Monthly Archive for May, 2007Page 2 of 4

The wrecking of British Science

Yes I know this is the third Guardian link in as many posts but this is a truly interesting, if some what disturbing article. Written by Harry Kroto, winner of a Nobel prize for chemistry, in today's Education supplement he paints a sad indictment of the level of science teaching in Britain today. I won't say much more than that as you should really read the article in it's entirety. Hopefully it will be of interest.

Link:

* Original Article

Pharyngula, and Technorati ranks

We have a new member: Pharyngula. I imagine most of you already know that blog very, very well. :) Many thanks to PZ Myers for joining Planet Atheism.

And now for something completely different... I just coded (for fun) a couple of scripts to show a table of Technorati incoming links and ranks for all the PA members. The table is sorted by Technorati ranks, which are kind of (that is, don't take it too seriously) a measure a blog's success among other blogs; it counts the recent (180 days or less) links to a blog. How that rank is calculated is kind of mysterious, though, and, anyway, it's not a perfect system (for instance, some of the blogs are listed as having 0 links, which obviously can't be true, unless those blogs aren't listed on Technorati yet). [EDIT: that seems to be the case; the blogs are there, but don't have ranks yet. It must take some time.]

Therefore, don't put too much faith in it, and don't use it as a measure for the success of your blog. It's a toy. For fun. Nothing more. If you know another members of PA personally, it allows for playful competition among you, but I hope you don't start any real life feuds or something. :)

Since it involves making 76 queries (and rising) to Technorati, I'm updating it only once a day (midnight GMT). Enjoy...

[EDIT: added each blog's Google PageRank to the table. Why not? :) ]

Evolution Proven: From a Newt to a Snake

"... A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded [...] We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights. [...] In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive and that public debate can only proceed on secular terms [...] Too often, the courts have been biased against religious believers. This anti-religious bias must end ..."

-- Newt Gingrich, speaking at Liberty University
Gingrich: Challenge 'radical secularism' (AP via Pioneer Press)

How much of our history is merely perception colored by those seeking to attain power?  This nation was not founded on Christianity, why does that simple fact continue to elude these twits?  Shall we go back to Jefferson and check... AGAIN?

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67

 

The great Virginian Thomas Jefferson understood that our country must espouse no religion, in order to protect them all.  Theists who hold their religions near and dear (especially Christians) should be very wary of those who want to infuse their religion into politics.  I discussed this last October in my article Looking Into the Abyss:

...If you are a religious person, and if you believe that politics is largely despicable, then it follows that you may believe that getting your religion into politics will improve the state of politics and make it less dirty.  But, like the mixing paints, doing so will also infuse the dirt of politics into your religion.  Priests will become politicians, and politicians will become priests, each less suited to their role than they were before.  Keeping your religion away from politics is the best way to keep politics away from your religion... if you don't eventually you'll find that the power-hungry have invaded your churches and turned them into something they were not intended to be.  Mixing the two leaves you with neither...

Southern Baptists, at least the ones who cheered Newt on at Liberty University, are pushing this nation toward theocracy.  It desperately concerns me that they haven't thought this through.  For his part, Newt is considering a run for president in 2008.  And so once again, the power hungry tell the religious what they want to hear in order to win votes.  Jefferson understood this too:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21
 

Fellow citizens, we have our work cut out for us.

ULev Joins Planet Atheism

As of a couple days ago, Unbecoming Levity has joined Planet Atheism as a contributing feed.  You might have spotted the new link in my sidebar under "Badges and Doodads".  Planet Atheism is a feed aggregator for a large number (75 at present, and counting) of atheist-themed blogs.  This makes it a very nice source for catching up on atheist bloggers and seeing what's going down in the non-believer blog-o-sphere.

ULev regulars will no doubt be thinking that people reading Planet Atheism will not want to hear about my new teeth or the funny thing my cats did the other day.  I agree.  That's why there's a new topic in my topics sidebar called "PlanetAtheism".  The Planet Atheism aggregator only subscribes to that topic, so not every article on ULev will be dumped onto Planet Atheism's feed (much to their relief I'm sure!)  This is possible because Blog Harbor offers category-driven blogs, where each category can have its own RSS feed.

Belonging to Planet Atheism has already caused an uptick in my hits, and brought new commenters to Unbecoming Levity, for which I am very grateful.  I encourage anyone who has an atheist themed blog (or a category-driven blog with occasional articles of interest to atheists) to contact the proprietor of Planet Atheism and see about inclusion.  (If you're curious, here's their FAQ.)

Even if you don't, at least drop the Planet Atheism feed into your aggregator (Google Reader, Bloglines, whatever...) and you will never run short of articles of interest to atheists.

The Planet Atheism FAQ

What is Planet Atheism?

Planet Atheism (PA) is an aggregator of atheism-related blogs. At any time, PA shows the most recent twenty or so posts from its member blogs, in chronological order.

Is Planet Atheism a blog?

No, it's an aggregator of blogs. It doesn't have original content of its own, but gets it from the member blogs.
In practical terms, however, you can read it as a blog with more than 75 different authors. :)

Is PA a blogroll, then?

Again, no. Technically, a blogroll is simply a list of links, like those most blogs have on their sidebars. There are also more "serious" blogrolls, which are maintained by someone and then shared among many blogs. For instance, one I heartily recommend is Mojoey's Atheist Blogroll. We're not in competition, since we provide two different services; in fact, we're members of each other's service. :)

Are you ripping off other people's content?

Not at all. All of the members have either asked to join, or accepted my invitation. I'd never add a feed to PA without the author's express permission.

What can PA do for me and my blog?

Two words: increased readership. Many people who might never have found your blog otherwise (not due to lack of quality, but simply because the web is so huge) may read it through Planet Atheism, enjoy what you write, and visit your blog to post or read comments.

Sounds cool! Can I join?

Sure, if your blog is about atheism, secular humanism, protecting the separation of church and state, denouncing the abuses of religion, and so on. Details on joining are at the end, since I'd like you to read the rest of the FAQ first. :)

Wait... most of my posts aren't about that at all, though I do write a couple of good ones on that subject from time to time. What can I do?

I'd never tell anyone to write about anything other than what they want to write, of course, so please don't ever consider changing your blog's subject matter because of PA. :) If at least 50% of your posts are about atheism, you can join (a little variety now and then actually makes PA more interesting, in my opinion).

But what if your atheism-related posts are less than 50%? You have an alternative, then: provide a category feed, which includes posts from that category only. In WordPress, it's easy; I don't know if you can do it in Blogger, though. Consult your blog service / software's documentation, or, if desperate, ask, and maybe I or someone else can help.

What do I need to join?

Basically, your blog must provide an RSS or Atom feed. All the popular blog platforms (Blogger, WordPress, etc.) are fine.

Also, this is not mandatory, but I'd really prefer if you provided full feeds, instead of just small excerpts, as many blogs are configured to do. For the (comparatively few) readers of PA who really prefer excerpts, there is a Planet Atheism - short posts version.

But I need to provide excerpts for some other service I'm a member of...

This one is easy: join FeedBurner (it's free), then configure your blog to provide full feeds, and FeedBurner to change it into excerpts. Provide your original feed to PA, and the FB feed to whoever needs excerpts.

Wait a minute. If PA will provide my posts in full, won't that mean that nobody will need to visit my blog anymore? My blog is supported by ads, and...

In my experience, the advantages far outweigh any possible disadvantages:
  • readers will still need to visit your blog to comment or read comments, and with many more readers, the number who do so will actually increase
  • your regular readers aren't likely to change their habits, and will keep visiting your blog; you won't "lose" anyone to PA
  • since each of your posts in PA includes a link to the original version (on your blog), search engines such as Google recognize which is the original version, and send readers there, not to PA
  • you gain PageRank from the links to your blog on PA, improving the odds of your posts appearing in search results
  • being on PA makes you a part of a growing community which actively comments on each other's blogs, mentions your posts on their own blogs, and so on.

This is nice! What can I do to help Planet Atheism?

Basically, help spread the word. For instance:
  • Add a permanent link to PA on your blog's sidebar (you can use these buttons)
  • Mention PA in a post (many current members already did this when joining, and it has helped a lot)
  • Tell other people about PA ("did you know of this convenient place to read a bunch of interesting blogs about atheism and humanism?", or "we atheists aren't the monsters you believe we are. Want to know what we're really like? Here's a nice place to start...")
  • Know of a great atheism-related blog that isn't aggregated? Suggest to the author that he/she joins!
  • Unleash the power of social bookmarking: add PA to your del.icio.us bookmarks, join the PA community on MyBlogLog, vote for PA (by installing the toolbar, and clicking on "I like it" on it) on StumbleUpon, and so on.

Who are you?

I'm Pedro Timóteo, author of Way of the Mind, among other blogs and sites. More about me here.

Why do you hate God? / You can't prove God doesn't exist! / etc.

Sorry, but this is a FAQ for Planet Atheism, not atheism itself. There are many fine atheism FAQs out there, such as this, this, or this.

I'm sold! :) How can I join?

Just email join@planetatheism.com with your blog's details (name, URL, feed URL, and possibly a short description).


Last updated: 20 May 2007

Kansas School Board to Elect Creationist President

The National Association of State Boards of Education will elect officers in July, and for one office, president-elect, there is only one candidate: a member of the Kansas school board who supported its efforts against the teaching of evolution...

-- Evolution opponent is in line for schools post, Austin-American Statesman

 Come on Kansas, don't let this happen again.

7 new blogs on PA today!

I'd like to thank Mojoey of Deep Thoughts (who also maintains the Atheist Blogroll, which by the way I encourage every atheism-related blogger to join) for his recent mention of Planet Atheism. Thanks to that, and other recent mentions I've mentioned recently, such as those in Why Don't You Blog? or Blurp, 7 bloggers -- yes, seven -- have asked to join PA today!

Without further ado, here are the newcomers:
This means that there are now 75 blogs on Planet Atheism, a nicely impressive number. :) Each new member enriches PA, making it increase both in quantity and quality, and I couldn't be happier about it. :)

PA has been the first thing I read every morning for months now, and when I'm bored in some place I even, sometimes, find myself accessing it on my mobile phone just to see what's new on it, knowing that there's always something of interest there (as I've said before, I'm not "blowing my own horn", I'm praising what the other members write... I don't use PA to read my own posts, after all. :D)

Coming soon (maybe even tomorrow): a Planet Atheism FAQ.

Why I am an Atheist

From Atheism to Catholicism:

My journey to atheism took about 25 years.  It was not a journey fraught with disaster (any more than any average person's life is) but it was not exactly easy.  In 1967 I was born, as all babies are, an atheist.  My parents were Roman Catholics, and fairly devout ones at that.

Over the next 17 years or so I was indoctrinated into the Roman Catholic religion.  I remember many, MANY, Sundays in church when I was younger.  As my parents became busier and busier with work and life in general, we went to church less and less.  Which was fine with me.  I was hyperactive and having to sit in an uncomfortable pew while an old guy babbled for an hour on a Sunday morning was very difficult for me.  Eventually our trips to the church were only occasional, Christmas, Easter, etc.--the big holidays.

My Dad had converted to Catholicism from Protestantism so that he could marry my Mom.  He made clear to me in a number of conversations that his belief was not strictly Catholic.  The most memorable conversation was one where he described a sort of "Gaea Hypothesis" where the Earth itself was what we think of as "God", a living organism with a desire to reproduce, which is why it had evolved humans, so that we could journey to other worlds and bring life there.

Dad loved Carl Sagan, and I have fond memories of watching Cosmos with him.  I understood some of it, but not all of it due to my youth.  When Carl gently explained with his "why not skip a step?" lecture about God and the origin of the universe, I didn't realize I was being exposed to atheistic cosmology.  (For those of you that missed it, you should check it out, Carl was a wonderful teacher.)

My Mom, a good Irish woman, worked hard to keep my Catholicism strong.  She sent me to CCD (Sunday school) until I flat out refused to go.  Even as a believer, Sunday school seemed to be a joke... what a waste of time.  And as previously stated, she got me to church for many years, right up to first communion and beyond.  By the time high school rolled around, my parents were less than impressed with the local public high school that my sister had attended 7 years prior (apparently there was a lot of drugs there and other unpleasantry), so they decided to send me to a parochial school.

Catholic school was very different from public school, but even as an atheist now, I am pleased to report that my education there was of high quality.  There was no shirking of evolution (it was a Catholic school, after all), and I remember only a couple teachers whom I felt really didn't belong there.  The indoctrination, at the time, didn't seem like indoctrination.  It is only in hindsight that I can see how Catholicism was drilled into me on a daily basis.  By this time my family were not regular churchgoers, and the school priest was concerned about the fact that I would not be confirmed.  So he encouraged me to seek confirmation on my own, which I did.  I was confirmed with the name "Peter" and from that point on actually went so far as to add Peter to my name as a second middle name.  Asked to sign anything I would write Charles Douglas Peter ...  I thought it was pretty cool to have a second middle name, and wearing that name was like wearing a badge of my Christianity--Peter, the rock, upon which Christ built his church.

For a time, I began going to church again by myself--I was highly motivated (by guilt) to do right by God.  But I had been motivated by guilt my entire life, and in experiencing the sorts of things every young boy experiences at one time or another, I was wracked with it. I agonized with guilt over the normal feelings a male experiences.  I spent many a quiet hour alone and near tears over the eternal damnation that awaited me as a sinner.  You see I was terrified of confession... I couldn't possibly sit in a little black room with a priest who knew me and pour out all my terrible sins, I just couldn't possibly do it.  I would never be able to look him in the eye again.  I tried to explain to one of my relatives once that I didn't like confession, and was informed "Well then, you're a heathen" much to my dismay.  Thus when I went to confession, I stuck to stuff that was pretty unremarkable, and left the booth each time knowing that not all my sins had been forgiven.  How draconian a system of forgiveness!  I can't just drop to my knees and ask for it?  An all-powerful being who already knows of each of my sins, and can read my mind and see how tormented I am, but who can't forgive me unless I go to the nearest service center and speak with a representative?

By my senior year in high school, with some of the early angst of puberty behind me, I was beginning to mature into an adult.  At that time, I came to a decision that brought me peace.  "When I go away to college," I thought to myself, "I'll take a weekend and drive really far, far, away from anyplace I've ever been, or will ever go again, and I'll finally confess these sins to a priest who I will never have to look in the eye afterward."  Knowing I wouldn't have to carry this weight forever, that there was a way out, made me feel much better about it.  The road to God's kingdom was clear, all I needed was a car and a tankful of gas.  This decision brought me great peace, and with the guilt in check, I suddenly became much happier.  I began to get along with the other kids better, and even became somewhat respected as an individual by my peers.  I also stopped going to church, figuring I could take care of all that when I went on my "religious retreat next year".

To Nondenominational Christianity:

And so I went off to college.  And there I became friends with people of all different creeds including agnostics and atheists.  It was an exciting time and I was finding many new schools of thought that fascinated me.  I was growing.  It was in college that I came to understand that the "sins" I had been beating myself up over for years were an extremely normal part of boyhood.  Before long I felt quite silly for agonizing over them, which in turn made me even happier.  I decided to put the religious retreat on hold until I figured out where my life was going.

Over the next couple years I concluded that the problem was organized religion itself.  I had become aware of the sordid history of my church, and of other churches and religions, and came to the conclusion that it was my personal relationship with God that mattered.  I changed from Catholic to simply "Christian".  I was very familiar with the bible, having spent years studying it, and felt I could try to live by some of the precepts set forth by Christ, seek forgiveness from God directly, and ignore all of the hateful crazy stuff that the bible was so rife with.

By the time college ended, my beliefs had changed again, mostly through discussions with my fiance, who was raised Lutheran.  I felt that the basic moral code of Christ was mostly a good one and had become aware of just how poorly people who were supposed to be exemplary Christians understood his teachings and how they were in many ways waving the banner of Christ while behaving in an exceedingly unchristlike fashion.  In that sense, his "church" didn't survive very long after his death, and transformed into something else.  I was aware that many had called themselves messiah and there was no more reason to believe in their divinity than in Christ's.  It amused me that if Christ lived today, he'd have been shouted down as a long-haired beatnick hippie liberal.  I was aware of just how much of the story of his life was now in doubt, much of it having been edited in order to fit with earlier prophecy.

To Deism:

I was no longer a Christian.  I thought that perhaps a God existed, but it seemed to me a being who had created the entire universe would have far, far, too much on his mind to worry over poor little me.  It was silly.  Apart from the love and support of my friends, family, and fiance, I was on my own.  There was no almighty being who was checking off an attendance sheet every Sunday, and counting every time I looked at the fanny of a lovely lady and felt desire.  All those years of agonizing guilt were years WASTED.  How differently my life might have turned out had I not been so weighted down with the assured eternal torment that came with thinking boobies were interesting.  But I was not angry at God, or the church, or Catholicism, or my parents.  I was only angry with myself, for not coming to the realization sooner.  At this point I was wavering between Christian and Deist.  I still believed there probably was a God, but he was nothing like any God humanity had ever imagined.  The very idea that a man or woman could "tell you about God" seemed ludicrous.  Our knowledge of the universe was absolutely paltry.  There were planetoids circling our own sun that we hadn't discovered yet, and we had not discovered a single extrasolar world for lack of equipment capable enough.   And yet our sun was one of billions, in a galaxy that was one of millions of billions of galaxies... the universe was, for any practical purpose, infinite.  And some dork with a 2000 year old book written by sheepherders is going to tell me he knows the mind of the God that created more than he could ever be aware of?  Puhlease.

The following year we got married.  We both felt, for our families' sakes, that we should marry in a religious ceremony.  It seemed easier to do that than to explain to our parents that we didn't share their religious convictions.  And, I had a certain attachment to my old church.  Even if I didn't believe anymore, I loved the old building, and remembering eying the architecture with wonder as a young boy.  So we jumped through all the hoops and did the pre-cana classes and finally got married after five years together.  Being married didn't change anything about our feelings for each other, we were already devoted to one another and for years had shared a single apartment and checking account.  Over the next few years I continued to grow (or shrink if you prefer) theistically.

To Agnosticism and finally Atheism:

Shortly after marriage I left deism behind and moved to agnosticism, and then finally to atheism.  This last leg of the journey was achieved simply through study and keeping an open mind.  I spent many nights pondering the existence of a God.  Many Christians feel that atheists are people who were molested by priests or who had something really bad happen to them that made them doubt God.  But my journey to enlightenment simply came through thought and reason.  Not once did I ever come to the conclusion that God didn't exist because of bad things that happened to myself or others.  My mind, and the minds of great thinkers, set me free from belief in a deity. And it was in freedom that I began to grow more than I ever had before.

That final transition from agnosticism to atheism did not come from arguments considering the likelihood of God, as put forth so eloquently by Dr. Richard Dawkins, but simply from an understanding of belief and science.  Nothing had ever sprung into existence from belief, and primitive humans, seeking to explain the world around them, had come up with beliefs based on their limited experience to explain their world.  There was a god of thunder, and a god of the river, and a god of this and of that, a final go-to place to explain that which was as yet unexplainable.  These gods were inventions, we know that now, and we assuredly believe that our particular god is nonetheless real.  Why?  The universe existed for billions of years before humans did.  Life existed for millions of years before human did.  There are almost certainly other worlds out there with life on them somewhere.  Why would we imagine that their God is our God?

It became clear that God is a product of man, and he still exists as a go-to for those questions that still are not answered and to comfort us.  Through a god and afterlife, we are eternal, our consciousness the manifestation of an immortal spirit that will rejoin its loved ones who have passed on before when we die.  The God hypothesis makes us live forever.  And further, it addresses the common lament that life is not fair, God will mete out justice.  If an awful, evil man becomes powerful and lives a long happy life hurting others, we can take solace that after death, he will be brought to account for his transgressions.  The God hypothesis makes life fair.  This is why the God hypothesis exists--to make us feel better.  It is a comforting idea, in my opinion.  But that doesn't make it true.

Which is where the science comes in.  Science and good old Occam's Razor.  A hypothesis only becomes a theory through testing, and the God hypothesis is untestable.  First of all, most religions make quite clear that their gods will not abide being tested.  Why?  Because testing yields no confirmation. Get 10,000 believers together and have them pray over a guy with no legs and he will not grow new ones.  Ever.  Believing doesn't make things happen.  Herbert Benson's recent study of believers praying for heart surgey patients found no positive effect on the outcome of the surgery and even had a slight negative effect for those patients who knew they were being prayed for.  Secondly there is no evidence.  Such evidence that has turned up (such as the Shroud of Turin) has failed under scrutiny.  You can't get from hypothesis to theory without observable and verifiable evidence.  Thirdly, the predictions of the God hypothesis are nonfalsifiable since there is no way to communicate with those "in the afterlife".  Instead such predictions are painfully ambiguous so as to be rationalized easily, and serve as raw materials from which charlatans can build a living preying on the gullible or the bereaved.  Which brings me back to Occam's Razor... the God hypothesis is an incredibly complex answer to the origin of humanity, whereas Darwin's elegant theory of natural selection and evolution is a very simple one--one that makes predictions which stand up to testing, and for which there are mountains of supporting evidence.  Occam's Razor cuts away the God hypothesis, leaving the simpler and scientifically sound evolutionary explanation.  There simply isn't any good reason to assume the existence of a supreme being until such time as evidence is discovered to support it. 

And so I dropped the (perhaps somewhat pretentious) "Peter" from my name, and went back to being just Charles Douglas.  So much the better, as Douglas is my father's name, and he was the saintliest person I ever knew.

Enlightenment:

Without a poorly fitting fairytale stretched over it, bursting at the seams, the world finally made sense.  Things snapped into place and became clear.  I could now ponder the origins of morality, religion, science, humanity, and the universe without the blinders of faith.  I could consider modern moral questions (such as gay marriage, abortion, and so forth) without the infernally nonsensical mandates of the Judeochristian deity.  I was happier than I ever remembered being, finding a remarkable peace that did away with guilt.  I was an atheist, happily married to another atheist, and together we could do much good for our fellow humans, and lead productive and joyful lives together.  It was only after becoming an atheist that I began studying some of the atheist literature that was available, becoming more familiar with Carl Sagan, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, George H. Smith, Jonathan Miller, and the witty and caustic Christopher Hitchens.  (I confess that I have not read all these authors.)

Some years later our daughter was born, and we agreed to raise her in a world without superstition and supernatural nonsense.  She would be taught that she should be a good person all on her own, without a scary boojum that was going to "get her" if she didn't.  I think it was good for her, because she is like me, a creature of guilt, and I am so happy to see that she isn't crushed under it like I was.  Are we indoctrinating her?  Perhaps.  Young minds need instruction.  So we teach her how to be a good human being and leave it at that.  I've made quite clear to her that when she is older, if she decides to pursue a religion of one sort or another, I will love her every bit as much.  The only thing I ask is that she wait until she is older to make that decision, so that she makes it with an adult mind, instead of a childlike one.  Perhaps I needn't worry so much.  When her world had a Santa Claus and tooth fairy in it, she viewed the possibility of God as somewhat greater than zero.  When she was freed of those illusions her worldview became much more pragmatic and she seems happier with the knowledge that the world makes sense, even if life isn't fair and is sometimes very sad.

It was shortly after my kid was born that I made it clear to my parents that I was not a Christian.  Mostly because my Mom kept hinting at a "christening" for my daughter.  When was the baptism going to happen? And so forth.  My family has respected my choice to varying degrees of worry, my father being the clearest.  He summed it up quite succinctly: "your Mom doesn't like it but it doesn't matter to me."  My Dad was incredibly broadminded and thoughtful, deeply philosophical, and just all around great.  I really miss him.  My wife's family is similarly mostly respectful of her choice, except for one of them who is convinced that I "corrupted" her.  (This person would doubtless be surprised to know that Patty was an atheist long before I was.)

Living as an Atheist:

Living as we do, in liberal Massachusetts, where the basic humanist tenet of "live and let live" is alive and well, we are not persecuted for our lack of faith.  We get along well with our neighbors and friends, and pretty much don't talk about faith unless the subject comes up.  So far so good, but I read too much of the news not to see that atheists are persecuted in our nation.  It is perfectly acceptable to say "I hate atheists" and to express any number of ludicrous stereotypes about people like me.  George Bush senior once expressed his opinion that American atheists should not be considered citizens of the USA.  My daughter still has to profess a belief in God each morning during the pledge of allegiance, or feel like an outsider among her peers and risk intolerant treatment.  Every bit of currency in my pocket shrieks YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN at me with its boldfaced assertion that Americans "trust in God".  In a court of law, my testimony must be sworn truth before a nonexistant sky-fairy or it is immediately cast into doubt.  But that's fine.  Most Americans are Christian, and though all these things violate the separation of church and state, I'm prepared to overlook at least the latter two.  I know I am a good American, and that my testimony is just as accurate without fealty to some nebulous deity.  The pledge bothers me because it is a form of indoctrination, but there are far bigger fish to fry right now.  Just take a peek at George God-Told-Me-To-Invade-Iraq Bush for a minute to see how theistic thinking threatens us all when we fail to respect the wall of separation between church and State, erected by the esteemed Thomas Jefferson who was a Deist, not a Christian.

I know too many good people of faith to disparage faith itself, I can only disparage what some do in the name of it.  And thus I believe that as long as people aren't actively trying to convert me or persecute me, they are welcome to their faith.  I wish them nothing but joy of it.  But at the same time I feel a little sad.  Although it is a perhaps comforting thought when stepping out on a gorgeous sunny spring day to hear the birds singing that God made that day for me, and has a plan for us all, knowing that it all just happened according to basic laws of nature makes the day and my chance to enjoy it that much rarer and more special for me, and helps me appreciate it in a manner that a theist cannot.  What a precious, rare and wonderful world we all live on!

But that's okay.  What's important is that we each find our happiness while respecting each other.  Maybe I'm an optimist, but I ultimately believe that humanity will mature and either move beyond theism, or at least move to nonconfrontational theism that concerns itself only with the metaphysical, and leaves the physical realm to science.  It won't happen in my lifetime, but I'm doing my part to make it happen by being a good moral atheist and raising another good moral atheist.  As a good (atheist) friend of mine once taught me, it was Ghandi who said You must be the change you wish to see in the world, he was right.  So that's what I'm doing.

Peace.


There’s A Sucker Born Every Minute

"Money: That's What We Want."


"There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase often credited to
P.T. Barnum, an American showman. The entire quote is "There's a sucker born every minute...and two to take 'em." The source of the quote is most likely famous con-man Joseph ("Paper Collar" Joe) Bessimer.

"When Christianity went to Athens, it became a philosophy. When it went to Rome, it became an organization. When it went to Europe, it became a culture. When it came to America, it became a business."


Planet Atheism and search engines

First, thanks to TW of Why Don't You Blog? for this post telling readers about Planet Atheism. With more posts like this, the PA community can't be stopped. :)

And now, some considerations about the growth of PA and its relation to search engines such as Google. Besides being an atheist / humanist, I'm also a Linux sysadmin, among other things, and I've long been interested in search engine optimization (SEO), or how to make a site perform as well as possible in search engines. In fact (shameless plug), I'm the author of this series, for instance... and one day I may even finish this one. :)

How does this relate to PA? Well, remember that I said, in the previous post, that PA is getting 200 readers a day. Sounds good, right? Well, it isn't. After 4 months, the number should be much greater.

Here's why: PA gets almost no hits from search engines. Since every post includes a link to the original version (on the member's blog), search engines recognize (correctly) that those are the original content, not the version on PA. Therefore, if someone searches for something you've blogged about, your post will always appear in search results before PA... if PA appears at all, since its content changes daily, and isn't archived.

PA does get hits from people searching for "planet atheism" (duh!), "atheism blogs", and similar stuff, but these are much rarer: anyone who knows about "planet atheism" probably doesn't need to search for it, and nobody searches for "xxx blogs", they search for actual subjects.

In conclusion, PA gets very little help from search engines (much less than a "normal" site, or than any blog). This is why it's so important that member blogs (and possibly even non-members) help tell people about PA, since that's its only real source of new visitors. Remember, by helping Planet Atheism, you're also helping your own blog (if you're a member), helping PA get even more interesting as something to read yourself, and helping the "cause" of atheism / humanism.

The State of Planet Atheism: May 2007

And now for something completely different: the first of a periodic (monthly, probably) series of posts about the evolution of Planet Atheism, the world's favorite aggregator of atheism-related blogs. :)

Some facts, first:
  • Planet Atheism is a little more than 4 months old (it was "born" on January 9, 2007).

  • PA aggregates, as of this moment, 68 member blogs.

  • PA gets slightly more than 200 visitors each day. That number is slowly rising.

  • Another 100 or so individuals read PA through the RSS feed. Again, the number is slowly increasing.
In other words, by having your blog in Planet Atheism, you increase your potential readership by about 300 (and rising).

An implication of the above is that, if you're a member, then, by helping promote PA, you are also helping your blog (and those of the other members) as well. Those extra 300 daily readers could easily become 3000, and more. And, indirectly, you're also helping the cause of atheism and humanism, by "spreading the word" about both the aggregator and its member blogs, which is always a good thing. The more people see what we are like, the more they will stop seeing us as immoral monsters against whom any bigotry is justified.

How to help, then? Many of you are probably helping already, judging from the hits PA gets from many of the member blogs. A few suggestions:
  • Add a permanent link to PA on your blog's sidebar

  • Mention PA in a post (many of you already did this when joining, and it has helped a lot)

  • Tell other people about PA ("did you know of this convenient place to read a bunch of interesting blogs about atheism and humanism?", or "we atheists aren't the monsters you believe we are. Want to know what we're really like? Here's a nice place to start...")

  • Know of a great atheism-related blog that isn't aggregated? Suggest to the author that he/she joins!

  • Unleash the power of social bookmarking: add PA to your del.icio.us bookmarks, join the PA community on MyBlogLog, vote for PA (by installing the toolbar, and clicking on "I like it" on it) on StumbleUpon, and so on.
Note that you can do any or all of those even without being a member. Maybe you're fascinated with the subject, but don't actually have a blog about atheism / humanism. Well, you can still help, by doing the above. All the member blogs will appreciate the increased readership, and the greater number of comments it brings. More readers should also eventually mean more member blogs, which will make PA even more interesting.

I've said it before, but I would have created PA even if I was its only reader. It's a wonderful site, a great read each morning, with guaranteed fascinating posts and essays every day. I can say that without being a conceited jerk, because most of the posts aren't mine. :)

Darwin’s Letters

In today's Guardian there was a nice article about Darwin's letters. A new database of over 5,000 of Darwin's correspondence has recently gone live, and these letters reveal a uniquely personal look at one of the giants of science. Among the many letters include support for a friend who's son had Scarlet-Fever,

"I grieve to hear about the Scarlet-Fever: my poor dear old friend you are most unfortunate. The tide must turn soon... Much love much trial, but what an utter desert is life without love".

On a lighter note he shows incredible humility at his own mistakes. After asking naturalist John Lubbock to make observations about clovers and bees to test his theory about the evolution of bees, he wrote an abashed letter apologising for the data which turned out to be useless,

"I do so hope you have not wasted any time for my stupid blunder - I hate myself, I hate clover and I hate bees".

Also, to put to rest once and for all the talk of Darwin's support of racism and slavery we have his views on the Tories (Conservative party of Britain),

"I would not be a Tory, if it was merely an account of their cold hearts about that scandal to Christian Nations, Slavery".

The site can be found at here, and it looks like an interesting diversion for those who have read the 'Origin of Species', or any of Darwin's books, or even those just interested in a Victorians' take on his own time.

Links:

* Original article

Falwell dead…who?

Well of course I had heard of Jerry Falwell before the news of his death. Even a brief visit to the countless sites on evolution and atheism will undoubtedly mention Falwell. The notorious creationist and evangelical was well known for his attacks against minority groups, especially the gay and lesbian community.

But frankly I do not care for him. I will not feign sorrow for his passing. But neither will I gloat at it. He is dead, and the dead cannot answer the challenges of the living. There are many criticisms that can, should and have been made against him. But I think the best thing that can be done is to forget him. He is (hopefully) a sad, bigoted blip in a greater push towards a better and more reasonable world.

There are enough like him, who are still alive, that we should worry about, and not waste our energies on him. Consign Falwell to the rubbish heap of other such nonsense spewers and no-one in twenty years will remember him.

He wasted his life hating those who were different. Hopefully he and his views will be soon be forgotten, so we can all say truthfully "Falwell...who?".

Mark Isaak’s Index

Wow, I just stumbled across The Index to Creationist Claims by Mark Isaak.  What a great resource!

That’s "-ed" Not "-able"

This is something I keep hearing from certain theists who feel the need to argue with atheists.  It came up during Christopher Hitchens' recent NPR interview (21 Mb .mp3 file).  I've heard it from the Kirk Cameron crowd.  I've heard it all over the place.  Let me summarize it:

There's so much in our world which is unexplainable by science, how can you not believe there is a God who created these things?

I hate this argument, mostly because it makes a number of logical errors.  Christopher Hitchens would go further to say that it is ridiculously arrogant.  During his NPR interview when a lady called in and put this to him, his response was (paraphasing):

She seems to imagine what isn't explained can be explained by her.  I wouldn't presume any such arrogance.  What have we been wasting our time for?  With all these inquiries into nature and the natural order--there's a lady in Virginia Beach who knows all about it, and she even knows who's responsible.  We should have asked her.  Isn't it amazing how religious people claim such humility and yet make the most fantastically arrogant claims?.

I wouldn't take Hitchens' stance that the caller was arrogant, only that she simply doesn't understand the logical problems with her argument.

First, why this peculiar jump from "unexplained" to "unexplainable"?  There are questions for which science has no answer other than "I don't know", but some people don't seem to realize that means "I don't know yet."  Surely there are some questions science cannot answer right now because nobody is investigating that particular question, or the answer requires evidence that hasn't been found yet.  But it doesn't follow that these mysteries are never going to be explained by science... therefore it's quite silly to refer to them as "unexplainable".  There is a big difference between unexplained and unexplainable.  A good analogy would be whether or not you have visited Easter Island.  If not, from your perspective, Easter Island is unvisited.  Is it therefore true that it is unvisitable by you?

Secondly, why the immediate leap to God?  So there is a question we don't know the answer to, why must the answer to that question be God then?  You do realize at some point the question will be answered and in all likelihood God will not be the answer.  What then?  If God is not the answer then, why should he be the answer now?  Consider that 1000 years ago, we didn't know what caused lightning bolts to rain from the sky, and many people therefore said it was the work of one god or another.  Now we know exactly why lightning happens, and God doesn't appear in the recipe.  Why should today's questions unfold any differently than the questions of 1000 years ago?

Finally, and this kind of bugs me the most, when will we know everything there is to be  known?  When will we have visited every single planet in the entire universe and categorized everything on them?  In all likelihood?  Never.  Every new scientific discovery always brings new questions.  Always.  If the universe is infinite, then so is knowledge.  Because of this there will always be unanswered questions.  Which makes the existance of such questions rather mundane.  It's simply a natural side effect of learning new stuff that new questions crop up.  It's not an amazing, and compelling, and mysterious thing that there are unanswered questions.  If you are looking for the empty spaces on the shelves of knowledge for a place to put God, you are going to be moving him around forever.  Those spaces are reserved for books that haven't been written yet.  If you want to stop having to reinvent God every time science fills a gap, then maybe you should put him where he belongs... in the mythology section.

The importance of a face

I've been extremely happy with the amount of atheistic video I've found online recently. In a recent post I commented on the very positive interview of Christopher Hitchens by Lou Dobbs, and YouTube now has another good Hitchens interview, with Anderson Cooper:



Another excellent Hitchens appearance is his debate with Al Sharpton. Sharpton and Hitchens are both wonderful speakers -- but it's interesting to me that Sharpton keeps modifying the definition of religion in order to support his points. His own view of religion might match exactly what he says, but he cannot claim that he represents all religion. It reminds me of the Kansas board of education that tried to redefine 'science' to allow for the teaching of ID.

Bligbi has also collected a good list of longer format videos, such as Dawkins' The Root of All Evil? and the recently viewed-in-america A Brief History of Disbelief. Thank you, Bligbi!

The importance of these videos cannot be understated. As I and other atheists frequently claim, misunderstanding is one of our greatest challenges. People are more likely to try to understand a person when they can see them face to face, rather than just read what they have written. It is easy to take a statement out of context, but not so easy in a video segment. The visual cues of a speakers face, inflection, gestures, etc. gives enough clues to get past trivial misunderstandings. A viewer can see the honesty, passion, and intelligence of a speaker. This opens the floodgates of empathy, and the easier for a viewer to understand the speaker by personally relating to individual statements. And through this, breaking down the misunderstandings that are causing atheists so much grief.

And finally, for a bit of fun:

You scored as Spiritual Atheist. Ah! Some of the coolest people in the world are Spiritual Atheists. Most of them weren't brought up in an organized religion and have very little baggage. They concentrate on making the world a better place and know that death is just another part of life. What comes after, comes after.

Spiritual Atheist

92%

Scientific Atheist

83%

Militant Atheist

50%

Apathetic Atheist

50%

Agnostic

33%

Angry Atheist

25%

Theist

17%

What kind of atheist are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

Storms Rolling Through

It's approaching midnight and the patter of rain is filtering into my house, along with the drawn out, low, gut-vibrating rumble of thunder.  An approaching storm is on the one hand exciting, but on the other hand serves as a reminder of just how powerless we all are.  It's not hard to understand why primitive man would look at the angry sky and imagine a rampaging god.

Farewell Falwell

Reverend Jerry Falwell is no longer with us, having died suddenly today as reported by the Houston Chronicle:

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, who founded the Moral Majority and built the religious right into a political force, died Tuesday shortly after being found unconscious in his office at Liberty University, a school executive said. He was 73.

Falwell was hospitalized in "gravely serious" condition after being found unconscious Tuesday in his office at Liberty University, a school executive said earlier...

I've never made any secret that I don't think highly of Jerry Falwell.  But that said, he was still a human being, and doubtless had friends and family who loved him and who are suffering now.  I know what that feels like and they have my sympathy and my condolences.