http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215121559.htm

Neuropsych and religious experiences:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124156.htm

Religion and child sexual abuse:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215121559.htm

and for fun, one of my favorite science columnists:

http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/the-ten-days-of-newton/?scp=5&sq=religion&st=cse

oh, and how could I forget this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/us/politics/20warren.html?scp=8&sq=religion&st=cse

The following represents the views of a single member of the SSU, and does not necessarily represent the views of the SSU as a whole.

Cross-posted from the blog Figuring Shit Out

Several of the reactions to my most recent post that “No one is born atheist” contain some variant of the argument:

Since atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a god or gods, and babies are born without any supernatural beliefs or opinions whatsoever, children are clearly atheist until they engage in this ‘animistic behavior’ – 180andback

and

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity, nothing more. – Zaki

Sure, if you literally break the word down into a-theism then you can interpret it to mean the lack of a belief in a God but I don’t think this is a useful way to talk about atheism.

If I made the claim that “I don’t think dinosaurs exist” then your natural first reaction might be “Well, what about all those fossils?”.

If I went on about how Satan buried those fossils as a test of my faith, you could safely label me a-dinosaur as I’ve made an active assertion about how the world could be without dinosaurs.

On the other hand, if I simply choose to ignore your question about the existence of fossils, it would be more accurate to label me as a dinosaur denier. Someone who doesn’t want to confront the issue of dinosaur existence.

Furthermore, if I had simply never even heard of dinosaurs before and had no reason to suppose their existence, then it might be accurate to label me as a dinosaur agnostic.

In each of these three cases, I don’t hold a belief that dinosaurs exist but these three lack of beliefs are of a very different nature and calling them all a-dinosaurism confuses the issue.

It is not enough to claim that gods do not exist to become atheist, you must also provide a explaination that explains the evidence for the existance of gods. Any justifiable atheism must be at least about to adequately answer the following phenomena:

• Every single day, hundreds of faith healers across the globe cause countless miracles of healing
• I had a dream about my Aunt Marge dying and when I woke up, I got a phone call that she got into a horrific car accident
• Every time I go to the 5th floor of my office, I feel incredibly sad and lost. I later found out that someone had committed suicide on that floor. I had no idea it happened but I still felt the presence of his ghost.
• My friend had a terminal cancer and the doctors told her that it was incurable but when she prayed to God, it miraculously went into remission. The doctors all said they had never seen anything like it.
• When I rub my lucky coin 3 times in a clockwise fashion, I win much more at roulette
• I can feel God guide me in my life and feel his presence in my soul. It’s impossible for such a feeling to be faked

What’s amazing about atheism is that it can adequately answer these seemingly amazing phenomena in a purely naturalistic manner. However, the answers to these questions are neither simple nor obvious. Any answer requires a great deal of sophisticated understanding of both philosophical and empirical matters and it’s the ability to answer these questions that separates genuine atheism from a simple denial of gods.

Such a confusion does atheists and atheism no favors. Because this distinction is not made clear, most of the Christians I talk to believe that atheists are God deniers. Atheists are atheists because the implications of a God existing is so morally threatening that atheists must construct a psychological shield that justifies their immorality and secularism. The idea that atheists are actually capable of answering the preceeding questions is so astounding that it’s never even considered.

Atheists need to become much more clear about what atheism is and isn’t if they want atheism to be given the respect it deserves as an intellectual position. Atheism is not simply a denial of gods. Instead, it’s an active assertion that the universe can be explained better in the absence of gods.

The following represents the views of a single member of the SSU, and does not necessarily represent the views of the SSU as a whole.

Cross-posted from the blog Figuring Shit Out

One argument I’ve been hearing about with increasing frequency from the atheist community is that “everyone is born atheist” with the implication that religion is some unwitting indoctrination forced upon children too young to object. To me, such an argument represents a shockingly naive tabula rasa view of human development and, what’s more, invalidates the significant intellectual achievements of atheism as an intellectual stance.

A far more accurate view of human development would reveal that “everyone is born animist”, that is, ascribing human like traits to naturalistic phenomena. Our propensity to find and explain patterns of behavior is a product of our deep evolutionary background and even in modern, technological society, we curse our computers as malicious and believe that we can influence the timing of traffic lights. All religion does is impose an organizational framework upon our original animist intuitions. It provides a ready explanation for what we were already pre-programmed to believe.

Only atheism seeks to directly challenge the validity of our animist intuition and promote a wholly naturalistic view of the world. As a result, atheism is a deeply counter intuitive claim and one which can only be justified by deep intellectual inquiry into rationalism, skepticism and the scientific method. The argument that “everyone is born atheist” wholly discredits the significant intellectual effort that atheists must take to reach an intellectually defensible point of view.

So let’s retire this tired old canard that “everyone is born atheist”. It’s intellectually embarrassing and gives a grossly inaccurate viewpoint to outsiders on what atheism actually is.

The following represents the views of a single member of the SSU, and does not necessarily represent the views of the SSU as a whole.

Mormonism is a man-made church.

It was created by a man, run by men (and I do mean men), and perpetuated by men. Like every other man-made organization on this planet, it has the capacity for great good. Unfortunately, it also has the capacity for great evil. Normally, the members of an organization can recognize this, and praise the good, while condemning the evil. This check on organizational power, however, doesn’t exist when those that make the decisions lay claim to divine authority – as the leaders of the Mormon church do. They demand unchallenged obedience, discourage listening to criticism (like this), and claim to have direct access to ultimate truth. The potential for harm is vast. 

Here, we see another harm passed down from the patriarchs, and one that I find particularly deplorable.

The following is a direct quote from the Young Women’s Manual, taken directly from the LDS website:

 

The following story illustrates how a young woman lost her chastity because she was not obedient to gospel principles.

Alice was thrilled to be invited to a party with all of her new friends. She knew several would be drinking, but she decided she would just say “No, thank you” if anyone offered her a drink.

At the party, several people offered her drinks. She refused the first few times, but she finally had one drink. This one drink multiplied into several. As the evening progressed, Alice lost her ability to control both her mind and her body. This loss was indeed heartbreaking because she later had to live with the reality that she had also lost her chastity.

 

Alice went to a party. She is a minor, and had significant amounts of alcohol pushed on her due to social pressure. She became so intoxicated that she was hardly conscious. What happened next is a textbook example of date rape. If a girl does not have the capacity to consent, it’s rape. So, what is the lesson is teaching?

…because she was not obedient to gospel principles.

It’s her fault. She’s the one to blame for being raped. 

This is a common message in Mormonism. Men just can’t control themselves, and are prone to extreme acts of violence such as rape – especially without being held back by their faith. Even then, they are bound to lose control, and women should expect that. They should fight back and resist, otherwise, men will just walk all over them. It’s a message that is so oppressive and degrading to both men and women that words escape me. 

This theme is reflected in the Mormon classic, the Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball, a Mormon Prophet:

Also far-reaching is the effect of the loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle. (p. 196)

What would this say to a girl who has just been raped, a phsycological offense that knows no equal?

1. Once stolen, it can’t be regained. My chastity is gone. I am no longer chaste. I am a lesser person, tainted. Damaged goods. 
2. If you cooperate, it’s even worse. Did I cooperate? He said he would kill me if I didn’t, so I did. I am weak, and I allowed him to do it. I’m at least partly to blame. 
3. My virtue is inherently tied to my virginity? I’ve been raped. I’m no longer a virgin, and no longer virtuous. 
4. It is better to die in defending one’s virtue… my virtue is more valuable than my life? It’s more important that I’m chaste than alive? I could have done more, I could have resisted more. I’m to blame. My chastity is gone, and it would have be better for me to be dead than the unclean being I am now.

So paranoid of sex, these old white men in their ivory tower are, that they must condemn the victim of a rape if there was even a sliver of consent. I’m not even going to cover incest, which Kimball throws in with rape, but is even more vast and sweeping in the damage it causes.

I knew a Mormon girl who had been raped. The experience destroyed her, and shattered her confidence to the point that she became highly agoraphobic, and was loath to leave her home. She might have recovered, and someday be able to rebuild her life, even if it wasn’t completely… but for her local Mormon bishop. 

Think about it. 

If you survived a rape… if you lived… doesn’t that mean that you did not do enough to “defend your virtue?” Doesn’t the fact that you are alive mean that there was at least a little bit of consent on your part? Therefore, if you lived, you are at least partly to blame. Even if you lived somehow without any shred of consent, you may still be to blame. Were your clothes too revealing, and set off a man’s uncontrollable animal desire to rape you? Were you too flirtatious? Did you kiss him? Clearly, you must have opened the door at some point:

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure. Ensign, May, 1992 (emphasis added)

I’ve heard of something similar. During the witch-hunts, they had a test to determine if a woman was a witch. They would throw the poor woman into the water, and if she lived, she was a witch with the protection of Satan, and therefore should be burned at the stake. If she drowned, she was innocent, and her virtue is maintained.

I’m often asked why I would ever ‘attack’ religion, and why I don’t just live and let live. This is why.

It’s because 90% of Provo rapes go unreported. This might be why:

 

“She said something that blew me away. She said, ‘I should have died before I let him do that to me,’ ” Lemmon said. “I was troubled that she had to believe that.”

Lemmon read from a letter written by a BYU rape victim who shared a similar belief.

“I’m a perversion to the good saints of my church,” wrote the victim, who said she wished she were dead. Tragic thoughts like these are common among rape victims in Provo, Lemmon said.”

Deseret News: 90% of Rapes Not Reported to Police

 

This is also true across the state of Utah, which has higher rates of rape than the national average.

It’s heartbreaking. It’s enfuriating. This is the danger of unchecked dogma. This is real harm perpetrated in the name of an imagined deity. This is why I can’t, as an ethical person, just live and let live.

It’s not often I agree with him, but everything Bill O’Reilly describes in this article is precisely why I LOVE this city and state. Apparently we’re now gayer and more leftie-loony than San Francisco.

It was turned in to a local radio station after being stolen this morning.

Details here.

The following is a special guest column by Valerie Tarico.

Reason’s Greetings!

Bill O’Reilly is in heaven, because the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has given him a platform from which to launch his latest series of tirades about “The War on Christmas^TM.”   Alongside a manger scene and a holiday tree, the executive office building in Washington State now has a plaque that says, “At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail.”  It goes on to add: “There are no gods, no devils or angels, no heaven or hell.  There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” The sign was placed by ex-evangelist Dan Barker (author of Godless) on behalf of Washington members of the FFRF, an organization that works largely on separation of church and state.

As nontheist and a Washington State member of the FFRF, I have mixed feelings about the sign.  Not about the fact that it exists, mind you.  Our governor and attorney general have issued a joint statement:

The U.S. Supreme Court has been consistent and clear that, under the Constitution’s First Amendment, once government admits one religious display or viewpoint onto public property, it may not discriminate against the content of other displays, including the viewpoints of nonbelievers.

Well, thank goodness! 

For years Evangelical fundamentalists have driven their beliefs into the public square in the form of failed apocalyptic foreign policies, failed abstinence only sex ed, failed manufactroversies about climate change and evolution, and a failed bid to install a dominionist ditz in the vice presidency.  Many of us—Christians and nonChristians alike, are tired of their astounding sense of entitlement and frightened by how far it has gotten them.

That said, the sign is pretty in-your-face.  All right.  Very.

I honor Dan Barker’s work to call attention to the dark side of religion.  Month after month, he and his wife Annie Laurie Gaylor defend kids who are tormented at school because they aren’t Christians.  They give voice to young freethinkers.  They file anti-discrimination lawsuits.  They labor to keep science classes rigorous and social services fair. They compile news articles about fraud and violence and sexual abuse committed in the names of gods—and they can show you stacks of evidence that Catholic priests are not outliers.

I honor their work so much that I support it, and I gave up my Monday evening to interview Dan for a Seattle Community Access show called Moral Politics.  But, still, I have to ask, wasn’t the first sentence enough?

Throughout recorded history, winter solstice has been a time to celebrate.  Ancient agricultural cultures gave sacred significance to the return of light, the budding of new plant and animal life, a new cycle of plenty.  Their festivals had names such as Saturnalia, Yule and Lucia.  Some of them are celebrated to this day.  It was the special significance of the winter solstice that caused the Christian church to designate it as the birthday of Jesus.  Not only did it have the perfect connotations, representing as it did, the death and resurrection of the sun, it was already established as a birthday of gods. Prior to or during the time of Jesus, the Roman Attis, the Greek Dionysus, the Persian Mithra, and the Egyptian Osiris all had their birthdays celebrated on December 25.  Solstice really is the reason for the season. 

I wish that the FFRF had simply given secular voice to the wonder we all feel when, in the dark of winter, we experience the promise of warmth and beauty and new life.

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and author in Seattle, Washington.  Her book The Dark Side, describes the rational and moral contradictions that caused her to abandon Evangelical fundamentalism. She is founder of www.WisdomCommons.org. 

Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty.–Jacob Bronowski

www.wisdomcommons.org

The Daily Kos is reporting that Bill O’Reilly is brewing up a whole controversy over the atheist sign at city hall in Olympia WA:

Well…  not explicitly. 

You see, the Vatican generally opposes the death penalty. However, when the UN proposed a resolution to call on governments worldwide to decriminalize homosexuality, the Vatican said they would oppose it.

You read that right. The Vatican, the arguably most powerful religious institution in the world, doesn’t want to stop radical Islamic governments (and others) from regularly prosecuting and executing people if they diddle the wrong way.

Their justification?

It would “add new categories of those protected from discrimination.” Oh no! We wouldn’t want that! Protecting sexual minorities from discrimination (read: murder) must be one of Ratzinger’s new deadly sins.

Through some equivocal and roundabout reasoning, the Vatican figures that if we stop killing and arresting the gays, then it could result in “reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.” Made to choose between sparing homosexuals from state-sponsored murder and granting them tax breaks and legal status, the Vatican doesn’t choose life.

Let there be no confusion – queer rights is the civil rights issue of the 21st century.

Why does the Secular Student Union exist? What need to we have of IHEU, CFI, and others? This is why. When seemingly benign dogmas lead a person to turn a blind eye to suffering, discrimination, and murder, they must be questioned and tried in the court of human dignity. The Vatican, a relic of an age where the value of a person was measured in tithes, is one of the great evils of our day – working to divide, control, subvert, and dominate the modern human spirit. They are guilty in some of the greatest crimes of omission of the past decade, from attacking condom use in Africa and implicitly spreading AIDS like wildfire to turning a blind eye to the state-sponsored murder of minorities.

We are beyond not needing the Vatican… we now need there to not be a Vatican, or for their dogmas to be so marginalized that they no longer hold power.

The SSU and rational humans across the globe have not yet finished fighting for human rights, and I don’t see this changing any time soon.