visited the Unitarian Universalist Association website and discovered that the late Randy Pausch (obituary and book review) was a member of the UU Church. Here's a snippet from a Q&A:

UUA.org: What is your religious background, and what is it about being a Unitarian Universalist that attracted you to this faith?

Pausch: I was raised Presbyterian and attended church regularly until I was about 17. I like the fact that [Unitarian Universalism] appeals to reason and thought more than dogma.

He mentioned having been a Presbyterian in his book, but--unless I missed it--he didn't mention the UU Church.

July 1, 2008

no funeral for Carlin

A commenter at FriendlyAtheist mentioned a note on Carlin's website, which I hadn't visited since last week. According to Carlin's wishes, it looks like the Phelps clan won't have anything to picket:

I wish no public service of any kind.

I wish no religious service of any kind.

I prefer a private gathering at my home, attended by friends and family members who shall be determined by my immediate surviving family (wife and daughter).

The exact nature of this gathering shall be determined by my immediate surviving family (wife and daughter). It should be extremely informal, they should play rhythm and blues music, and they should laugh a lot. Vague references to spirituality (secular) will be permitted.

Ten Commandments

Is US law based on the Ten Commandments? Fundies would like us to believe so, but--as usual--the facts are not on their side. Marc Berard's excellent article at Skeptic Report (h/t: Bay of Fundie) analyzes them one-by-one, and concludes:

Out of the 10 commandments, 4 (1, 2, 3, 10) are counter to American laws. 3 (6, 8, 9) are part of our legal system, but are part of just about every legal system in history. 2 (4, 5) are not a part of our laws. And 1 (7) may or may not be a part of state or local laws. Even in a state that has laws concerning #7, that still means less than half of the 10 commandments carry any legal weight, and an equal number are illegal to enforce.

Those that claim the 10 commandments are our basis for law apparently do not know the law very well. The only thing funnier is those that want it posted illegally in schools "to teach children respect for the law".

(The voice in my head is reading Berard's words in George Carlin's voice...I like that a lot.)

June 25, 2008

Westboro Baptist douchebags

The infamous "god hates fags" asshats from the Westboro Baptist Church have announced (h/t: Friendly Atheist) their intention to picket the funeral of George Carlin, who they refer to as a "filthy blasphemer" and an "obscene potty-mouth skeptic, agnostic, and profane atheist."

Ooh, those are some really hurtful insults...if they hadn't waited until Carlin died to call him names, he would have given them a verbal smackdown from which they'd never recover! I wish they would just crawl back under whatever pew they came from, and stop spreading their ignorance and hatred.

How sad that Carlin's friends and family will now have their ceremony tainted by WBC's presence.

June 24, 2008

Robert Price: The Reason-Driven Life

amazon.com

Price, Robert. The Reason-Drive Life: What Am I Here on Earth For? (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2006)

As a freethinker, the publications of Prometheus Books are well-represented on my bookshelves; Robert Price's The Reason-Drive Life may just be the best I've read so far. Written as "a direct rebuttal and alternative to" (p. 21) Rick Warren's best-selling The Purpose-Driven Life, Price's book is far more than a simple criticism of Warren in particular--or even of fundamentalism in general.

The Reason-Driven Life is full of interesting tidbits and mini-lessons in theology, the most interesting of which is Chapter 26, "Satan's Sunday School." In it, Price--a professor of both Biblical Criticism and Theology & Scriptural Studies--shows Christianity's debt to Zoroastrianism in the development of Satan's backstory. Much of what Christians "know" about the history and character of Satan (as with the Catholic-invented Purgatory) is either of extra-Biblical origin or the product of rather questionable Biblical interpretation.

Price weaves the stories of various Apocrypha (The Testament of Reuben, The Apocalypse of Moses) into his book, along with plenty of quotes from Eric Hoffer's The True Believer, Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra, and Hugh Prather's Notes to Myself. The scholarship serves Price's goal quite well, and leads him to solid critiques of Warren's pseudo-knowledge. Here are but two examples:

...let me remind you that Rick Warren is happy to quote from no less than fifteen different translations or paraphrases of the Bible. You know what that means, don't you? They are so different that he has a lot of shopping to do before finding one that will make the Bible appear to say what he wants it to teach. (p. 28)

There is only so far one can go plumbing the depths of the Bible when one reads it in the completely ahistorical, out-of-context manner Reverend Warren does in The Purpose-Driven Life. It is apparent he is utterly innocent of even the most basic facts of criticism. [...] What an irony that the fundamentalist champions of the Bible seem to care nothing for the text, but only for those doctrines and devotional "promises" they pry out of it. And when the Bible does not actually yield the requisite slogans and the desired devotional idiom, they will rewrite the text so that it does. (p. 348)

In a similar vein, Price's comment that "Rick Warren makes Robert Schuller look like Nietzsche" (p. 106) brought a smile to my face. Lest any reader accuse Price of nefarious atheistic intent, he goes out of his way to clarify his attitude toward the Bible:

I love the Bible. I have devoted my life to the study of it. I wrote one PhD dissertation on the various evangelical theories of biblical authority, and a second one focusing on themes in Luke and Acts. None of this means my views must be correct. But it does show I do not approach this sensitive topic as an opponent of the Bible. Just the reverse. (p. 226)

Also worth pondering are Price's rebuke to Brother Lawrence about "practicing the absence of God" (p. 122) and this passage on the "spirituality of beauty," which is my Quote of the Day:

Did you know there is a spirituality of beauty? It is what many cultured, secular people cultivate instead of overtly religious worship. It fills the same need. [...] There are certain poems that are a revelatory experience for me. The spine tingles and the soul marvels that words can be so associated. Great music awakens something within and stirs it up. Art causes you to transcend yourself, and that, in religious terms, is a reaching up of the soul to God. (p. 140)

All in all, Price's The Reason-Driven Life is a great read; I recommend it both to those who have read Warren's book and to those--such as myself--who have not.

June 7, 2008

Madalyn O'Hair: Why I Am an Atheist

amazon.com

O'Hair, Madalyn. Why I Am an Atheist, Second Revised Edition (Austin: American Atheist Press, 1991)

The two essays that comprise this slim volume, "Why I Am an Atheist" at fifteen pages and "The History of Materialism" at thirty, reinforce each other in dispelling some of the modern myths that have grown up around atheism and materialism. This quote is one example:

Materialism liberates us by teaching us not to hope for heaven beyond the grave, not to hope for happiness in death, but rather to prize life on earth and strive always to improve it. Materialism restores to man his dignity and his intellectual integrity. (p. 10, "Why I Am an Atheist")

The latter essay is the stronger of the two, drawing more directly on some of the great materialist minds nearly erased from history by religious orthodoxy: Democritus, Protagoras, Epicurus, Lucretius, and--much later--Giordano Bruno. All in all, O'Hair's essays are a nice primer on materialistic thought that should inspire readers to delve into the original source material. (At least that's what they did for me...)

June 4, 2008

atheism, not diamonds

Friendly Atheist posted an short essay by August Berkshire entitled "The Four Cs of Atheism:"

Like many of you reading this, I describe myself as a flaming liberal. Yet in one area I am a conservative. I am an atheist.

Yes, atheism is a conservative position. We make no leaps of faith. We accept statements only so far as there is reason and/or evidence to back them up. Anything else is speculation.

Atheism is also consistent. We apply our skepticism equally to all supernatural claims. We do not say, "All prophets, saviors, or gods are false - except ours." We make no exceptions or special pleadings, which makes us consistent.

Another benefit of atheism is that it is contradiction-free. We don't have to try to reconcile an all-loving, all-seeing, all-powerful god with the existence of evil. We don't have to define love exactly the opposite of the way we normally define it in order to make it applicable to our god. We don't have to claim a poor supernatural designer is intelligent.

An atheist also possesses clarity in his or her thinking processes. An atheist has the courage to follow the trail of reason and evidence wherever it may lead. If there should some day be a compelling reason or piece of evidence for a god, then we would acknowledge it and change our views. This is also known as intellectual honesty.

The final three items seem unassailable, but I disagree with the first: Berkshire describes atheism as "conservative" merely because it avoids faith in favor of empiricism. In doing so, he leaps from political conservatism (protection of the status quo and support for religious traditions regardless of the lack of evidence) in his first sentence to a very different general cautious attitude in the second. Calling this aspect of atheism "cautious" would preserve Berkshire's alliterative list, although "freethinking liberalism" would preserve the political link. Bertrand Russell said it best:

"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment. This is the way in which opinions are held in science, as opposed to the way in which they are held in theology. [...] Science is empirical, tentative, and undogmatic; all immutable dogma is unscientific. The scientific outlook, accordingly, is the intellectual counterpart of what is, in the practical sphere, the outlook of Liberalism."

("Philosophy and Politics," 1950)

June 2, 2008

Wil Wheaton: Dancing Barefoot & Just a Geek

amazon.com

Wheaton, Wil. Dancing Barefoot (Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly, 2003)


amazon.com

Wheaton, Wil. Just a Geek: Unflinchingly Honest Tales of the Search for Life, Love, and Fulfillment beyond the Starship Enterprise (Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly, 2004)

Almost everyone knows who Wil Wheaton is, but far fewer know that he is a writer as well as an actor. His blog resides in the must-check-several-times-every-day section of my RSS reader, purely for the pleasure of reading his great posts.

After having read his blog for some time now, I finally got around to picking up his first two books: Dancing Barefoot was Wheaton's first book, containing outtakes from the subsequent Just a Geek. With one exception, I can understand why the tales in Dancing Barefoot were cut from Just a Geek. Although entertaining, the first four of the five stories aren't as strong--or always as well told--as the fifth: "The Saga of SpongeBob VegasPants" is easily the best (which is a good thing, as it comprises two-thirds of the book) and is worth the cover price all by itself. (You'll want to read the full Dancing Barefoot version, as the truncated version in Just a Geek leaves out too much.)

Wheaton's fanboy encounter with WILLIAM FUCKING SHATNER--you'll have to read the story to fully appreciate the all-caps usage, which sounds in my head just like Shatner's "Denny Crane" self-announcing from Boston Legal--is heartbreaking, but Wheaton recovered well enough to write engagingly about it. Indeed, that's one of his strengths as a writer: to write well enough about Star Trek fandom, or music, or geeking out over meeting Tim O'Reilly (the founder of his publishing house) that the reader doesn't need to be a Trekkie or an alt-rock devotee or a PHP coder to appreciate his tales. Wheaton tells his stories well, and with a great sense of humor; from what I read on his blog, he's become an even better writer since these two books saw print.

Perhaps my favorite aspect of Wheaton's writing is how he handles his interior dialogue. The multiple "voices" in Wheaton's stories illustrate so much of what goes on inside his head, and he does it so well that it seems as effortless as his humor. That is the mark of a great writer. If you are an unrepentant Trekkie, or have an unfulfilled inner geek--or even if you just appreciate well-told stories--you should read some Wil Wheaton. (You can thank me later...)

Now on to the digressions:

I had noticed Wheaton's use of "thank Bob," which I took to be a freethinker's phrase, early in the book (p. 32 of Just a Geek, or this blog entry). This later passage confirmed my hunch:

I am not a religious person. I'm not quite an atheist, but I'm certainly not a theist, either. Friends describe me as an agnostic Taoist, whatever that means. I prefer to apply philosophies, rather than follow a leader, and I'm always coming back to the Tao Te Ching and the teachings of The Buddha. If I had the patience, I suppose I'd be a Buddhist. (p. 85)

When he used the phrase "for the love of Bob" later (p. 235), a wry little smile crossed my face; now there's something else I like about him. Also endearing is Wheaton's geekiness, which never lapses into a geekier-than-thou superiority. This email autoresponse from page 234 is a great example:

From: wil@www.wilwheaton.net Subject: Automated reply from wil@www.wilwheaton.net

Hey!

Don't you hate autoresponders, $GOOD_FRIEND?

I know that I do, and I would *never* dream of sending an autoresponse to anyone, not $MUTUAL_FRIEND, or $OTHER_MUTUAL_FRIEND, or even, $ENEMY.

You know, $THING_YOU_EMAILED_ABOUT really was ${fVAR=TRUE_FALSE)! It reminded me of $INTERESTING STORY.

Well, I have to get back to ${fVAR WORK_PLAY_SCHEMING}, $GOOD_FRIEND, so I'd better sign off.

$CLEVER_PERSONAL_CLOSING,

Wil

I laughed my ass off when reading that; it was the perfectly cheeky thing to do. </groan>

Wheaton is enough of a geek that he stumped me once, when he asked rhetorically: "I wonder if any of the other actors got it when there'd be a graphic in engineering labeled 'Kaluza-Klein Field.'" (p. 244) I Wikipedia'd "Kaluza-Klein Field" and--when it looked vaguely familiar--began looking through the science section of my home library: Sagan, no...Hawking, no...then I found it discussed in John Gribbin's In Search of the Big Bang: Quantum Physics and Cosmology. (After reading The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters for a class on the philosophy of science, I went on a serious science bender. Gribbin's books played a major part in that, although I haven't picked up Big Bang in--cough, cough--quite a few years...)

By the way, Wil...WILLIAM FUCKING SHATNER may have acted like a jerk to you during that first meeting during the filming of Star Trek V because he was distraught over how much SERIOUS ASS his co-written-and-directed-by film was SUCKING. (I would complain that I actually fell asleep while watching Trek V, but that may have been because I watched I-IV back-to-back immediately beforehand. YMMV...)

May 18, 2008

biblical marriage

Every time I visit the Landover Baptist Church website (or their similarly snarky WhiteHouse.org site), I am overcome by envy for their cutting humor. The LBC proposal to amend the Constitution to conform to "BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING MARRIAGE" is a delightful parody of Christianist demands (h/t: Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist), and I recommend that everyone read it to see what we're up against when arguing with the "traditional marriage" con men.

Bravo!

May 17, 2008

this is not enlightenment

I picked up the May-July issue of What Is Enlightenment? a few days ago, hoping that the article on "Atheists with Attitude" (pp. 38-42) would be worth reading. It was about as good as I could have expected, at least until this passage:

"In the delicate balance of natural ecosystems, a predator cannot exist without its prey. Similarly, in the world of human theology, an atheist cannot exist without a God to deny. And just as predators have co-evolved with the creatures they've hunted for thousands of years--an adaptation in one leading to a further adaptation in the other--atheism, and the God (or gods) it denies, has also been evolving. From the first Christians who were labeled atheists for rejecting the pagan gods of Rome to the Enlightenment philosophers who denied the God of the Church, each new stage of atheism has been a criticism of the ruling ideology that made way for humanity's next understanding of the ultimate nature of reality." [p. 39, emphasis added]

Leaving aside the atheist-as-predator analogy--which strikes me as a remnant of the writer's persecution complex--this passage is nonsensical. We atheists can exist quite well without theists' belief in their gods. We were all atheists before mankind created gods to believe in, and (someday) we with all be atheists again when theistic belief is no more.

There may not be a permanent need for the word "atheist," but the reality it describes is nonetheless constant. Others have pointed out that we all exist as a-fairyists and a-unicornists (except, perhaps, for some readers of What Is Enlightenment?) without fairies and unicorns to deny.


update (5/18 @ 10:55am):

Here is the passage that inspired my last remark:

As it happens, no atheist should call himself or herself one. The term already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground. A more appropriate term is "naturalist," denoting one who takes it that the universe is a natural realm, governed by nature's laws. This properly implies that there is nothing supernatural in the universe--no fairies or goblins, angels, demons, gods or goddesses. Such might as well call themselves "a-fairyists" or "a-goblinists" as "atheists"; it would be every but as meaningful or meaningless to do so.

(A.C. Grayling, "Can an Atheist Be a Fundamentalist?" from Christopher Hitchens' The Portable Atheist, p. 475)


May 15, 2008

I have to say...

...that Obama's Kentucky campaign poster (h/t: lambert at Corrente) bothers me:

20080515-obama.jpg

We're voting for a president, not a priest.

I doubt that Obama would be reaching out so explicitly to Christians if he didn't have to counter the right-wing noise machine that conned some people into believing that he's a Muslim. For one example, check out this exchange (h/t: Andrew Sullivan):

Woman: "I don't know about that Obama guy."

Me: "I'm an Obama supporter, do you mind if I ask what you're unsure about."

Woman: "He's a muslim and there is a biblical prophecy that a muslim will take over our country and destroy the world."

Me: "You're aware he is not a Muslim."

Woman: "He can say anything he wants."

Remember: these people vote.

May 1, 2008

Myers on NDoP

PZ Myers channels the Rude Pundit in his take on the National Day of Prayer:

Fuck the National Day of Prayer.

I can scarcely believe my country is officially pandering to such willful stupidity -- elevating evangelical kooks to positions of prestige, trumpeting the virtues of sectarian religion, and actually crediting the successes of America to the fact that a subset of deluded, demented fools sit on their asses and beg an invisible man to protect us and help us kill people in foreign countries. What a waste, and what an encouragement of further waste.

I left a comment on his suggestion to ""Fuck the National Day of Prayer:"

I'd be tempted to, but I find the demand for missionary-position-only-with-the-lights-off far too restrictive...

;-)


update (11:55am):
Tristero writes at Hullabalo:

Well, I say Fuck the National Day of Prayer but use a condom. These people are diseased degenerates so be careful, ok?

April 30, 2008

National Day of Reason

As I mentioned a few days ago, tomorrow is atheists' answer to the National Day of Prayer: the National Day of Reason. Here are a few posts I've seen discussing the day:

John Loftus posts a list of suggestions at Debunking Christianity

NoGodBlog reports on a NYC blood drive

Rebecca at Skepchick offers prizes for blood donors

Stardust at God Is for Suckers! posts this AU press release that quotes Madison and Jefferson

vjack has a great post at Atheist Revolution featuring these classic words from Robert Ingersoll:

"Hands that help are better than lips that pray."

Let's get out there and do our part to help; the Pharisees of the Religious Right have the market cornered on showy displays of piety, so there's still plenty of work to be done.


update (11:28pm):
Frederick Clarkson gives us the history behind the Nation Day of Prayer at Talk 2 Action

Buffy plugs NDoR at Gaytheist Agenda

April 29, 2008

persecution complexes

I've long marveled at the Christianists' tendency to misrepresent any criticism of their agenda as "persecution" despite their religion's solid majority among both the American electorate and the governing class. Elizabeth Castelli's piece on "Persecution Complexes" has the best definition that I've seen of this tactic:

"...a broader and growing trend in political discourse as it emerges from certain branches of right-wing political Christianity [that] mobilizes the language of religious persecution to shut down political debate and critique by characterizing any position not in alignment with this politicized version of Christianity as an example of antireligious bigotry and persecution."

It's a long article, but Castelli does great work analyzing the Justice Sunday/"War on Christians"/Battle Cry mentality. Understanding the "massive movement that sees itself as victimized minority" is no less important now than it was at the height of the Religious Right's ability to set our national agenda. Now that their influence is waning--and their control of the levers of power is diminishing--they may become ever more desperate.

April 27, 2008

an internal moral compass

Jim Downey over at UTI found some unexpected secularism online, and quoted a commenter from elsewhere. These two sentences are the heart of the quote, each of which would make a great Demotivators-style poster:

Is it more righteous to live a moral life because you're a coward and fear Hell, or to live a righteous life because you feel it is the right thing to do? Pharisees need an external moral compass because they lack an internal moral compass.

Multicultural morality, as I mentioned in this post, can give an atheist's conscience a more solid foundation than that of a fundie bible-thumper. It does takes more effort, though, as does everything that isn't packaged and pre-assembled. Evaluating the sum of human wisdom is a work beyond any single lifetime, because learning is more time-intensive than mindless regurgitation.

April 25, 2008

mark your calendar

Next Thursday (May 1st) is commonly known as the "National Day of Prayer," but NoGodBlog points out that it is also the date of the atheist BLOOD (Benefiting Lives of Others Donations) campaign. If you can't donate blood (and many people cannot do so, for various reasons) then do something else. As I mentioned last year, that day is also the National Day of Reason:

The goal of this effort is to celebrate reason - a concept all Americans can support - and to raise public awareness about the persistent threat to religious liberty posed by government intrusion into the private sphere of worship.

The Day of Reason also exists to inspire the secular community to be visible and active on this day to set the right example for how to effect positive change. Local organizations might use "Day of Reason" to label their events, or they might choose labels such as Day of Action, Day of Service, or Rational Day of Care. The important message is to provide a positive, useful, constitutional alternative to the exclusionary National Day of Prayer.

If you're an out atheist, it might be a great opportunity to do some consciousness-raising work.

April 24, 2008

the atheist spot

A new blog/news aggregator named The Atheist Spot (h/t: vjack at Atheist Revolution) is aiming to be the Digg/Furl/Technorati/whatever for the atheist community. It could be a very useful service, especially for those Netizens like myself whose RSS readers are already straining to keep up with the burgeoning atheist blogosphere.

April 23, 2008

Lenni Brenner: Jefferson & Madison on Separation of Church and State

amazon.com

Brenner, Lenni. Jefferson & Madison on Separation of Church and State: Writings on Religion and Secularism (Fort Lee, NJ: Barricade Books, 2004)

Reading 400 pages of any of the Founders' writings is the equivalent of several times the page count of nearly any contemporary writer, as this excellent collection of Jefferson's and Madison's writings proves. Although I have recently been spending more time on other things, I can't recall the last time it took three weeks to finish a single book. As always with the Founders, it was time well spent.

Brenner wisely chooses to present the writings--mostly letters--in chronological order, rather than trying to organize them thematically. Although the supplementary notes are generally good, they could have easily been more detailed; this could have been done without increasing the page count (or reducing the type size any further) by omitting The Jefferson Bible. Its inclusion was unnecessary, as it is readily available elsewhere (I recommend this edition from Beacon Press).

I don't mean to slight Madison, for his role in history is of the utmost importance, but most of the passages I noted while reading this book were Jefferson's. His words shine like beacons of reason across the centuries, and these two are no less appropriate in today's waning GOP era than during the end of the Federalist era in Jefferson's day:

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolved, and the people recovering their true sight, restoring their government to its true principles." (p. 146, letter to John Taylor, 4 June 1798)

"...our fellow citizens have been led hood-winked from their principles, by a most extraordinary combination of circumstances. But the band is removed, and they now see for themselves." (p. 159, letter to John Dickinson, 6 March 1801)

Both Madison and Jefferson were highly critical of religious establishments and equally supportive of religious freedom, as even a casual student of history will already know. Madison referred to religious establishments as representing a "dishonorable principle and dangerous tendency," (p. 65, letter to Thomas Jefferson, 9 January 1785) and Jefferson derisively referred to the "loathsome combination of church and state" (p. 234, letter to Charles Clay, 29 January 1815).

Jefferson's antipathy toward the priesthood's Pauline and Platonic corruptions of what he called "primitive Christianity" may take some readers by surprise, as he repeatedly compared them to a "dunghill" surrounding the "diamonds" of Jesus' words (e.g., p. 211, letter to John Adams, 12 October 1813; p. 216, letter to John Adams, 24 January 1814; p. 247, letter to Francis Van der Kemp, 25 April 1816). Jefferson was perhaps most forthright with Adams, writing the following to his upon the disestablishment of the Congregational Church in Connecticut:

"I join you therefore in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a protestant popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character." (p. 259, letter to John Adams, 5 May 1817)

Concerned in his later years with not offending others with his unorthodox opinions, Jefferson wrote: "I take no part in controversies, religious or political. At the age of 80, tranquility is the greatest good of life, and the strongest of our desires that of dying in the good will of all mankind." (p. 367, letter to James Smith, 8 December 1822) My Quote of the Day is from Jefferson's final letter, wherein he declined to appear at a July 4th event which was to be his last day alive:

"May it [half a century of experience and prosperity] be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. [...] All eyes are opened, of opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, not a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God." (p. 390, letter to Roger Weightman, 24 June 1826)

I can't praise Jefferson and Madison highly enough, and Brenner has done very useful work in publishing this useful compendium of their words of wisdom on religion and secularism. As Brenner notes in the Scholar's Afterword:

The [political] hacks claim to represent patriotism. Every year July 4th rolls around and they pay lip service to Jefferson's ideals. They can still get away with it because the broad public has no awareness of what he and Madison really stood for. So, let us take Jefferson's Bible and Madison's Memoranda to the people. (p. 406)

links:
The Thomas Jefferson Collection at the Library of Congress
The Thomas Jefferson Digital Archive at the University of Virginia
The Constitution Society has a text-only version of all 19 volumes of The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School has collections of papers from Jefferson, Madison, and some--but not all--other presidents.

April 15, 2008

Pope Ratz snubs Bush

Bush is holding a White House dinner in honor of the Pope tomorrow night, but Pope Palpatine Ratzinger won't be there. Perhaps Ratz is holding a secret meeting with Darth Cheney? (Psst: Make sure he's unarmed!)

Pope Palpatine

Seriously, though: How despicable is Bush that even the (former) Nazi Pope won't join him for dinner? (Yes, I know that Ratzinger was "only briefly a member of the Hitler Youth and not an enthusiastic one," but still...)

For bonus points, read Michelangelo Signorile's 1988 encounter with then-Cardinal Ratzinger. (It's hard to believe that his classic Queer in America, from which this anecdote was taken, is now fifteen years old.)

April 1, 2008

even better...

In the comments on this FriendlyAtheist post (mentioned previously), August Berkshire has suggested that "National God Day" be celebrated on February 30th.

It's a brilliant idea, to which I can only say: Bravo!

retort to the "National Atheists' Day" joke

Friendly Atheist lamented the Christian "joke" that April Fools' Day is really "National Atheists' Day" because atheists are fools, courtesy of--where else?--their Bible:

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalms 14:1)

The ideal response may be to point out this contradictory Bible passage:

"But whomsoever shall say 'Thou fool' shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22)


update (11:25am):
I left the same retort at Ray Comfort's blog to let him know that the joke is on him, and--to his credit--he published my comment. Whether he or his readers will have any substantive response remains to be seen.

March 27, 2008

pure awesomeness

Did you hear that the brutal Islamic dictator of Saudi Arabia wants to form an alliance with Jews and Christians to "safeguard humanity" against "the disintegration of the family and the rise of atheism in the world:"

"I have noticed that the family system has weakened and that atheism has increased. That is an unacceptable behavior to all religions, to the Koran, the Torah and the Bible. We ask God to save humanity. There is a lack of ethics, loyalty and sincerity for our religions and humanity."

Ed Brayton responds with pure awesomeness:

I'm just not inclined to accept lectures about ethics from a brutal dictator whose regime beheads people for being of the wrong religion, puts gay people to death and has roving gangs (they call them police) whose job is to beat women who leave the house unattended by a male relative. You're gonna lecture me on ethics, you fascist asshole? Fuck you. And your little god too.

Bravo!


update (12:57pm):
There are more comments on King Abdullah's proposal from Skepchick and NoGodBlog.

March 26, 2008

quote of the day...week...month...

Mike the Mad Biologist said something truly magnificent during a Boston Skeptics meeting (h/t: PZ Myers at Pharyngula):

Last night, I concluded my talk with a quote from Dover, PA creationist school board member William Buckingham, who declared, "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?"

My response was, "In the last two minutes, someone died from a bacterial infection. We take a stand for him."

This is how I think we need to argue. We need to put creationists on the defe