The Enjoyable Lightness of Being

I never really knew how little I knew about evolution until I read Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution Is True” and Richard Dawkins’ “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.”  These books, each with a unique voice and approach, should be required reading for anyone who considers themselves a skeptic, freethinker, agnostic, atheist … or even a believing supporter of science and truth.  With these two books in your repertoire, there is literally no argument that a creationist can make that cannot be summarily destroyed (assuming, of course, that you’re dealing with someone willing to listen to real evidence, which I know doesn’t describe most creationists).

More importantly, a careful reading of these books will drill, deep down into your bones, a profound aesthetic appreciation for the relative simplicity of the process that created the incredible diversity of life we know.  This feeling, this incredible sense of the connectedness of things, hit me in the most unexpected of places — a chapter in “The Greatest Show on Earth” detailing just how DNA and genes do their work on a chemical level.  The material is frankly tough reading, bordering on a bit dry (sorry, Prof. Dawkins!).  The translation of proteins, bonding sites catching certain molecules so that they connect with other molecules, etc. 

And then … WHAM! … comprehension.  

My mind flashed back to my high school chemistry class, talking about polar molecules and how they could only bond if aligned just so.  Which sent me racing to atoms, and their component parts — proton, electron, neutron.  Leaping further still, my brain connected to quantum physics, with its intricate dissection of the seemingly indivisible.  And then whoosh, I soared into the realm of cosmology, where all of those tiny particles combine to form innumerable stars, planets, galaxies, all spread over incomprehensible distances.  The whole of science suddenly cohered.  The search for truth, or at least bits of it, through all these disciplines, and their inextricable linkages.

Just … wow.

Our place in the universe, considered in light of all these connected ideas, shrinks to a nothingness.  And yet, our world, our perception, is huge.  Though nothing in the grand sweep of the Universe, we are privileged with a life, however brief, and the ability to perceive all this grandeur, all this mystery.

Yeah.  Wow.

God cannot survive apart from religion

In May 2007, Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, debated activist and Christian minister Al Sharpton at the New York Public Library (transcript here, video here [scroll down to May 7, 2007]).  Throughout the debate, Sharpton challenged Hitchens on the basis that Hitchens was criticizing religion and its associated beliefs, but not the existence of God itself.  The following exchange is representative of this line of discussion:

AL SHARPTON: I think you probably had a bad Sunday school teacher, (laughter) because a lot of what you’re saying is based on dogma and has nothing to do with one’s belief in a supreme being. You’re discussing again religions, dogmas, denominations, not the existence or nonexistence of God. . . . But I think that, again, the basic core question of God goes way beyond any example, no matter how witty or humorous, of those that come in God’s name because it is the dictates of denominations or organized religious groups that tell you what to eat and what to wear and who to sleep with and all of that—that has nothing to do with the existence of an order to the universe that is clear and evident. That science, I think, confirms that it evolved from somewhere—that’s how I relate to God.

 * * *

I think you’re confusing the misuse of religion with the existence of God. There are those that have no religious affiliations at all that believe in God. There are people that don’t deal with organized church at all that still believe in God, so when you say “God is not great,” let’s not then debate “organized religion is not great,” or “some that have exploited organized religion is not great.” You, in the title of your book—and I have had a chance to go through your book—attack God, not those that express that they are therefore standing in God’s place or representing God.

Hitchens held his own (no surprise), but a point he never made forcefully enough can be stated simply: “If a person may experience and know God outside of religion, how does that person know anything about the nature or attributes of that God?”  It is only through the “religions, dogmas, denominations” Sharpton mentions that people claim to know anything about God: what he’s like, what he wants people to do and not do (i.e., morality), what rewards or punishments await humanity, what happens after death, etc.  We have a word for people who believe God reveals his will directly to them outside of a religion: schizophrenic.  At the very least, a person without a religion must admit that they are going by what they “feel” to be right, which is the same as admitting they’re making it up.

It is for this reason that criticism of individual religions and religious beliefs is important and valid.  Atheists and other freethinkers must never yield when, having laid bare the nonexistent foundations of particular beliefs, religious people accuse them of dealing only with a “caricature” of God (the old man in the clouds) and not with the real, transcendant deity.  Theologians love to make this argument in a condescending tone, particularly if they are not biblical literalists.  “Silly atheist,” they say, “God is so much bigger than any religion mediated by fallible humans can convey.”  Nonsense.  If God is more than what religions say, how do they know what that “more” is?  They don’t, and can’t, without just making it up.  Take down a religion, and you take down its god.

What atheists want

One annoying thing about being an atheist is that religious people frequently attribute malicious motives to us that we don’t have.  For example, my very Catholic mother-in-law recently claimed that atheists, through the Supreme Court, had made it illegal for children to pray privately to themselves in school.  When informed that this practice is, in fact, perfectly legal, her countenance softened only slightly.  This and other incidents convinced me that atheists, as a “movement,” have to do a good job of making our real goals clear.  Of course, religious thinking being what it is, perhaps nothing we say can convince most religious that there is no evil Atheist Agenda.

Just for the record, let’s discuss what atheists really do and don’t want:

• Atheists do not want to prevent religious people from freely worshipping in their homes, churches, synagogues, mosques, or any other private venue.  On the contrary, atheists generally support the freedom of conscience of all individuals, which is why they support the separation of church and state.  We simply want the same freedom to live according to our own consciences without being discriminated against.
• Atheists do not want to prevent anyone – school children, adults, anyone – from praying privately to themselves over a meal, before a test, or at any time the person feels the need.  Atheists DO want to prevent schools, teachers, and any other government official or employee from mandating that people participate in religious exercises, and from conducting religious exercises on government property or using government funds.  These activities violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.
• Atheists do not want to prevent anyone from displaying religious symbols – a nativity scene, menorah, the Ten Commandments, etc. – on private property, whether a religious institution or simply a religious person’s property.  Such displays are legal and should not be interfered with even if they offend some people.  Atheists DO want to keep religious displays off government property.  The government is prohibited by the First Amendment from supporting or sanctioning any particular religion.  Displaying religious symbols on public property suggests an improper endorsement of that religion.
• Atheists DO want to be treated with the same respect religious people demand for their beliefs, and to be treated equally and fairly under the law.
• Atheists do not want to push religious people out of public life or public service.  Atheists DO want the opportunity to serve their communities as public servants as well, without being deemed unfit by voters or other politicians based solely on their lack of belief in a deity.
• Atheists do not want to live lives of debacuhery, to steal, cheat, lie, kill or commit harms to other people.  We DO want religious people to recognize that atheists are moral people who in the aggregate behave at least as well as, and certainly no worse than, religious people.
• Atheists do not want to deny the fundamental dignity and worth of each individual.  We DO want children to be taught, however, that human beings are an animal like any other, which evolved from earlier life forms through a natural process.
• Atheists do not want to elevate science to a religion.  We DO want claims about the world (including religious claims) to be subjected to the rigorous standards of evidence required by scientific thinking.  We also DO want to keep religious ideas posing as science (i.e. “Intelligent Design”) out of school science curricula and in religious studies classes, where they belong.

These are our simple goals.  No devious grand scheme.  No agenda to bring evil upon the world.  Just a wish to live and let live, which keeping religion a private matter.  Not so radical when you think about it…

Welcome to the new digs!

I want to welcome those readers of The Midwestern Gentleman (all three of you) who’ve made your way to mynew blog, Everyday Atheist.  “New” is a bit of a misnomer — I’ve brought over all the godless content from TMG, and will be adding new here as often as possible.  I decided to make the switch when I realized that TMG had become all atheism, all the time.  I’m hoping that Everyday Atheist, by having the operative word in its title, will make it easier for readers interested in this topic to find me.

Crackergate Redux

PZ Myers of Pharyngula fame followed through on his threat to desecrate a consecrated communion wafer, piercing the alleged body of Christ with a rusty nail, which also ran through pages from the Koran and Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, to demonstrate that nothing is sacred.  Myers then tossed the lot into his garbage can, along with some coffee grounds and a banana peel for good measure.  Pre-desecration, I questioned the wisdom of this move, arguing that intentionally attacking one of the key symbols of a religion might be great fun, but did little to advance the atheist cause.

Upon further reflection (spurred both by comments to my last post and Myers’ writings on the matter), I stand corrected.  Myers’ action was an important act of civil disobedience.  Catholics, in particular the Catholic student ministry at which the “kidnapping” of the Eucharist occurred, would have been within their rights to ask that Webster Cook (the Univ. of Central Florida student involved in the brouhaha) not return to their services because he violated their dogma on transubstantiation.  But they didn’t stop there.  Cook received death threats, an action was commenced to impeach him from the student senate, and a student ethics complaint was filed against him seeking disciplinary action by the university.

In other words, certain Catholics didn’t try to persuade Cook to respect their beliefs, they tried to force him to.  When he didn’t, they sought revenge.  In this context, Myers was entirely right to fight back.  The religious do not get to set the terms on which non-believers exercise our rights of conscience.  Unless an atheist commits a crime in exercising his or her views, no one has the right to demand that civil authorities punish displays of irreverence or even blasphemy.  When that kind of demand is made, striking back at sacred symbols (again, within legal bounds), stating unequivocally that “your sacred objects are not mine,” is an appropriate way to reassert the equality of our freedom.

Thoughts on Crackergate

There’s been a major blog brouhaha circling over a young man’s “theft” of a Eucharist wafer from a Catholic church and a blogger’s subsequent remarks, which drew the ire of none other than Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.  The story started with a Florida college student taking the wafer with him instead of eating it, as is required by Catholic doctrine.  The young man apparently received death threats, and the church asked his university to discipline him.  Finally, he relented and returned the wafer unharmed.

Enter science blogger and Univ. of Minnesota biology professor PZ Myers.  In a post entitled “It’s a frackin’ cracker,” Myers lambasted the church and university for its treatment of the student over, as he put it, “a goddamned cracker.”  Then Myers issued this request:

So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There’s no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I’m sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I’ll send you my home address.

That was when the shite hit the fan.  The Catholic League fired out not one but two press releases on the Myers post, the first encouraging people to contact the university and state legislature to go after Myers’ job, the second stating that a Virginia delegate to the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis had requested additional security to protect god-fearing republicans from the frenzied atheist hordes at Myers’ beck and call.  The comment threads on Myers’ blog, Pharyngula, exploded with thousands of posts, and other blogs got in on the action with their own huge comment threads.

Myers’ fundamental assessment of the situation is dead on – death threats are NEVER an acceptable way of expressing disapproval, even of someone who trashes your most cherished beliefs.  And the university would be completely out-of-bounds to discipline the student for an action taken outside of the school context that did not result in harm to a person or property damage.  Committing blasphemy is not an expellable offense; the First Amendment guarantees that, especially where a state school is involved.

But I don’t get the point of Myers’ “score me a wafer” idea.  He finds the idea of protecting “a goddamned cracker” absurd.  So do I — transubstantiation is a silly belief (for the non-Catholic, transubstantiation is the belief that, at the moment of consecration [blessing], communion wafers and wine, although retaining their appearance as simple bread and wine, actually become the body and blood of Jesus), and was the one that, no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t accept when I was practicing as a Catholic. 

But what’s the point of going out of your way to desecrate a communion wafer?  How does poking a very sharp stick in the eye of Catholics advance the cause of rationality that we atheists hold so dear?  I suppose there’s a certain amount of glee in tweaking the most powerful religious body in the world.  And holding transubstantiation up to ridicule isn’t inherently overboard.  But aren’t there better ways to do it?  I’m not suggesting giving religious beliefs the kid-glove treatment.  Far from it.  But is this the most constructive way to support The Atheist Agenda (TM)?

A retraction

I recently attended my sister’s high school graduation back home in the Midwest.  It was the standard pomp-and-circumstance event (although I must say, very efficiently managed) that played out all across the country this spring.  Also a common event, the valedictorian, in addressing his fellow graduates, made sure to thank Jesus, and note the ancient carpenter’s supposed role in helping the young man achieve his impressive academic accomplishments.

Many, many moons ago, I too was valedictorian of my class.  Then a devout fundamentalist Christian, I too gave props to JC in effusive terms: He’s everything to me, I could never have done this without him, my life could have gone a bad direction, blah, blah, blah.  Memory fails me a bit, but I believe I had convinced myself that, without the influence of religion, I would have made bad decisions and engaged in self-destructive behavior (despite being, in reality, a congenital goodie-two-shoes).  There were risk factors present — an absent father, growing up poor, home alone a lot due to a mom working super-hard to make a decent life for her kids.  But to hear my speech, my two options were valedictorian or junkie drop-out, with the Messiah being the deciding factor.

Thinking back on that speech, I think it appropriate now to say, in the inimitable words of Kathy Griffith, “Suck it, Jesus.”

I accomplished what I did in high school for two simple reasons: I had a loving mother who supported and encouraged me, and I worked my arse off in school.  (OK, three: a certain level of academic talent was genetically bestowed upon me by the ‘rents.)  That young man at my sister’s graduation likely succeeded due to similar factors.  I’m quite sure that he never simply prayed for a good test result rather than studying, and to judge from the eloquence with which he spoke, I’m guessing he wasn’t one Hail Mary away from a life of debauchery, either.

Herein lies one of the fundamental ways in which religion stunts the full development of many people.  Where human nature is believed inherently wicked, and all good things are bestowed at the whim of a cosmic daddy figure, a person always owns their failures, but never their triumphs.  If you screw up and “sin” (which often involves no real moral failing anyway), it’s your fault for giving into temptation, not having enough faith, living as a “fallen” being, etc.  If you succeed, all praise goes to your god.  You’re a worm who can do nothing good except through the strenghtening power of the deity.  In that context, moral and psychological pathologies are not only likely, but necessary to a proper relationship with your faith.

I’m only just now beginning to explore humanism, but I’m keenly interested in developing the means of discussing moral systems based on human needs and respect.  This positive aspect of an atheistic viewpoint deserves greater discussion in the public sphere, and holds the potential to diffuse some of the bombs lobbed against nonbelievers by the faithful.

Atheist Billboard Rises Over Philadelphia

A coalition of freethought, humanist and atheist organizations calling itself the Greater Philadelphia Coalition of Reason has erected a billboard on I-95 North in the northeast portion of Philly.  Mrs. MG and I saw it for the first time Saturday while in the car with Mrs. MG’s mother, an erstwhile Catholic.

Readers may recognize the design as that erected outside New York City by FreeThought Action.  As stated in a post on that billboard, I love the whole concept of this design, and of public displays of positive freethought ideas generally.

Head on over to PhillyCOR’s website and check out the organizations participating.

Unto us a child is born

The Midwestern Household is abuzz with excitement this week (or would be if we weren’t so sleep deprived) as we welcome our first child, who for blog purposes shall be known as Little Bigfoot.  This fella joined our happy family last Saturday.

In thinking about all the things I want to do with him in the coming years (including sleeping more than two hours at a time), I’m faced with the conundrum every atheist parent must address: What in the world am I going to tell this kid about religion and god?  The question is complicated, as it is for many, by the high level of religiosity among some of our family members (esp. Mrs. MG’s clan of diehard Catholics).  Here’s the best I can come up with over breakfast:

1. I absolutely will not baptize this child.
2. I will educate him about religion.  To critically evaluate religion, one must know something about religious beliefs.  If one is to be an empathetic human being, one should also understand some of the motivations behind certain doctrines and belief in general.  Moreover, no one can fully appreciate our society or art and literature without some knowledge of religion.  Little Bigfoot will have the benefit of an introduction to major religious ideas and why people hold them, always with the caution that Mommy and Daddy don’t believe these stories are true.
3. I will insist that our religious relatives not try to indoctrinate him.  If I find out anyone has tried to secretly baptize him or encourage him to believe, there will be hell to pay, so to speak.
4. Same goes for daycare workers, teachers or other school officials.  Seriously, I will f you up, legally speaking. 
5. I will answer his questions about religion (and everything, for that matter) as thoroughly, honestly and age-appropriately as I can.  If we are to encourage him to value truth, we should always speak the truth to him.
6. I will encourage a love of and wonder at the natural world in his imagination.

I’m sure I’ll think of other things, but those are the points that jump to mind at this early hour.  This will all become far more relevant with time, of course, so right now I think I’ll grab another cup of coffee and snuggle with my boy for a while.

Universe thrilled to find its purpose in life

“Optimism and pessimism, as cosmic philosophies, show the same naive humanism; the great world, so far as we know it from the philosophy of nature, is neither good nor bad, and is not concerned to make us happy or unhappy. All such philosophies spring from self-importance and are best corrected by a little astronomy.” – Bertrand Russell

Astronomy magazine published one of the coolest graphics ever this month:

The large center oval shows the distribution of 150 million or so galaxies in the local universe.  Every dot represents a galaxy of millions to billions of stars.  The smaller ovals are slices of the universe at various distances, and thus various times, from the Milky Way.  I love it because it takes the unimaginably large, unimaginably numerous, and displays it on a single page in a comprehensible way.  Sort of puts our smallness into perspective, no?

Well, apparently not if you’re Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life and recent Colbert Report guest.  Here’s what he had to say about our place in the universe.

In case you’re having trouble with the video, here’s what Warren said near the beginning of the interview:

Well, God is the creator, and He created the entire universe just so He could create this galaxy, just so He could create this planet, just so He could tilt it at the right axis so it wouldn’t burn up or freeze up, to sustain human life because he wanted to create human beings, he wanted to create you to love you.

That’s right — the entire universe, all those millions of galaxies pictured in Astronomy, were put here just so God could create humans.  Wow.  Just wow.

Let’s put the existence of humans in a little historical context.  Current estimates place the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years, plus or minus a couple hundred million years.  The Milky Way formed not long after (in astronomical terms), probably more than 13 billion years ago.  The earth formed around 4.55 billion years ago.  The first life arose somewhere between 4.4 billion and 2.7 billion years ago.  Modern homo sapiens, the species to which all existing humans belong, didn’t arise until approximtely 120,000 years ago.  (Rick Warren, incidentally, was born in 1954.)

Riddle me this, Pastor Rick.  If God created the universe so he could create this galaxy, so he could create this planet and tilt it at just the right axis, just so he could create human beings and love them, why did he wait 13,699,880,000 years to get down to the lovin’?

The simple and correct answer is that humans are a product of the universe’s natural processes, not its intended beneficiaries.  We are tiny, impotent creatures, crawling across a tiny planet (even for our own solar system), circling around a middling yellow star, revolving on an outer spiral arm of what must be admitted is a pretty cool galaxy (yea us!).  And that’s an extraordinary place to be and appreciate on its own merits, if only one is humble enough to accept the truth.