Trivial Atheism

In my online arguments, the question often comes up - why are you atheists so petty? Why do you seem so obsessed about trivialities, like an invocation prayer before a city council meeting, or a Ten Commandments poster in a public school? Why, in God's name, do you want to yank "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" off the money?

The obvious answer is, of course, "If it is so trivial, why do YOU care?" But that really sidesteps the point, so let's look a little closer at it. Those two phrases, in particular - are they really so trivial?

From the beginning, they were intended as attacks upon atheists. Both phrases have a long history of people pushing for them – but those efforts got nowhere for decades. It wasn’t until 1954 when “Under God” was added to the Pledge, and 1956 that “In God We Trust” was approved as the official national motto. By no coincidence, those actions were passed during the McCarthy Era, as a direct “in your face” attack to the “Godless Communists.” We wanted to distinguish ourselves from the communists that were supposedly hiding behind every bush, so we declared – officially – that to be American meant believing in God. In doing so, we silently declared the obvious corollary – that atheism itself, even if not directly connected to communism, is un-American.

And how are these phrases used today? Well, for starters, hardly anyone says the Pledge itself. Scouts, of course, and I believe some – but not all – public schools still recite it to start the day. And of course, no one ever reads their money, reverently admiring the motto printed upon it. But those two phrases are still in everyday use. Look at the envelopes you get in the mail. I see a lot in my job – a small but noticeable percentage have either “In God We Trust” or (more often) “One Nation Under God” stamped or printed on them. Not “Jesus Loves You” or any other religious message – those two specifically. Look at bumper stickers while you’re on the road. You’ll see a lot of fish placards, church ads, and other religious slogans and greetings – but you’ll also frequently see those two phrases repeated over and over. For bonus points…when you see those two officially endorsed slogans, check to see if one of those other expressions of Christian faith are affixed alongside. More often than not, you can tell exactly which god they trust and are under.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t want to prevent these private expressions of faith. People can put whatever they want on their envelopes, car bumpers, yard signs, and billboards. But these particular expressions seem disproportionately popular. It appears to me that people want not merely to express their religious beliefs – they want to show that their government endorses those beliefs. It isn’t the private expression I oppose – it is the government endorsement.

While you’re checking bumpers, check the license plates. At least five states currently offer plate designs that include one of those two phrases. Indiana, in fact, tried to offer their version at no extra cost to better encourage people to display their faith on an official government-issued placard. Georgia offers a sticker to be added to the plate at a nominal fee of $1 – probably not enough to cover printing and administrative costs – to be affixed covering the county name on the plates – thus eliminating whatever benefit those county names provide that caused them to be added in the first place. In public schools, where other direct expressions of Christianity have been forbidden as government, those two phrases are often posted as substitutes. In case after case, those two phrases are used to slip religious expression – usually Christian expression – into government settings where it does not belong.

Check out this editorial by the mayor of Tifton, Georgia. Note how he uses “In God We Trust” to support his call to explicitly endorse Christianity. The Supreme Court says that those two phrases are mere “ceremonial deism” with no direct link to any specific faith. Does it look like Mayor Cater agrees with that?

Look at public school teacher Bradley Johnson. He posted huge banners displaying those phrases and others to “celebrate the religious heritage of America” – in his public school math classroom. Note that he claims that forcing him to remove the banners is discriminating against Christians – not deists, not believers in general, but Christians. Does he think those phrases are non-sectarian?

Look over the Congressional Record to see the debate on the recent House Resolution to reaffirm “In God We Trust” as the national motto. In example after example, the various representatives cite Christian quotes of how important God is to our heritage. Rep. Harper (R-MS) cited John 15:13. Rep. Franks (R-AZ) claimed “And I would submit to you…if man is God, then an atheist state is as brutal as the thesis that it rests upon and there is no longer any reason for us to gather here in this place. We should just let anarchy prevail because, after all, we are just worm food.” Rep. Aderholt (R-AL) hinted that while knew they could not legislate a Christian nation into being…that’s really what they intended. Rep. Pence (R-IN) thanked Rep. Forbes for introducing the resolution and his “defense of America’s Christian heritage.”

It is possible, from an objective and disconnected point of view, to interpret these two phrases as trivial, non-sectarian, ceremonial deism. But in the real world, that is not how they are used. In reality, they are used over and over again as expressions of specifically Christian faith, as proof of government endorsement of that faith – and as attacks against atheism and atheists. If you see our opposition as “petty” – then you prove only that you are not one of those being called un-American every time the phrases are used.

Creating Excuses

I’ve been reading a lot of other blogs and postings lately regarding the theory of evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design. Anyone who’s read my archives knows my feelings on the matter. However, I’ve finally found a way to articulate the difference between the THEORY of evolution, and the NOTION of creationism.

To develop the theory of evolution, scientists looked at the facts available, and tried to imagine an explanation that would cover them.

To develop the notion of intelligent design, theists determined that a Creator was responsible for the world around them, and then identified specific facts and arguments that supported it.

That’s it. And to me, it explains so much. For instance, a lot of the IDer arguments against evolution hinge on holes in the research – gaps in the fossil record, lack of a detailed chain of alterations for a complicated survival mechanism, and so forth. The concept that a hole in the research might later be filled by new research is lost on them – to a creationist, a failure to completely explain every detail is a failure of the theory as a whole. From their viewpoint, and with their base assumptions, this might even be reasonable. After all, their theory DOES explain every detail – God did it. (For IDers, an unnamed Creator did it.)

Of course, that attitude causes the other major disconnect that leads to long useless arguments between the two sides. Creationists can ignore or minimize the importance of any contrary evidence by again turning to God. This leads me to another conclusion:

A valid test of the intellectual honesty of a person or position is to ask what it would take to prove them wrong.

For a scientist, the answer is easy – provide convincing data that contradicts the established theory. Such events have occurred in the past – the terra-centric view of the Solar System gave way to the helio-centric. The theory of a solid Earth was supplanted by plate tectonics. Newtonian physics has been replaced by Einsteinian physics, and further refined by even more esoteric theories. I note that in many cases, individual scientists failed to adapt their beliefs to new theories, but as they retired or died, the newer theories have become generally accepted as experimental or other evidence provided support. This is true of evolution, as well. The basic concepts from Darwin’s The Origin of Species have been refined over time as scientists have gained a better understanding of the mechanics of evolution.

But what would it take to prove a creationist wrong? I have yet to find any evidence, no matter how overwhelming, that can shake the faith of a committed theist. For example, the Creation Museum and its parent organization, Answers in Genesis, make the claim that hundreds of feet of rock in multiple layers were all deposited during the Great Flood. (Examples: chalk cliffs and rock and fossils.) The fact that some of those layers are igneous or metamorphic, surrounded by multiple layers of sedimentary, is conveniently ignored in favor of the idea that it all came about as a result of the Flood.

The evidence of species changing as a result of selection is fairly obvious in domesticated animals – for example, the Chihuahua and the St. Bernard. But, creationists reply, that’s merely MICRO-evolution. They haven’t completely differentiated into new species yet, because they can still interbreed! (Mind you, those puppies are unlikely to be born alive, but mere fertilization qualifies them as the same species.) Of course, the idea that such micro-evolution could eventually lead to actual species differentiation is considered absurd – there is apparently a barrier between species that cannot be broken, no matter how different the breeds become.

Other creationists cry out, “If life can form independently, then why can’t that be replicated in the lab? You can’t take a beaker of chemicals, swirl them around, and have a microbe or a virus appear…so it couldn’t have happened!” In this, they ignore the wonders of small odds vs. large numbers. We’ve been trying such things for a few years – maybe even a few decades – in some small number of labs, in some relatively small number of beakers. The universe provided a large, possibly infinite number of planets, and several billion years for a result to occur – and so far, we only have evidence that it happened once. That’s even worse than lottery odds…and yet, sooner or later, SOMEONE always ends up taking home the jackpot. But let’s take their side for a moment – does that mean that if we do at some point manage to create life in the lab, they’ll shut up?

It turns out that scientists at the University of New York at Stony Brook did just that. In July 2002. That’s five years ago. Any signs of the creationists shutting up? Well, that Creation Museum just opened this year – I’d take that as a “no.”

So…what will it take to get a creationist to admit he’s wrong?

Foiled, Curses Again

I was reading Wil Wheaton's blog this weekend, and was briefly confused by one line – “…I swear to the FSM: why is it so _ing hard for these idiots to get the _ing story right?” After a moment of thought, I finally realized, to my amusement, that he was referring to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

That reminded me of something that has bothered me for years – how should an Atheist curse? Obviously, we have full access to profanity and scatology…but is it really proper for us to blaspheme? And if we do, does it really express the same depth of feeling as it would for a believer for whom it is a sin?

I’ve seen various treatments of the problem in Science Fiction – more as a way around censorship by the publisher than as a real prediction of future speech patterns. However, a good SF author puts a little thought even into those minor details. Larry Niven handled it at least three different ways in various books and stories. For instance, in his Known Space stories, people on Earth had converted the euphemisms we currently use to hide profanity into curse words themselves – “Censor that, what the bleep do you think you’re doing?” The residents of the Asteroid Belt, however, had a different environment to cope with. When living in space, anything that CAN go wrong, WILL…kill you. In such hostile conditions, the Belters made a joke-religion of Finagle and Murphy, so that every curse became a reminder to minimize the chance for disaster – “Finagle curse you, get that airlock closed!” Most interestingly to me was the choice he and his co-authors made in the Dream Park trilogy. In a near future where most of California has dropped into the Pacific, “Drown you!” becomes the vilest of curses. I can imagine Katrina survivors picking this one up in real life…

None of this really answers the question, though. I’ve heard of Atheists cursing to “replacement gods,” like Ghu, or Roscoe, or now, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Other fictional worlds create their own, like “By Grapthar’s Hammer” from Galaxy Quest or Thundarr’s “Lords of Light!” I’ve considered adopting “smeg” from Red Dwarf, or “shazbot” from Mork and Mindy – I’d look to Star Trek, but where they use it at all, they mostly use standard 20^th Century words. Of course, the problem is that none of those alternatives leap to mind at the right time – when you hit your thumb with the hammer, what pops out of your mouth is what your parents said in similar circumstances when you were a baby…regardless of your conscious beliefs or intentions.

Just out of curiosity – does anyone out there know from personal experience how believers in other religions curse? Islam, Buddhism, Paganism, Communism? If you were brought up in one of those traditions, or have hung around with someone who was, add a remark.

The Good of Society

I read a USA Today "Opposing View" editorial yesterday. In it, the Vice President for Policy at the Family Research Center, Peter Brigg, made the statement, "Society gives benefits to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society." Apparently, homosexual unions cannot provide those same benefits to society, so they shouldn't get the benefits of marriage in return.
So what benefits does heterosexual marriage provide to society? Mr. Sprigg mentioned two - procreation, and providing children with both a mother and a father. Obviously, that's a bit idealized - many heterosexual couples fail at one or both of those, but for the sake of discussion, I'll grant the point. I can think of other benefits, though. A married couple tends to live a more conservative, stable life. (That's conservative in terms of not drinking and partying as much, not in terms of, say, voting a straight Republican ticket.) A married couple is immune to sexually-transmitted disease, as long as neither of the is cheating. A married couple uses less resources than a non-married couple - they only need one house or apartment instead of two, for example. I can't come up with anything else offhand, though - any ideas, anyone? Post a comment.

So let's look at these - in reverse order for my own narrative purposes. Obviously, a homosexual couple living together provides the same reduction in resource usage as a married couple. Or, for that matter, a heterosexual couple living together, but I suspect that Mr. Sprigg wouldn't be much happier about them than he is about gay couples.

Sexually transmitted diseases - certainly a curse that has fallen unequally on homosexuals. But a stable homosexual couple is just as immune to AIDS and such as any married couple.
A more stable life - I hate to use stereotypes, but anecdotally, gay people (especially men) tend to date a lot, party a lot, go clubbing a lot, and so on. I feel sure there are many committed gay couples that maintain that lifestyle, at least for awhile, but sooner or later - just like a hetero couple - they settle down and stay home.

Now for the two Mr. Sprigg felt were most important. Married couples provide their children with both a mother and a father. I have to mention it again, this is an idealized view - according to these statistics, about a third of children see their parents divorce before they hit 18, and as many as half of them see a second marriage fail. But, again looking at the idealized picture, a gay couple provides most of the same benefits to their children as a hetero couple. Two parental points of view, a "backup" in case one parent dies, twice as many people to take them to soccer practice and watch their school plays, and so on. I have to admit, they don't get the benefit of learning from parents of both genders. I don't know how much difference that makes, though, as every study I've heard about indicates that children of gay couples are no more likely to be gay than children of straight couples. Besides, the children can find role models of the other gender at school or other activities - and good gay parents will make sure that happens.

Of course, gay couples cannot procreate, cannot provide the next generation to continue our society. Well, that turns out to be only half-true - a lesbian couple can easily have children thanks to sperm donors, either anonymously, or by choosing a male friend to help. Even if we don't count that, though...how many more children do we need? Are homosexual couples not having children really going to drop the birthrate, especially since they won't be having children even if they CAN'T marry?

Oh, and one more point - a gay male couple can't have their own children, but they can adopt. They can take one of the thousands of unwanted children from those oh-so-moral hetero couples, give it a loving, stable home, and raise it to be a useful and happy member of the next generation. I'd say that counts as a benefit to society.

So, Mr. Sprigg - got any more excuses for your prejudice and intolerance? Giving gay couples the right to marry does nothing to reduce the rights and privileges of straight marriages. And I have never heard an argument against gay marriage that doesn't boil down to "Eww! It violates MY religion, so YOU can't do it!" Last time I checked, the Constitution said that's not a good enough reason to prevent it.

Religious Establishment

Religious tolerance is a contradiction in terms.

The recent reaction of the Islamic community to that Danish editorial cartoon is a perfect example. I understand that Islam forbids any depiction of Mohammed. The intent of that prohibition is apparently to prevent idolatry, specifically to keep Muslims from worshipping the Prophet himself as opposed to Allah – and I can’t see anyone praying to a rather insulting caricature – but let’s put that aside and just consider the rule itself. Despite the occasional protestations from Imams and Mullahs and other Islamic experts that Islam is a religion of peace that preaches tolerance for other people and religions, the entire Muslim world seems to be in an uproar because a NON-Muslim in a primarily NON-Muslim country violated this rule of THEIR religion. It has led to protests, riots, boycott threats, death threats, terrorism threats, and burning the Danish flag. This is tolerance?

Of course, Islam is far from the only offender. Does anyone really think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints gave up polygamy voluntarily? No, that was a case where the various Christian sects and the Catholics all agreed that such immoral behavior could not be tolerated – so the legal persecution drove the Mormon Church to change their views.

Need another example? Assisted suicide. Anathema to any Christian religion, so it is illegal. In the one state that legalized it, the Justice Department did its best to find a loophole to persecute…excuse that misspelling, of course I meant PROsecute…doctors who aided terminally ill patients to end their lives on their own terms. The furor over Terri Schiavo is a related example. Congressmen, in an effort to appear moral for their constituents and the cameras, interfered in a case where they had little knowledge, less comprehension, and no business.

In general, our religious freedoms are not protected by the First Amendment – they are protected by an “armed truce” between all the different faiths, mostly Christian, that run this country. In the no-mans’-land between them, the minority faiths – Islam, Atheism, Wicca, and so on – manage to survive. If ever one particular sect becomes ascendant, well, the truce will end, and our nation built on freedom will quickly become a tight little theocracy. The pageantry of the Presidency, Congress, and the Courts will no doubt continue, as will the rhetoric of freedom and democracy, but that will be nothing but a shell. Don’t believe that, either? Look at the makeup of the Supreme Court these days, and ask yourself how much farther it would go if the President and 60% of the Congress were not only the same party, but the same church. If justices didn’t retire fast enough, well, impeachment is always an option.

So unless you are SURE that your church would be the majority…pray for the stalemate to continue forever.

The Rights of the Individual vs. The Rights of the Individual

I guess this is my month for confusing issues. After using my blog to try and work out my feelings about privacy…and failing…I’m trying again on another confusing one – refusing services based on moral views.

It seems that many pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for the “morning-after” pills because they don’t agree with abortion, and refuse to be a part of the process. Many of their employers, naturally, have a problem with that – the company makes money off each sale, so turning away a customer is not their preferred option. So naturally, the government has begun to get involved, with a variety of proposed state laws to prevent those noble pharmacists from being punished for standing by their convictions. To add to the confusion, some of those laws appear to shield health care and medical providers from negative action in a variety of circumstances. Depending on the wording, that could include ignoring a patient’s explicit instructions as expressed in a “Living Will,” or even a refusal to provide medical care of ANY sort to a homosexual patient.

It does seem to me that the pharmacists and other health care providers have a right to obey their conscience. If you truly believe that abortion is murder and that preventing the fertilized egg from anchoring to the uterine wall is abortion, then to be forced to provide the “morning-after” pill is morally equivalent to loading the rifle and handing it to the gunman up in the tower – in both cases, you are enabling and assisting another person to commit murder. I’m not as certain about the rationale for refusing medical care to homosexuals. I can sort of understand a refusal to provide artificial insemination to a lesbian patient – some people honestly believe that allowing a lesbian to be a parent is a guarantee of harm to a child. I am a bit worried that those laws might go so far as to shield a doctor who refuses to treat a homosexual patient, thus allowing the patient to die. Is that the proper outcome of a moral decision?

On further reflection, though, I think that both the people refusing services and the legislators writing laws to protect them are wrong. Certainly, the pharmacist who objects to the “morning-after” pill has the right to object, and even the right to refuse to serve his customer – but he does NOT have the right to demand that his company support his stand. His employer hired him to fill prescriptions, not to make moral judgments. If he finds himself in a moral quandary as a result, then he should choose another profession, one that presents fewer challenges to his beliefs. The same is true for all the other health care professionals – military doctors and nurses provide treatment to enemy prisoners, surely a harder decision than providing treatment to someone who disagrees with your moral judgments. Certainly, giving up their profession may result in a drop in their income, a decrease in their standard of living – but if they are not willing to make that sacrifice for their beliefs, then why are they demanding that other people do so? I can respect someone who makes sacrifices for their beliefs. I cannot respect or accept someone who demands that I make sacrifices for them. That’s the difference between a martyr and a tyrant.

I guess that issue wasn’t as confusing as I thought.

Legal Victims

It amazes me how many laws seem to be designed to hurt the victims. Let’s take a look at three examples.

Medically assisted suicide – Clearly the victim of a suicide is the person who wants to die. Most laws that specifically cover assisted suicide, though, provide punishment to those who assist, in an attempt to keep them from doing so. This takes away the last option from a terminally ill patient. A patient who has no chance for long-term survival and who is in constant pain is told that he must continue to suffer indefinitely. A person who can see his own mind slipping away day by day is told he must continue to the end, so his loved ones can experience the pain of his lack of recognition, so they can see him lose all that makes him a person. We don’t do such things to our pets – when they are beyond hope, when they can no longer live without pain, we end their lives. But we are not allowed to ask for such service for ourselves.

Prostitution – The only reasonable candidate I can find for a victim of prostitution is the prostitute herself. After all, most prostitutes give up all or most of their money to a pimp or madam. They are often the victims of violence from their customers, and cannot pursue legal remedies against them. They risk disease and unwanted pregnancy. Many of them are virtual slaves, kept in line through drug addiction, fear of deportation or abandonment in a foreign country, or simply the threat of violence, a threat that is often carried out. It seems to me, though, that all of these problems are the result of making the act illegal. If prostitution was legal, it could be licensed, inspected, controlled. The prostitute would keep the money she earned. They could receive medical care, and be legally protected from violence. There would be less financial benefit to enslaving women, so it would happen less. I don’t see prostitution becoming a respected profession anytime soon, but if it were legal, they would no longer have to be victims.

Illegal drug use – The victim here is the general public. Drug dealers have made inner-city streets into low-grade war zones. People die because they happened to be walking down the wrong street, or were standing near a window at the wrong time. People are robbed by addicts who need money to support their thousand-dollar-a-day habit – and sometimes killed by the addicted robber. As long as there is a demand for intoxicating drugs, though, there will be someone willing to supply them. Making it illegal makes it much riskier to provide that supply, but that merely causes the price to rise until someone is willing to take the risk. These days, the various criminal organizations have worked out ways to protect themselves – the only people really at risk of prosecution are the low-level distributors. Above that level, the criminals make incredible fortunes, with virtually no risk. I have heard it said, in fact, that these criminal groups provide financial support to candidates who promise to be “tough on drugs”; they keep the prices, and profits, high. If drugs become legal, then legitimate suppliers will enter the market. Production prices are comparatively low, and distribution networks are already in place – every corner drug store can be a supplier, or perhaps we could use liquor stores or tobacco shops. And the Mafia and other criminal groups instantly lose their greatest source of income, cutting back their ability to buy weapons, hire crooked lawyers, bribe police officers and judges, and even to pay their huge bands of low-level criminals. Obviously, there would be problems – but performing dangerous activities (like driving) while intoxicated is ALREADY illegal, so amending the laws to cover new intoxicants should not be difficult. Just as with alcohol, children should not be allowed to use drugs – but right now it is easier for a child to get marijuana than wine. Making marijuana legal allows us to use the same enforcement system already in place for alcohol. And so on…

There is, of course, one common thread among these laws. All of them are the result of translating religious restrictions into law. They were not enacted to protect the public from criminals; they were enacted to “protect” people from their own base urges – to protect people from themselves. As long as we keep legislating morality, we will continue to pay the price.

The Cosmic Cue Ball

I was pretty rough on the "Intelligent Design" movement last time - and I stand by that. To me, the ID concept is a thinly veiled attempt to get Creationism back in the schools as a wedge to eventually get back to teaching Christianity as part of the curriculum. What bothers me is not so much the lack of science involved - I don't expect modern scientific rigor from a "theory" based on a 3000-year old book. It bothers me more to think that the people behind ID really believe we're that stupid. Unfortunately, they're probably correct, on average, but I'll leave that for another entry...

However, I've often heard a concept that could be termed Intelligent Design that intrigues me. I don't know the source of it, but I suspect I first heard it from my dad, and we discussed it again in a late night philosophical discussion (is there any other kind of philosophical discussion?) during my recent visit. I like to call the idea "The Cosmic Cue Ball."

In short, let's assume that mainstream scientific theory is all true - the Big Bang, expanding out to make the universe, matter cooling, forming galaxies, stars, planets, and so on. Add in Evolution here on Earth to get life and eventually intelligent life. No matter how you look at it, there are some pretty unlikely chances occurring in that series of events. That can be explained by random chance - after all, in an infinite universe, it had to happen somewhere. But of course, there's really no good explanation for how the Big Bang got started in the first place. So, let's postulate an external source for the Big Bang - and since we've done so, let's explain some of those unlikely chances, too, by further assuming that it was intentional. Not only did this source cause the Monobloc to explode, it did so it just such a way as to cause the formation of everything we know today - including ourselves. Imagine a billiards shot on a table the size of the universe - if I hit it just there, with exactly this english on the ball, then this particle will hit there, and that one there, and so on, to the billionth upon billionth power...eventually leading, not as chance, but as a result of skillful intent, to a universe bearing life.

While I don't necessarily accept this concept, it does explain one thing that Big Bang and Evolution do not cover sufficiently for me - there doesn't seem to be anybody else out there. In the standard theory, we have to accept that either all other intelligent races are too far away to contact, or that by chance, we really are the first, or even ONLY race to develop. In the Cosmic Cue Ball theory, we can assume that Intelligent Life (or a side effect of our existence yet to be determined) was the goal...and the Ultimate Pool Shark didn't necessarily need two races to make the shot.

As long as I'm on about Intelligent Design again, check out today's Non Sequitur.