Complaints, In Perspective

Starring Zombieland's Emma Stone, Easy A is still more than a month away from release, and it's already provoking complaints.

Judging from the trailers, Easy A casts Stone as Olive Penderghast, a High School student who, as an act of compassion, pretends to loudly have sex with a gay classmate.

This attracts the wrath of Marianne (Amanda Bynes), the ringleader of an ultra-conservative band of religious students on campus. Marianne, believing herself to be morally superior by virtue of her Christianity, attempts to run Olive out of her school.

In response, Olive adopts the famed scarlet letter in order to scandalize her detractors.

The film has already provoked predictable complaints from the religious right that the film demonizes Christians.

The complaint is predictable, but not worthy of realistic consideration. If Christians object to the portrayal of morally-snobbish and stuck-up Christians, then it is up to them to challenge the excesses of such Christians.

The more interesting complaint actually comes from atheist circles, where some atheists are claiming that the film is subverting the red A they use as a symbol.

They seem to have forgotten that this symbol had been adopted as a condemnation of adultery and, more broadly, sexual promiscuity long before atheists adopted it as their symbol. Thus, if anything, it was atheists who suberted the symbol for their own purposes.

But the response of another atheist to the suggestion that the film risks subverting their symbol is very telling:

"We co-opted it because it was a symbol of religious persecution."

It's worth noting: modern atheists wanted to believe they were the victims of religious persecution, and so they willingly adopted a symbol of religious persecution as their own.

Easy A sends a stark reminder of what's wrong with the most conservative strains of Christianity. But it also serves as a reminder of what's wrong with the scarlet A-toting adherents of fundamentalist atheism.

The Irrationality of Rationality

In Religulous, Bill Maher seeks to highlight the irrationality of religious belief. In many cases, he successfully highlights the irrationality of irrational people.

Maher clearly thinks himself to be wise when he declares that he simply doesn't know. He employs the Socratic method to his questioning of the religious believers featured in the film -- from the relatively mundane and benign men in the truck stop chapel or Judaism-to-Christianity convert Steve Burg to crazies like Ken Ham (who ironically resembles the missing link between man and ape) or outright philistines like Rabbi David Weiss.

Yet Maher applies the Socratic method to sophist ends -- something that Socrates actually would have despised. Maher has decided on the message of his film -- that all religion is ridiculous, irrational and dangerous -- from the very beginning, and is merely using the Socratic method to make that argument.

That Maher actually profited from the production of Religious -- not in itself unthinkable -- further demonstrates Maher's sophism.

The greatest irrationality of people who think themselves to be rational is the suspicious eye they cast at anyone who doesn't share their sense of rationality.

Maher successfully demonstrates the irrationality of many of his subjects. However, Maher tends to cherry-pick some of the most extreme examples of religious believers. He magnifies a comparatively marginal sub-strata of religious believers in order to treat them as mainstream.

It's a feat he replicated from individuals such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers.

There is value in Religulous. While it's hyperbolic, bombastic, and in fact irrational, it's also thought-provoking. As CS Lewis would insist, anything that provokes thought about religion is actually of service to religious believers.

The Case For Christ And Why It Matters

As Christians around the world prepare to celebrate Easter, it seems worthwhile to reflect on the meaning of Jesus Christ, of his life, and why these things matter.

One may actually disagree about whether or not Christ literally rose from the grave, as Christians are about to celebrate. It seems much more likely to a great many people that the notion of Christ rising from the dead is actually metaphorical for the rapid spread of his message.

(His 'three days in hell' could be a metaphor for a period of uncertainty after his death regarding whether or not his teachings would follow him to the grave.)

For obvious reasons, atheists have no patience for the very idea of Christ returning from the grave. In many ways, this is only natural. But in some extreme cases this extends to the very notion of Christ's existence in and of itself. Thus the production of "documentary" films like The God Who Wasn't There and Zeitgeist that make the argument that Jesus Christ never existed.

Yet scores of archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ exists, as well as numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus' teachings from the period exist.

So, this push by some of the most extreme atheists begs an extremely important question:

What is so threatening about the very notion of Jesus Christ's existence?

Even if one doesn't buy into the notion that Jesus was the literal son of God, and doesn't believe that Jesus literally returned from the dead, there is still one important source of value of the Christian religion: the message of Christ.

Unfortunately, Christ's message has often been perverted by the interpretations of those who claim to follow it. Christ's message is often used to justify some of the most vile hatreds imaginable by those who willfully find ways to misread it.

This process has been aided and abetted by the continual re-writing of the Bible numerous times throughout history, often infusing the political interests of a particular ruler (such as King James I).

But when one strips away the embellishments and distortions of Christ's word, one finds what is actually a very benign way of living in the world: one in which one loves their neighbours, forgives people, and lives by a moral code that promotes harmony.

In other words, even if one doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, Christianity still has value. Ergo, any religion that offers a valuable moral code has a value outside of its alleged divinity.

The only recourse to this by the most extreme atheists -- who cannot abide the very existence of religion -- is to attempt to invalidate this value of religion by arguing that its creator never existed.

That is why Jesus Christ's existence matters, and that is why these atheist extremists must not be allowed to obscure the value of his message by pretending that he never existed.

Better Yet, Let's Not

Enshrining of "Atheist heroes" seems an awful lot like canonization

Like an annoying rash that proves perpetually resilient to medicine, the Rational Response Squad just refuses to go away quietly, regardless of how many times it humiliates itself.

Indeed, Brian Sapient and company have proven to be particularly resilient to their numerous self-humiliations. Whether it's losing a televised debate to Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, alienating relevant atheists by slandering them, or getting knocked the fuck out for financial impropriety (or mere incompetence), the Rational Response Squad has demonstrated a particular predilection for self-inflicted wounds.

They've also proven to be particularly adept at hypocrisy.

An intriguing case in point is the recent move to place "atheist heroes" on a pedestal. Sometimes the hilarity goes far deeper than the hypocrisy.

For example, in a recent post urging his followers to support "atheist heroes", Sapient draws attention to a campaign waged by a group at the University of Texas at San Antonio by the name of Atheist Agenda.

Sapient treats the group's "smut for smut" campaign -- in which they exchange religious scriptures for pornography -- as a recent development. The problem is that one of the videos Sapient links to is nearly fully one year old. But even beyond that, Sapient's treatment of the campaign falls into some basic logical pitfalls that only someone capable of losing to Kirk Cameron can be trusted to fall into.

Sapient extends his congratulations to Atheist Agenda for having "found a way to be controversial thereby grabbing attention and literally forcing theists to think".

But the problem for Sapient is that he, like his followers, have yet to grasp a very simple concept: ridicule is not really an argument. In fact ridicule, as the RRS has so often indulged themselves in it, is founded on the idea that the beliefs or viewpoints of others are unworthy of logical consideration -- a basic cop-out in the face of intillectual debate, and a strain of ad hominem argument that has become particularly virulent in modern discourse.

Ridicule does not force anyone to think. In fact, ridicule causes people to recoil, and leads to a discourse that is increasingly toxic and resistent to rational debate -- one that the Rational Response Squad actively and intentionally fosters.

But this isn't even the deepest depth of Sapient's folly.

It's become increasingly impossible to ignore the means by which atheism promotes itself using the same means as any other religion. They relentlessly proselytize. They continue to reserve for themselves the right to extol scientific works in manners akin to sacred texts. Now they're even enshrining their own heroes within the imagination of their cohorts -- an act tantamount to canonizing their own saints.

It's just another indulgence that fundamentalist atheists like Brian Sapient and the Rational Response Squad have granted themselves.

But if anyone begins to fear that the Rational Response Squad is being taken too seriously, they need fear not: they could always lose another debate to Kirk Cameron.



Bonus spankage - Enormous Thriving Plants' Audrey apparently takes exception to the idea that Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Connor would lose to Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, and so wants to attempt to re-cast that entire debate to the topic of the "Crock-o-duck".

Contrary to what Audrey would like her readers to believe, that Sapient and O'Connor could manage to lose to someone who bases their argument on that kind of premise just reminds one how intellectually helpless Sapient and O'Connor really are.

There's a reason why their arsenal of argumentative tactics is limited to ridicule. Debating like grown-ups is simply too much work for someone whose intellectual gifts are as limited as Sapient's and O'Connor's -- or, for that matter, Audrey's.

As for Audrey, she's just trying to cover for a previous humiliation. Readers may make of that what they will.

Disaster Captialism of the Unbelievers

Atheists ramming "humanism" down the throats of Haitians?

The recent earthquake in Haiti has inspired a long-overdue outpouring of public sympathy for the impoverished country.

That certainly hasn't been restricted to religious believers. But anyone familiar with academically dubious pseudo-economics is familiar with Naomi Klein's shock doctrine, and may even recognize lements of it within the approach of various atheist groups to the Haitian disaster.

The shock doctrine holds that free market capitalists exploit disaster in order to impliment their programs. Where there are disasters, they exploit them. Where there are no disasters, they create them.

Atheists certainly didn't cause the earthquate in Haiti. But some may raise the argument that they've proven more than willing to exploit it.

It began shortly after the earthquake, when Richard Dawkiins launched his Non-Believers Giving Aid project.

The idea seemed to be that with all the religious-based aid organizations providing aid to Haiti, what was really needed was a secular alternative. (One wonders why it is that the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders, among others, weren't sufficient.)

According to Dawkins the point of this is -- quelle suprise -- proving that atheists are morally and intellectually superior to believers.

Likewise, various universities are sending "humanist chaplains" to Haiti to help administer moral and spiritual support for the victims of the earthquake.

One may question the wisdom of sending atheist chaplains -- however an oxymoron this may seem to be -- to a country like Haiti. Haiti is one of the most predominantly religious countries in the world. An intriguing combination of Catholicism and voodoo is practiced by up to 85% of Haitians.

Some could view all of this to nearly force-feeding atheism to Haitians after a disaster. In all likelihood, it really isn't, and is merely born out of naivete.

Doing The Lord's Work

Irish atheists set to challenge blasphemy law

When Ireland recently passed an anti-blasphemy law, it was rightly denounced as an unacceptable attack on freedom of speech.

However, an Irish atheist group is set to take a stand for the freedom of speech of all Irish citizens -- believers and non-believers alike -- in resisting the anti-blasphemy law through provocation.

Atheist Ireland will be publishing 25 anti-religious comments on its website, forcing the would-be government censors to fish or cut bait.

"This new law is both silly and dangerous," said Michael Nugent, the chairman of Atheist Ireland. "It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic states led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level."

"We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly," Nugent continued. "Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous."

Rarely has a purer Christian notion been uttered by someone who describes themselves as an atheist. It's interesting to consider that if Jesus Christ had first prophesized in Ireland today, he himself could be prosecuted under Ireland's anti-blashemy laws.

The freedom to criticize religions is necessary in order to reveal the shortcomings of religious dogma. Criticism, properly administered, has at its core the search for truth -- something that religious believers very rarely know for themselves -- even if fundamentalists insist otherwise -- and instead are obligated through their religion to seek it.

In their own way, Michael Nugent and his cohorts in Atheist Ireland are doing the Lord's work. One only wonders if they realize it.

Lewis Black, The Limitation of Human Understanding & Reasons to (or Not) Believe

Those who listen to Lewis Black's comedy may be forgiven for initially assuming that he's an atheist.

In many of his religious beliefs, Black seems more like an agnostic, although he never goes so far as to outright declare himself one.

Black instead believes that organized religion simply limits the ability of humanity to understand whatever supreme force exists in the universe -- whether it be a God or something else -- it almost certainly exceeds the limits of human imagination.

More interesting still is Black's list of reasons to believe in God and reasons to not believe in God.

Among reasons to believe, Black mentions a woman's breast, sausage gravy and that his mother doesn't. Among Black's reasons not believe is God's inability to reveal himself, ticks, and the laughter of a child.

Certainly, not everyone makes their decision on whether or not they believe God exists on such frivolous and facile grounds. But there's little question that some people do make this decision based on these kinds of criteria.

Interestingly, there seems to be a tendency among many people to disresepct the decision of a religious believer to believe for these kinds of reasons, but more reluctance to disrespect the decision of an atheist on similarly paltry grounds.

Of course, there's no reason to expect that the imaginations of atheists are any less limited than those of religious believers (exempting, of course, any artificial limits, like -- if one accepts Black's thesis -- organized religion).

It isn't to say that the decision of an atheist to not believe God exists shouldn't be subject to any more respect than the deciision of a believer to believe, or vice versa, but merely that the reasons themselves don't necessarily deserve the same amunt of respect.

Poisoning the Well

Fundamentalist atheists pose a challenge for atheism

Some Nexus readers may recall a recent post referencing a painting called "Jesus Does his Nails", a painting that became more popular surrounding the Blasphemy Day organized earlier this October.

As it turns out, at least one prominent atheist has a bone to pick witht his particular painting.

"I wouldn't want this on my wall," Stuart Jordan, an advisor for the Centre For Inquiry, which exhibits the painting in one of their offices.

Some atheists have sought to distance themselves not only from this painting, but also from the attitude behind it -- one which insists that ridicule is the best way to approach the debate surrounding atheism and religion, as opposed to open, honest and (shudder to say) gracious debate.

"It's really a national debate among people with a secular orientation about how far do we want to go in promoting a secular society through emphasizing the 'new atheism,'" Jordan mused. "And some are very much for it, and some are opposed to it on the grounds that they feel this is largely a religious country, and if it's pushed the wrong way, this is going to insult many of the religious people who should be shown respect even if we don't agree with them on all issues."

"What we wanted were thoughtful, incisive and concise critiques of religion," CFI CEO Robert Lindsay added. "We were not trying to insult believers."

Yet many prominent atheists don't seem to agree with Linday and Jordan on the matter of the proper approach.

The most famous atheists -- Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and Christopher Hitchens -- are diametrically opposed to having a respectful debate with religious people, and are unabashedly proud of it.

"If I said to a Protestant or Quaker or Muslim, 'Hey, at least I respect your belief,' I would be telling a lie," Hitchens said. "I believe it's more honest, more brave, more courageous simply to state your own position."

Often, these particular atheists will simply feign ignorance. For example, PZ Myers got a very strong reaction when he posted a picture of a communion wafer penetrated by a nail, driven to a wall.

"People got very angry," he grumbled. "I don't know why. I mean, it's just a cracker, right?"

And therein may lie the true issue regarding this methodological divide between atheists. Individuals like Stuart Joran and Robert Lindsay seem to get it. PZ Myers and Christopher Hitchens unequivocally do not.

If Myers understood the significance of communion wafers to Catholics and Lutherans, he would understand that symbolically, they are not just crackers. Catholics and Lutherans accept communion wafers as symbolic of their messiah. In extreme cases, some Catholics and Lutherans may even still believe that, upon consecration, communion wafers transubstantiate into the very flesh of Jesus Christ.

When Myers treats that symbol contemtuously, he treats Catholics and Lutherans contemptuously.

Certainly, a great number of people have learned the hard way how little headway can be made with a debating opponent whom you seem bound and determined to treat with contempt.

The tactics Myers used in this particular case don't advance greater understanding of atheism, they simply satisfy the contempt that he and his (many, many) followers feel for religious believers.

These kinds of tactics will win few converts. As one of Richard Dawkins' "four horsemen" of atheism, one would expect that Myers would be a little more deliberate about the kind of tactics he's using.

Stuart Jordan and Robert Lindsay clearly understand this. A more moderate approach to the debate between atheism and religion earns more space for engagement between atheists and religious believers, and makes it far more likely that they can potentially win converts from religious believers.

Even Paul Kurtz, the founder of the Centre For Inquiry, apparently deeply takes issue with Dawkins, Myers, Hitchens and company.

"I consider them atheist fundamentalists," said Paul Kurtz. "They're anti-religious, and they're mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they're very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good."

What PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens accomplish is nothing more or less than poisoning the well of religious debate.

Sadly, there are numerous fools who are more than happy to help them do it.

Does Paul Erland Build a Case?

Erland's case against CS Lewis is weakness incarnate

One of the more amusing things about the fundamentalist atheism movement that has emerged behind individuals like Richard Dawkins is the very real sense that every fundamentalist atheist seems to believe they're a master philosopher.

Often, however, their arguments are every bit as weak as the religious arguments they seek to counter. For example, their ojbection to Pascal's Wager -- the argument that one is better off believing in God in order to essentially "hedge their bets" for the afterlife -- is usually expressed by positing the ever-insipid (although admittedly otherwise hilarious) Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Of course no one actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But many people actually do believe in a sentient and interventionalist god. Thus, God is what philosophers would refer to as a live hypothesis, where as the FSM is not.

A much better argument against Pascal's Wager is a much simpler one -- Pascal's Wager is actually an extremely cynical argument. No believe based on solely on Pascal's Wager could ever be genuine. An all-knowing god would very much know the difference.

Many fundamentalist atheists can't seem to settle for these kinds of simple arguments. Instead, they seem to feel a need to concoct drawn-out arguments that they seem to believe implies a sophistication which rarely turns out to be present.

An interesting case in point are the objections recently raised to CS Lewis' religious thought voiced by The Examiner's Paul Erland, a Nashville Agnostic Examiner:

"CS Lewis, the defender of the faith so beloved by all Christ-ininnies for lending elegance to their untenable beliefs, wrote:

'If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe -- no more than an architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves.'

First of all, if we’re likening God to an architect, why couldn’t he leave traces of himself inside his work? Architects often employ signature features and flourishes.

Blithely assuming, however, as he frequently does (Lewis is a master of the false syllogism), that we’re all agreed so far that God can’t be expected to reveal himself, Lewis then proceeds to tell us what we should expect -- for him to show himself 'inside ourselves.' So, in light of the architect analogy, should we expect the builder of our house to show himself inside us? And in any event, how does his conclusion follow from his premise? OK -- God is outside the universe and can’t blatantly interfere. So, obviously, he has installed that little voice inside us that says, 'You’re being watched, so behave yourself.'

Lewis is trying to account for the 'Moral Law' that may or may not be universal (he says it is). But wouldn’t such a 'law' be more plausibly explained as a biological imperative—a check on murderous impulses that grew out of natural selection—than as the finger of God perpetually tapping us on the shoulder?

Richard Dawkins says that the God delusion is a virus. If that’s the case, then Lewis was struck by a particularly virulent strain."

Erland actually tips his hand awfully early in his article -- he flagrantly disrespects the religious views of Christians (referring to them as "Christi-ninnies", and labeling the post with "Christ-inanity"). That disrespect informs his argument against Lewis, as is, in fact, his argument's undoing.

Erland seems to think that he isn't required to attempt any kind of serious attempt to debunk Lewis' thought -- and that the fact that Lewis is a religious thinker has already done the lion's share of the work of invalidating his thought.

Noting that architects often employ "signature features and flourishes", Erland insists that these would be irrefutable evidence of the architect's existence, and that this notion somehow counters Lewis' ideas.

But in order to make this claim, Erland has to overlook the cornerstone of Lewis' religious thought: namely, that religion is much an enterprise of the rational mind as of the spiritual self.

As with many kinds of evidence, the "signature features and flourishes" example employed by Erland is only as meaningful as a human actor's ability to properly perceive, analyze and interpret them. To the unknowing mind or the untrained eye, such "signature features and flourishes" would seem like any other feature of the house.

Even beyond that, the "signature features and flourishes" are not, themselves, the architect, but rather identifying characteristics left ehind by the architect.

Much like the "moral law" that Lewis has often posited, both through his philosophical works and through his literary works.

Erland posits that this "moral law" would "be more plausibly explained as a biological imperative" vis a vis natural selection. But his argument could quickly be countered by anyone who argued, even if only for argument's sake, that such a biological imperative could have been included by the creator's design.

What CS Lewis would actually argue in regard to his moral law argument is that the "moral law" in question is actually the message of Jesus Christ, and the blueprint for a moral life that his teachings provide. Lewis argues that those who do not follow this blueprint essentially debase themselves.

Lewis would go so far as to argue that the benevolence of Christ's message essentially gives it a monopoly on moral behaviour. He would more explicitly argue that no evil could ever truly be done in Christ's name -- although some certainly attempt to invoke Christ to justify their own immoral actions.

Moreover, Lewis argues that those who live in a moral manner are doing the work of Jesus Christ regardless of whatever religion they purportedly follow. (Admittedly, this argument has been interpreted as offensive -- perhaps quite rightly -- by a great number of people who subscribe to non-Christian religious beliefs.)

Perhaps Lewis would even argue that human conscience -- that voice within us that tells us when we've done something wrong -- could be interpreted as God's moral fingerprint on humanity.

These are interesting ideas, and admittedly are no more decisive than Erland's.

But there's very likely a good reason why Erland targeted Lewis in such a brazen manner in the first place. Richard Dawkins -- whose "faith as a virus" epithet Erland invokes in the conclusion of his article -- has advanced a perception of religion as adverse to rational thought.

Yet it was CS Lewis who said that being a Christian is hard intellectual work. He argued for spiritual faith mediated by the rational and intelligent mind. As a result, Lewis is clearly a thinker very threatening to Erland, Dawkins, and their fundamentalist atheist worldview.

CS Lewis certainly doesn't build a decisive case for "moral law", but he never truly meant to, either. What Lewis does do is build a compelling and inclusivist case for God's moral influence on the world.

Paul Erland, on the other hand, fails spectacularly in his attempt to build a decisive case against CS Lewis. Not only does he not seem to understand Lewis' thinking in the first place, but his scornful starting point nearly precludes any kind of rational criticism of Lewis' ideas.

Oh, PZ Myers Won't Like That...

Science blogger Josh Rosenau denounces "bullshit" arguments

For those concerned about the state of scientific literacy in the United States, one would have assumed that Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney's Unscientific America would be a welcome entry into the debate.

One would think that any book that decries the lack of scientific literacy in the American public and offers potential solutions would be welcome.

But one would be wrong.

Many fundamentalist atheists have objected to book, claiming it denounces them as responsible for the spread of this scientific illiteracy.

Part of the problem is the way these individuals respond to any criticism at all. The rapid response to Unscientific America is an example of this. For for many of those who orbit the Scienceblogs universe -- particularly the most fervent Pharyngulites -- one has to imagine that Scienceblogger Josh Rosenau may very well be off the reservation with these particular remarks:

"Sam Harris' famous and oft-repeated claim that religious moderates enable fundamentalists also strikes me as bullshit. How can the Rev. Barry Lynn's work with Americans United for Separation of Church and State be taken as enabling fundamentalism? How can the efforts of religious moderates to end the enforcement of school prayer be taken as tacit endorsement of fundamentalist modes of thought? How can the hundreds of clergy who specifically defend evolution as compatible with their faiths be seen as clearing the ground for creationism? Could someone with actual awareness of the viciousness directed by those of Dembski's ilk toward serious scholars like Nancey Murphy really think that moderates enable fundamentalists? What can we call this line of argument but bullshit?"

For the purpose of his argument, Rosenau defines "bullshit" in the vein of Harry Frankfurt as an argument made in utter indifference to the truth -- they making the argument know full well it isn't true, but simply don't care. They say it anyway because it helps them fulfill their own purposes.

Harris isn't the only atheist Rosenau takes to task using this argumentative framework. He also targets Sciencebloggers Abbie Smith and Jerry Coyne for their own bullshit arguments in regard to Unscientific America:

"And in the latest fight, Mooney and Kirshenbaum were personally maligned, and their book misrepresented to a degree that raises questions about whether critics actually read the book. Abbie Smith claimed that the book was inherently dishonest because it does not, being a printed object, have a way for critics to include their responses in the book itself. Like others, I find this rather bizarre. I love Abbie like a sister, but I cannot fathom her hostility to a book which, at least when she began her fusillade, she admitted to not having read."

Not only did Rosenau dismiss the kind of arguments that individuals like Myers and his followers tend to absolutely love for precisely what they are -- bullshit -- but he even took on a fellow Scienceblogger for their simpering outrage at being criticized.

But even more troublesome for critics of Unscientific America may be that Rosenau simply isn't toeing the line regarding this book at all:

"Most worrisome, though, was Jerry Coyne's review of Unscientific America in Science [magazine]. A review in the top scientific journal is a fairly rarified entity, one with various rules and expectations. Not least among those expectations is that the reviewer will give an honest account of the book as written, and will take issue with the authors' actual claims, not with imagined enemies. I took classes with Coyne as an undergraduate at Chicago; I know him to be an honest and honorable man, a scrupulous researcher, and dedicated to thoughtful and open discourse. Thus, my expectations for his review were rather high. I hoped he would rise out of the muck which has surrounded the book online, and give a fair look at it, however assuredly critical it might be.

Instead, I cannot characterize his review as anything but bullshit. His opening sentence claims that 'Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum argue that America's future is deeply endangered by the scientific illiteracy of its citizens and that this problem derives from two failings of scientists themselves: their vociferous atheism and their ham-handed and ineffectual efforts to communicate the importance of science to the public.'

In fact, Mooney and Kirshenbaum specifically do not claim that atheists are responsible for scientific illiteracy, nor do they claim that scientists alone are to blame. In my review (which the authors feel 'characterizes our argument in great detail and with the utmost accuracy'), I noted that 'The solution Chris and Sheril advocate is, broadly, to bridge key gaps. ...Science is not just separated from academic disciplines across the quad, but from the media, from journalism, from religious communities, from politics, and (they observe in an endnote) from the law. ...Americans as a whole are increasingly disconnected from what science is, and what scientists know. This is a problem not just for the general public, but because of the increasing specialization of science, a problem for scientists themselves.' This assessment blames scientists and the public. Mooney and Kirshenbaum blame the emergence of 'evangelicals ...as a political force' not just for many broad problems, but specifically for the conflict between science and religion. They write: 'Of course, the New Atheists aren't the origin of the cleft between religious and scientific culture in America– they're more like a reaction' to the emergence of politically active fundamentalists.

To claim, as Coyne does in Science, that they offer two solutions to these several gaps is simply false, and if Coyne had read the book with an open mind, he would know that they do not blame atheists for those gaps, nor do they think bridging the science/religion gap is some silver bullet."

Certainly, this is true.

After all, it isn't as if the science/religion gap has never been bridged before. Many of history's greatest scientists were also religious individuals. That individuals such as sir Isaac Newton and William Thomson Kelvin could make fundamental breakthroughs in science while believing in God demonstrates that science and religion are not incompatible.

Not that individuals like Myers would care to admit that.

If anything, the science/religion gap is being invented by various "cultural warriors". Right-wing Christians who oppose evolution being taught in classrooms are certainly one side of that invented cultural war. PZ Myers and his followers find themselves on the other, and like the religious right, they have largely invented their pretext for war.

"Coyne's review proceeds to badly misrepresent the core of the problem that Mooney and Kirshenbaum identify. Coyne writes as if the scientific illiteracy which the book's subtitle warns 'threatens our future' is about what facts Americans can recite. In fact, the book criticizes this view of scientific illiteracy at length, replacing it with a definition of scientific literacy involving how people perceive science's relevance to their lives. Coyne claims to be showing that the problems of public perception of science are 'more complex than the authors let on' when he writes: 'The public's reluctance to accept scientific facts may reflect not just a lack of exposure but a willful evasion of facts due to conflicting economic agendas (eg, the case of global warming), personal agendas (vaccines), or religious agendas.' But this is the point of their whole second chapter, and is a theme they return to throughout the book; this is the point of their emphasis on disconnects between scientific culture and the cultures of politics, of journalism, of popular entertainment, etc. Again, if Coyne had read the book with an open mind, he would know this.

Chris and Sheril go to great pains to show that the deficit model (the 'people are stupid' form of scientific illiteracy that Coyne addresses in his review) is inadequate, and that the real issue is a disconnect between what science shows and what people think is relevant to their own lives and what they think is worth knowing. Coyne, thinking he is problematizing Unscientific America's claims, is actually repeating the authors' thesis. Again, I don't know how he could do that if he actually read the book and engaged with it on its own terms, and set out to write a fair and accurate review. His review is bullshit, and as such, brings shame to him and to Science."

Of course, PZ Myers -- whose Pharyngula blog has become something of an unofficial flagship for the Scienceblogs site -- probably won't like to hear Rosenau's thoughts on the matter.

Myers has made his thoughts regarding Unscientific America quite clear -- and, unshockingly, his complaints seem to have more to do with his personal agenda vis a vis atheism than with any actual arguments contained in the book.

It isn't the first time that PZ Myers has placed his personal agenda ahead of science. It almost certainly won't be the last, either.

All one can really do now is keep their fingers crossed for Josh Rosenau. One has to imagine that the onslaught by PZ Myers' toadies is going to be rapid and fierce. Hopefully, he won't be intimidated out of the forum of debate.

The Science of a Religion

Some portray Buddhism less as a religion and more like a science -- namely, modern psychology and, in particular, psychotherapy.

Yet there is no question that Buddhism has come to command the devotion, imagination, and faith of its observants as any other mainstream religion.

Interestingly, Buddhism has reemerged since the British colonization of India. Prior to the British arrival in India Buddhism had been wiped out by Hindus and Muslims. British anthropologists discovered and recovered evidence that solidly roots Guatama Buddha in historical fact.

Throughout history, the general trend has been for external invaders to destroy indigenous religions, not help resurrect them.

The Life of Buddha is as much a movie about archaeology's ability to help restore lost religions as it is a movie about Buddhism itself.

Interestingly, this particular episode poses a real challenge to fundamentalist atheists -- those who have canonized science in the service of atheism, which they are building into a religion -- as the pursuit of a science has led to the reemergence of a major world religion, even if it is a non-theistic religion.

The fact that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion also presents something of a dilemma for those who insist that atheism cannot itself be a religion because it doesn't believe in a central or all-powerful god.

Intriguingly, atheists believe that science, via secularism, will ultimately destroy religion. Yet, historically, it has yet to be the case. Even as many great scientists have held their religious faith close to them, sciences such as archeology and anthropology continue to preserve and recover religious materiel, with it religious history, and with that the religions themselves.

If there are greater ironies at work in the world today there couldn't be many of them.

That's a Long Wait for That Whine

And sadly it hasn't cellared very well

Those paying attention to the (somehow) swirling controversy over the (somehow infamous) atheist Bus Ads may recall Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor's recent response to them.

"Putting things on buses, as though that's going to make people somehow change their view about God, the universe, the meaning of life and so on," Taylor chucked in an interview with Philosophy Now magazine. "A bus slogan! It's not likely to trigger something very fundamental in anybody."

Nearly three weeks after Taylor's comments, Justin Trottier and Michael Payton of the Centre for Inquiry have finally seen fit to respond to Taylor's comments, in an op/ed appearing in the religion section of the National Post:

"In a recent interview with Philosophy Now magazine, the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, author of A Secular Age, commented on the atheist bus-ad campaign, calling it 'odd' and 'pathetic' for atheists to use such tactics to promote their worldview. In the same interview, Taylor, who is a practising Roman Catholic, compared the backlash of atheists and secularists to the reactions of disgruntled English bishops after the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in the 19th Century.

What Taylor failed to understand is that the bus campaign neither signals the emergence of a new reactionary movement nor is it catalyzed by a 'secularizing intelligentsia' that has woken up to realize the world isn't what it thought it would be. As Canada undergoes secularization, atheist and secularist organizations, which have long existed alongside religious ones as a quiet part of the fabric of this diverse country, have grown steadily in a process. The atheist bus campaign may be a symbolic coming of age, but the movement that spawned it is certainly not new or reactionary."

A great many people would rightly disagree.

What Trottier and Payton are neglecting to mention is that these ads have been supported, on both a philosophical level and monetarily (in Britain), by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has provided the so-called "new atheists" with not only the clarion call to be a good deal more public with their beliefs -- not in and of itself such a bad thing, necessarily -- but has also provided them with an intellectual template for the promotion of fundamentalist atheism.

"To the best of my knowledge, Taylor has never criticized edgy sloganeering from feminist or gay rights groups, nor the often offensive religious ads that have been on buses since buses first started operating in this country. Indeed, the ubiquitous religious ads are worth comparing to the bus campaign: Such advertising hardly adds to the diversity of Canada (given that religious organizations are already an acknowledged and welcome part of the public discourse). Atheist ads, on the other hand, have successfully added a major new dimension to the public debate."

Certainly, certain individuals would insist that it's unfair to criticize Charles Taylor for failing to criticize the "edgy sloganeering" of feminist or gay rights movements. Or not.

But Trottier and Payton's argument falls flat when one points out that, as far as "edgy sloganeering" goes, "There's probably no god" isn't all that edgy at all. This, of course is one of the details that has made complaints over the ads being offensive all the more pointless.

Taylor is under no obligation to criticize the edgy sloganeering (actual edgy sloganeering) of feminist or gay rights groups. Furthermore, these groups can often show the (usually) positive results this sloganeering has accumulated.

Atheists cannot say the same. As Taylor remarked, a bus ad telling people that there probably is no God isn't likely to win many converts.

"Thanks to such assertive advertising and other controversial and edgy manoeuvres, atheists have now emerged alongside the religious in the media — they are regular involved in radio and TV debates, public discussion on campuses and are even invited to contribute to newspaper projects like Holy Post.

Who would object to this trend in a country like Canada?

Finally, Taylor's comment that atheist ads are unlikely 'to make people somehow change their view about God, the universe, the meaning of life and so on' signals that he has been overly focusing on religious communities and their emphasis on conversion, rather than speaking with those involved in atheist or secularist associations.

Had he engaged the latter group, he might have understood that the atheist ads are not about crass conversion. They are a signal to the skeptic and the doubter to not be afraid to take the road toward rejection of religion. They are a challenge to everyone to engage in critical reflection of their deepest beliefs."

Trottier and Payton should know fully that this argument simply doesn't hold water.

What would the purpose of a "there's probably no God" ad be, other than to attempt to convince people that there is (probably) no God? An ad that was merely intending to "signal the skeptic and doubter to not be afraid" would likely be an ad that tells people "we don't believe in God. Deal with it," or even "Don't believe in God? You're not alone."

Even a skeptic or doubter who is prodded down the road to rejection of religion becomes a convert if they were religious to begin with.

While Trottier and Payton are right when they note that participation by atheists in religious debate is, overall, a positive thing, they sorely overestimate their ability to sell an argumentive bill of bad goods to Canadians.

Most Canadians aren't terribly offended by the bus ads -- as unoriginal as they are for groups that pride themselves on being "free thinkers" -- nor should they be. Judging from his criticism of the ads themselves, it seems that Charles Taylor isn't terribly threatened by them himself.

But if Justin Trottier and Michael Payton are going to wait three weeks to respond to Taylor's comments, one would have thought they would have done better for themselves -- after all, every modern atheist or even skeptic seems to fancy themselves an expert philosopher.

Apparently not.

Continuing the Assault on the Enemies of Reason

In part one of Richard Dawkins' documentary mini-series Enemies of Reason, Dawkins uses things such as astrology and water dousing to show how such superstitions lead people into irrational beliefs -- something that he seems to hope will cast a shadow over theistic religion.

In part two, Dawkins takes aim at alternative medicine and attempts to demonstrate that the medical field has become a "battleground between reason and superstition".

Dawkins notes that up to one third of British citizens subscribe to some sort of alternative medicine -- ranging from faith healers to homeopathic medicines. Apparently, the threat to reason posed by its enemies are very grave, indeed.

Dawkins equates rising rates of people using alternative medicine as a challenge to scientific medicine.

In some cases, the alleged attacks on science are coming from within the scientific community by way of poorly-conducted studies. Dawkins notes a 1998 study that incorrectly linked MMR vaccine with autism. After this study was released, 100s of thousands of parents refused to inoculate their children leading to new outbreaks of childhood diseases such as measles and the mumps.

Dawkins insists that this episode demonstrates that evidence has been devalued. But he is wrong.

What this evidence shows is that "facts" forwarded under the guise of science are all too often accepted without any vestige of critical thinking. The conclusions of bad science are all too often accepted right alongside the conclusions offered by good science.

It isn't that evidence has been de-valued. It's that poor evidence is being granted greater credence than it's due.

Dawkins complains that media coverage of alternative medicines aren't subjected to the same scrutiny that other news topics, such as politics, are subjected to. And he may well be right about this.

But one would wonder if the MMR autism study would have had the effect it did if the news media had asked those who conducted that particular study -- a survey of only 12 children -- hard questions about its methodology, or had corroborated the results of that study against the findings of other scientists.

Basically, the study was accepted by the news media according to a faith-based credulity granted to those who conducted the study. They are, after all, scientists.

What Dawkins eventually concludes is that the Placebo Effect must explain the seeming successes of homeopathic medicines.

The Skeptic's Dictionary defines the Placebo Effect as "the measurable, observable, or felt improvement in health or behavior not attributable to a medication or invasive treatment that has been administered".

Certainly, the scientific evidence, as recorded through scientific study, that alternative medicines can accomplish what they purport to accomplish is rather meager. Homeopathy is almost certainly clear example of this.

For its own part, the Utah Behavioral Healthcare Network would object to this statement. "To claim that homeopathic remedies are simply a creation brought on by the placebo effect is closed minded at best," it writes on its website.

Even the UBHN cannot define what it is they believe makes homeopathic medicines work:

"Homeopathic remedies work. It has been seen in many people all over the world that homeopathic remedies work. The placebo effect is the brain taking control of the body and helping it to heal itself. Isn't that what homeopathic remedies try to do? So, it would be obvious that the results would look similar to the placebo effect.

The AMA and allopathic doctors have been trying to prove homeopathic remedies to be the placebo effect for 200 years. However, people still use and swear by homeopathic remedies. Some homeopathic remedies work simply. They replace what the body needs. They take the symptoms that are meant to heal the body and enhance their effects. The placebo effect may be real in some cases but it isn't true for the entirety of homeopathic remedies."

Certainly people "swearing by" homeopathic medicines doesn't amount to evidence that they work. People who swear by homeopathic medicines clearly believe resolutely that they will work -- it's this resolute belief that is necessary for the Placebo Effect to take place.

In a double-blind scientific study, as Richard Dawkins calls for, many participants would likely not have that belief. This is what makes the placebo effect so hard to scientifically test for, and what makes it so difficult to prove that homeopathic medicines work.

Considering that many homeopaths admit that all they sell is pure, undiluted water -- or at least as close to pure, undiluted water as one can find -- there are few explanations for homeopathic medicine's successes (as they are) but the placebo effect.

Michael Baum, a professor of surgery at London's University College, offers a different explanation: the successes of homeopathic medicines may simply be due to the effect of human care. Baum and Dawkins both note that homeopathic practitioners -- as well as practicioners of other alternative medicines -- spend much more time with their patients than conventional general practicioners.

Baum suggests that homeopaths would make fantastic GPs -- although he wonders who would then help -- via the placebo effect -- those who believe in homeopathy.

To grant alternative medicines such as homeopathy more credence than they are due would certainly be irrational. But to overlook the potential for homeopathic medicine to use the placebo effect to complement conventional medicine is no more rational.

In the end, Dawkins may show more of himself than he shows of homeopathic medicine. In the end, Dawkins tells a homeopath that if he wanted to exploit the placebo effect he would dress it up in the appearance of respectability, just as homeopaths do.

According to the principle of charity, one attributes what their own intentions would be in any given situation to their subject.

If Dawkins would happily exploit homeopathy by dressing it up in the appearance of respectability, one may wonder if perhaps Dawkins isn't exploiting atheism by stirring up notions of being an oppressed minority.

It's far from a reasonable thing to believe. But, then again, Dawkins has so often proven to be less than entirely reasonable that it certainly isn't outside the realm of feasibility.

Another One (Does Not) Ride the Bus

Charles Taylor derides Atheist Bus ads

Charles Taylor has something to say about the bus ad campaign currently being conducted by Canadian atheists.

He isn't impressed by them.

In Britain's Philosophy Now magazine, Taylor weighed in on the Richard Dawkins-promoted campaign, describing them as "hilariously funny" (certainly about as monotonous a statement as has ever been uttered).

"Putting things on buses, as though that's going to make people somehow change their view about God, the universe, the meaning of life and so on," Taylor chuckled. "A bus slogan! It's not likely to trigger something very fundamental in anybody."

Taylor is only the most recent -- and certainly one of the more prominent -- thinkers to recognize the common vestiges of religion in modern atheism.

"This new phenomena is puzzling — atheists that want to spread the 'gospel,' and are sometimes very angry," Taylor mused.

"I think it may be rather like the response of certain bishops to Darwin in the 19th century," he continued. "The bishops had a sense that the world was going in a certain direction — more and more conversion, and so on — and then they find they're suddenly upset in their expectation and they get very rattled and very angry."

"Similarly, we're seeing this now among the secularizing intelligentsia — liberals who felt that the world was going in a certain direction, that it was all going according to plan — and then when it seems not to be, they get rattled. So you get these rather pathetic phenomena."

"I'm kind of flattered that he would comment on our bus campaign — though he's not terribly sympathetic," mused Center for Inquiry Executive Director Justin Trottier. "But I think he misses the point on a number of fronts. The point of the campaign was not a response to rising religiosity, it's an affirmation of the rising number of unbelievers. Unbelievers have never been organized to the extent that they are now -- whether they call themselves atheists or humanists or freethinkers ... The movement for science, reason and secularism has never had these numbers."

Of course, if the campaign were really solely directed at announcing the emergence of increasing numbers of atheists one would think a slogan like "We don't believe in God. Deal with it," would be a much better way of doing this.

As opposed to "There's probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life" -- a message that, as Charles McVety complained (but all too hysterically) clearly intends to attribute a sort of perpetual anxiety to religion that the ads suggested people should reject.

That isn't a mere affirmation of these beliefs, as Trottier insists -- it's a promotion of the beliefs espoused in the ad.

Of course, if Canadian society is prepared to tolerate the ongoing proselytizing from mainstream, theistic religions, there is no reason in the world why fundamentalist atheists shouldn't be allowed to proselytize as well.

One merely wishes they would be honest about it.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

DeFaithed - "The atheist bus: Menticide on wheels"

Jeff Olson - "Atheist bus ads 'pathetic:' Philosopher"

Walker Morrow - "What is the role of criticism in religion?">

Paul Zachary Myers: Cultural Warrior

PZ Myers decries "anti-science, anti-intellectual" culture

Speaking regarding a reported shortage of American post-graduate science students, University of Minnesota biologist accuses a rather vague culprit for the problem.

"The problem is we have a strong sub-cultural thread that is simply anti-intellectual, anti-science," says Myers.

"...In Germany, that kind of debate is considered trivial," Myers compared. "In the U.S., anti-intellectualism is not a trivial problem. We have a culture war that isn't happening in Europe."

Of course, it's extremely convenient for PZ Myers to note the existence of an alleged culture war. He, after all, is a dedicated cultural warrior.

Myers, as anyone knows, is a fierce advocate of atheism, and is among an extreme cabal of fundamentalist atheists who often attempts to argue that religion and science are incompatible.

He seems to overlook the fact that scientists as distinquished as sir Isaac Newton and sir Francis Bacon -- among many others -- considered their religious faith to be perfectly compatible with science.

(Although, to be fair, the Catholic Church didn't seem to consider science to be compatible with the religious faith of Copernicus.)

The United States, meanwhile, remains one of the countries in the western world with the highest per capita rates of religious observation -- although this has been shifted in recent years.

One would wonder what Mr Myers would have to say about this alleged "anti-science, anti-intellectual sub-cultural thread" if one were to ask him how he thought his attempts to decisively separate religion and intellectualism were questioned to his face.

That is, if he bothered to answer such a question. All too often he tends not to.

But the logical answer to this question is obvious: if tension between religion and science has really led to this alleged anti-science trend that Myers alludes to, one would have to consider Myers' efforts to stir up tension between religion and science to be at least partially responsible.

If there really is such a trend at all.

But PZ Myers would know full well if there's a cultural war happening in the United States. He's busy enough instigating and then fighting it that we can take his word for it.

Richard Dawkins Says It's Wrong to Indoctrinate Children...

...Unless he's the one doing the indoctrination

One of the interesting things about fundamentalist atheism is their tendency to accept the pontifications of hypocritical people at face value.

Richard Dawkins is a brilliant example of this. His vaunted "lying for Jesus" argument has become a central weapon in the rhetorical aresenals of many fundamentalist atheists despite the fact that he's been caught being dishonest using it.

Likewise, Dawkins' argument that children shouldn't be indoctrinated into religion has gained some evident traction amongst fundamentalist atheists. Why, even ABBA member Bjorn Ulvaes thinks so.

So indoctrinating children into religion is bad.

...Oh, unless it's Dawkins' and Ulvaes' religion. Then it's A-OK.

Aside from starting work on a children's book, Dawkins has sponsored a summer camp for atheists.

Dawkins says that the camps are intended to "encourage children to think for themselves sceptically and rationally."

But interestingly enough, Dawkins has made it plainly evident that, to him, thinking for oneself "sceptically and rationally" entails thinking exactly what Dawkins wants them to.

Naturally, Dawkins and company are going to pretend that the camps in question aren't about atheism, but rather merely about secularism.

"There is very little that attacks religion, we are not a rival to religious camps," says camp organizer Samantha Stein. "We exist as a secular alternative open to children from parents of all faiths and none."

So says "atheist rock star" Samantha Stein.

One wonders if Dawkins and Stein realize the extent to which the entire matter defies credulity. An "atheist rock star" accepting funds from Richard Dawkins attacking religion? Apparently we're supposed to perish the thought.

Of course, all of this is aside from the point. There's nothing wrong with parents sending their children to Dawkins' and Stein's camp if they are intent upon raising their children as atheists -- or perhaps even legitimate free-thinkers.

There's nothing wrong with teaching children about evolution or leading them in sing-alongs of "Imagine". In fact both of these -- teaching kids about science and about great music -- can be very good things.

But the least Richard Dawkins could do is stop pretending that he isn't indoctrinating these children in his religion -- atheism, which people like himself have very much transformed to a religion.

Just imagine that kind of honesty from someone who so enjoys vacuously accusing his opponents of "lying for Jesus".

Once Again, the Difference Between Correlation and Causality

Many Canadian atheists don't seem to understand the difference

Writing in an op-ed article appearing in a recent-ish issue of the National Post -- a position that oddly enough certain individuals would insist is reserved for recpients of "wingnut welfare" -- Center For Inquiry Executive Director Justin Trottier writes about the recent work of the University of Lethbridge's Reginald Bibby and attempts to link key attitudinal changes in teenagers to a rise in atheism among that same age group.

Unfortunately, Trottier makes the same error that many of his atheist compatriots made when they fell head over heels with a study that alleged that regions ranking high in religious belief also ranked higher on indices for various social ills.

Namely, he mistakes correlation for causality.

The article starts out simply enough, with Trottier asking an age-old question.

"Can we be good without god?"

This is an easy enough question to answer.

Many, many atheists live perfectly moral lives. Many, many atheists are excellent people. This question essentially answers itself.

Of course, this isn't enough for Trottier. He'd rather ask if atheism actually makes people morally better. And as many people have managed before him, Trottier manages to find more or less precisely what he so wants to find:

"This may become a defining question for our time. University of Lethbridge sociologist Reginald Bibby has written a new book, The Emerging Millennials, which, while clear on the unprecedented rise of atheism, seems to suggest two irreconcilable answers to this fundamental question.

Bibby polled Canadians on the significance they placed on certain key values, and found that believers rated as more important values like forgiveness, patience and trust. But at the same time, he found that teenagers — the demographic group that has witnessed the highest rise in non-belief since 1984, from 12% to 32% – are increasingly less permissive and more mature regarding issues like alcohol and drug use, smoking or sex."

Trottier seems awfully quick to suggest that these changes in values are due to increasing levels of atheism.

But Trottier is clearly mistaking correlation for causality -- one of the most basic mistakes anyone makes in interpreting any phenomena.

These numbers could be placed in greater context by examining any number of the other things that have changed in the same period of time, from the increase of expendable income for teenagers to the ever-increasing spread of consumer electronics.

Not to mention that in the time period in which Trottier specifically alludes -- post-1984, there have been a lot of other social changes in the world. Teenagers during this period were growing up in an era in which AIDs was becoming a global pandemic.

Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" anti-drug program became something of a standard of anti-drug education.

It shouldn't be said that atheism absolutely cannot or is not a factor in the changes that Trottier and Bibby are referring to. But it certainly isn't the sole factor, and to attribute causality to it is hasty in the extreme.

"The question then becomes: Is the rise of atheism among youngsters going to lead to civil anarchy, or are we actually improving? As Bibby himself said: 'The thing that really surprised me were the positive results that point to the fact that we're making a lot of progress with teens.'

To reconcile these two patterns, let me suggest that actions speak louder than words. As unlikely as it sounds, perhaps those polled do not live up to their own high standards. A person can claim to be any number of things; televangelists, for example, would certainly score high on Prof Bibby’s test of values."

To top that off, one wonders if the values of which Bibby and Trottier speak are even values that Trottier wants to attribute to atheism or secularism.

Less permissive attitudes toward sex, drugs and alcohol have historically been associated with religious conservatism. In many cases -- such as 1920s prohibition -- these were a reflection of regressive attitudes amongst those who promoted these policies.

Making alcohol illegal was looked at by some as a method of clamping down on the feminist "flapper" movement of the roaring '20s. That particular brand of feminism may seem quaint and even anti-feminist by today's standards, but there['s little question that the religious conservatives of the day were extremely troubled by this new breed of woman who drank and had sex casually.

These don't seem like the kind of values that a secularist movement would want to embrace. One has to expect that Trottier almost certainly wouldn't. This is mostly because of the nature of the values he describes as "secular values":

"When comparing the values of an atheist to those of a believer, one must bear in mind just which values we are talking about. Many, including Bibby, who claim religious upbringing is necessary to guarantee social values consistently choose exclusively biblical values on which to base their statements."

But it's amazing how quickly Trottier actually fails this particular test:

"Kindness, politeness and courtesy are important, but so are social justice, equality, freedom of expression, accountability and commitment to democracy. These are the sorts of secular values I would wager atheists would score high on. But they are rarely used for such comparisons."

Certainly, many atheists would score high on these values. There is simply no question about that.

We also know that many atheists, both today and throughout history, would not.

For example, would Joseph Stalin have scored high on these values? Absolutely not. Many atheists continue to sputter in outrage every time Stalin and his atheism are mentioned within the confines of the same sentence, even at the expense of historical fact.

Furthermore, to describe "social justice, equality, freedom of expression, accountability and commitment to democracy" as secular values -- a thinly-veiled attempt to appropriate these values to atheism -- over looks the historical context of action in favour of these values.

Tommy Douglas was a Baptist Minister for whom the foundation of his political action was the Protestant Social Gospel.

Dr Martin Luther King Jr -- apparently unbeknownst to atheist rapper Greydon Square -- was also Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. Dr King used religiously-inspired prophetic language in his campaign to win civil rights for African Americans.

Benazir Bhutto insisted that democracy was divinely mandated by God in the religion of Islam.

If individuals such as Douglas, King Jr and Bhutto -- each in excellent company to say the least -- can find inspiration for these values within their religion, to describe them as "secular" values is more than just a little bit of a fallacy. These are values that virtually all but the most extreme people on either side of the modern ideological divide value. They are neither inherently religious or inherently secular values.

But although Trottier stumbles over the conclusions of Bibby's work, there is little question that his ultimate conclusion is both sound and admirable:

"Instead of wondering where society would find its ethical moorings in the absence of religion, the more interesting question is where our youth are already finding such alternatives and how they can be encouraged. As church membership fades, society should grant the same funding opportunities to secular and humanistic community groups who can fill the void in a way that ignores religious differences."

Those distressed by the rise of atheism -- whether cloaked as secularism or otherwise -- don't seem to understand that those who are increasingly turning to atheism are doing so for a very good reason.

It's clear that many people are finding that their own spiritual needs are not being met by traditional religions. This doesn't change the fact that they have spiritual needs, but rather reflects the fact that their own spiritual needs are different from those of Christians, Muslims, Jews or members of any other religion.

"Let us also not forget that many atheists do not need a building with a partisan logo on the front to engage in building strong communities. Many parents sit on school councils, coach sports teams or form community groups at animal shelters, blood clinics or food banks, and in other countless ways atheists blend anonymously into the secular volunteer community. Atheists have always found ways to improve society while passing on civic virtues to the next generation. It’s time those researching society’s trends figured out how to measure that."

If secularist organizations are going to provide the same level of community service as religious organizations -- and the Centre for Inquiry very much does, providing services such as substance abuse programs specially-tailored to atheists, they very much should receive the same treatment as religious organizations under Canadian tax law.

Justin Trottier may not firmly understand the difference between correlation and causality -- or at least seems to have properly applied it to the phenomena he discusses here -- but when it comes down to one of the most important secular values -- the equal treatment of all religions, as well as nonbelievers, before the law -- he certainly is on the right track.

Picking an Atheist Battle in Hip Hop

Greydon Square gains traction among atheist crowd on strength of Dawkins endorsement

Seasoned Richard Dawkins watchers may remember "Beware the Believers", a rap video parodying Richard Dawkins.

They may even remember a briefer follow-up to the video in which its creators revealed it as a mutual mockery of both Dawkins and some of his most diligent detractors -- notably Expelled creator Ben Stein.

The video was particularly hilarious due to the hysterical notion of Dawkins being bothered to even look at a rap CD, let alone actually listen to one.

That stodgy impression of Dawkins may not have been entirely accurate. Dawkins has recently taken to promoting a rapper by the name of Greydon Square.

Greydon Square admits freely to having a confrontational style. That naturally has to be a given, considering the aggressive and confrontational nature of hip hop.

"I'm confrontational with people who are, by nature, confrontational with their ideology," he says. "You can't run around and tell people that they're going to hell because they don't believe in the same sky God as you. Are you serious? I will confront you over that."

Greydon Square wants to approach hip hop in a way that's rarely been attempted before. He wants to approach hip hop as a debate -- an interesting take on battle rap, one that's rarely been embraced.

"See, what I did was I looked at hip hop beefs and noticed that it deteriorated when people started calling each other bitches and ho's and basically stopped formulating arguments," he continues. "They stopped showing the ability, the skill, and just started talking shit. I brought it back to presenting a position. Now you can call me whatever you want, but until you argue a position, you're wack."

But Greydon Square's approach has one singular fatal flaw: in hip hop, winners and losers are normally decided not based on who produces the best argument, but based on who is lyrically superior.

Rappers are starkly divided between two main religious camps -- Christianity, and Islam. Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam has often sought to establish leadership over the hip hop community. In fact Farrakhan has called hip hop summits and has convened personal meetings between rappers in order to squash potentially violent beefs.

Greydon Square would have a difficult time competing lyrically with many rappers of religious faith. DMX, Kanye West and Reverend Run are not only deeply spiritual Christians, but are also dominant battle rappers.

KRS-One, Common and Mos Def are dominant battle rappers who are Muslim.

Any rapper would have difficulty standing against any of these performers in a battle rap. But even so far as dogmatism goes, Greydon Square is unlikely to find suitable targets among the hip hop community.

Many deeply faithful rappers have come from a background that doesn't grant them the luxury of being self-righteous or dogmatic. Due to the very nature of the lives they've lived, these people are sinners who have sought, and continue to seek, redemption -- the most powerful promise of religion.

As a result, the religious beliefs of rappers by their very nature have to be considerably flexible.

If Greydon Square is itching for an opportunity to promote atheism by beefing with other rappers not only is he not terribly likely to win, but he's unlikely to find a target that suits him.

Whether or not Greydon Square will embrace the atheist tactic of inventing a dogmatic opponent where one may not actually exist remains yet to be seen.

The Death of an Argument

Key rhetorical flub reveals fatuity of Richard Dawkins' "lying for Jesus" argument

Ever since its inception as an argument in the religion/atheism debate, "lying for Jesus" has become a favoured accusation lobbed by the most zealous atheists.

In fact, accusations of general dishonesty have often been central to the arguments of militant fundamentalist atheists. But in a column appearing on the Spectator website Melanie Phillips chronicles the tale of Dawkins flubbing this argument so badly he may never be able to use it again -- at least not with any trace of credibility.

The tale begins with a debate between Dawkins and Irish mathematician John Lennox in which Dawkins reportedly admitted that belief in God is a defensible belief.

"You can make a respectable case for deism," Dawkins admits. "Not a case that I would accept but I think it is a serious discussion that you could have."

Dawkins would insist that he hadn't really meant his comments as an admission that belief in a god could be respectably defended -- insisting that he was merely being sarcastic. As Lennox and Phillips would both note, Dawkins certainly said nothing at the time to indicate that he was being sarcastic, and had reportedly seemed sincere at the time that he said it.

But Dawkins was not yet finished.

Dawkins would go on to accuse Phillips of misrepresenting him in a column published on the Spectator site. He would even go so far as quoting her in a slide shown at a subsequent debate with Lennox:

"Arch-atheist Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist. But many are now asking whether the dyed-in-the-wool critic of religion may be, well, evolving in his views about God. You see, in a recent debate with theist and Christian John Lennox, he let slip what many would regard as a major blooper: he actually admitted that there might be a case for theism of sorts. This was a worldview change of seismic proportions. It was a most remarkable turnaround. For someone who had spent over five decades championing the atheist cause to all of a sudden renounce it was an incredible achievement."

The problem, as it turns out, is that Phillips never wrote those words.

Those words were actually penned by Culture Watch's Bill Muehlenberg. Oops.

Dawkins would go on to accuse Phillips of "lying for Jesus" based on quotes that he was misrepresenting as hers. But his folly in doing so actually ran deeper than this simple fact.

As it turns out, Phillips is actually Jewish. One clearly pertinent detail is that Jews don't believe in Jesus -- or at least don't believe he was the prophesized Messiah.

Oops.

"Lying for Jesus! Oh dear oh dear. Not only did Dawkins falsely accuse me of distorting his position, but he accused me of doing so because he assumed I was a Christian. Five minutes’ research maximum would have told him that I am a Jew. Either he thought that all the stuff written on Culture Watch by Bill Muehlenberg, who appears to be a devout Christian, was written by me; or he assumed that, since John Lennox is a Christian, anyone who supports John Lennox must also be a Christian. Either way, the man who has made a global reputation out of scorning anyone who makes an assumption not grounded in empirical evidence has assumed to be true something that can easily be ascertained to be totally false – thus suggesting that the mind that is so addled by prejudice it cannot deal with demonstrable reality is none other than his own."

Those words at least actually were written by Phillips.

At the very least, Dawkins most recent flub has demonstrated precisely how eager he is to deploy his vaunted "lying for Jesus" argument, to the extent that he will rush to use it without even stopping to make sure that the words he's quoted were ever written or spoken by the person he's attributed them to.

Considering the high level at which Dawkins has conducted his scientific work it would be hard to believe -- nearly impossible -- that he was unable to tell Bill Muehlenberg' words from Melanie Phillips'.

Then again, considering Dawkins' history of weakly razor-thin arguments -- such as suggesting that astrology is akin to racism -- perhaps there is ample cause for doubt. It's of little surprise that Dawkins isn't nearly as bright as he and his supporters would like to have people believe.

One thing is for certain: Dawkins' "lying for Jesus" argument is now officially dead in the water. That certainly won't stop Dawkins or any of his supporters from using it -- they thrive on the ignorance of those they would convince, and on the alleged ignorance of anyone who believes in religion.

All that can be done is for those who oppose Dawkins and his virulent brand of atheism to remind people that he isn't nearly as bright -- or honest -- as he pretends to be.

Don't Fall for the Big Con of Religion, Atheism

Intellectual folly, profit motive at the heart of modern religious-atheist intolerance

In an Easter Sunday op/ed article published in Britain's Daily Mail, AN Wilson offers a scathing denunciation of atheism, hyperbolically entitled "The Religion of Hatred".

In the article Wilson complains that most of the public intellectuals in Britain are allegedly atheists, the result of a secular society which has branded religious belief as "uncool" and "unsexy".

Wilson's greatest criticisms are reserved for Polly Toynbee, a columnist for The Guardian and President of the British Humanist Association.

"Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to?" Toynbee once wrote, as Wilson quotes.

"When absolute God-given righteousness beckons, blood flows and women are in chains," Toynbee is again quoted.

Individuals like Hitchens, Dawkins and Toynbee are treated as evidence that atheists are smug, hateful and intolerant.

It's little secret that this smugness and arrogance is largely the design of these atheists. Many of them enjoy irritating religious believers into passionate denunciations of them, feeling this confirms the allegedly irrational basis on which religious belief is established and held.

When religious believers lash out at atheists in this particular fashion, they tumble into the same pitfall that these most fervent atheists fall into -- the pitfall of being threatened by other peoples' beliefs.

This inevitably leads to all kinds of folly -- including the folly of taking an individual like Christopher Hitchens, who is as committed an atheist as there ever was, on the radio to try to convince him that he should believe in God.

Just as atheists need to accept that there are reasons why the religious believe, religious believers need to accept that there are reasons why atheists do not believe. To fault them for that fails to address the simple fact that religion has evidently not met the spiritual needs of these individuals -- if indeed these individuals feel they have any spiritual needs at all.

There are plenty of atheists who are more than willing to go about their lives, believing as they believe (or rather, don't believe) relatively quietly without demanding that everyone else believe as they do.

While individuals like Hitchens and Richard Dawkins often promote themselves as spokespeople for atheism, many atheists have made public their discomfort with having such individuals represent them.

To hold up individuals such as Hitchens, Dawkins, or the Rational Response Squad as atheism's leading examples is to risk overlooking the vast majority of atheists who are content to mind their own spiritual business -- just as holding up religion's most vigorous proselytizers as leading examples risks to overlook the vast majority of believers who are content to mind theirs.

Of course such moderate views -- by either atheists or the religious -- are far from marketable. Inherent in these broad denunciations of opposing camps is the big con of a self-promoting ideologue out to enrich themselves through the sale of their next book or their next movie.

Many of these people are perfectly content to lead their masses of followers into folly if it will earn them a few extra dollars annually.